# 4'x4' HO layout. Looking for ideas and info



## jargonlet

I got asked to build a small HO layout for a friends elderly father who was an HO modeler for many years. He has recently had to move from his apartment into assisted living and would like to be able to have another layout as his old HO layout has been dismantled. They are on a limited budget and have limited space. I am told they have 4'x4' but I am going to ask them if he can spare 3'x5'. The first step is to get the bench work and track layed.

That is currently all they have asked me to build but I may end up building the entire layout when all is said and done. 

I have been having trouble finding track plans for a 4'x4' HO but I haven't looked for any 3'x5' plans as I don't know if that space will work. They did say that he would have access on three of the four sides. 

Any info or advise would help as this will be my first venture into HO as I am an N and Z scale modeler.


----------



## bluenavigator

4' x 4' Layout is pretty small for the HO scale... largest circle can be done with 16 22" radii tracks, yielding 44" diameter circle, leaving barely 1 1/2" on each side, all around. Small one would be with 12 15" radii tracks, making 30" circle. 

Have he consider shelf layout instead of 4 by 4 table? This would involves lot of switching around. It would be more easier to access the entire area, this way.


----------



## Cycleops

I found these plans for a mining layout in 4' x 4' in an old copy of Model Trains International. As it says it's better suited for NG but you could use a small four axle diesel like the Bachmann 44t.


----------



## DonR

Cycleops has an excellent suggestion.

What could make it even more interesting is to use HOn3, HO track
but scale mining/logging locomotives and the smaller cars that
were used with them.

http://www.modeltrainstuff.com/HOn3-Narrow-Gauge-s/1951.htm

Don


----------



## CTValleyRR

How assisted is his assisted living? Is he able to operate a switching layout, or does he just want trains in a circle. You could build a very nice switching layout in a 4x4 or 3x5 area.

If he's more of a watcher, then I would try 3.5x5 and keep the equipment small and short. 15" radius curves in HO border on impossibly sharp; 18" will handle a fair number of models. 42" gives you the 18" curve with a 3" safety margin on each side, which should provide enough real estate to keep things on the layout if they leave the tracks (a trip to the floor is curtains for most model trains)>


----------



## A&NRR

Model railroader has a book out with a HO scale 4x5 layout set in the early century Florida swamp lands. The name is "Basic Model Railroad Track Plans".


----------



## jargonlet

I'm not sure to what extent he is capable of using a switching layout. Judging from his last layout he probably just runs trains. When I searched for trackplans I didn't find anything. On an HO 4x4 is it possible to add any switches for sidings with 42" curves?


----------



## DonR

jargonlet said:


> I'm not sure to what extent he is capable of using a switching layout. Judging from his last layout he probably just runs trains. When I searched for trackplans I didn't find anything. On an HO 4x4 is it possible to add any switches for sidings with 42" curves?


The best HO radius you can get on a 4 X 4 is going to be
around 20" or so, and it's basically going to be a circle.

There are curved turnouts that would enable a couple
of spur tracks but that's about all that will fit.

Would there be the possibility of having two 4 X 4 'modules'
that can be taken apart when the layout space is needed?
That would open up many possibilities.

Don


----------



## jargonlet

Due to his living arrangements he would only be able to fit the 4x4 or maybe the 3x5 but due to dons response it sounds like the 3x5 may not be a good option. This is still in the planning stages and I'm not sure what trains he plans to run.


----------



## bluenavigator

After checking the layouts that Cycleops provided, they are using Peco turnouts/tracks. I am not sure if it is doable. I understand that the elder is on limited budget, correct?


----------



## jargonlet

bluenavigator said:


> I understand that the elder is on limited budget, correct?


He is, although I don't know to what extent but this build will definately be on a budget.


----------



## jargonlet

bluenavigator said:


> After checking the layouts that Cycleops provided, they are using Peco turnouts/tracks. I am not sure if it is doable. I understand that the elder is on limited budget, correct?


He is on a limited budget but I'm not sure to what extent. We are still in the early stages of this project.


