Jump to content
 

Why is Railroader obsessed with 4' x 8' layouts?


steve1

Recommended Posts

Which is something I think the current Virginian project (and some of the other 4x8-ish ones they have shown) does well Mickey, there's a lot packed into that space, okay it's not a 'scale' approach but it's a lot of real estate *in operational terms* - a 'main line' roundy, a working (and workable!) branch line with two nicely (visually) separated locations too, and a decent sized yard to act as a prototypical interchange between the two operations.

 

I do agree with the 'not the most efficient use of space' arguments FWIW(*), but if you take a person starting out who otherwise may still have just bought a 4x8 and just slapped their trainset oval (or plans from the likes of set-track sellers like Atlas) down on it - this gets them from that stage up to having a layout that is much, much more involving than just that trainset oval. That Virginian plan is is a bit of railway not a trainset if you like. Especially with the short staging add-on in place.

 

(*Although I honestly don't think in reality it's much different over here at that end of the hobby to be honest. Is Hornby's track plan book still full of 4x6s and 4x8s? It always used to be. How about Peco Setrack's one?)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Jack mentions Chris Ellis, who of course built the Warren Branch in N Scale on a 3 x 2 board; it is very similar to the MR Yule Central in HO on 6 x 4. The point Chris made, though, was that by judicious use of scenery, it was possible to sit one side of the layout and not be able to see the other side, so the 'roundy-roundy' impression was reduced. The trackplan, although simple, also lent itself to end-to-end running very well, so it was capable of 'proper' operation as well as tail-chasing.

 

Another case similar to the above are the wonderful mid west Rock Island and Gulf Mobile and Ohio themed minimum space layouts built by Peter North as featured in Continental Modeller at recent times over the years. IMHO Peter really nailed his subject with these layouts, 1950s run down secondary lines built through small rural US towns with tons of atmosphere. This was superb modelling, the layouts were typically 6 x 4 or smaller and used the classic oval of track where trains moved on and off scene. Everything was built to finescale standards, the proportions of the locos and freight cars, and train lengths were believable, the structures were beautifully modelled and everything was weathered. I remember standing watching one of his layouts for about 1/2 an hour at one of Nottingham Shows when they were held in the Victoria Leisure Centre. I can't remeber off hand the name of the actual layout being shown but I was captivated. It got me hooked on US HO. The layout incorporated subtle annimations and was one of the first layouts I remember with DCC control. IIRC there was also some Country and Western music playing in the background. Marvellous stuff. I was impressed by the Virginian coal hauling layout that Peter showed at this year's East Midlands show, but I would love it if he had a go at building another of his small gems.

 

Cheers

 

Chris M

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Have we moved on though? I know that from reading magazines and the internet you may believe so but i suspect that a lot of modellers / collectors are still happy with the traditonal 6 x 4 Hornby based layout to run their trains on.

I imagine its the same scenario in the USA too - After all watching the trains just chase their tails can be an entertaining pastime :)

 

 

Especially if you assemble the train so that it goes right around the layout, so that the loco is centimetres away from catching the brake van/caboose.

 

:clapping: :clapping:

 

Just as long as you don't get a derailment.

 

Kevin Martin

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I did with a piece of 8x4 wood for my nephew over a weekend:-

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/44249-one-i-made-earlier

 

Of course even in its 9'6"x5'6" form (I cheated and got the timber yard to precut everything for me) it still fitted neatly in a alcove in the large N American basement. I still think he got twice the house for half the money, compared to their home in Glasgow.

 

Great fun, if I say so myself, even with the odd mix of N American, UK and German stock........

 

When the builders of my brother's house visited to do some snagging work, one asked him to name his price, lol!

 

Angus

Link to post
Share on other sites

One aspect of the Virginian 4' x 8' that I find pleasing is the possibility of two operators working on either side sending trains to each other. I have never built a 4'x8' but ever since reading Chris Ellis' articles back in the 80s I've always thought this was a good idea. Maybe a lot of us don't build them because we operate layouts on our own. It would also seem to be important that the scenery is built in such a way as to prevent seeing both sides at once.

One thing that does bother me is the fact that 4'x8' layouts seem to consume an awful lot of scenery, maybe thats just me being mean?

Paul L

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree in general that the 4x8 is perhaps not the best use of space, but I have seen a few layouts in MR that have been remarkably effective in this format. In December 1992 Lou Sassi had a New Haven in the Berkshires theme that featured a central scenic divider, one side was fall, the other winter. Of course, what made it so effective was the scenic treatment, but it also had quite a bit of operational potential. Another layout by the same builder/author is the subject of "A Realistic HO Layout for beginners" published by Kalmbach, I assume this was in the magazine at some point. Again, the layout featured a scenic divide giving two locations that with imagination could be thought of as quite distant from each other. The layout in the book also had some potential for future development.

