# Why not 5x9 as the starter standard?



## Eilif

Why is a 4x8 the seemingly recommended starter size for HO or O scale trains? Ive been thinking a fair bit about this since I recently (a couple weeks ago) embarked on building an HO layout for my son.

I realize that, 4x8 is a standard sheet of plywood and/or insulation foam, but everything I've read seems to remind us that it's just not big enough (or just barely big enough) for curves that comfortably and semi-realistically accommodate all trains and it's small size greatly reduces the number of sidings and such. 

So, instead, why not 5x9, aka a ping pong table as a suggested standard for beginning railroaders? 

When one looks for "starter layouts" It seems to be almsot all 4x8. My 101 Track Plans book has no 9x5 layouts, just just one 4.5x8.5 and one 4.5x7.5. I realize it's a very old book, but my dad ran trains on his ping pong table as a kid in the 60's , so the idea couldn't be totally unheard of.

You can get one delivered from amazon for about $125 and while you probably wouldn't want to put your track/cork right on such a lightweight and potentially loud surface, even the cheapest ping pong table is probably sturdy enough to support a base couple pieces of insulation foam perhaps with some minor reinforcement. Used Ping Pong tables are incredibly common and often available for less than the cost of the wood that would be necessary for 4x8 benchwork.

Here in Chicago we are spoiled for used choices, and I found a very sturdy home made plywood 5x8 table for $50, but it wasn't anywhere near the lowest price (several were near $30) and flicking through craigslist in smaller towns I found similar deals.

For my last two points I'd note that assuming one has the space to get around it, it's only a 2.5 foot reach to the center. Lastly, imagine how much lower the mental barrier of entry would seem to someone without the desire to engage in carpentry if they are told that they don't have to build a table, they just have to buy a ping-pong table and glue a couple pieces of insulation foam to it!

Anywho, what do you all think? Should newbies be steered toward Ping Pong Tables instead of 4x8 sheets of plywood?


----------



## gunrunnerjohn

Well, it's the standard sheet of plywood, I think it's pretty much as simple as that.  Obviously, bigger is usually better for model train layouts, so 5x9 would be about 40% better.


----------



## Eilif

gunrunnerjohn said:


> 5x9 would be about 40% better.


That sounds about right to me!


----------



## deedub35

A 4x8 layout is pretty obtrusive as it is in a bedroom or wherever. A 5x9 even more so.


----------



## Bwells

You can purchase a 1/2x5x9 sheet of plywood from a lumber store but it is probably special order and may cost 60-70 dollars. You would still have to build the bench work though.
Excellent idea!!


----------



## Rip Track

I have a copy of Small Railroads You Can Build, published in 1954. Linn Wescott encourages readers to build a “ping-pong size table, 5 x 9 feet”. With the benchwork design he notes, “This is 3/8” plywood. The 5 x 9 ft. size is made especially for train tables.” Hmmm. 

He did say most lumber yards carry that size plywood. He also suggested using two 4x8 sheets, if the 5x9 could not be found. He explains how to cut the 4x8 sheets to make a 5x9.


----------



## Ko Improbable

Another factor is reach, as I understand it. My own reach, with hand set to pick something up, is twenty-six inches. You end up having to do extra planning for things that are thirty inches away from the edge, such as building in a trap door to access the middle of the layout, if you don't have long arms.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Personally, I'd rather see more beginning modelers advised to break out of the limitations imposed by a rectangular layout. A 4x8 square sheet of plywood with a 2' aisle all around gives you 32 square feet of layout occupying 9 square feet of floor space. A 2' wide donut in the same space gives you 64 square feet of layout space. Even a 2' wide U shape with lobes at each end is 60 square feet (or more) with a two foot aisle to enter the "cockpit" area.


----------



## Eilif

Interesting points all around.

I see the point of getting folks away from an oval/rectangular layout, but I think alot of folks enjoy the perpetual-motion-esque' feeling of trains going around a track and it's part of what draws many to toy/model trains. I think though that building more complex shaped layout, pushes the mental barrier to entry even further away. On the other hand I thought that perhaps a ping-poing table base could lower the bar even further than a simple 4x8 sheet.