----------



## bluenavigator

Per mining branches layouts shown by cycleops, it is doable with the one that does not have any climbing with Atlas tracks, which is cheaper than Peco ones. It requires a bit of change which I had made on SCARM.


----------



## Cycleops

That's a great plan bluenavigator. He could use either of the spurs as a fiddle yard.


----------



## CTValleyRR

jargonlet said:


> I'm not sure to what extent he is capable of using a switching layout. Judging from his last layout he probably just runs trains. When I searched for trackplans I didn't find anything. On an HO 4x4 is it possible to add any switches for sidings with 42" curves?


Sorry I wasn't clear. I was referring to the width of the layout at 42" (3.5') and using 18" radius curves for the track. It is possible to fit a few turnouts (switches) in there. You can look into using curved turnouts for some added versatility, but these are more expensive.

I can't see BlueNavigator's track plan, or I would comment on that (stupid firewall).


----------



## Sweet Dreamer

Building model railroads into small places is my hobby? 4 x 4 is actually pretty roomy. 

Here's one possible suggestion. Please note, this requires some knowledge of how to build this correctly. But if you are interested I will gladly share the secrets of successful construction. 

Below is a layout in a 4 x 4 foot square. The whole thing is done using flextrack and switches. There are two turnouts, two wyes, and one three-way switch. The minimum radius is 10". Many people will scream that 10" is impossible to do but I do it all the time. In fact, I've gotten way with as little as 8" radius. But there is a trick to doing this so don't attempt to build this without asking for the secrets of successful construction. 










The layout above has two loops. The lower loop is at ground level, the upper loop is elevated about 1.5 inches. I called out the 3% grade between the two loops. Everything else is level. 

This layout (as shown) allows a train to run continually (assuming the two turnouts on the right side are wired in to automatically switch at appropriate times). The train can also switch direction depending on how to two turnouts are operated. 

There are two small "yards" where the trains can be parked if you are into operations. So this layout will actually allow the running of two different trains. I put in a couple trains to show how this could work. Everything is to scale. But this are very small switchers pulling very short cars. This is a key to working in small area.

With the elevated back loop the layout offers the added interest of having two different distinct levels. 

If no operation will be done the "yard spurs" can be left off. The turnouts at the right can also be eliminated if desired: In this case, the trains will always run in the same direction as shown below.










Here's also an alternative central "yard" with another wye switch. 










One of the keys to success with this small of a layout with such tight curves is to use very short engines and rolling stock. The engines should be 0-4-0 tiny switchers. The rolling stock should also be the shortest cars you can find. And if you use a caboose use an 4-wheel caboose as well. The shortest one you can find. Using all short rolling stock makes the train appear to be much longer than it really is. 

The other key is in the assembly of the track. Stick with one radius if possible. In this case it's 10". And never try to layout a radius that tight by hand or by eye. Even if you mark a decent line. You'll never get a dependable curve that way and you'll be certain to have derail problems till the cows come home.

The secret to working with tight curves is to use a perfectly round template. Screw it right down to the layout board and nail the track down by "working" the track along the template placing the ties of the track right up against the curve template. If you do this, the curve will be perfect and there will be no derails ever. Trust me, I've been doing this for years. 

The yard spurs can all be laid in by hand since they aren't curved enough to matter. 

If you decide to actually build this, let me know and I'll give you additional tips on how to construct this to be certain of smooth operation and no problems. There is actually a preferred place to start laying down track and working in the correct directions will help tremendously. 

So let me know if you are interested in building this. I'll explain more details if there is any interest. 

And of course, none of this is going to work with normal sized rolling stock, or larger engines. That's obviously ridiculous. That's the trade-off. If you want a really dependable small railroad you need to use short simple rolling stock and engines. That's all there is to it. 

But that shouldn't really be a limitation, unless you already have the train. In that case, this isn't likely to work.


----------



## bluenavigator

While it is true that flex-track can be used for tighter radii, the smallest radii that I tried with flex-track is around 4" because I tried to see the smallest circle that it can be made, which was about 8" diameter. Of course, it is not realistic at all so I do not go that far for the layout. 

