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

[steve1]

Just about every 'project layout' they build is on a 4 x 8 board and ends up looking like a trainset. OK, the modelling standard is good but why roundy-round all the time?

 

Here in the UK that format is all but dead, we've moved on long since. why are MR stuck in this time warp?

 

steve

[Oscale]

Because it's still addressing itself to a readership new to the hobby, more experienced modellers having long since got bored with the magazine's repeated output and moved on?

[rodshaw]

But you turn the pages and find that most of the railroads people seem to be building for real in the US are in 50ft by 30ft basements, have taken 30 years and are not yet finished.

[mikecougill]

Forum member Oscale hit on part of the answer here. MR certainly seems skewed toward beginners. I further suspect that the growing attitude toward consumerism forms of modeling (purchasing everything in ready to run form) versus actual modelbuilding, which is much greater here in the US, is a facilitating factor too.

 

Mike Cougill

[CraigZ]

But you turn the pages and find that most of the railroads people seem to be building for real in the US are in 50ft by 30ft basements, have taken 30 years and are not yet finished.

 

"have taken 30 years and will never be finished" - there, I fixed that for you

 

But seriously, I do not subscribe to MR for basically the reason Oscale laid out - I've moved past it. Sure there's an article every so often that's useful, but that's not worth subscribing. I'll pick up useful issues at the store...

[dave1905]

"have taken 30 years and will never be finished" - there, I fixed that for you

No layout is ever finished. There is always something to improve. I don't see what's wrong with taking 30 years. Just because all the scenery isn't finished that doesn't mean its not operating and "functional". The owners in my area have a half dozen operating sessions a month and all are great fun. Why is having 30 years of fun wrong?

[trisonic]

Unfortunately Model Railroader are their own worst enemy but then there's LIONEL!

 

I'm surprised by the amount of UK "roundy rounds" that are extended trainsets that I see on RMWeb in the UK section - very small group but still surprising.

 

As Dave H. says who's going to be critical of someone having Fun?

 

Let's face it we as a Hobby have enough bloody critics amongst the general population and general media that we should NOT start doing it amongst ourselves, Eh?

 

Best, Pete.

['CHARD]

I know not of this magazine of which you people speak. Think I'll get myself a copy, see what the fuss is about. I'll get BRM at the same time, never bought before, but its drubbing elsewhere on here today makes me fascinated to engage....

[TheEngineShed]

I further suspect that the growing attitude toward consumerism forms of modeling (purchasing everything in ready to run form) versus actual modelbuilding, which is much greater here in the US, is a facilitating factor too.

 

If you think about it, even if a beginner buys buys RTR stock and RTP structures, and doesn't do any actual "modelbuilding", there is still a steep learning curve. Wiring, DC or DCC, trackwork, scenery, ballasting, picking appropriate era stock, etc, there are number of skill sets that a beginner has to get down.

 

It is frightening to think about all the lern'in you'd have to do if you were a complete novice who picked up a copy of MR in the grocerer, and out of the blue, decided to build a model railroad...

[Jon Grant 4472]

I came to American HO in 2002, although I already had over 15 years modelling experience in British outline. Whilst I was at the 'pond life' end of the learning curve regarding the subject matter, I already had all the modelling skills required. I still made a load of mistooks along the way, buying locos and freight cars that would never have been seen together (billboard reefers and BN boxcars, etc)

 

With my experience of building 2 double-O exhibition quality layouts, and guest operating on a few US outline layouts from the likes of Mike Scott and Roger Nicholls, I never gave the roundy-roundy 8' x 4' a second thought as an option, having only ever seen a couple so cleverly disguised that they looked realistic, rather than a basic trainset.

 

Jon

[DavidB-AU]

I believe the 8x4 is inherently evil. It's probably the biggest cause of beginners leaving the hobby. CJF noted 50 years ago that a layout of that size is as permanent a feature of any room as a double bed or grand piano and tends to become a repository for junk.

 

This is why I'm a big fan of the Heart of Georgia layout (http://hogrr.blogspot.com). When you take into account the access space required all around an 8x4, this takes up no more floor space and put the access space inside. It has much gentler curves, a much longer run of main line and plenty of scope for serious operation. It's also easy to dismantle when not actually in use and quick to set up.

 

Cheers

David

[steinjr]

Just about every 'project layout' they build is on a 4 x 8 board and ends up looking like a trainset. OK, the modelling standard is good but why roundy-round all the time?

 

Here in the UK that format is all but dead, we've moved on long since. why are MR stuck in this time warp?

 

 

Some reasons 4x8 may be more popular in the US than in the UK:

 

- Houses are on average bigger in the US. It is not at all uncommon to have available space in a largish basement room where you could put up either a table tennis (ping pong) table or a 4x8 foot layout. The dream is a basement empire, not a small layout you can pack up and bring along to exhibitions.

