Why all the Hate for the 4x8?

Hate is a hard word. I honestly don't hate anything about this hobby. That said, the trend as I see it is moving more and more towards scale sized locomotives and rolling stock. A 4x8 is just not conducive to operating the majority of my collection.

For post war traditional sized sets, a 4x8 layout is a perfect starting point. The arched fascia on my attic layout started out as design for a 7x11 layout.  

Just my $0.02

Don't have a problem with 4x8 , the mistake was not asking questions about what track would fit 4x8. An assumption was made that 048 fastrack would work on 4x8.It will not, no one’s fault but the writers, resulting in an addition of 15 inches to each piece (3) of 4x8 that was used, resulting in a purchase of 060 and 072 track, there is stack of 048 on the shelve.

Do not know why this was written but here it is. FOLKS-NEW FOLKS IN THE HOBBY, please save some money and ask questions.

There are several experts on this forum, writer not included.

Brent

Like Tom said, it isn't about hating the 4'x8', it's about wanting more.

I think it is pretty straight forward why the 4'x8' is the standard starter size for all scales. Grab a sheet of plywood at the lumber yard (old school) a few 1x4's and some 2x4's and you're off to the races.

Shortly after doing that, you discover the limitation of the 4' dimension, you want wider curves! So begins the expansion. For 3 rail you want to get out to 7'. Next you need more straight between your curves, etc, etc, etc, until you fill all available space.

Then you build a house with a huge basement...

Even for smaller radius track, I think the opening up a little (to even 5x9 if not 6x10) can offer more variety in the track arrangements you can do (switches, figure 8 based layouts  that go beyond a traditional "8" pattern, etc).

No hating here, whatever makes people happy!   I had a 4x8 HO layout growing up.

-Dave

A 4x8 sheet of plywood got everyone of us started.

Rod Miller

I didn't know there was "hate" for a 4x8.

Dennis

Kevin,

I am currently planning a layout using the 4 x 8. Just twenty five or thirty of them.

The hobby magazines seem to focus on large elaborate layouts which are often beyond the means of mainstream modelers. If there was more coverage of interesting affordable smaller layouts, it would help more people get started in the hobby.

I have no hate for the 4X8, but train mfgs do!!!  Only the starter sets are designed to be run on them due to the O31 curve limit.   The items they push on the market are LARGER than O31 curve so your choices are very limited.   I still have my original 4X8 from my childhood and recently "upgraded" to a landscaped 4X10 complete with everything but the trains to run on it.  I got it for a THIRD of what it cost to build and its ready to run!!  Someday I'll clear off the plasticville buildings and such, remodel it and expand it, but for now it fits my train room nicely.

Thanks for the replies so far.  I've used 4x8's, HCD's and 30x72 plastic folding tables in my short time back in the hobby.  

Dennis - there may not be "hate" for the 4x8 here, but in other discussions, especially HO, it seems to me it is looked at with disdain.

Ace posted:

The hobby magazines seem to focus on large elaborate layouts which are often beyond the means of mainstream modelers. If there was more coverage of interesting affordable smaller layouts, it would help more people get started in the hobby.

Ace, unfortunately I think that's the way with magazine industry as the point is to sell magazines and advertising.   I've seen the same thing for years with car magazines.  Every month there is a super car on the cover that 90% of the readers will never purchase much less see one in person on the street.  But that's what moves magazines, the dream of attaining something that may be beyond reach.  If they had Accords and Malibus on the covers, the magazines would never leave the rack, never mind the fact that the bulk of the readers are probably driving middle range cars like the 2 that I just mentioned. 

Bermuda Ken posted:

I have no hate for the 4X8, but train mfgs do!!!  Only the starter sets are designed to be run on them due to the O31 curve limit.   The items they push on the market are LARGER than O31 curve so your choices are very limited.   I still have my original 4X8 from my childhood and recently "upgraded" to a landscaped 4X10 complete with everything but the trains to run on it.  I got it for a THIRD of what it cost to build and its ready to run!!  Someday I'll clear off the plasticville buildings and such, remodel it and expand it, but for now it fits my train room nicely.

