4 X 8 or larger layout to start?

Personally, I would go with the 8x16 to start. That should be large enough to last you for a while and many folks have layouts about this size for many years and are happy with them. I took a similar approach, starting out with a 6x16 layout. I have been ready to expand for a while now, but I seem to be stuck deciding on a final track plan.  

8x16 would be quadruple the size not double. Larger always give you more possibilities, but can also be overwhelming and discouraging when the layout doesn't progress as quickly as you hoped or imagined it would.

 Also an 8x16 solid table would either need pop ups, cut outs or the ability to be walked on. About 3' is the limit for a comfortable reach in working  distance.

A 6x10 layout stays within the 3' reach in limit, and uses just 2 sheets of plywood, with just 2 cuts, that your local Lowes, Home Depot or lumber yard should be able to do quickly and cheaply or free if buying the plywood there. Panel saws are wonderful things, I wish I had the room for one in my garage, and budget.

6x10 would give you a lot of scenic and track possibilities for any thing less than 072 curves, if you wanted 072 curves, you could have the second sheet split at 30"/18" instead of 24"/24", and then have the 18" side cut at 78" to make a 6'6"x 9'6" layout, which only violates the 3' reach in "rule" by 3" from either side, still doable, and likely only needed on occasion for scenery work, trackwork and rerailing  rolling stock being where the reach in is more critical.

Doug

And this is exactly why I am on this forum lol. I did not take into consideration of not being able to access the center of the table with an 8x16 layout without making a cut out somewhere in the center.  The 6x16 would make more sense to stay in the general 3' rule. As for the curves, I am not sure what curves I will go with. I do know that my O27 has a tendency to derail cars faster and I can see why larger curves are needed. What is the average curve that most people use that they can get away with for running almost any engine and rolling stock?

If you are using postwar equipment most will be fine on 031. The larger the curve, the better ANY train will look and run. If you want a solid table with no cut outs, a 6' wide x whatever length suits your needs would be a convenient size to use and be an efficient use of plywood. On a 6' wide layout you could use up to 054 curves with even a single straight track on the ends and still have about 4" between the track and table edge.

 054 curves will allow a LARGE variety of locomotives and long passenger or freight cars to be run without any problems, and look Good doing it. There are some SCALE size locomotives, especially large Steam that REQUIRE 072 curves, and for those a table of at 6'6" or greater would be recommended, as mentioned earlier, this would be a slight and still manageable "Violation" of the "3' Rule".

 Another consideration is the track system you are planning to use and what curves are available, within that choice. Atlas O, offers 063 curves in it's system, which would be the largest, available that would still fit the 6' table, and still give a bit of room between the track and table edge.

BTW, I just noticed your user name, THANK YOU, for your selfless service to our Country,

Doug

I went with the 6x16 so I could reach everything as the layout is accessible from all four sides. If you are still young and able you can climb on the layout to get to things or access hatches are also a good option. My grandson (11) gets around quite well on top of or under the layout. However, due to age and some worn out parts it's a real struggle for me to do either one anymore. And sooner or later this will most likely apply to us all, what you can do now may become more difficult with age so access is important.

If you want to run everything out there then O-72 curves (or the largest you can fit on your layout) are the way to go. The 8x16 will be able to handle the O-72 curves and maybe a little larger, but the 6x16 won't do O-72 curves. I have diesels only and nothing that requires more than O-54 curves. My 2 loops of track are O-54 and O-63. I  like the modern electronics and command control and the $1000 plus steamers are out of my price range so diesels only it is. I made these decisions early on, before building starting my layout. 

If 8x16 is the size that you would like to work with, another option would be to use 4 sheets of plywood, have 2 sheets cut to 33"/15" and use a full sheet across each end, and a 33"x 96" piece on each side, with a 30" open "pit" in the center. By also cutting two 30" long pieces from the 15" wide left over, you could also fill in the ends of the center pit, for more real estate, and still not exceed a 32" reach in any where on the layout. This would of course involve a "Duck Under" crawling under the layout to access the pit, it is up to you whether that is worth the inconvenience to gain the extra layout width or not. I would not recommend a pit width of less than 30" at the minimum.

This option would allow 072 curves, and the ability to run almost anything ever produced for 3 Rail O Gauge.

Lots of options out there, Please ask any questions you have here on the forum, there are MANY of us here who Enjoy helping new comers to the Hobby,

Doug

Also another cost saving thing to remember, if you go with the 6' width, buy 12' long boards and cut, or have the store cut them to the length you need, rather than buying 8' lumber and throwing away 2' of each board.

