What's the best number or what's the maximum number of industries that should be or could be to put on a 4 x 8-foot layout.
This pertains to HO scale modelers. The reason I ask this is.... I think I've overwhelmed my layout by trying to place too many industries on my new section of 4 x 8 or I may have too much track on that same 4 x 8. I thought this section would be my industrial park, but again I don't seem to have enough space for both the track and industries that the track should be able to support. I'd show images of my layout but, after looking through Sheldon's layout, I'm too embarrassed to show my behemoth, and it's nowhere near completion. So I'm scratching my head, (and my kids are of no help) in how to place all of what I envisioned as an industrial park with rail access.
Everyone's thoughts are welcomed, cause at this juncture, I'm hoping I haven't overspent on buildings, scenery and well, one never has enough track, cause I'm always modifying the track.
How many industries you have depends on what industries you want to use. A coal mine will take up alot more room than a small factory but will generate more traffic. The size of the buildings you want to use matters alot. Off hand i'd say you should be able to get at least 6 in that space if you're creative.
It seems counterintuitive, but you can fit more in if you don't use those 18" radius "standard" switches and opt for #4s and #5s instead. In fact, other than making loops of track for train set running, I can;t think of a good reason to use the "standards" at all.
This video shows one man's solution in a 4x8 space:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxcpLD6f-sc
Hey Ralph. The main thing to remember is this hobby is supposed to be fun, stress free and from your imagination. I started out slow, I didn't use a layout panner like a lot of people , I just wanted to create my version of what small town Saskatchewan looked like to me. Saskatchewan is the Canadian province I live in.
My dad was a station agent in a small town of 100 people, we lived in the train station as well. So I got a small town blueprint engraved in my brain. As an adult, I spent 10 years driving around this province going to every small town imaginable. I was a certified Fire Alarm Systems tech. So I would work in all the nursing homes and schools hospitals etc.
After work I would take 20 min or more cruising around the towns looking for old muscle cars etc, at the same time I would enjoy the heritage each town had to offer. Old buildings, grain elevators, seed mills warehouses gas stations. on and on.
So everything I can remember from those old towns, I try to incorporate into my layout. The rule of thumb for me is less is more, it is easier to add to the layout than to take away. I can't tell you how many times over the last 8 years, I have built buildings, and moved them around the layout. I learned never make anything permanent until it is.
My layout is 12 feet x 8 feet x 4 feet, and to be honest, it is still too small. lol
I knew I would have an industrial refinery area, a farmers area, grain elevators seed plant etc. a Main Street, a residential area, and a couple of farms. Just the common everyday things in a small town. I at least had that idea in my brain. Then one day I saw a large graveyard outside a small town, and had to add one of those. Some stuff is planned, and others are a happy accident.
My friend Sid who used to be a member of this site, was my model railroad mentor, he passed away years back. Before he died, he told me that whatever you add to your layout has to make sense, I am modelling between 1955 and 1975 somewhere in that era. I am trying to stay true to that era, at the same time it can be a bit difficult.
Bottom line what you decide to put on your layout is up to you, just make sure it makes sense.
Regards Sheldon.
I remember Sid. He was a great modeler. What happened to his layoutand his stuff?
PM sent I don't want to hijack this thread.
If the industrial area can be seen from both sides, one option is to use bacground scene buildings that are only an inch or so deep mounted back-to-back. This would give the appearnce of two different industries serving sidings running more or less parallel to each other.
Len
I think the easy quick answer to this question is, the right number of industries on any layout is the kind that allows some room for scenery of any kind around them. That will depend on the kind of industry, of course.
In a few short years, I'm going to be in a situation where all I'll be able to have will be 4 x 8 at best, it will be a big disappointment after having a 50 foot long point to point with four communities on it. But I've been looking at 4x8 plans for a while and the best ones seem to be the ones that have a passing track on either side, acting as a point A and point B since real railroads deliver people or products from Point A to Point B. That is, if you want to approach prototypical operation. After studying umpteen 4x8 plans trying to envision some kind of operation on them, I've come to the conclusion that for my purposes point A needs to be basically an interchange with a main line receiving cars. The other side becomes point B, essentially the end of a branch line. Then the best you seem to be able to get is two customers at either point. That is, if scenery means anything to you. You keep the oval because everyone at some point just feels like mindlessly watching a train run, I am no exception.
It's going to be a big painful downsize. The best that the layout this size can handle is probably two engines and maybe 10 or 12 cars.