Bermuda Ken, the Plasticville fits perfectly!  If anything, add some more 

I certainly have no hate for 4x8 layouts. As with a lot of people, my first layout was on a 4x8  piece of silver-painted plywood, which accommodated my original O-31 layout, with a couple of O22 switches making a nice through siding. My present layout is just a magnification of that, and includes those same switches. And, yes, I have a lot of Plasticville, too.

I personally prefer 5x5 foot sheets of Baltic birch....for a number of reasons.

but, to answer the OPs original question, I believe the answer lies in the options of curved track sections available.

I don't see any "hate" for the 4x8, especially since so many of us started with that in one scale or another. However, if you MUST stick to that single 4x8 sheet of plywood, I might suggest using O-48 FasTrack in place of the H.O. track in this little gem (you're going to lose the passing sidings, though):

The H.O.G. is an 8x9 layout (12" deep tables) created by cutting up a single sheet of plywood into 12" wide strips, cutting 12" of two of them, then making diagonal cuts to make the corner gussets. Instead of the 18" radius (O-36) limit of the 4x8, you can run a 24" radius (O-48) or even 30" radius (O-60) if you so choose.

Just a thought.

You can get 5x10 plywood, cost aint cheap though.

Someone laminted mine top for fun, pressed with 2x4 cribwork and a pickup truck on top. Wouldnt take a dime; wanted the wood gone.

You can barely fit 027, O, and Super O together on 48 inches, so Im sorry but I caved in, 4.5x9.  I wanted a FEW inches for scenery.

....., but wanted a siding more,,.. and then a platform too. Then I built up. An el.

 The reach is the best reason to build small. Mobility another. It may also eventually be moved and become part of something larger. I see my " little" layout as a module. Id like a group of them, each in different stand alone themes, all interconnected by two main lines.

AGHRMatt posted:

I don't see any "hate" for the 4x8, especially since so many of us started with that in one scale or another. However, if you MUST stick to that single 4x8 sheet of plywood, I might suggest using O-48 FasTrack in place of the H.O. track in this little gem (you're going to lose the passing sidings, though):

The H.O.G. is an 8x9 layout (12" deep tables) created by cutting up a single sheet of plywood into 12" wide strips, cutting 12" of two of them, then making diagonal cuts to make the corner gussets. Instead of the 18" radius (O-36) limit of the 4x8, you can run a 24" radius (O-48) or even 30" radius (O-60) if you so choose.

Just a thought.

Matt, I really wish I had seen this layout design before I built my layout. I'm going to use this a a base for a design for a buddy. BTW you can use a combination of O48 and O36 to get a wider radius curve on a 48 inch wide piece of plywood. That's what I did on my layout.

I agree with PLCProf...the problem is the small room or the space available for a model train layout. The venerable 4' x 8' eats up a lot of people space. So, around the room solves that.

The second problem with limited space is the track to scenery ratio.

Lastly, I have found (look at some small space designs) that the smaller layout requires a of lot switches to keep it interesting. This causes the budget shock.

But, haters, I don't think so. If you read or talk to someone that's hating on any model railroad get away from them. A model railroader does what they can with the resources available to them and that's good enough for me.

I think some people look down on 4 by 8 layouts because it typifies the toy train layouts that lucky children had.

My current layout is 5 by 8, built with a 4 by 8 sheet with a 1 foot extension. It was 5 by 9, with a 1 foot extension on the end too. But I needed a bit more room for other things, so off it came.

I plan to build in this room a layout of 5' 8' because that's all the room I have to do so. Why not 4' x 8' I would like to have more than one loop and need minimum of O42 for some of my engines. So I will go with O54 to help the over hang somewhat . 4' x 8' I believe is the start of every great railroad empire. 

I plan to build in this room a layout of 5' 8' because that's all the room I have to do so. Why not 4' x 8' I would like to have more than one loop and need minimum of O42 for some of my engines. So I will go with O54 to help the over hang somewhat . 4' x 8' I believe is the start of every great railroad empire. 

Mine has an outer loop with 042 curves, no switches or uncoupling tracks. That allows me to run absolutely anything on it.

The inner loop has standard "O" gauge curves, with switches and uncoupling tracks.