Doug

I agree with the analysis here that 6'6" will allow an O-72 loop just barely missing the 3 foot reach rule.

I also have trainset locos and cars that are fine on O-27, but believe me they look even better at larger curves, I also have an 6'6" wide layout but mine is 12 ft long.

On the other hand, a smaller diameter will give you many more layout track plan possibilities.   You might be satisfied with O-54.   If you have track plan ideas you can post them and we will provide some comments.

-Ken

Here is one trackplan for O-72, 6'6" by 12 feet.   Just for ideas, this may be my next redo of my current layout, I have not decided.

Thank you Doug and RTR. So I was just thinking instead of making all these different cuts I was thinking that I could mark the board at 4' length wise and go up 15" and down 15" and mark those spots then mark 15" inward on both points and cut that out and do the same for the other board and but them together and have the 30" wide cut out in the center. Hopefully this makes sense haha. I would like to at least make an outside loop with O72 that way like you said would be able to handle every train out there.  

Ken. I actually don't have my layout design but I want the theme of my layout to be of the local steel mills in my region. I was thinking of going online to and seeing the geographical layout of the railroads surrounding the mills in my area and trying to get an idea of the layout off of that. 

Iraqvetusmc, actually, what I was describing would be easier, than what I am picturing you doing, and most of the big box hardware or lumber yards should be able to do the cuts for you, on the plywood.

Another thought if you are thinking about a large steel mill, you might consider a full sheet across each end, another full sheet lengthwise along one side, and an 18"x 96" section along the other side. This would still give you a 30" wide pit, off centered, but still keep everything within an easy reach in distance, this would give you a 48" wide area for a mill, and still leave a 18" wide "Backside" for your loops for continuous running. I mentioned it originally as a symmetrical 33" wide for each side section, because most new modelers tend to build symmetrically, and asymmetric layouts and benchwork tend to be built more often by more experienced modelers, but it is an idea worth considering for a feature that may need more real estate.

Doug

IRAQVETUSMC

Thanks for your service. Since you have room, try to find a reverse loop at each end plan that you like. That is so you can change direction without doing it by hand. Don't make your first layout too big or too complicated. You will probably change your focus a couple times and too big/too complicated means you could lose interest.

good luck and take plenty of progress pictures

Thanks Doug that does make sense. I believe I am picturing what you are getting at. 

GVDOBLER - Thank you for your service and Semper Fi. Did you end up over in Vietnam?

I do know what you mean by building the layout too big and getting overwhelmed with all of it. I will just have to do sections at a time and leave other spots bare. Are you suggesting instead of making a continuous loop around the layout to add reverse loops at each end or maybe a continuous inner loop and reverse outer loop? Also I hear that a lot of people are using Homasote board on top of their base plywood, is that kind of a given for most as it's supposedly the most durable? I was going to use the big 4 x 8 sheets of sound board foam which would be nice for sticking accessories into the foam but I feel that it might not be as forgiving if someone dropped something on it like an engine or car and it could gouge it or break apart. 

Another question is, what are some ideas I could use for the ground to make it look industrial and not like the average green grass turf style? I know some paint the board and sprinkle on the turf blend while the paint is still wet which is great idea and others use a simple section of turn mat and glue it onto the board. Since mine is industrial would it be easier to find maybe a dark brown turf mat and then add light turf on top of that with some rocks or something. 

I think it's smart to start with a smaller layout. My first layout was 6 x 8 which was about right for me. I made many mistakes, but the layout was small enough that I didn't get overwhelmed and was still able to finish. 

I like the ground material made by Woodland Scenics. It is easy to apply (they have videos on their website) and it comes in different colors including soil (dark brown) and earth (brown). I think it looks better than the turf mats.

Hello My friends, I like a 4x8 layout for my Marx trains and I also like the modular system to they both great too me. The 4x8 layout you can add on additions make bigger or wider what ever you need. These 2 systems the way to go I think. Thanks longbow57ca.

Knowing your inner engineer should help decide what you do. If you have your heart set on a huge or scale loco, you had better plan for it. If you have PW tendencies you'll never "need" those huge curves. Your 0-27 experience likely also gave you a built in" tolerance for overhang, lol. Or at least you know it bothers you. Will you switch, loop or both? A yard? Etc etc.
If your new to layouts, I'd start simple, and keep it simple, so you can grow with it. Its a bit different from a carpet central and FYI, you likely have tastes yet to be developed fully.

