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.