4x8 track plans

[Len]

It's actually fairly simple to build a 5x9 table using two sheets of 4x8 plywood.

Frame up one 4x8 using 1x3's or 1x4's so it's good and rigid. The table support legs should be mounted to this main table structure.

Cut the other sheet into two 6"'x8' strips, and two 6"x5' strips. You'll loose a little width to the saw kerf, but not enough to matter. Frame each strip up using the same 1x3 or 1x4 material used for the main table.

Bolt a 6"x8' strip to each long edge of the main table. Bolt a 6"x5' strip to each end of the main table, and the ends of the 6"x8' strips.

You now have a 5'x9' table. If you use 1' wide strips you end up with a 6'x10' table.

Len

[jbrock27]

Thank you for the suggestion Len.

[AGSB]

The plan in the current MRR mag isn't built on a single piece of plywood. It is built in modular sections and a 5x8 layout is only one configuration available. It can also be configured to an "L" shape among others.

[rogertra]

The plan in the current MRR mag isn't built on a single piece of plywood. It is built in modular sections and a 5x8 layout is only one configuration available. It can also be configured to an "L" shape among others.

Yes.  It's a much more interesting design than a booring 4 x 8 with a loop of track and a few spurs inside the loop.

A quick scan of the article reveals that it's made up of two 2 x 8 modules, an extension on one side made up of a 1 x ???ft sheet and there's another extension made up of what looks like a 1 x 4 foot section carrying a pier and a car-float.  I didn't read the article in a full as it's of little interest but the design did catch my eye as a way better alternative than the usual 4 x 8 which are either a rat's nest of track or the boring loop.

[Desertdweller]

Once upon a time, you could actually buy 5'x9' plywood sheets at a lumber yard.  That was the size needed for ping-pong table tops (anyone remember ping-pong tables?).

I remember seeing 50 years ago HO track plans drawn for 5'x8' tables.  5' is not too wide for access if neither long side is against a wall.

Les

[Doneldon]

Jeff-

You can shorten either end of the through track to decrease the distance between the tracks.

                                                                                                                               -- D

[GG1onFordsDTandI]

The only other way involves a lot of backing up.

Yes it does, but it will end up with a reversed train. Took me a while to accept this backing up idea too, but it keeps me hands off . Slow backing is the key, not an issue once used to it.

Roger, face it, You are a rivet counter (good for you, someone has to ) and should be aware it sometimes comes across a little harsh, and belittling to those who are not as detail oriented . It may be a bit of culture clash in written language used too. While I find UK accents very soothing, written word often seems accusing coming from UK associates of mine. Your posts have given me reason to rethink some past correspondence from them, I think I may have read into them wrong. Your closing statement was not missed by all, it was definitely read, and appreciated here.
Thank you for taking time to include it.

[rogertra]

Sorry if I come across as a little harsh sometimes, that's the trouble with just the written word.  It's also probably my writing style.

I'm not exactly a "rivet counter", after all I freelance and therefore I cannot be a rivet counter by definition.    

My modelling is in the "good enough" range.  I'm not a super detailer but I do add details to locos and cabooses as they get looked at the most.  Freight cars are just moving scenery and if they do not stand out, and blend in to the whole picture, that's good enough.  I also weather everything, from road vehicles to "clean" passenger cars and "clean" locomotives as nothing on the real railroad is not weathered to some extent.  Even when passenger cars are taken throught the washing plant, only the sides get cleaned and brushed, the trucks and roofs are just sprayed and not brush cleaned so retain some "weathering".

However, I will admit that I am a prototype modeller, and proud of it I might add, and my modelling tastes tend towards modelling what the prototype does and how it does it, as accurately as possible.  Therefore, as you can tell, I am not a fan of tail chasing, a "just watching the trains go past", type model railroad, no matter how detailed it may be.

Take the featured model railroad in the January MR. The NYC model railroad.  Excellent modelling, excellent scenery, excellent attention to detail but it's a large, double track tail chaser. Nothing for the trains to do once they leave staging but to make a loop around the large layout.  Something I'd never build as I'd find it boring to operate.  Yes, fun for the first visit but then what?

Yes, I can appreciate the fine modelling involved, just not the track plan.  So, I do tend to try and nudge modellers into more prototypical track plans, even on a 4 x 8.  Perhaps sometimes I nudge just a little too hard but that's only because of my enthusiasm for doing it the way the prototype does or as close as we can achieve in the space available.

But, as I frequently state.  If someone likes to sit and watch out-of-the-box freight cars, passenger cars and locos orbit around and around on a sheet of 4 x 8 (or bigger) and they are happy with that, who am I to say they are wrong?


Merry Christmas.

[jward]

that's all fine and good, but there isn't any reason you can't accomplish most if not all of that on a 4x8 or 5x10. there are quite a few areas and railroads where everything was of modest size, the western Maryland and clinchfield railroads come to mind.

if all you have on your layout is a circle of track and a couple of sidings, that says more about your willingness or ability to think outside the box, than it does about your space limitations.

also, with regard to rivet counting, it seems to me that many do not see the forest for the trees, and that what gets lost in all the scale fidelity is the context. many can tell you how the tracks were laid out but few can tell you why they were placed the way they were, or why they were used the way they were..... everybody knows what dynamic brakes look like on a diesel, but few can tell what they meant to train handling. I could go on.....

[jbrock27]

I take it, when referring to the "current" issue of Model Railroader, we are talking about the February 2014 issue?

I would agree Roger that there is more rivet counter in you, than not.