I doubt a concern about lawsuits arising from injuries caused by sawing up plywood is a driver here, most of the articles do require some cutting of the timber to allow for different levels on the layout. MR has, as far as I can see, always taken a reasonable approach to safety without being nanny-ish.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Model Railroader does try to be "something for everyone". It is formulaic and samey, particularly so for subscriptions that extend over years. Nevertheless, this formula does seem to work for them.

 

There are a couple of myths on this thread I'd like to debunk:

 

1. Most US residences DON'T have a full basement. In my 26 years in the US I've lived in eight residences, and only one had a full basement. West of the great plains, basements are relatively rare. (Having said that, I would agree that the average US residence is probably a lot larger than the average UK residence, but that doesn't mean you will automatically have the space for a basement empire or you will live long enough to finish it.)

 

2. The concentric ovals on a rectangular board design is hardly restricted to the US. It is heavily promoted by the model railway brand leader in the UK:

 

3. In the same way that most RMwebbers don't aspire to a Hornby trakmat, I would guess that most readers of Model Railroader don't aspire to 4x8 board.

 

The current issue has a "layout" with miles of mainline on acres and acres of land. (That's not scale miles.) I won't be building one of those either, but that doesn't make it unsuitable for an article.

 

The 8x4 design may not be the pinnacle in space utilization. So why do people do it?

1. You can run long(ish) trains - longer than many shunting shingles.

2. You can easily run multiple trains (if you go with concentric ovals)

3. You can buy the plywood without cutting it. (Chrysler designs their minivans to accomodate a 4x8 footprint.

4. It's simple. (The corollary of which means that it is not intimidating.)

 

We can deigrate this as 'beginner' stuff, but if it gets model railways off the floor and people stay in the hobby, then it's a good thing. The whole purpose of the MR Virginian layout is to try to make an "interesting" 4x8 design. I don't see why that's such a bad thing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another case similar to the above are the wonderful mid west Rock Island and Gulf Mobile and Ohio themed minimum space layouts built by Peter North as featured in Continental Modeller at recent times over the years. IMHO Peter really nailed his subject with these layouts, 1950s run down secondary lines built through small rural US towns with tons of atmosphere. This was superb modelling, the layouts were typically 6 x 4 or smaller and used the classic oval of track where trains moved on and off scene. Everything was built to finescale standards, the proportions of the locos and freight cars, and train lengths were believable, the structures were beautifully modelled and everything was weathered. I remember standing watching one of his layouts for about 1/2 an hour at one of Nottingham Shows when they were held in the Victoria Leisure Centre. I can't remeber off hand the name of the actual layout being shown but I was captivated. It got me hooked on US HO. The layout incorporated subtle annimations and was one of the first layouts I remember with DCC control. IIRC there was also some Country and Western music playing in the background. Marvellous stuff. I was impressed by the Virginian coal hauling layout that Peter showed at this year's East Midlands show, but I would love it if he had a go at building another of his small gems. Cheers Chris M

 

Sounds like "Foster", I remember seeing it at Ipswich(?) in 1995 and the idea of creating atmosphere on a layout without any trains moving stuck with me, especially through the use of background music from the mini Jukebox on the side. Two US layouts later and I still haven't built that layout, but I've recently been thinking of a rainy evening in a city in the Pacific Northwest in the early 1990's....

 

When I spoke to him at Nottingham he said "No more layouts" and tried to sell me "Joachin", but I did notice he had a few unmade kits on a display table nearby. Peter, if you're reading this, there are many people who would like to see another masterpiece from you....!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Dear 298,

 

 

... but I've recently been thinking of a rainy evening in a city in the Pacific Northwest in the early 1990's....

 

 

Hmmm, you want to be very careful what you wish for... ;-)

 

UPY and OPR ops around Portland and Oregon City, Ore

 

http://www.railpictu...d=337927&nseq=0

 

http://3.bp.blogspot...00/loverain.jpg

 

https://lh5.googleus...gon+City+OR.jpg

 

http://2.bp.blogspot...2BCity%2BOR.jpg

 

http://1.bp.blogspot...at+Canby+OR.jpg

 

http://2.bp.blogspot...2BCity%2BOR.jpg

 

http://4.bp.blogspot...Portland+OR.jpg

 

http://1.bp.blogspot...2BCity%2BOR.jpg

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89JxeL-8dMg

 

I have a small fleet of SW1500s here that are just itching to be deployed on a layout of such...

(Did someone say "Oregon : 3AM"?)

 

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

 

PS for those who may want to get a railroader's "cheat sheet" on the proto ops of the area, try this...

http://www.fogchart.com/Down/Yard/OC_Switcher.pdf

Link to post
Share on other sites

Another case similar to the above are the wonderful mid west Rock Island and Gulf Mobile and Ohio themed minimum space layouts built by Peter North ...