Probably just that 'Bigger is better!' thing.....like the infatuation with nearly bi-annual manufacturing runs of Big Boys.

Maybe a new trend should be started....sorta like the Nixon-era's 'Ping-Pong Diplomacy' thing: Layouts based on a sheet of 'ping-pong' plywood......2.74 m long and 1.525 m wide, which is about 9 by 5 feet.   Larger lumberyards either have them in stock (finish carpenters love them for custom furniture/interior work for their larger size, multiple plies, smooth surface, flatness, stability, etc.) or can special order them.   For our great hobby, they graciously allow for larger radius curves in the design of a small layout.  And, since storage and play space for ping-pong tables is a fairly common/accepted practice in the home, interior real estate/zoning agents should have little argument against its accommodation. 

No, not cheap....by big-box store standards for 4X8 sheets of 'plywood' imported from the Ho Hum Woodworks, Ltd of Wangbang, China.  But when the hours of fun and enjoyment will come from a $XXX locomotive...or two...powered by a $YYY  whizbang control system, and a few $ZZZ of cars/accessories .......who's pinching pennies at the starting point?.....right?

And, as for the memories of fourbyeight disdain from the Haughty Obnoxious crowd, ...phooey on them!

FWIW, always...

KD

To any 4x8 haters.

Here is a link to  4x8  I built and still have which was based on the D-190 display layout.  Lots of accessorizes and a fairly long track run (engine is not chasing the caboose).

https://ogrforum.com/t...yout-updated-7122012

It is also on a wheeled frame made from Harbor Freight moving dollies.

Follow the money. Look at what is being promoted and see who gains by being attracted to that message.

A sheet of 4' X 8' plywood sells the set and loop and sets the hook.  Drooling over media photographs and diagrams sells reading material and encourages dissatisfaction with what you have.  New or unique anything is designed to entice your dollars and tickle that itch.  The message is frequently "Buy (or build) our _________and you will be satisfied".

It has been said "If you are not satisfied with what you have you will not be able to be satisfied with what you want".  IMO, for joy in the hobby,  pursue contentment with peace.   

I should have listened to my mother when  she said "Your eyes are bigger than your stomach".

I am building far more than my Daytimer and birth date  allows.

BTW, 4' X 10' , 5' X 9' and 5' X 10' are available sheet sizes in the greater Delaware Valley. Not in box stores.

I use a pair of 1 1/8" X 5' X 10' sheets in my work shop  and stock 4' X 10' for longer one piece spans.

5' X 9' Ping Pong plywood makes for a great HO island layout.  At average heights an average person can reach everything.

 

Question on the venerable 4x8 on why there are so many in the hobby (in all scales) against it. 

Are you sure there are "so many" - I wasn't aware that there were such. 

Maybe it's just a small number of vocal folks on the internet and mags? Maybe not really representative of the majority and of reality?  Maybe it's not worth the electrons being expended on this worry or concern.

Why does anyone really care - do what you want and have fun.  Why do folks worry so much about what others claim to be "right"?  Think for yourself and question authority!

Ace posted:

The hobby magazines seem to focus on large elaborate layouts which are often beyond the means of mainstream modelers. If there was more coverage of interesting affordable smaller layouts, it would help more people get started in the hobby.

Yes. CTT had a section called Railroading in a Small Space, or something titled similarly, from time to time in their magazine. Things like this are very useful to the majority of operators.

As has been said many times, in much of the country, houses don't have basements, or folks live in apartments or townhouses, etc., or for whatever reason they don't have the space or resources or time available to build large layouts. I'd say the vast majority of operators fall into this group. Looking at much of the writing about O gauge (including this Forum oftentimes), some people seem to forget this reality.

As has been said many times, in much of the country, houses don't have basements, or folks live in apartments or townhouses, etc., or for whatever reason they don't have the space or resources or time available to build large layouts. I'd say the vast majority of operators fall into this group. Looking at much of the writing about O gauge (including this Forum oftentimes), some people seem to forget this reality.


I have long felt that this emphasis on big is detrimental to "growing the hobby". Interested folks pick up a magazine, and/or read the discussions, and come away thinking that they just don't have the space. (or money) to build those layouts.