Have you considered a refinement of that basic plan, where the branchline actually branches off the oval and climbs above the mainline to a town? The area under the town could hold a small two track staging yard so you could have an eastbound and a westbound train laying over there. The visible side of the mainline would be the interchange with the branch, with cars spotted there for pickup by the mainline trains. The town area would make a good stub ended terminal, like many shortlines had, and due to its elevation over the mainline you'd get alot more precious space for industries.
Until I see an actual track plan of the Sioux town layout with dimensions, I'll never believe that layout is a 4 x 8. The perspectives in looking at distance views on that layout are just too long. I am a retired architect with some art training too, and I believe I can speak with some authority about this. At 8:24 is one of several overall views that cannot possibly be on a 4 x 8 surface.
I hold a very unpopular view of embracing layout concepts with a lot of empty negative space. I want to make it clear that it's just me speaking, but an overcrowded layout like that is not what I would do. There's no telling how many industries are on that layout but man, I feel claustrophobia setting in just looking at that layout. Not meaning to diminish those who enjoy such a layout, including its builder who certainly is very happy with his layout.
That's a very interesting video (U-tube). I counted 11, and if you count the passenger station and maintenance yard 13 industries. There are more industries on this layout, but I only wanted the number that was serviced by the railroad. I'm not going to critique this layout, although it's definitely detailed.
As for a loop, I am still wanting to keep a main line either around the edge of the layout or maybe make a dog-bone for the main. In trying to use the number 4, 5, or 6 switches will be challenging if I keep a main in the layout.
The real issue is my imagination, the ideas in my head that, by all accounts, must be limited to the space that the layout can support or space available to me. When your ideas are larger than the space you have, that's what takes the fun out and/or creates the stress in this hobby. This is what I'm running into. I'm not trying to recreate a real place, but I am working to create a realistic imaginary one.
Quote"...whatever you add to your layout has to make sense."
In that regard, I'm right there, creating that realistic layout. But my mind wants more, and space to have that "more" stops my creative desires. I can stay true to the era that have created, it's just that in order to envision that imaginary era I dream of, I need more space.
Quote"...The rule of thumb for me is less is more."
This just boggles my mind. Makes me think that in order to create space I should move to "N" scale. ...Not happening. I will definitely give this a lot more thought in the coming days.
Quote...the easy quick answer to this question is, the right number of industries on any layout is the kind that allows some room for scenery of any kind around them."
I wholeheartedly agree, and that scenery needs to have parking for the employees, roads for access of trucks and cars to the industry (this is what you don't see in the U-tube video). That's one of the main things I like about Sheldon's layout, it has that scenery and access. I'm not too keen on using buildings as a backdrop. Mainly because that back edge of the layout I expect to have a main line, and I actually don't have any cut in half or facade buildings.
Quote"The best that the layout this size can handle is probably two engines and maybe 10 or 12 cars."
My existing 4 x 8 (not the new one in this discussion) can handle 5 engines, and if you add in the museum 7. I'll have to actually count the number of cars on that section of the 4 x8 since I do have one portion of elevated track (like in the U-tube video) where additional cars could be stored.
Quote...the branch line actually branches off the oval and climbs above the mainline to a town?"
Coming off the existing 4x8 the track does elevate toward the new section. I'm considering putting in a Helix but it would not be a circle helix. More of a mountainous rise going from the first 4x8 then to the new 4x8 that would maybe hold a double deck above the new 4x8 but would be a 2 x 8 ft section. Trying to place that 2x8 ft section I would prefer not attaching it to the house walls. This would create some extra space, but the main industry on the 4 x8 would be constrained, I believe.
Quote...keep the oval because everyone at some point just feels like mindlessly watching a train run."
Same here, that's probably why I still want a mainline on this new section of 4x8. Like my grandma use to say "folks love to watch fish in a fish bowel go round and round." Trains are like fish in a fish bowl.
Downsizing! I can't imagine what that would be like. My brain is constantly trying to up-size. There is one way not to downsize, but I call it "rightsize-sizing", and that is to move from HO to N scale. You won't lose that virtual acreage. I myself can't see moving to N scale due to my eyes are not what they use to be. HO doesn't cause the eye strain. Lastly, I envy you being able to have a 50 ft long layout, the best I can accommodate is 20 ft.