There was other post earlier, mentioning HOn3, which was suggested for the loco and rolling stocks.


----------



## Sweet Dreamer

bluenavigator said:


> While it is true that flex-track can be used for tighter radii, the smallest radii that I tried with flex-track is around 4" because I tried to see the smallest circle that it can be made, which was about 8" diameter. Of course, it is not realistic at all so I do not go that far for the layout.


It's true that it's not going to be realistic. But that is often a trade-off that is required when working in extremely limited spaces. Also, I might mention that Lionel has been selling O-scale trains for many decades that have extremely unrealistic sharp turns and that never seemed to put a damper on the O-scale enthusiasts. 

Basically when we are talking about model railroading in confined spaces all bets for realism are naturally off. The main thing with a layout as I described above comes down to functionality and fun. 

Several things that help to "restore" what little realism is possible, is keeping the rolling stock as short as possible. Keeping the trains themselves fairly short. And above all else, run them as slow as possible. If they are racing around the layout at blinding speed that's not going to look realistic at all. 

But yeah, it's definitely a trade-off. Who wouldn't like to have more room for a layout? 

But in a pinch this can be better than nothing. 

This is a solution for a die-hard model railroader addict who only has 4 feet by 4 feet to work with.


----------



## Sweet Dreamer

I did some more work on this. I might build this myself. 

Instead of working with a single 4x4 sheet of plywood I decided to make it modular and cut it into two separate modules. This may seem crazy to some people but I'm used to living in cramped places, and trust me, if you can cut someone down by 2 feet that can really help. 

I realized that with this particular layout only a single track connection would need to be made if the layout is made into two separate modules. So why not go for it?

The following drawing shows the two modules, each 4' x 2'. If everything is done at ground level it would be extremely simple. It requires a bit more craftsmanship to include the grade so that the back loop is elevated by about 1 to 2 inches. I personally think that having the rear loop elevated adds some serious interest that a totally flat layout would be lacking. 










I couldn't help but put in some landscaping ideas too. 

On the elevated "mountain" module a lake could be placed in the middle of the loop. A forest could be placed to the right. This way the train will appear to be going back into the forest before it descends back down to the lower level. A tunnel could even be added in the upper right-hand corner. That tunnel could be made long enough to hide an entire train. (_I drew a train in the tunnel to show that it can be made to fit_) This way the train could be shut off while in the tunnel giving it the "time illusion" of having gone somewhere for a while before returning. 










And of course on the lower level we now have a good source of water for a small creek or river thus giving us an excuse to add a few small bridges. In fact, there will be a real nice opportunity to build a nice bridge on the upper module where the train crosses over the river because that track will be about 2" above the ground level. This would be a great diorama challenge. 

I'm having fun designing this thing. 

I might actually build this little sucker myself. 

This could all be automated using an Arduino microcontroller. If a person was so inclined.


----------



## Cycleops

Of course you can make the radius as tight as you like but you're limiting yourself to very small four wheel wagons and locos making it more suitable for NG. Using standard gauge and making it realistic requires much more ingenuity.

As for O gauge well its never going to look realistic with that that third rail stuck in the middle!


----------



## Sweet Dreamer

Cycleops said:


> Of course you can make the radius as tight as you like but you're limiting yourself to very small four wheel wagons and locos making it more suitable for NG. Using standard gauge and making it realistic requires much more ingenuity.


I agree. But isn't NG stuff more expensive? The OP mentioned a budget. I'm just trying to keep in line with all the constraints.


----------



## Cycleops

I thought the person in question might have some existing stock as he a layout previously. I still think the best option was the plan I suggested modified by bluenavigator. We haven't heard back from the OP for some time so its difficult to know how to proceed.


----------



## CTValleyRR

A budget doesn't have to be a debilitating limit. So long as you are patient. I am on a very strict budget, so if I want something expensive, I jst have to wait longer to afford it (novel concept in this day and age).


----------



## jargonlet

Thank you everyone for your replys. He does already have some trains that he would like to run. I have not had a chance to meet with them again to discus what he has and what he would like out of the layout. I do doubt he is will do much switching and would probably use sidings for display purposes. However I could be wrong as my line to him is through his daughter. I will hopefully be meeting with them sometime later this week.