 

- A smaller percentage of people who interacts with trains (e.g. commuting by train) on a daily basis. The image of railroading most people have is watching longish freight trains rolling by as you are waiting at a RR crossing, heading for a destination half a continent away, not having small trains end their run at a passenger terminal or switching industries. Continuous run allows you to watch trains roll by.

 

Btw - it is not actually true that Model Railroader Magazine only has H0 scale loop-on-4x8 sheet of plywood as project layouts, even though you may feel like they do so. Project layouts last five years:

 

Spring 2008: Industry shelf switching layout in H0 scale (WSOR)

Fall 2008: industrial extension on an N scale layout (Waterbury industrial district)

Spring 2009: H0 scale modular layout that could be set up in various configurations (Beer Line layout)

Spring 2010: 9x5 foot N scale layout (Salt Lake Route)

Spring 2011: H0 scale junction yard for club layout (Bay Junction)

Spring 2012: H0 scale 4x8 foot layout (Virginian)

You need to go five years back (spring 2007) to find another H0 scale 4x8 project layout - the Black River junction.

 

By all means - the 4x8 layouts were coming at shorter intervals before that. But I would say that the perception that "just about every" project layout being a H0 scale 4x8 is a little outdated.

 

Smile,

Stein

[Barry Ten]

I'm glad Stein's post has injected a bit of balance! You can add Iain Rice's Roque Bluffs to the list as well. Funnily enough I began with the hated 8x4, and guess what, I'm still in the hobby. In fact as a 6 year old I would have been bored out of my mind with a "realistic" end to end switching layout, but I still have fond memories of the 8x4 my dad built for me when I was a nipper. What else was I going to use to race my Triang Jinty round and round at supersonic speeds? It was the best layout in the world, as far as I was concerned. In fact part of it lives on, 40-odd years later, in the baseboard for Cogirep.

 

Anyone who thinks MR is solely aimed at the beginner does need to take a close at the actual content. I'm away from home at the moment but just in the last few months I can think of Lance Mindheim's article on handlaying 2mm turnouts, and that very impressive article on rebuilding/detailing a Trix caboose. Yes, there is a lot of entry-level content, but it's always presented in a refreshing way and I have to admit I've generally found something useful, that I've either forgotten or didn't know in the first place. In fact it's exactly that balance between advanced and "simple" stuff that makes the magazine so enjoyable to me. It's by far the best edited and designed magazine in the field, with a sense of inclusivity that I find very welcoming.

[Jon Grant 4472]

As an addendum to my earlier post, an 8' x 4' area is 32 sq/ft. The scenic portion of Sweethome Chicago took up a smaller area before the extension raised it to 36 sq/ft and the 20ft scenic portion of Sweethome Alabama is still less than 32sq/ft area.

 

I suppose it's what you do with the space that matters

 

Jon

[298]

Unfortunately Model Railroader are their own worst enemy but then there's LIONEL!

 

 

And that's the problem that is rarely understood on this side of the pond, there is quite an interest in coarse scale "toys" that run round and round on a layout that not even Hornby would consider to be authentic, so the beginners 8' x 4' that is so often featured in MR can be an important stop into prototypical fidelity. Once you've realised you're past this stage you can move on.

 

I wonder how big the smallest layout they've featured is....?

[trisonic]

 

 

I suppose it's what you do with the space that matters

 

Jon

 

Exactly, Jon. "Aye, there's the rub..." as they used to say (do they still?)

 

Best, Pete.

[steinjr]

I wonder how big the smallest layout they've featured is....?

 

Model Railroader magazine?

 

Mmm - I know they have done 2x8 (Abington Branch), 2x10 foot (e.g. Jonathan Jones' "Mid-Atlantic and Western"), 6'8" x 4'3" L-shaped "Whasup Dock Co", "Bristol Ferry Terminal" was 1'6" x 8 feet, Keith Jordan's "The Patch" was an 8'1" x 8'1" shelf layout around an outside corner. They did a 2x6 foot project layout as an extension for a earlier 4x8 foot plan. If you include the annual Model Railroad Planning, I guess Linda Sand's 1x6' switching layout in the 1998 or 1999 issues might qualify as one of the smallest ones.

 

Having said that - I quite agree that smaller shelf layouts often are a far more efficient use of space than a 4x8 in a modest sized home (like the town home I and my family live in), if you can live without the continuous run.