The only trouble with downsizing for me is that, in HO scale, I have well over 50 locomotives and probably five or 600 freight cars, I lost count a long time ago. Everything was very carefully curated and chosen to represent between 1935 and 1948, several locomotives have heavy custom detailing that I went to a lot of trouble to get. Sweeping that much stuff out of the door in one swell foop is pretty much nigh unto impossible. Plus, I'm very attached to a lot of it since so much of it represents what I saw in my youth.
Not only that, I'm in line to inherit a large collection from a local guy who is several years older than me wants to leave it to me. That's probably another 20 diesel locomotives and at least 300 and more freight cars. Plus a bunch of passenger stuff that I'm not interested in. Fortunately, my friend and his business partner run a traveling LHS at Train shows and I believe we can methodically dispose of some of the stuff there, especially the diesels and the passenger equipment.
Quote from: trainman203 on March 06, 2026, 08:20:06 PMUntil I see an actual track plan of the Sioux town layout with dimensions, I'll never believe that layout is a 4 x 8. The perspectives in looking at distance views on that layout are just too long. I am a retired architect with some art training too, and I believe I can speak with some authority about this. At 8:24 is one of several overall views that cannot possibly be on a 4 x 8 surface.
He has used Atlas Snap Switches and some very sharp flex track curves. That said, I was able to duplicate the track plan in Anyrail with 18 inch radius curves. expanding it to 4 1/2 x 9 allowed the use of Atlas 4s. This railroad could not be built with EZ track in 4x8 because of the difference in geometry between the Atlas and Bachmann switches.
(https://i.imgur.com/dJn8Iyh.jpeg)
Well, I've seen the plan, and I believe it, seeing is believing. For those who like a lot of track and a lot of stuff in a small space, this guy has really done it.
Of course everyone does everything differently on their own layout, and if I had that exact track plan, I wouldn't try to crowd that city into it, I would've let the industries be a little more freestanding. But this modeler seems to really like building structures, so more power to him.
A 4 x 8 is a 4 x 8, and that's all that ever will be, but this lemon really got squeezed.
A 4X8 is a 4X8, but not all 4x8s are created equal. If your space is limited, you have to think outside the box. I prefer working on a compact layout like this, rather than around the walls. For one thing I am not a flatlander. I grew up around Appalachian railroading, and prefer winding railroads to long straigntaways. I am, by choice, working on a two deck 5x10 as we speak. I used the expanded area to scale up two smaller track plans I built and enjoyed running. I was able to use 22 and 24 inch curves instead of the 18 inch ones a 4x8 would force me to use. My big Alcos will have a place to stretch their legs, and mountain grades to climb.
To me, the thing that the guy in the video has accomplished is that he's taken the space many so called experts write off, and built a convincing belt line type railroad. These were pretty common in industrialized areas, where their purpose was to gather cars for the nig railroads they connected with. often they were owned by a group of larger railroads, and served as a neutral terminal road that kept the big guys from fighting each other in the streets over the traffic generated.
I don't know how this will reproduce in this form, but this Sanborn map is a view of some long-gone very compact street running switching trackage in my hometown, reminiscent of the 4x8 under discussion. The T&NO comes in from the left. It crosses the vertically running MP several times. The T&NO was in this location at least 20 years before the MP arrived.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4014nm.g033751952/?sp=9&st=image&r=0.346,0.184,0.575,0.669,0
Those Sanborn maps are pretty cool. I like that you can enlarge them to see details easier.
Quote from: trainman203 on March 10, 2026, 09:02:58 PMI don't know how this will reproduce in this form, but this Sanborn map is a view of some long-gone very compact street running switching trackage in my hometown, reminiscent of the 4x8 under discussion. The T&NO comes in from the left. It crosses the vertically running MP several times. The T&NO was in this location at least 20 years before the MP arrived.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4014nm.g033751952/?sp=9&st=image&r=0.346,0.184,0.575,0.669,0
Looking at this map raises some questions. There has to be an interesting story here. My understanding is that the later railroad to arrive must pay for any necessary junctions to the existing railroad, and for a tower to control things if necessary. Could the T&NO have purposely added more industrial spurs in order to increase the cost of the MoPac coming to town? How was the issue of T&NO fouling the MP line to serve these industries handled? Did they have to get permission to foul the MP? Or were speed low enough and traffic light enough that visual right of way would suffice?
Quote from: Ralph S on February 28, 2026, 11:30:16 AMI'd show images of my layout but, after looking through Sheldon's layout, I'm too embarrassed to show my behemoth, and it's nowhere near completion.
Don't worry about that, most of us have layouts that are far from complete. Besides, the best time to think about things like this are early on, while it's easier to change.