----------



## jargonlet

Narrow gauge although better for space is unfortunately not an option as he already has some trains. I would like to build a narrow gauge one day.


----------



## Sweet Dreamer

jargonlet said:


> He does already have some trains that he would like to run.


In that case he would definitely be better off using Bluenavigator's plan. I was thinking he was starting over from scratch. 

The layout I proposed is not going to work for just any locomotives or rolling stock. 

I still had fun designing it though, and I might build it myself. 

Building model railroads into confined spaces is my hobby. 

But yeah, don't even bother showing him my plans if he wants to use his existing trains. They most likely won't run on this layout.


----------



## jargonlet

I don't know what he has but I assume that they are all smaller but not small enough for the layout you designed. Thanks for your efforts though. If be interested to see an ho in that space. Seems like most of the narrow gauge stuff I've seen is larger layouts.


----------



## SParker

Sweet Dreamer said:


> Building model railroads into small places is my hobby? 4 x 4 is actually pretty roomy.
> 
> Here's one possible suggestion. Please note, this requires some knowledge of how to build this correctly. But if you are interested I will gladly share the secrets of successful construction.
> 
> Below is a layout in a 4 x 4 foot square. The whole thing is done using flextrack and switches. There are two turnouts, two wyes, and one three-way switch. The minimum radius is 10". Many people will scream that 10" is impossible to do but I do it all the time. In fact, I've gotten way with as little as 8" radius. But there is a trick to doing this so don't attempt to build this without asking for the secrets of successful construction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The layout above has two loops. The lower loop is at ground level, the upper loop is elevated about 1.5 inches. I called out the 3% grade between the two loops. Everything else is level.
> 
> This layout (as shown) allows a train to run continually (assuming the two turnouts on the right side are wired in to automatically switch at appropriate times). The train can also switch direction depending on how to two turnouts are operated.
> 
> There are two small "yards" where the trains can be parked if you are into operations. So this layout will actually allow the running of two different trains. I put in a couple trains to show how this could work. Everything is to scale. But this are very small switchers pulling very short cars. This is a key to working in small area.
> 
> With the elevated back loop the layout offers the added interest of having two different distinct levels.
> 
> If no operation will be done the "yard spurs" can be left off. The turnouts at the right can also be eliminated if desired: In this case, the trains will always run in the same direction as shown below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's also an alternative central "yard" with another wye switch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the keys to success with this small of a layout with such tight curves is to use very short engines and rolling stock. The engines should be 0-4-0 tiny switchers. The rolling stock should also be the shortest cars you can find. And if you use a caboose use an 4-wheel caboose as well. The shortest one you can find. Using all short rolling stock makes the train appear to be much longer than it really is.
> 
> The other key is in the assembly of the track. Stick with one radius if possible. In this case it's 10". And never try to layout a radius that tight by hand or by eye. Even if you mark a decent line. You'll never get a dependable curve that way and you'll be certain to have derail problems till the cows come home.
> 
> The secret to working with tight curves is to use a perfectly round template. Screw it right down to the layout board and nail the track down by "working" the track along the template placing the ties of the track right up against the curve template. If you do this, the curve will be perfect and there will be no derails ever. Trust me, I've been doing this for years.
> 
> The yard spurs can all be laid in by hand since they aren't curved enough to matter.
> 
> If you decide to actually build this, let me know and I'll give you additional tips on how to construct this to be certain of smooth operation and no problems. There is actually a preferred place to start laying down track and working in the correct directions will help tremendously.
> 
> So let me know if you are interested in building this. I'll explain more details if there is any interest.
> 
> And of course, none of this is going to work with normal sized rolling stock, or larger engines. That's obviously ridiculous. That's the trade-off. If you want a really dependable small railroad you need to use short simple rolling stock and engines. That's all there is to it.
> 
> But that shouldn't really be a limitation, unless you already have the train. In that case, this isn't likely to work.