[rogertra]

that's all fine and good, but there isn't any reason you can't accomplish most if not all of that on a 4x8 or 5x10. there are quite a few areas and railroads where everything was of modest size, the western Maryland and clinchfield railroads come to mind.

I agree and in fact, I said that with regard to the 5 x 10 in the January Model Railroader.  An excellent small layout.

[rogertra]

I take it, when referring to the "current" issue of Model Railroader, we are talking about the February 2014 issue?

I would agree Roger that there is more rivet counter in you, than not.

January MR was the one I was referring to.  The issue with the excellent little 5 x 8 harbour themed layout.   Sorry for any confusion.

As for "rivet counter"?  A rivet counter is one who strives for accuracy down to the smallest detail on their models.  As I freelance, by definition I cannot be one.  I also run out-of-the-box Athearn Blue box freight cars and various other brands that are not considered high end models with little more done to them than some weathering, replacing plastic wheels with metal wheels and adding body mounted Kadee couplers.  Hardly "rivet counting", given the accuracy of most of the older ready to run, out-of-the-box freight cars.   

Yes, I do add extra details to my locomotives.  Diesels I add three chime airhorns, place the bells where they are typically placed on Canadian units and add m.u. hoses as required.  I generally kitbash the steam fleet, particularly tenders to make them shorter, and add and move boiler details around to give a family look but that's not rivet counting.  Some people on this board do a way better job of kitbashing steam than I do.

My over all modelling approach is "Good Enough", especially considering my poor eyesight.  Again, hardly "rivet counting." 

However, do I subscribe to prototype track design etc. and prototype operation?  Yes, there I plead guilty.

[GG1onFordsDTandI]

While growing up Grandpa had a number of layouts from 4' x 8' to 18' x 35'. Some had sidings, ground cover, cities, stations, trees, cliffs, tunnels, and yards others where just loops on green painted tables....well, all but one had loops, he did a point to point too, but hated it....Anyhow despite appearing to just run mindless loops, that was not the case. If you watched him after a stop at a station, or even a designated drop spot along the track, you would see him clicking a handheld lap counter, keeping track of how many laps he had done. Why? He was keeping track of "miles in scale" to prototypically replicate the travel between two US cities. Once the proper number of laps was achieved, he would stop the train remove or add cars and adjust his orders. Sometimes it would even be at the same station if the layout only had one, but he had covered the same amount of scale miles as a prototype. I remember having to back up about 20 laps once after "passing" St Paul a bit. Gramps was not rivet counter in his mind, because he ran mostly 0-27, and wouldn't dream of messing with weathering on his shiny clean trains. But, He was a prototypical "runner" to the extent I would disagree, and call him a rivet counter. Point is, no matter how small or "loopy", prototypical running a train is always possible to some extent, its a matter of balancing compromises, application, and imagination.

[jbrock27]

Roger, thank you for the info on the MRR issue; no need to apologize.  Is it possible it is a 2 part series on this excellent small layout, that appears in the January issue and ends in the February issue?

I am not sure that your description of "rivet counter" is Websters or that there is even a standard, worldwide definition and don't wish to produce a argument with you over it ole boy, but I would suggest by the fact that you are able to point out the "faults" of such things as the Athearn Blue boxes so easily, could make you more of one than not  
Innocence or guilt, need not be claimed.  Just having fun is the point afterall, agree?

[Doneldon]

I guess I'd like to jump in on the 4x8 issue, too. I have often suggested that newbies think around the room or along the wall instead of a 4x8, but I recognize that sometimes a 4x8 is what has to be done.

I built a pike for my now 14-year-old grandson on a 4x8 table. (CUE: sudden harsh note from the strings.) Why? Well, for one, I couldn't undertake to install trains on the walls of someone else's home. And maybe Cole will lose interest in trains, at least for his educational years. I didn't exactly lose interest during high school, college, grad school and the Navy, but I lived in a smallish apartment during high school, dorms in college, student ghetto digs in grad school and quarters in the service. Plus, I didn't have two nickels to rub together most of the time. So ... I built the occasional kit during those years, dreamed a lot, and re-subscribed to MR once I added part-time work to my school life. Then came children and the desire to build some adult relationships. The kids were a great excuse to build a small pike (4.5x6.5) but I had neither the time nor money for a significant effort. Eventually I got back into railroading but we moved 18 months ago. Now I can start again in a dedicated train room (too small but I have designs on some adjacent unallocated space for staging yards) and I'm preparing to build again.

Oh, yeah. My grandson's 4x8 which was the point of this post. It has a double track mainline with crossovers both ways, a reasonable yard throat for a small yard, a mess of industries (some grouped on the same spur), and a turntable with a three-stall roundhouse. That's everything he wanted and it works. I designed it (actually I adapted it) so he would learn about facing- and trailing-point switches, switchbacks, and the need to plan train building to make switching easier. It has a city on an upper level overlooking the yard and engine terminal, with the main passenger station overhead so the mains and yard throat look like a three-track subterranean station. He has a small mountain with a waterfall and a tunnel. The isolated corners serve various purposes including a neighborhood, the bad side of town, a cattle pen and his home. The home ended up in the middle of a desert even though he lives in northern Wisconsin where things are quite a bit greener. Yes, that's an awful lot of track on a 4x8 and the mainline isn't very long, but he loves it. The city and mountain make the layout seem more linear because you can't see most of the turnback curves and a central view block and isolated corners give the feel of a much larger space.

I guess what I'm saying is that a 4x8 can be a worthwhile effort and one can have an interesting model railroad in that space, even if it isn't what I'm building for myself (a two-level around the room set-up). It's not exactly prototype railroading, but neither is the New York Central filling a whole basement.

                                                                                                                                                   -- D