I currently have a 4’x8’ train table, which resides in my garage. Over the summer, I am looking to do some renovation, as faulty wireing and trackwork have destroyed any operating potential. I have already removed most of the track, but the ballast and some of the scenery remains. This was a set of concentric ovals, with a small passing track. All of the sidings and spur tracks were in the middle of the table, which was a major headache, as I could only fit about about 10 cars in total on these short tracks. The tight radius of the inner oval rendered my large road engines effectively useless. I have several switcher models (HO scale), but my preference in motive power is definately the larger four and six axel road switchers/road engines.
Essentially I am posing the following question: What can anyone suggest that will help refresh my view on the ‘standard’ 4’x8’ train table that will provide a nice place to display my trains, and stand alone as a viable source of operation. I would like to mention that in the future, when I have more open space, I would like to have the prospect of expanding my layout, and perhaps including this 4’x8’ segment in some way.
While I am not asking for a specific track plan, I was wondering what elements you think would be wise to include.
I thank you in advance for any time spent pondering my question.
An idea I have played around with (in my head) was to take a 4X8 sheet and cut it into equal 1/4’s. The build a setup to be modular so that they can be rearranged into different configurations such as train shows or if space becomes available later on. The idea though was to have them assemble back into the original 4X8 configuration and have everything still line up as it was never cut apart. Creative use of scenery breaks such as tunnels, mountains, buildings, bridges, etc could be employed to mask the ends of each piece. I wasn’t necessarily considering configuring the track to any particular outside standard other than it all fits together as I want it to.
If you use scenic dividers, you can really expand on this idea for the future. Let’s say the layout stays together assembled as the 4X8 set. It appears to be one large scene. You could easily create a backdrop that merely screws onto the back of each section to make it it’s own individual scene independent of the others. I had though about wiring each block to a simple generic wiring harness that just plugs into the next one. If each section had the same wiring harness they’d all be interchangeable in any order. The issue that would arise would be how to deal with switches and signaling if you decided to get that detailed. If you did, I’m sure you’d think of something.
Just an idea. It’s the traditional 4X8 that can also be a shelf style system later on.
My advice is to forget the 4x8. Go for a shelf layout, perhaps along one, two, or three, or best of all, four walls, even if you have to crawl under the layout to enter the room. (Think outside of your 4x8 box.)
If you need to stay with the 4x8, try putting a scenic divider down the middle to make two distinct scenes and hide one end of the oval. This will make it appear to be a single stretch of track connecting two areas…
Alternatively, you could set up one side of the oval to be staging feeding trains to a scene on the other side…
No one “needs” to stay with a 4x8. To argue that “all you have is four feet by eight feet of room” makes no sense.
If lumber came only in sheets of 3x7 or 5x9, people would suddenly only have room for one of those.
If all you have is 4 x 8 feet, then you’d better be able to fly, because there will be no room for you to operate or even build the layout–you take up floor space, too. So you DO have more than 4x8 feet available.
The alternative is NOT to build shelves on the walls; a standalone layout that does not just happen to be 4 feet by 8 feet will work much better.
Given the original poster said they already had a 4x8 train table, I was considering that they may want to keep the existing table.
There are times when an island layout is the best choice although I agree one wants to explore all other options. At least, at 4’ wide, you are keeping a 2’ reach in from each side.
At the moment I cannot use any more space than my current 4x8 table occupies. Given what I have been suggested, I will likely use a scene divider on my new layout.
Take a look at the Heart of Georgia plan (http://www.hogrr.com/) - the same 32 sq ft arranged differently. Takes the same space within a room, and gets rid of most of the disadvanatages of a table 4x8 you mention. The cost is a duckunder.
You have a real problem. Large locos and 4x8 simple don’t mix well for several reasons. First of all, the maximum radius you can have is 22" and that is for the outter oval only and leaves you just 2" clearance on each side. Six axle units are going to have a problem on 22" and even if they will stay on the track, they won’t look that good doing it.
The other problem is 4x8 layouts dictate short trains. Large locos look out of place pulling short trains. Whether steam or diesel, small locomotives look much more appropriate pulling trains of 10 cars or less.
This might not be what you want to hear, but that’s the way it is. I would mothball the big locos until you have room for a bigger layout. Small locos will be much better for your 4x8 and can be integrated into your larger future layout.
If you figure that you have to leave space around your 4x8 to walk around it, then you should be able to go with the HOG (Heart of Georga) layout. It puts the layout in the walk-around space. It gives you wide curves for larger equipment and a longer run. You could also make a lift bridge vs a duck-under.
Although I like the idea of a 32-square foot layout that is not the 4x8 table, I already have a 4x8 table from my old layout, and it has a hanging storage space for when it is not in use. This being said, space is at a premium, so I really cannot accomadate anything other than a 4x8.
Regarding my choice in motive power: I currently run only switchers, and do not run any large engine, as they do not fit well with such a small layout. My hope is that in the future, I can move away from a switching type layout and use some more midsized engines.
My new layout will utilize DCC, however I am leaning toward using manual turnouts to add another aspect to the operation.
Regarding my first post, I would like to get feedback on building a layout that is more switching/industrial oriented on this table. A loop is not even a nessecity. What kind of operating potential is available on a layout like this? Can I fit enough track to have several chores to do each session, while still having structures and scenery on a 4x8 table?
Iain Rice’s Lilliput Logger is another favorite, but it can’t be built with 18" radius curves as drawn. You either need a little more width, or tighter curves. Also, Rice’s 4x8 cockpit design is interesting (see Small and Practical Layouts by Rice), but has the runaround track on a 20" radius curve.
Model Railroader published 2 good 4x8 project layouts IMHO - Jerome and Southwestern and the Turtle Creek. One of the NMRA regions has also had some good 4x8 and 4x6 designs.
Finally, John Allens’ first Gorre and Daphited will easily fit in 4x8, but again has less than 18" radius curves.
No, what I am saying is, there are other, better, benchwork designs that take the same amount of space that don’t happen to be a rectangle, as described here.
The OP describes a common misconception, that he can’t go “larger than a 4x8,” but unless he can levitate above it, he’s already using more than 32 square feet. Why not use that same space to make a better layout?
My point in mentioning the other sizes was, I find it odd that so many homes just happen to have just enough room for a layout exactly the size of a common sheet of plywood. I suspect if plywood came in standard 5x9-foot sheets, these same homes would magically have just enough room for a 5x9 layout!
The Gateway NMRA in St. Louis has some “project” layouts that are HO and 4x8 or smaller. They are well done and look interesting. Lots of ideas and construction details.