4x8 track plans

[Steve Magee]

The only problem with a 4' x 8', especially for a child's layout, is that for some reason the actual table top area is often regarded as sacrosanct, so we run the loop around the outside and then put all loops, spurs etc on the inside. Blow that for a joke. Cut a space about 4' x 2' out of the middle and set it up to be controlled from there. The child clambers under the layout (they can still do that sort of stuff :-) ) and pops up in the middle into their own little world, surrounded by trains, and everything is in easy reach. The cutout bit can be then cut in half and used to make the layout 10' x 4', yet still reachable from the "operating pit". Oh and that way it can also be put up against a wall and still everything is in reach.

Steve Magee
Newcastle NSW  Aust

[jbrock27]

Doc, I would love to see a picture !

[rogertra]

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?

I agree, 100%   

Happy New Year.

[rogertra]

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?

It's a multi part series over three or four or more issues starting with the January issue.  I'd recommend it to anyone who is short of space and want's to avoid the "typical" 4 x 8.

Happy New Year.

[jward]

when I was a child my first real layout, as opposed to running my dad's, was a 5x10 based upon a pike called the ute central out of one of the old kalmbach layout plan books. we narrowed the curves to 18r, added 3 passing tracks and several industries, and used the foot of space gained for a small yard. unfortunately, we couldn't do anything about the 6% grade up the back, but that provided an excuse to use helpers on the rear of longer trains. scenic highlight was a bridge 10" above the lowest level.

of all the layouts I ever built I think I liked that one the best. it could keep 3 people busy, 2 out on the road and one in the yard. the yard engine doubled as the helper to push the trains up the 6%, the yard engineer would return the engine back to the yard after the push.

[rogertra]

when I was a child my first real layout, as opposed to running my dad's, was a 5x10 based upon a pike called the ute central out of one of the old kalmbach layout plan books. we narrowed the curves to 18r, added 3 passing tracks and several industries, and used the foot of space gained for a small yard. unfortunately, we couldn't do anything about the 6% grade up the back, but that provided an excuse to use helpers on the rear of longer trains. scenic highlight was a bridge 10" above the lowest level.

of all the layouts I ever built I think I liked that one the best. it could keep 3 people busy, 2 out on the road and one in the yard. the yard engine doubled as the helper to push the trains up the 6%, the yard engineer would return the engine back to the yard after the push.

That sounds like it was a really fun layout to operate.

[jbrock27]

Thank you for the info Roger and Happy New Year (Hogmanay)  to you!!

I bought the January issue last night.

Jeff, what were you using for risers that resulted in a 6% grade?  It was not an Atlas Pier set was it?

[jward]

no, I have never used pier sets. they never were tall enough. remember, that track had to climb 10".....

as I recall, the track was laid on wood risers cut to fit. a design flaw was that we used a solid plywood sub base, with all elevated track on plywood atop the risers. the only exceptions were the two bridges, which we temporarily made out of 1/4" flat moulding strips assembled in an upside down "u" shape. 

[jbrock27]

Thank you Jeff.

I thought you had used the Atlas Pier set before.    I remember asking you about them once and you replied  they worked well because they could be placed anywhere along sectional (traditional) track.

Anyway, the reason I asked is to have an idea of what grade the set comes to, as I had gone ahead and purchased one after getting your feedback on it with the idea of using it on a new layout. 

Thanks.

[jward]

yeah, my dad had one, and though it worked well in his situation, it left a lot to be desired visually. plus, it was limited to the height of the tallest pier, 3".....

using the plywood atop wooden risers was and is a much more flexible system. I still use it to-day. the only refinements I have made on subsequent layouts is to eliminate the solid plywood base in favour of an open grid table, and the use of custom fit sections of 1x4 pine instead of plywood atop the risers. pine is much better for handlaid track, as plywood is way too hard to drive spikes into.

[jbrock27]

Thanks again for getting back to me.  I know what you mean about the visual and height limitations.  I was going to paint/weather the piers.  Also, I plan on using foam board on top of a plywood base and was going to either hot glue the piers to the form board or get long enough finish nails to secure the feet of the piers to the foam/table.  If necessary, making the 2 holes in each of the piers a little bigger to accommodate the nails.  I would also predrill a pilot hole in the plywood, if I go with using just nails.

I do like the look of these piers better than the AHM or TYCO or old Life Like and old Bachmann ones.

PS-Jeff, any idea what the grade is on the Atlas set, using as is?  Thank you.

[jward]

the atlas piers are in 1/4" increments, so using one under each section of track would be about 3%. there are alsoa set of 1/8" shims include in the set, or at least there used to be. I would use the unshimmed piers under the track joints, and the shimmed ones under the middles of the track sections for added support. all of this assumes you are using the standard 9" straight, or full 18r or 22r sections. those are engineered to be close to 9" in length.

[jbrock27]

Very good.  I would rather have 3% than 6%   Thank you Jeff.  Yes, you are correct, I will be using traditional sectional track that comes standard in 9" sections.

[rookie123]

I have a 47 x 38 oval layout which I've extended to 82" and would like to put another oval inside this one. What radius curves should I buy?

Thanks,
Rookie

I actually already have another oval outside the 38 x 82 and want to end up with 3 total ovals with three different trains running.

[rookie123]

I think I answered my own question. I thought 18 radius was degrees but it's inches so 18 makes a 36 wide curve. So i'm going to need some 15's in to make an interior loop of 30 wide curve.

Just getting started. Thanks.
Rookie