As for reach, perhaps I didnt' give it enough thought. I'm a tall guy so a 30 inch reach is pretty easy for me. I can see where the difference between 24' and 30" could be significant.

I had no idea a book was published encouraging Ping Pong sized layouts. I guess when people stopped building their own ping-pong tables and stores stopped carrying that sized lumber there were alot less folks building those size layouts.


----------



## mesenteria

Eilif said:


> Interesting points all around.
> 
> I see the point of getting folks away from an oval/rectangular layout, but I think alot of folks enjoy the perpetual-motion-esque' feeling of trains going around a track and it's part of what draws many to toy/model trains.


So true. We have trained ourselves to flit from subject to interest, never spending more than the time it takes to stride past an 8' long store window to take in, consider, and to dismiss or accept as an interest anything we see there. We get trained that way on the internet. N'est-ce pas? We also taught ourselves to do that by accepting, falsely it turns out*, that multi-tasking is attainable, firstly, and then something worth developing a skill at doing. Then we kid each other that we are masters at this scattered way of attending to anything meaningful in our lives. 



Eilif said:


> ...
> 
> As for reach, perhaps I didnt' give it enough thought. I'm a tall guy so a 30 inch reach is pretty easy for me. I can see where the difference between 24' and 30" could be significant.
> 
> I had no idea a book was published encouraging Ping Pong sized layouts. I guess when people stopped building their own ping-pong tables and stores stopped carrying that sized lumber there were alot less folks building those size layouts.


This, too, is a symptom of the 'gotta have it...hey, I got this!' mentality we foster in our daily lives. How hard can it be placing two sturdy sawhorses under a ping-pong table/sheet of ply, and then pressing the ends of 30 pieces of very expensive tracks-with-fake-roadbed together and running those nifty little trains? I can even push a button on the ghastly expensive turnouts and make them turn by themselves just an inch from my fingers, and make the train divert onto a siding that serves no real purpose except for me to show the kids I can make the train divert onto this siding. Only a week later does everyone look at each other and say, "So, that's it?" My bet is they're back to their smart phones and tablets before the sawhorses have settled into the wall-to-wall carpet.

Okay, maybe I'm a wee bit cynical. :laugh:

*For some hard and objective research into the fad of multi-tasking, the late Prof. Clifford Nass of Stanford found eventually that the only people who could legitimately make a serious claim to being able to do it were those who have never attempted it. They were good for a few desperate minutes until their brains blew up. Those who professed to be inveterate multi-taskers, whether male or female, and across statuses such as single/married, parents or not, were quickly disabused by Nass' experiments. The error rates were astoundingly high across the practiced 'multi-taskers' in the lab, and those who were new and very determined to master it quickly followed in short order. If you think this is wrong, try running three locomotives at the same time on your layout. No automation, only one can run endlessly on your loop if you wish, but the other two must be manipulated by slowing, accelerating, stopping, reversing, etc, just as real locomotives do. Come back and tell us how easy it was.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Eilif said:


> Interesting points all around.
> 
> I see the point of getting folks away from an oval/rectangular layout, but I think alot of folks enjoy the perpetual-motion-esque' feeling of trains going around a track and it's part of what draws many to toy/model trains. I think though that building more complex shaped layout, pushes the mental barrier to entry even further away. On the other hand I thought that perhaps a ping-poing table base could lower the bar even further than a simple 4x8 sheet.


The problem is that while it may raise the barriers to ENTRY, it may actually lower the barriers to exiting. As Mesenteria says, too often people do this and say, "That's it?".

In my experience, operating trains somewhat like the real thing is where the real interest lies. That said, sometimes I DO like my trains to just, well, orbit, but since my layout is an inverted U with lobes at the ends, you can't see the whole layout at once, so it LOOKS like the train is actually going somewhere.