As far as the layout, the balance between track and scenery / structures is going to be different for each person. However, in my experience, many folks (me included) have a tendency to try to cram in too much. I think it was John Armstrong who said something like 'put in the amount of track you think is right, then take out 1/3 of it - that will end up being closer to the ideal'. Leaving some room for scenery does a lot to open up a layout, even if it's just a hill or a small pond.
For industries, sometimes it works better to have one larger industry that realistically could receive 3-4-5 cars, then have several small industries that each get one car. Maybe even an industry that has two separate tracks on each side of the building, one for things it's receiving and one for finished products it's shipping out. A furniture factory that has one area for receiving flat cars with lumber, and another area for loading boxcars with finished chairs and tables maybe.
Quote from: jward on March 13, 2026, 12:27:33 PMQuote from: trainman203 on March 10, 2026, 09:02:58 PMI don't know how this will reproduce in this form, but this Sanborn map is a view of some long-gone very compact street running switching trackage in my hometown, reminiscent of the 4x8 under discussion. The T&NO comes in from the left. It crosses the vertically running MP several times. The T&NO was in this location at least 20 years before the MP arrived.
https://www.loc.gov/resource/g4014nm.g033751952/?sp=9&st=image&r=0.346,0.184,0.575,0.669,0
Looking at this map raises some questions. There has to be an interesting story here. My understanding is that the later railroad to arrive must pay for any necessary junctions to the existing railroad, and for a tower to control things if necessary. Could the T&NO have purposely added more industrial spurs in order to increase the cost of the MoPac coming to town? How was the issue of T&NO fouling the MP line to serve these industries handled? Did they have to get permission to foul the MP? Or were speed low enough and traffic light enough that visual right of way would suffice?
I would have no idea about the business dimensions of these two railroads crossing each each other so many times within a few hundred feet.
However, there was definitely no tower at that location at that location with that street running track, I never saw anything move on it during the day. I found out later on with the MP only switched it at night to avoid any auto traffic. But I have to say, this was a pretty small town and I don't remember ever seeing anything approaching heavy traffic on that street as many times as I rode my bicycle up and down that street. We were never able to talk to anyone on the T&NO about that location, but I remember seeing a box car at that oil dealer only a couple of times and a only couple of boxcars on the one that curved way to the right after the crossing the MP. There's a more detailed map of everything to the right that I need to find, should've posted it before.
Also, these tracks here were dead end switching trackage with engines only moving one or two cars at a time, there were no actual train movements with cabooses at this location.
I did a very long, detailed narrative about this spur and the Missouri Pacific in my town in general on another forum a couple of years ago. I could post the link to it here if anyone is interested.
Wasn't expecting that video would go viral on this topic, but since its part of my learning experience, I'll add this comment.
J, sorry I hijacked your image and redrew it to show my existing 4x8 layout. I wanted to have 3 loops but didn't quite make it. If that video used larger than 4x8 then here's my 4x8 using only EZ Track and Fleischmann 18-degree curve switches. I'm leaning toward that fact that the raised track area is actually above the existing 4x8. Therefore, produces the illusion that all of the video's layout is on a 4x8. If this is true, then my new section I should definitely create a upper and lower level in order to obtain additional space for my layout. I alluded to that when I suggested I put in a helix type riser to an upper level.
Diagram Note: Below the black line is the second 4x8 which I'm questioning.(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/69/7b/0b/697b0b511a84ef7ab3421fbb97247d6d.jpg)
Quotefrom wjstix - March 15, 2026, 01:40:16 AM]
As far as the layout, the balance between track and scenery / structures is going to be different for each person. However, in my experience, many folks (me included) have a tendency to try to cram in too much. I think it was John Armstrong who said something like 'put in the amount of track you think is right, then take out 1/3 of it - that will end up being closer to the ideal'. Leaving some room for scenery does a lot to open up a layout, even if it's just a hill or a small pond.
For industries, sometimes it works better to have one larger industry that realistically could receive 3-4-5 cars, then have several small industries that each get one car.
This is one of my favorite actions. Place track as I see fit, then later on, my mind tells me that there is a better way to place it. I thought about buying that track software you used, but I like seeing the physical layout rather than viewing it on a computer screen. When I started out, I wanted 5 cities, and trains passing through each city. I've gotten down to earth once I started physically placing track on the layout. Looks like I'll only have maybe 2 cities if I'm lucky.