Many folks stand or use stools to watch. Some like them at eye level. I prefer chairs and couches. 30" off the floor is plenty for watching from a couch. 36" too high, especially with an elevated line to reach over and I dont mind an elevated view when standing. If young kids are involved they need to see too.

Number of lines? Three is perfect for one person IMO. I have four, but run only two or three most often.

Best suggestion I've heard: reverse loops. Which is basically a teardrop shaped track, connecting the two exits of a single turnout to reverse direction. It can have various forms and be better integrated with thought. Add this! Be it shunting, or looping, you won't be sorry. Plan the largest you can too, it limits train lengths. Make use of the 16' with at least one full straight away too.

3-4x8 sections to form a 16' long U and droopy dogbone it, controls on one end. You can always start with one 4x8 and expand when ready to too. Later expansion; the U to an E shape, by adding a thin yard about 2.5' wide in the center, fed off a wye. Even at different dimensions like two 5x8s and a 5x6, etc, I'm found of the U.

The 4' limits your curve dia. on the ends, but you can still have some huge sweeping curves between tables with planning, and everything remains within easy reach, even if you ad an el to reach over.

Building modular 4x8s over time, you could also focus a theme on each table. "Town", ore processing, the mill, open terrain, etc.

Don't rule out building vertically, as in up. You can have more interestingly spread curves by elevating a line leaving more options on each plane.

A problem with 8x16 is that the center of the layout is beyond a reasonable reach.  Consider a pop-up in center, or a horseshoe shaped table with a lift bridge between the points of the shoe.  If you've got the space, don't bother with an 8x4.  Also, reconsider use of O-27.  Broader curves look better, derail less, and widen possible loco selection, plus make backing up easier.  Gargraves flexible is a possibility.

It all comes down to personal preference, time, budget, etc. If you go too small and simple, like say a basic oval, you might become bored of watching a train go in circles. If you go too big, you may end up spending way more time and money than you wanted to and still may not be happy with the results. You have to decide what the main purpose of your layout will be and go from there. Are you more of a modeler or do you just want to run trains? 

Check youtube for ideas for layouts that may appeal to you. Plan, do your research, and try to spend once. I don't think too many people get it totally right the first time, but its all fun never the less. You definitely came to the right place for train knowledge though. The people on this forum are great. 

Please receive this in the positive spirit that it’s intended to be.  I hope to provide you with much “food for thought” for your future layout:

Many more numerous times than I can recall, for the past too many years, people have requested assistance in planning a layout.  Time after time, track arrangements are immediately shown and discussed.  Track arrangement is NOT planning a layout.  Obviously it is an important part.

Far too many times, regardless of scale, model railroaders end up with a collection of railroad engines and rolling stock from all over the place that circle and circle a loop(s) of track.  In the end, what do they have?

There are three main types of layouts:  Toy train layouts, Display layouts and Operational layouts.

A toy train layout doesn’t follow scale considerations and its purpose is to enjoy many trains and accessories and has a rainbow of railroads, actual and imaginary, not adhering to prototypical (actual) railroad modeling.  These layouts are almost always loops of track going pretty much nowhere all of the time.  This would include “starter sets.”    

A display layout is to show trains.  This layout may be a hybrid of toy train and operational model railroad layout or some combination thereof.  These layouts often contain multiple circles of tracks, with the tracks having no logical route, and allow the trains to be run with minimal human intervention.  A club modular layout would be an example.

An operational layout is set-up in a prototypical manner whereby the trains go from one point to another where they may drop off or pick up rolling stock simulating the actions and operation of a real railroad.  Typically, a specific railroad (or two) is selected and an operational theme is selected and followed.  The track arrangement is patterned after real life as well; meaning no circles or loops of track.

Again, without intending to upset anyone’s sensitivities, far too many model railroaders end up with a hodge-podge miss-mesh collection of railroad and rolling stock from the beginning of time to the modern day.  Their layouts aren’t very good as it is an illogical collection of unrelated items and time periods placed together.

You cannot let someone else tell you how to “plan” your layout unless you provide them with a multitude of details.  How can you or anyone else start to track “plan” when you or they don’t know what your railroad is supposed to be, where it is, what it is doing, etc.?

If you actually want to build a great model of a railroad, not just circle without rhyme or reason, you must first decide what it is you want and what you want your layout to look like when it’s completed.

People that haphazardly throw track arrangements together, via trial and error, will be disappointed in the end as they keep changing the arrangement over and over again seeking the perfect track plan that they will never find.

