Do you think a 4X8 layout is too small for HO gauge? I'm trying to think of an interesting track plan in such limited space. Hopefully, multiple trains, and a decent yard.
I think a 4x8' layout is small for HO. Cut your sheet of plywood in half, the long way and you'll have a 2x16' run. Then you could add some width at both ends. Stay cool and run steam....
4x8 is the most (stereo)typical size for an HO layout. That said, it is small. The 18" curves typically used on this size don't agree with long engines and cars. There also isn't much length of run between the turnback curves. But, since it is the most common size, you'll be able to find many plans for it. Check out http://www.naisp.net/mfischer/m_train2.htm - the plans are N scale, but the 2x4 plans will work as HO 4x8s. Are you planning on a 4x8 simply because that size of plywood is available? What are the dimensions of the space the layout has to fit in?
The famous "Box". There are a gagillion layouts for that size. It was the defacto starter layout size for years. All those plans use 18 inch radius curves. The thing is, in the old days, alot of the model train locos were designed to be more toylike. People used to run 2-8-8-2 Steam engines on 18 inch radius curves and think nothing of it. What do you plan to run? Trackplans.... http://www.gatewaynmra.org/layouts/mr2001.gif http://www.atlasrr.com/ Go to the layouts section. http://www.modelrailroader.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/001/215lorqk.asp Just hit google and enter any variation of trackplan ho scaleand you'll get tons of links. Have you considered the N scale door panel layout option? Lots of space on a standard door panel for a massive N scale pike.
You can have a neat little HO layout-some guys are doing some amazing things with 4X8 or you could have a empire with N scale in the same space. It all depends on your wants and needs. If you have your heart set on HO here are a couple of links for you to peruse: http://www.gatewaynmra.org/project.htm Check out Allan Coates Black River Valley, it is a 4X10 layout and is really neat: http://www.intergate.com/~acoates149/ Some interesting reading here on peoples thoughts regarding 4X8 HO: https://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?page=1&TOPIC_ID=51316 And if you want to be different, check out this cool starter layout: http://www.layoutdesignservice.com/lds/samples/betterbeginnerlayout.htm Happy researching!
I basically have no room in my basement for anything bigger or longer than a 4X8 layout. I have both HO and N scale trains, it's a question of which one I like better. I guess I'll have to go with n. What exactly do you mean when you say 'empire'?
I would definitely stick with HO. There is so much more available in terms of products, and it is the most popular scale. N scale is "cute", but I find it hard to get "up close and personal" with the trains. HO is also superior to N scale in terms of level of detail. What's more, if you put a backdrop down the middle of your 4x8 board (to split it in half), you will actually have TWO sides to your layout, making it seem larger. One side could be an industrial area, the other side could be an open plain or a forest. The limit is your imagination.
Scale beauty is in the eye of the railroader I enjoy all scales. They all have good and less than good (not bad) points. I started in HO scale and have since settled on N scale.
Yes, let's not have this be a discussion about which scale is better. (And that means not calling N scale "cute." If we N scalers wanted cute, we'd get a puppy. ) I will make a couple points... 4x8 is just enough for a decent HO scale layout, but not really for "multiple trains and a decent yard". Think more like "2 trains and an adequate yard." Since you already have trains in both scales, you might get more enjoyment out of running the N scale trains on the layout and detailing the HO guys to show off as display models (to be run when you eventually have more space!). If you build the layout for HO, you're N scale will probably stay hidden in the boxes. Lastly, with whichever scale, don't just lay the track straight on top of a sheet of 4x8 plywood. Think about either building up a few layers of foam, or using the "cookie cutter" method on the ply. This will allow you to make some nice ravines below track level and install cool bridges over them. With a small layout, you'll want to keep the scenery pretty interesting.
I'd say it depends what your trains are - a 4x8 in HO can easily handle multiple trains, but things it won't do easily are big engines and main line operations, if that's what you're after then N may be a better choice. Similarly era and car choice might be something you want to think of. Short equipment looks passably okay on the sharp curves you would be using in HO, so if you were talking a 1950's layout with some small steam loco's and 40' freightcars then HO might be a better choice (I suspect it also has a better choice of equipment for that kind of project with Bachmann having a nice variety of well detailed small steam) - if you wanted more modern ops then keeping it to 4 axle power and staying away from long cars like autoracks should make it work well also. If big engines and cars are a must though, I would say N is the way to go. That said, I remember a plan in MR a few years back that got a city passenger terminus, return loop staging, a yard and lots of industrial switching onto a 4x8 (at the expense of a very complex layout to build!!) - so there are plans out there that buck trends!
Unfortunately, all modern Class 1s use predominantly 6-axle power. And, in the steam era... well, steam locomotives often got pretty big. If you want to realistically represent a prototype's roster on sharp curves, you either have to go with a shortline, or one of the few Class 1s that had a mostly or entirely 4-axle roster: Soo Line in the 60s and 70s, Western Pacific, Louisville & Nashville in the early 60s, Rock Island, etc.
Triplex, I hear what you're saying, but I think you're missing a point - the railroad's try and use power appropriate to the job being done. There are plenty of nooks & crannies in todays class 1's where Dash9's and 70M's fear to tread. Similarly you are right that some steam got pretty big - but I would wager that every steam class 1 had loco's that certainly weren't 'big'. UP had some really cute (sorry UP fans) little 4-6-0's that are pretty close to Bachmann's model, they are perfect for a small layout, but you ain't going to be using them instead of Challengers on Sherman Hill! All scales have their plus points. Most 'rules' have exceptions. Convincing 4x8's to my mind are about minimising the weaknesses and playing to your strengths.
Maybe I thought a little fast. I always tend to think in terms of mainlines. Perhaps a more positive-sounding way to make my point is: On sharp curves, you can model a branch or shortline, an industrial area, or (with the right choice of railroad and era) a mainline. Another useful point: Just because a railroad had smaller power doesn't always make it easy to model in a small space. Try modelling diesel-era CGW! Their legendary long freights are so hard to handle...
Layout HO CM, I posted a hand drawn layout in my album if you care to check it out. I am very new and am just now formulating a small PIZZA layout to get up and running. ( to satisf my impatience). The layout was given to me by the MRR shop. He said it would be a good starter and an provide lots of activity. Maybe the more exoerienced MRRs can help with their thoughts also. I'd post it in this reply but haven't figured that out yet. Let me know what you all think. Cheers.
IMHO, there are almost always better choices than a same ol' -- same ol' HO 4X8 And if you prefer an island layout, please consider a slightly larger (5X9, 5X10) size to allow for larger radius curves. And/or consider a "boat shaped" layout that allows more useable length. I contend that the main reason so many HO 4X8s are built is that people are afraid to cut the "sacred sheet" of plywood. ... there is a reason so many first layouts are HO 4X8s and so few second layouts are in that form factor. Regards, Byron