Hi, I liked your design because I wanted to use 1/2 a ping pong table for my base, with the board on top. But, I am doing N-scale. I did it in the Atlas Track Planning Software, no flex track ( I have some, but much more other track). I am going to try to include a picture. I am adding a tunnel. My question is if you can suggest how many places and where to put the track terminals and rerailers? Thank you. Stephen Parker.


----------



## Gramps

Welcome to the forum. The thread you replied to is 4 years old and you may not get a response from there. Hopefully someone will see that you revived it and help you.


----------



## SParker

Gramps said:


> Welcome to the forum. The thread you replied to is 4 years old and you may not get a response from there. Hopefully someone will see that you revived it and help you.


I understand, but I was hoping he might. I am new to this, and I am open to any good suggestions on the wiring.


----------



## Gramps

You could try posting in the General Model Train or N scale forum a reference to the 4x4 Layout question in this section. It may get more views there.


----------



## alan J

Sweet Dreamer said:


> Building model railroads into small places is my hobby? 4 x 4 is actually pretty roomy.
> 
> Here's one possible suggestion. Please note, this requires some knowledge of how to build this correctly. But if you are interested I will gladly share the secrets of successful construction.
> 
> Below is a layout in a 4 x 4 foot square. The whole thing is done using flextrack and switches. There are two turnouts, two wyes, and one three-way switch. The minimum radius is 10". Many people will scream that 10" is impossible to do but I do it all the time. In fact, I've gotten way with as little as 8" radius. But there is a trick to doing this so don't attempt to build this without asking for the secrets of successful construction.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The layout above has two loops. The lower loop is at ground level, the upper loop is elevated about 1.5 inches. I called out the 3% grade between the two loops. Everything else is level.
> 
> This layout (as shown) allows a train to run continually (assuming the two turnouts on the right side are wired in to automatically switch at appropriate times). The train can also switch direction depending on how to two turnouts are operated.
> 
> There are two small "yards" where the trains can be parked if you are into operations. So this layout will actually allow the running of two different trains. I put in a couple trains to show how this could work. Everything is to scale. But this are very small switchers pulling very short cars. This is a key to working in small area.
> 
> With the elevated back loop the layout offers the added interest of having two different distinct levels.
> 
> If no operation will be done the "yard spurs" can be left off. The turnouts at the right can also be eliminated if desired: In this case, the trains will always run in the same direction as shown below.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's also an alternative central "yard" with another wye switch.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One of the keys to success with this small of a layout with such tight curves is to use very short engines and rolling stock. The engines should be 0-4-0 tiny switchers. The rolling stock should also be the shortest cars you can find. And if you use a caboose use an 4-wheel caboose as well. The shortest one you can find. Using all short rolling stock makes the train appear to be much longer than it really is.
> 
> The other key is in the assembly of the track. Stick with one radius if possible. In this case it's 10". And never try to layout a radius that tight by hand or by eye. Even if you mark a decent line. You'll never get a dependable curve that way and you'll be certain to have derail problems till the cows come home.
> 
> The secret to working with tight curves is to use a perfectly round template. Screw it right down to the layout board and nail the track down by "working" the track along the template placing the ties of the track right up against the curve template. If you do this, the curve will be perfect and there will be no derails ever. Trust me, I've been doing this for years.
> 
> The yard spurs can all be laid in by hand since they aren't curved enough to matter.
> 
> If you decide to actually build this, let me know and I'll give you additional tips on how to construct this to be certain of smooth operation and no problems. There is actually a preferred place to start laying down track and working in the correct directions will help tremendously.
> 
> So let me know if you are interested in building this. I'll explain more details if there is any interest.
> 
> And of course, none of this is going to work with normal sized rolling stock, or larger engines. That's obviously ridiculous. That's the trade-off. If you want a really dependable small railroad you need to use short simple rolling stock and engines. That's all there is to it.
> 
> But that shouldn't really be a limitation, unless you already have the train. In that case, this isn't likely to work.


I like your plans and hope to give it a try . I think I'll use the 2nd plan i like it better . I will start working on in the next mouth or so if I can get the turnouts , thanks for the ideas ,Alan j


----------