If you want to create a model of a railroad you must first decide:  What railroad(s) am I modeling?  What is my railroad doing?  (Freight, Passengers, Both or Other?)  Where is my railroad located and what other (if any) railroads is my line connected to?  When:  period of time am I modeling?   How will I research and gather all of the information required to construct a successful model of a railroad?

ALL truly great model railroads contain three essential elements:  Plausibility, Purpose and Participation.  Plausibility—is the design of the layout is believable even if it is entirely made up (free-lanced).  Purpose, ALL railroads have a purpose.  Your model of a railroad should have a purpose, a reason for being, how does it earn money to continue operating?  Finally, Participation!  This is where the fun comes in!  What will you or others at your railroad be doing?  If everyone is standing there simply watching the trains circle the same track with the same consist never changing direction and  seemingly going nowhere the fun won’t last long.

You, and others, need something to do.  The more you have to do, the more interaction is offered, the more enjoyment you will experience!  It is fun, entertaining and enjoyable to become part of a railroad crew.

BEFORE any track arranging can commence, you need to know the who, what, where, when, why and how of your layout.  The track arrangement for a switching operation is different from a main-line run.  A mountain route is different from a run along a seashore or prairie. 

If you are striving to create a model of a railroad attempt to get your trains going somewhere, not just circling.  I understand that people have limited space.  I did for years on end.  If your space is limited, plan a nice switching layout or small branch-line scene, maybe a logging operation?  There are numerous possibilities.    

If your space is limited, and you feel you must circle, use temporary on the floor track and circle to your heart’s delight!  When spending money to construct a layout surface and add scenery plan something nice for yourself and others.  Some spectacular layouts were/are 8 feet long and 18 inches wide.  It doesn’t have to circle or loop!

Most importantly, plan a point to point scheme.  Get the trains going somewhere.  Add return loops/reversing loops at both “ends” of your line so that a train may travel to the next town and then be turned around and return.  Have a siding at or near the ends of your line. 

Give your line a purpose.  You (or others) control the train.  Stop at the sidings.  Drop off and pick-up.  This will provide you participation and engage you in the activity.  I encourage and challenge you to stop running circles and loops. 

This is the irony of model railroading: real trains go from point to point and include much straighter track than curves.  In the model world, the vast majority of trains circle or loop, and there are far more curves.

I do appreciate that there are instances such as modular clubs that this wouldn’t apply.  I’m merely trying to help and suggesting to others to attempt to create a better design for a layout that will provide them with years of enjoyment.  Get involved with your trains!  Give yourself a part in the operations of your layout.  Get others involved!

Have fun!  But seriously consider the challenges and fun of modeling a railroad! 

My two cents. 

The only prototypical point-to-point RR in the US that I know of, other than tourist lines, is the Alaska RR.  All others have, at the most, one end point, the other end being a connection to the US rail network.

There's nothing wrong with a Hodgepodge RR, so long as the operator enjoys using it.

I would say, a layout should be no wider than six foot, providing there is access on either side. You have an absolute need to work in the interior of the layout from time to time without crushing scenary, signals and track. A long extension two by six, ( or whatever) is nice for storage tracks. I don't like short sidings.

8x16 can give a lot of options for running and operations, but 4x8 can also be fun, especially when it will be your first ever layout.

Check several examples of Small O gauge Layouts & Track Plans.

Below are just 3 of them, all in size 4x8:

Lionel 8x4 Fastrack Plan #2

Atlas 4x8 Industrial Track Plan #3

Lucasville O-gauge Train Layout (4x8)

Mixy

Thanks for all the good information everyone. There are so many options to take into considerations such as table height as I have a small child who needs to see. I actually have decided and committed to using Super O as I like the looks and its way cheaper than Atlas O or Scaletrax.  I recently bought a book on model train steel mill operations to give me an idea on how I need to layout the track for operations but I still want to have at least 1 loop so I can open hookup a long train just because. So I am considering the 6x8 to start with for a little larger curve radius and overall more room without being this humongous layout and not knowing how its all going to come together. I am not sure if 4x8 will be quite being enough for my mill operation between the modeling and the track.  I am afraid if I try to model the whole mill in a 4X8 space I may not have room for much track.

6x8 sounds like a good choice.  The curves can be a little broader, which is a great benefit if a child opens the throttle too fast.  I don't know about the availability of Super O, but Gargraves makes flexible track as well as a variety of preformed curves.

A continuous loop is essential when a child is involved.  It takes awhile to become familiar enough with operation to permit him/her to do switching.

Just be certain that you can easily reach everything.  30 inches is about the maximum reach any can reach waist high.  That means if you make your area 72 inches wide it will be inconvenient and troublesome to work near the center.