----------



## Eilif

mesenteria said:


> So true. We have trained ourselves to flit from subject to interest, never spending more than the time it takes to stride past an 8' long store window to take in, consider, and to dismiss or accept as an interest anything we see there. We get trained that way on the internet. N'est-ce pas? We also taught ourselves to do that by accepting, falsely it turns out*, that multi-tasking is attainable, firstly, and then something worth developing a skill at doing. Then we kid each other that we are masters at this scattered way of attending to anything meaningful in our lives.
> 
> 
> 
> This, too, is a symptom of the 'gotta have it...hey, I got this!' mentality we foster in our daily lives. How hard can it be placing two sturdy sawhorses under a ping-pong table/sheet of ply, and then pressing the ends of 30 pieces of very expensive tracks-with-fake-roadbed together and running those nifty little trains? I can even push a button on the ghastly expensive turnouts and make them turn by themselves just an inch from my fingers, and make the train divert onto a siding that serves no real purpose except for me to show the kids I can make the train divert onto this siding. Only a week later does everyone look at each other and say, "So, that's it?" My bet is they're back to their smart phones and tablets before the sawhorses have settled into the wall-to-wall carpet.
> 
> Okay, maybe I'm a wee bit cynical. :laugh:
> 
> *For some hard and objective research into the fad of multi-tasking, the late Prof. Clifford Nass of Stanford found eventually that the only people who could legitimately make a serious claim to being able to do it were those who have never attempted it. They were good for a few desperate minutes until their brains blew up. Those who professed to be inveterate multi-taskers, whether male or female, and across statuses such as single/married, parents or not, were quickly disabused by Nass' experiments. The error rates were astoundingly high across the practiced 'multi-taskers' in the lab, and those who were new and very determined to master it quickly followed in short order. If you think this is wrong, try running three locomotives at the same time on your layout. No automation, only one can run endlessly on your loop if you wish, but the other two must be manipulated by slowing, accelerating, stopping, reversing, etc, just as real locomotives do. Come back and tell us how easy it was.


Good heavens that's alot of words. 

I don't really think it's necessary to denigrate those who like trains going around as necessarily being somehow being wooed by an instant gratification culture.

Rather I would suggest the more simple and neutral explaination that there is just so much nostalgia and satisfaction tied up in the revolution of trains around a track. It's just a stock element of Christmas movies, displays and the childhood of so many that we gravitate towards it. I know I did and do. I loved running trains around my loop as a child.

As for the topic of this thread, I'd point out also that a 5x9 layout still gravitates toward a long loop, but provides quite a bit more space than a 4x8 making it easier to have things such as a 2nd simultaneious loop, more complex switching yards, more elevation, a hidden line/loop etc..


----------



## mesenteria

Eilif said:


> Good heavens that's alot of words.
> 
> I don't really think it's necessary to denigrate those who like trains going around as necessarily being somehow being wooed by an instant gratification culture.


I don't see that I'm denigrating them since I enjoy that part of the hobby myself. Daily. However, like I expect they do, I had to teach myself how to get the most out of the hobby. The facile and instant approach is what fuels puppy mills, disastrous $199 Christmas telescopes with "300 times magnification", and memberships at health spas and gyms after Christmas that have exactly two punches on the 31 spot ticket.



Eilif said:


> Rather I would suggest the more simple and neutral explaination that there is just so much nostalgia and satisfaction tied up in the revolution of trains around a track. It's just a stock element of Christmas movies, displays and the childhood of so many that we gravitate towards it. I know I did and do. I loved running trains around my loop as a child.


As did I. Until recently, I did the Christmas train loop in an elaborate Christmas and snowy setting. It was always nice for a few minutes.



Eilif said:


> As for the topic of this thread, I'd point out also that a 5x9 layout still gravitates toward a long loop, but provides quite a bit more space than a 4x8 making it easier to have things such as a 2nd simultaneious loop, more complex switching yards, more elevation, a hidden line/loop etc..


Yes, this is so. For those of us with some discovery time in the hobby, our first thoughts might be to appreciate the potential for wider curves as a desired improvement. It opens up to fewer uncouplings, less stringlining, longer cars than 60', larger locomotives in some cases, and a generally more realistic appearance when viewed from the normal tall viewing position. It might be the first time someone actively considers using flex track since the larger space opens up so many new possibilities, including the yard, overpasses and gentler grades, and I have yet to meet a hobbyist who regrets their attempts to use flex track.