Gentlemen,

    While it is true that the newer trains are engineered for a bigger layout design, 4x8 layouts are easily adapted to the newer trains.  In fact my multi-level Christmas layouts fit on 4x8 and smaller Platforms without any problem.  I use both FasTrack and RealTrax and cut custom close out pieces with my Rockwell X2 portable table saw, as needed to complete the track design.  Using the correct track design and engineering knowledge 4x8's are still viable for our O gauge Train layouts.

PCRR/Dave

breezinup posted:

 

As has been said many times, in much of the country, houses don't have basements, or folks live in apartments or townhouses, etc., or for whatever reason they don't have the space or resources or time available to build large layouts. I'd say the vast majority of operators fall into this group. Looking at much of the writing about O gauge (including this Forum oftentimes), some people seem to forget this reality.

Excellent post, Breezin.  I, personally, have found much satisfaction looking at well done, "medium" sized, O scale layouts.....that I loosely define as 16-25 feet in length.

If I had the space to build something that big, I'm sure I would.....but for many people, it's hard/impossible to fit something bigger than 20 feet wide between their walls.

I remember when 16x25 would have been considerd larger than most.

I call medium anything that reach is difficult on or under 20' long.

Large impossible reach or over 20ft long. 

Huge is anthing more than I'd want to build alone

Ceiling, or carpet layouts bring in more comparative descriptions.

Currahee!

Amfleet25124 posted:

Question on the venerable 4x8 on why there are so many in the hobby (in all scales) against it.  There are already endless discussions on the internet that say it takes up too much space in the room, the plywood could be better used if cut into 2 foot wide strips for a switching layout, it’s too far to reach over, etc., etc., etc..

Maybe I’m missing something here, but how is that any different than a 6x10 (unless the majority of 6x10’s are in basements) which doesn’t get the same amount of flak as the 4x8?  Looks like the same space eating 2 feet on all 4 sides to me.  I’ve seen many photos of small to medium size layouts on the internet and magazines that have 4 or more feet of spacing against a wall with nary a mention of a cut-out for access to the rear.  I’m guessing that topside creepers are used in those cases, but how is that any different for a placing a 4x8 layout against the wall?

Just like I’ve seen 6x10’s with the center cut out, I’m sure that there’s someone out there that has a 4x8 with a 2x6 center cut out to operate it.

The significant difference that I can see between the 4x8 and the 6x10 is that the 6x10 requires extra carpentry skills instead of having everything already pre-cut for you (foam, lumber, etc.) at the store.  Is there a hobby elitist aspect to the hate? 

I have had a few 4x8 boards.If you do not do it right they will warp.They are hard to carry.I had apartment one I built a small o gauge layout.I was on the secound floor.It was not easy going up the stairs and around corners.By myself I should have asked for help.Thing is I had just moved in.I would have gotten foam board instead.

Bermuda Ken posted:

I have no hate for the 4X8, but train mfgs do!!!  Only the starter sets are designed to be run on them due to the O31 curve limit.   The items they push on the market are LARGER than O31 curve so your choices are very limited.   I still have my original 4X8 from my childhood and recently "upgraded" to a landscaped 4X10 complete with everything but the trains to run on it.  I got it for a THIRD of what it cost to build and its ready to run!!  Someday I'll clear off the plasticville buildings and such, remodel it and expand it, but for now it fits my train room nicely.

 

I've been following this thread with interest and despite my urge not to, I wanted to chime in. 

There is nothing wrong with a 4x8 - most of my layouts have been 4x8s. Below are photos of my current layout. I recently just added a small 4x4 extension. Not because I was bored, just because I wanted to. 

Personally, I like running "train sets", or at least, train set length trains. I don't like running a million cars. 4 or 5 cars is just fine by me. Not to mention, you can run PLENTY of stuff. It isn't just 0-27 trains. I have scale diesels - SD90, GP9, etc. All run fine on 031 curves. MTH Railking is most of my stuff. I just got another MTH Imperial ES44, have an MTH SCALE Dash 8 that glides around the layout. Some may say it doesn't look good but hey, looks fine to me! Of course, I've got plenty of smaller diesel switchers and the like. 