If space isn't an issue make a "walk-in" dogbone also called a waterwing layout.  If you position the layout just right, you can walk around it and in the center too.

In layout construction, people get stuck thinking rectangles and squares of plywood.  Make your boarda "U" shape so that you may walk in and around the layout.

At places where you would have to reach more than 30 inches provide access openings.  You'll be glad you did!

Do NOT NOT NOT plan any duck-under.  A duck-under is where you would have to crawl on your hands and knees routinely just to run the layout.  Don't do it!

And get away from circling!  It is much more interesting if a train can reverse its direction WITHOUT being physically touched.  reverse loops on both ends work well and get the train going from place to place, point to point, versus circling. 

I was just about to type my two cents, but I'm way past that.

From what I am gathering it sounds like everyone is here referring to doing a Horseshoe layout that way you can walk in and around the whole thing and it has a lot of space. I may consider that. Correct me if I am wrong but if you have the reverse loop doesn't that kind of limit you to how long the train can be and if to long going around the loop wouldn't it be more prone to derailing?

I have an excellent source locally for Super O. In my opinion Super O looks better than Gargraves and Atlas O and I can get Super O much cheaper that the rest.

Yes, reversing loops will limit the length of your trains, but you don't necessarily need reversing loops to get the effect of trains traveling in opposite directions. However, neither might make sense using Super O in 4X8 or even 6x8. Each example below fills something close to 4x11.

Example 1 is a loop-to-loop.
Example 2 is a dogbone showing how a train can appear to travel in both directions without turnouts and allow more than one train to run on the same tracks.
Example 3 is a folded loop-to-loop and you can see it still needs 4x11 to achieve a 4.8% grade, steeper than most here are comfortable with.

One thing they all show is that even a horseshoe will need a 48"x48" space to accommodate the loops so you can go from one end to the other. Both #1 & #2 show what a horseshoe would look like where you can walk into the middle. However, no matter what you do, you will still have a reach that is over 40" to get to the corner tracks and unless the layout will have access all around, you might need some access hatches to deal with potential derailments and maintenance.

So, unless you have more space, I think the 4x8 examples that were posted are more realistic. If the layout will have access all around, you really need to stick to the 30"-36" width. If you have a table wider that that, mark off 30" and 36", set a stack of books or something on it to simulate your steel mill and try to reach over it to fix a derailed car.

BTW, here's something I found for someone else looking for a 5x9 design. Looks like it might accomadate your steel mill idea.

https://ogrforum.com/t...n-from-fastrack-book

Thanks Dave.

That 5x9 fastrack layout does look pretty nice. The only thing I don't like about it is the mountain that's incorporated into the layout as I do not want to have any mountains in my layout because there are no mountains where I live haha.

Doesn't have to be a mountain, could be an elevated train like they have in Chicago.

USMC, I have been looking at google map where you live. You have a nice paper mill and a looks like a oil or a train fueling depot. You could turn the paper factory into a steel mill and just leave the oil tanks and fueling area as it is. I see everything around you is flat as a pancake!

Mike

Semper Fi. Actually I live in NW Indiana and we have 3 very large steel mills in my area but no paper mills haha. We also have the BP Whiting oil refinery. And yes the land here is very flat not much for rolling hills either.

Dave - Funny that you mentioned it, eventually what I had in mind on my layout is for the trains to leave out of the steel mill layout and head towards a Chicago themed layout so your right about the "EL" train.

Just to give you more ideas and how things can evolve over time.

The layout is 15.6ft by 10.5ft using AtlasO 054 curves.

This is how I envisioned my layout to look when I started over 2 years ago.  But when I actually started building it

I realized that the turntable was just not going to working the space that I had, also that i would have ZERO room for buildings, scenery elements, roads, etc, etc.  It would be 100% filled with track.

I deleted the turntable and reconfigured the Yard to have a place to park the Switching Yard Engine/Diesel Service

Facility and I find my siding can hold  4 medium size freight cars and an Engine.

Mathew has made an excellent example of big reverse loops via nicely placed turnouts. I couldn't easily put it into words how to do this, but as an admitted "looper",  I can't stress how much you'd enjoy the feature, or be sorry should you not yield to this advice.(like I failed to. ).

One feature that is ignored is to have one track on a very slight grade, ending in the track being only an inch higher that the other tracks, the "elevated" portion extending for a distance. Everyone thinks of an elevated line having to be high enough to cross another track. Not so. This will  provide the opportunity to add small trestles and culverts.