BTW, I used to teach Astronomy to youth when I was active in that hobby years ago. I always warned their listening parents, via my urging to their children, that the department store wares were likely to become dust collectors or regretful conversation pieces with guests because of their poor construction and materials. But, every year, well-intentioned parents snap them up from Costco, Sears, and other places that bring them in just for this purpose.


----------



## EForbes

I use the ping pong table, 4x8 is good for N scale not HO, the curves are too tight.


----------



## Eilif

EForbes said:


> I use the ping pong table, 4x8 is good for N scale not HO, the curves are too tight.


I agree. Every foot counts. Since I started this thread I re-measured the table I bought and it was not 8x5 as advertised, rather it is 9x5. I rejiggered my track plan and just one foot of additional length was really nice.

I've only just started construction of the foam layers, but just looking at my track plan I can't imagine the comprimises I would have had to make on an 8x4.


----------



## EForbes

Sounds cool, i use the table due to space limitations, i would use my entire garage if it were just up to me


----------



## Djsfantasi

Limiting oneself to a 4x8 (or similar common size in HO) comes about because of mental limitations we put on ourselves.

I urge people to research L-girder benchwork. You can build wide areas with arcs for edges to turn loops around. You can build narrow areas for yards and stations. You can lay the track in gentle curves for scenic effect.

You can lay all of this out in a small bedroom, taking up less room than a 4x8. And use that 4x8 sheet for the entire layout. if the lumber at your local store isn’t straight or has knots, L girder can be used easier than open grid benchwork. If there is a joist where a switch machine goes. Open girder can be a nightmare; L girder can account for that problem by moving one screw. 

I can’t describe it all here. Google for Linn Westcott L Girder Benchwork.


----------



## shortwrench

I have a 5 x 10 HO layout. There are photos of it in my post "My small HO layout" in the "My Layout" 
discussion. Originally I planned on having rectangular opening in the middle but a friend persuaded 
me to not to do that because it left out a lot of real estate for track, buildings, and scenery. I didn't 
realize it at the time but having track curves at radii greater than 18" really enhanced the look of my 
SD70 and 50-60 ft rolling stock running around the layout. Having the additional space really eliminates
many of the constraints of a 4 x8 footprint.


----------



## Chops124

Ko Improbable said:


> Another factor is reach, as I understand it. My own reach, with hand set to pick something up, is twenty-six inches. You end up having to do extra planning for things that are thirty inches away from the edge, such as building in a trap door to access the middle of the layout, if you don't have long arms.


That there is the problem. A number of Wescott’s theoretical track plans appeared to ignore how one accessed the center. Perhaps being suspended on a wire, like Tinker Bell would the trick.


----------



## shortwrench

I use a small step stool when accessing the middle of the layout so the benefits of 5 ft wide outweighs the 
detriments.


----------



## CTValleyRR

5' is 60". Half of that is 30". Not by coincidence, 30" is a good thumb rule for useable reach for a model Railroader.

Since there seems to be some appetite to revisit this 3 year old subject, I'll weigh in. No table. Construct a series of modules of light lumber or L girder framing, and use an extruded foam board (or several, laminated together) as the surface.

How wide? No more than 30" from any accessible edge. And design your layout FIRST, that way you know what shape(s) and how big your modules need to be. You can also BUILD module by module, freeing yourself from the necessity (and often, the intimidation) of building the whole thing at once.


----------



## Eilif

Interesting to see my old topic pop up again. Still slowly working on my 5x9. I actually expanded it out to 5x9.75 by sticking an 8 inch wide strip in middle of the two halves. Haven't finished anything more than the two outer loops but as I'm laying out the inner arrangement I'm very glad to have the extra length and width.

L girder is good for alot of folks, but my ping ping table knocked out alot of time and expense. A big rectangle with one short end against a wall remains the best solution for the attic room I'm working with due to doorway and bump out. 

Might expand it out along a wall someday though in that case I'll probably build build it as a shelf and might dispense with a frame altogether.