Definitely!! I liked Peter North's Mid-West layouts, starting with "Hope, Illinois", and have kept many of the CM articles.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Two US layouts later and I still haven't built that layout, but I've recently been thinking of a rainy evening in a city in the Pacific Northwest in the early 1990's....

Sounds like last night - except for the 1990s bit.

Dear 298,

 

Hmmm, you want to be very careful what you wish for... ;-)

 

UPY and OPR ops around Portland and Oregon City, Ore

 

http://www.railpictu...d=337927&nseq=0

 

https://lh5.googleus...gon+City+OR.jpg

 

http://2.bp.blogspot...2BCity%2BOR.jpg

 

http://2.bp.blogspot...2BCity%2BOR.jpg

 

I have a small fleet of SW1500s here that are just itching to be deployed on a layout of such...

(Did someone say "Oregon : 3AM"?)

Oregon City - with the vertical cliff right above the old SP mainline, it's one of those "prototype for everything" locations and even if there wasn't enough fog, the paper mills create their own atmosphere.

 

The intersection of Hwy 99E and Main Street is here. The immediate foreground of the image is on top of the cliff. The mill, downtown and railroad is at the bottom. This reverse view might be clearer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

... I can cut sheets of timber safely as well. But I bet that there are a lot of beginners to model railroading who can not....

 

True, but if someone else cuts the wood, there might a different way of doing things. This is the alternative; a dimensioned diagram in inches is given to the carpenter working in my house. The metric system is not used. Here in rural Philippines, there's no Home Depot to cut wood. Instead you pay a carpenter by the day to saw 4 by 8 foot sheets of half or quarter inch ply. No power tools are used. No H&S/OSHA, steel toe caps, no insurance. He doesn’t speak English. He cuts a straight line, as good as a board saw in the UK B&Q. BTW, he costs 5.18 GBP/day and quarter inch ply 6.66 GBP/day. He was here many days and we got through many sheets of ply. I use a wheel-chair. I assembled fifteen 4 by 2 foot modules.

 

Yes, getting away from the original post. But you have to adapt to local ways. I want to show the alternative. In UK, with smaller space, we do everything ourselves; I suspect the basement empire construction uses a team. Oh, another thing; there's no social stigma here about playing trains, which sadly I saw in UK, which might explain the solitary activity in UK.

.

post-14852-0-62798800-1334623316_thumb.jpg

post-14852-0-65110800-1334623436_thumb.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand the "no more layouts" comment of Peter North. I have a very large basement here in New Jersey but have absolutely no intention of filling it with model railroad (I know it would never be finished and just end up as a source of frustration to me).

To me Modelling is a relaxing thing to do when alone. It starts with a piece of paper, a pencil and an idea.

 

Driving model trains or Operations have little interest for me and I find that more and more, smaller and smaller is the way to go. I'm looking now at static diorama's that I can make on my lap or a small workbench - it is the miniature perfection of a small scene that I can carry under my arm (not literally but you know what I mean).

 

It's rather similar to my view of the prototype - I hate travelling on the things but enjoy watching and also taking photos of the infrastructure.

 

 

Best, Pete.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

4x8 must be the US version of the UK law http://www.rmweb.co....442#entry675442

Not far off.... C.J.Freezer did draw quite a few 6ft x 4ft plans in his books - but lamented the reason why, which IIRC, was that 8ft x 4ft was a popular size in America, but because British houses were smaller, we tended to opt for a 6ft x 4ft size. Certainly that's the size board I badgered my parents to get, umpty-nine years ago, as my first "proper" layout board, and all the disadvantages of this size that CJF talked about (but that I hadn't then read, yet... :rolleyes: ) came to pass....

I must admit, I don't think 6ft x 4ft is a size that's even available any more, is it..?? In the "DIY Shed" stores sizes seem to be 8 x 4 and 4 x 2, or the close metric equivalents....

Link to post
Share on other sites

I started with a 6'x4'ish layout - slightly bigger in fact and I extended the length and added a small goods yard on a separate board late in its life.

In hindsight I made a bad move when I cut it in two two make a more realistic terminus to fiddle yard type layout.

Never really completed a layout since so I'd be happy with an 8'x4' if I had the room.

 

Despite the inherent problem with moving such a huge lump the MR Virginian layout looks like it would be ideal for everything from a quick running session to unwind after a day at work to a full blown timetable/card system set-up. There appears to be enough operational scope for shunting and genuine freight car movements despite the simplicity.

 

I enjoy shunting when in the mood but for a spot of chillin' you can't beat a roundy for hands-free train fun.

 

But ultimately each to their own which is what makes our beloved hobby so rich and varied.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...