One of my biggest quests is to build a highway that is under construction, alongside an operating rail line that is also under construction with a second rail. Somewhere in there have a light industrial area, with a helium plant, mining facility, Nuclear Plant, and since I have too many tractors, cranes and mining equipment, a Caterpillar, or Kenworth, dealership with all the tractors I have on the lot. Believe me, I do not want my layout to look anything like the video. I hope to make it look more like Sheldon's.
Quote from: Ralph S on March 20, 2026, 01:05:04 AMWasn't expecting that video would go viral on this topic, but since its part of my learning experience, I'll add this comment.
J, sorry I hijacked your image and redrew it to show my existing 4x8 layout. I wanted to have 3 loops but didn't quite make it. If that video used larger than 4x8 then here's my 4x8 using only EZ Track and Fleischmann 18-degree curve switches. I'm leaning toward that fact that the raised track area is actually above the existing 4x8. Therefore, produces the illusion that all of the video's layout is on a 4x8. If this is true, then my new section I should definitely create a upper and lower level in order to obtain additional space for my layout. I alluded to that when I suggested I put in a helix type riser to an upper level.
Diagram Note: Below the black line is the second 4x8 which I'm questioning.(https://i.pinimg.com/736x/69/7b/0b/697b0b511a84ef7ab3421fbb97247d6d.jpg)
The plan is on a 4x8 table. The fact that it has an upper level and hidden trackage does not change the table size. But it allows you to do more with the space you have. I can relate to this having limited space myself. And if you are going to add an upper level in limited space a helix is a bad idea that will eat up half your 4x8. But if you do as the layout in the video did and build a ramp, or as I am doing and build a mountain grade, you can gain elevation in a way that doesn't bury half your railroad.
BTW, I am not trying to hijack your thread. I have alluded to my currently under construction railroad, which will have two seperate and independent decks with a connecting track between them all in a 5 1/2x 10 space. I will post photos of it when construction reaches the point when trains can run. In my own thread, of course.
By all means, you haven't hijacked this thread, I've basically hijacked it myself from my original thoughts.
Currently I have an L shape layout (excuse the deficiency in the drawing, didn't want to take too much time trying to make it accurate) where I was looking into a helix (as I call it) to go from the shelf to the base level (table).(https://i.pinimg.com/1200x/61/25/c2/6125c2689538a22c5702721ef31ea5ab.jpg)Understand that the slope would take the entire L shape starting from top of the L to the bottom end of the L. A sloping bridge in both directions I believe would provide that +/- 2% slope. In the prior hijacked drawing, the track on the outer edges would be the bridges either rising or dropping (except for the left side track, after the switch, doesn't show the dash line for a bridge). It would still allow my layout to be modified when new thoughts come into my imagination.
To bring this somewhat back to the original topic, one can note that with the additional "shelf" space additional industries can be added and from my point of view, an additional 4-lane highway could be imagined. I thought about a mountain grade, but the mountain would remove the number of industries that could be placed. So, in my imagination, the bridge concept took shape, and industries can be placed close to the bridge and smaller stores, shops, parking lots, etc., could be placed underneath the sloping bridge. All without it looking congested as in the video.
Why would the mountain stop you from adding industries? On the real railroads very little track is level, Most of it is on some kind of grade. It does add a wrinkle in how you serve the industry if the grade is steep and you have free rolling cars. But as long as the industry track itself is level, having the spur halfway up the mountain is doable.
Quote from: jward on March 24, 2026, 09:47:30 PMWhy would the mountain stop you from adding industries?
In order to have a mountain you must have a valley or a depression, let alone the slope of the mountain. Yes, you could effectively make a cliff out of the mountain to place industries, but again that cliff wall will take up some space. So knowing that the mountain slope takes up space, a bridge does not. What's really unique about using a bridge, is the fact that underneath the bridge a variety of things can be placed under it. Lastly, a bridge does not need the detail that a mountain slope would need, i.e., landscaping such weeds, trees, rocks, etc.
Funny you mentioned a spur halfway up the mountain. I worked on that (see left side of my drawing) and found I needed a loco on that spur to keep the rolling stock from rolling down. So, I gave up on that spur on a hill and made it go to level ground, just to keep the rolling stock for transiting down the slope.
Just note, I'd probably use a mountain or ridge to raise/lower the track if I had the space to do it. Currently, my emphasis is on placing additional industries on the layout without it looking congested. I also would like to keep it from looking like the heart of a city within the industrial area too.
By the way, that's a good question.