----------



## CTValleyRR

Time and expense saved on the front end often ends up resulting in wasted effort later. If you really want a rectangle, and that's all you'll ever want / need, then it may truly be a savings. When I came back in the hobby 20 (wow!) years ago, I started with a 4x8. Shortly afterwards, I realized that wasn't going to suit my needs. I was able to tweak the benchwork / tabletop into a 5x9, later pushing it to 5x10-1/2, but it never felt quite right. I'm now building a 12x17 C shaped layout. In modules. If I had started that way the first time, I'd be time and money ahead now, even if it was 2 or 3 modules forming that original rectangle.


----------



## Chops

I seen your layout posts, Shortwrench. I got to say you completely changed my mind on the subject. I thought anything wider than a two foot reach was totally impractical. For anyone interested, Shortwrench's layout is under the Thread Title "My Small HO Layout," click the link below. If I rebuild one of my 4x8's I am going with a 5x9 and get the step stool. I was amazed how much more you could do in that space. Did you design your own track plan?









My small HO layout


It's been 2 years since I started a 5 ft x 10 ft HO layout which fits the space available. Track is a folded figure 8 with a passing siding, small yard, industry spurs, and a track which can be used as a reversing track. Track height is 43" with 2" foam on L girder frame. I like modern diesels...




www.modeltrainforum.com


----------



## Andy57

I see this thread was bumped up. I had read it after it came up in a search I did back in October.
I will explain why I quoted post #8.
I started with a 4X8 with HO. I than expanded to 4X12 still HO. I than took up HO and put down O fast track. It was just round and round with a siding. Playing with track planning software on what I wanted to do was making it look better on 5X12. My search found this thread. Reading post #8 got my gears turning. Long story short, my 4X12 became 30 inches X12 mounted against south wall with 3 legs and 18 inches mounted against north wall same. East and west wall connected with 18 inches wide with a removable 52 inch board. Now I have a parallel track around the whole thing with a siding and yard on the 30 inch wide side. And an area approx. 5 X 10 to stand in inside. I can and might expand 18 side to 30 with another yard.
My point being, many of you long time posters have typed things a couple of years and even ten years ago I have found very helpful and I thank all of you.


----------



## Andy57

I tried to quote it.


CTValleyRR said:


> Personally, I'd rather see more beginning modelers advised to break out of the limitations imposed by a rectangular layout. A 4x8 square sheet of plywood with a 2' aisle all around gives you 32 square feet of layout occupying 9 square feet of floor space. A 2' wide donut in the same space gives you 64 square feet of layout space. Even a 2' wide U shape with lobes at each end is 60 square feet (or more) with a two foot aisle to enter the "cockpit" area.


----------



## shortwrench

Reply to Chops question-yes, I did come up with the trackplan. The folded figure 8 came from a 
N scale layout on a hollow core door my son and I built a number of years ago. It allowed for a 
lot of running in a modest space. Many times I just let a train run while I'm working on something
at the workbench. Attached is a photo of the center of the layout-an area which I called the
donut hole.










I wanted a small yard and some spurs to support rail served industries. For a long time the 
donut hole was vacant as I was doing the "paper doll" phase of making paper outlines 
of buildings and roads, pushing them around in various configurations. At the same time 
I was trying to figure out a way to turn locos around which led to addition of the track at the 
end of the yard to the team track. Kind of a roundabout method but it works. Originally I
planned to have the back of the layout against the wall with an opening in the middle. Moving
it 18 inches away from the wall allows for all around access-eliminating the center opening,
resulting in the utilization of the donut hole center space.


----------



## T-Man

If 4 by 8 is a standard start, the next jump is to double it if room permits.


----------



## 65446

Not sure, but, I believe buying two 4x8s would still be cheaper than special ordering one 5x9.. So...
What you could do is build the benchwork for a 5x9 surface. Then have lumber yard cut a 1'x8' slice off one of the sheets plus a 1'x1' to complete the 9' length and attach it and the 4x8 onto bench top..


----------



## Chops

Yeah, I have the same experience time to time. This thread has been useful to teaching an old dog new tricks.


----------