As for steam - I do have the small engines - 4-4-2s, 0-6-0s, etc. I always enjoy running my MTH Railking Imperial Y6B (2-8-8-2 - big engine!), my N&W Williams J 4-8-4, which is NOT a small loco, Postwar steam and more. 

Before I built the 4x4 bump out, I could run 3 trains and a trolley. Now I can run 4 trains and a trolley. I have every intention of adding another elevated trolley line in the near future. It may get a bit stale occasionally but I pull another train off the shelf, do some switching, etc and it is fun again! I've been asked by a few folks with limited space for input on getting the most out of their layout. As one person said "You're an expert and jamming a lot into a little spot....."

I should also mention - this has all been done in my basement in my house - a townhouse! Could I build layouts 2 or 3 times the size of what I have now? Sure I could! Plenty of room. Granted I'd have to do it all in stages to keep the wallet happy but do I intend to do it? Nope. Only other enlargement of my current layout I'm considering is taking my club module and modify it to act as a yard/siding but that isn't something that will happen in the near future, if at all. I do plan to add another trolley line, a bump and go in the near future, if a certain engine (not naming names!) in my collection will keep running and stop quitting on me! Also, of course, if my pre-orders don't just show up at once like they have!

This is where you can see the 4x4 addition I added. 

This was my previous layout, which started as a 2 train 4x8. It grew with another small 4x4 bump out. 

That 4x8 above grew with another 4x4 bump out. 

In between the current layout and the old layout above, I built some temporary 4x8s below. I couldn't decide what I wanted to do so these layouts only lasted a few months at most. 

Great work above,↑↑↑ SJC

Thanks for all of the input folks.  Maybe the feeling of disdain for the 4x8 isn't as prevalent on this side of the world (O) than in others.

Getting ready to do another 4x8 in a months time... my Halloween layout 

I started with a 4x8. Had a good time with it then the bug bit and I added a 2x8 piece and it became a 6x8. Then added a 4x5 'L' extension which then grew another 7 feet. I've done a lot more since I took these pictures, but you get  the idea. This took four years.

It is too bad that IMO so many topics and conversations revolve around large layouts.  No question they are terrific.   But we are missing out on seeing many great small layouts and the creativity and imagination that goes along with them.  I'd love to see some included in the magazine or shared via a post.

I've had big and small (mostly small) layouts and I can honestly say I've gotten the same pleasure from both.   I generally don't pay any mind to anyone who feels the need to rain on another hobbyist's parade simply because is is different from their own. 

Big or small makes no difference. As long as your layout gives you pleasure and fun, then you have the  perfect layout.  

Ed

Amfleet25124 posted:

 Maybe the feeling of disdain for the 4x8 isn't as prevalent on this side of the world (O) than in others.

Try asking about a "Rabbit Warren" among a group of English folks and youll find scowling is not just for other scales. And their homes tend to be even smaller.

Snobbing is universal; human nature from fun or serious, rich and poor alike.

Nice post...and layout....DennyM.  Going from a "simple" loop to an L really makes a big difference/improvement.

I had actually drawn up a neat L for myself....but changed that to the Layout Drawing that I just posted b/c I could only make the L work with 0-72 on the outer and 0-63 on the inner main lines......and I opted for bigger curves over the L.

Just go to YouTube and type "Lionel 4x8" in the search box and there's all kinds of layouts there. Some are very creative, given the space allowed. There's one in particular that I like alot, very creative, pics below;

If you can't expand outward, go upward......

"Hate" is an awful term in anyone's vocabulary, IMO.. We all start 'somewhere' and typically it's a 4x8 sheet of plywood on the floor or wherever.. At times, I see too many judgemental posts about this and that on this forum and on other forums also..  The bottom line is we should be in this together!!! Not everyone has 'deep' pockets and/or a 3000 square foot area or bigger to build an 'empire'.. Or the skills..  My current layout is 4x10.. I'm in the process of building a bigger layout that is within my financial means and limited by space available to me.. I have 'fun' when I have a derailment on the back side of my layout.. PIA, yes, but it was the area I had to work with at the time..If anyone finds my post offensive, I apologize in advance.. Just my $.02.................

But it made for a very catchy title!