 

Smile,

Stein

[shortliner]

My views of the 8 x 4 are fairly well known - stemming , at least in part, from an early mistake of puttinga US N gauge layout on a standard door - that put me off the roundy-roundy layout format for good! Moving it was almoat impossible single-handed. Nick, (Northpoint) did a design that cut up a sheet of 6 x 4 plywood and made an 8 x 4 layout -(Hallsville Pa Interchange) in a way back MR, but it isn't really what I'd class as portable, and requires assembly in order to p;ay - which is why I was attracted to the micro-layout idea when Carl started his site - I'd also followed Chris Ellis's writings for the same reason. I think the US recession may lead to some down-sizing of layouts - it already seems to be having an influence on buying habits and production runs there

[davknigh]

Think of MR as a magazine for the North American "average enthusiast" if you need to put things in perspective. The great (?) thing about the 4'x 8' sheet of plywood is the fact that is needs no serious woodworking tools to build a layout and get people started. MR's recent projects require even less skill than usual with the use of foam for the scenery. The whole thing is to get people started, then many will be hooked, you know how it is ... "My name is David and I'm a model railroader..."

 

Cheers,

 

David

[Prof Klyzlr]

My views of the 8 x 4 are fairly well known - stemming , at least in part, from an early mistake of puttinga US N gauge layout on a standard door - that put me off the roundy-roundy layout format for good! Moving it was almoat impossible single-handed. Nick, (Northpoint) did a design that cut up a sheet of 6 x 4 plywood and made an 8 x 4 layout -(Hallsville Pa Interchange) in a way back MR, but it isn't really what I'd class as portable, and requires assembly in order to p;ay - which is why I was attracted to the micro-layout idea when Carl started his site - I'd also followed Chris Ellis's writings for the same reason. I think the US recession may lead to some down-sizing of layouts - it already seems to be having an influence on buying habits and production runs there

 

Didn't Nick also have a little (3x1?) switcher with a sectorplate at rear right, with a BN SW switcher as motive power, in MR at one stage?

 

EDIT: just checked, MR May 1999 Page 74 is the weapon of choice...

"...Compact switching layout in HO scale..."

 

Happy Modelling,

Aim to Improve,

Prof Klyzlr

[shortliner]

Yes, John - but you beat me to it with the answer - that might well be the smallest they have featured! I'm pretty sure he has had a couple of others in there too - one of which was another BN one

[Talltim]

Forum member Oscale hit on part of the answer here. MR certainly seems skewed toward beginners. I further suspect that the growing attitude toward consumerism forms of modeling (purchasing everything in ready to run form) versus actual modelbuilding, which is much greater here in the US, is a facilitating factor too.

 

Mike Cougill

 

I would like to apologise to Mike to inadvertently dragging him into joining yet another forum and wasting more of his modelling time!

[rodshaw]

No layout is ever finished. There is always something to improve. I don't see what's wrong with taking 30 years. Just because all the scenery isn't finished that doesn't mean its not operating and "functional". The owners in my area have a half dozen operating sessions a month and all are great fun. Why is having 30 years of fun wrong?

I didn't say it was wrong. I was highlighting the fact that the magazine caters for both types of layout. It has always seemed balanced to me. Though I think I'd quickly get fed up with any magazine I subscribed to.

[F-UnitMad]

Some reasons 4x8 may be more popular in the US than in the UK:

 

- Houses are on average bigger in the US. It is not at all uncommon to have available space in a largish basement room....

 

- .... The image of railroading most people have is watching longish freight trains rolling by .....

 

Nail + Head = Hit!!!

 

One 8 x 4 MR layout I liked was the Soo Line Red Wing Division from about 1994-ish... why that one should've caught my eye I've no idea... :D

 

Stein's point about Freight trains is important, I think... US freight operations can be compressed into small spaces far better than UK passenger operations. An 8 x 4 board is quite simply useless for representing a British Station of any reasonable size - all that length eaten up by raised platforms and so on. An American Depot can easily be tucked in a corner if portrayed at all, and is highly likely to be "dis-used" if it is.

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.

 

Quite possibly we in the UK are just a tad jealous of the space our US brethren have available, and perceive a 'waste' as a result...

 

Mindyou, I doubt there's any Forum in the US where they're asking "Why are Brits so obsessed with Shunty-Planks..??"

[trisonic]

Another reason could be that the concept of model railroads is totally different over here. Near me is a club (The Model Railroad Club of Springfield) that purportedly has the largest club layout in the World. This club, that was driven by Paul Mallory, has been building this thing since the sixties and it lives in a building close to but not dwarfed by a local "Home Depot"....

 

Thinking it would be pleasant to see, with wide spacious vistas and long freight drags I was totally disappointed to find it was a "spaghetti junction"of intertwined rails that was very confusing to watch. I never went back. The New York Society of Engineers too have two layouts (albeit smaller) but similar in concept - A space? Cram in more rails.

 

Yes, there are exceptions, of course, see Mike Cougill's (who just joined RMWeb) delicious P48 ("O") layout and plenty of other individual's layouts.

 

I dunno whether it is an extension of the view that is quite prevalent amongst some UK RMWeb members (of all persuasion): "Gotta lay the Peco down and get the trains running!" That the process of construction itself is actually "modelling" seems beyond their comprehension.

 

Best, Pete.