As a relative newcomer to model trains, compact to me means anything that fits in a spare bedroom on 4 to 6 legs...and approaching portable/removable/hidable/temporary. Anything bigger is a small layout.
Wes
Let's all step back and put things into perspective. I'll bet most, if not all contributors to this forum, well remember when they were kids, starting out with a basic oval, or figure eight, with a siding or two for accessories. We could literally get HOURS of enjoyment from that simple concept. As we all grew older, and maybe accumulated more of the wherewithal to build bigger and better layouts, including the passion to do so, many of us tried to bring our childhood dreams to reality. A big part of that reality is having the funds to buy all the equipment needed, and another part is having the time and patience to put it all together.
As with most projects, simpler versions are more than enough to satisfy the wants and needs of the vast majority of, in this case, model railroaders. There are always those who dream BIG and are able to achieve those dreams. whether on their own or by having someone do it for them.
My point is, as long as the person who built a layout is happy with what he or she has accomplished, that should be their personal reward. There is always a bigger and better layout somewhere, but it is unrealistic for most people to even try to duplicate them. In the case of model railroading, "size DOESN'T matter."
I have enjoyed reading the comments from everyone. I have been reading CTT since issue # 1. I wish I still had the issue with the attic floor layout. It was an American Flyer and covered the whole floor. I am not sure if this was a big or huge layout, but the trackplan had lots of switches and crossovers and there was always the possibility of a crash! No professional made that layout! I also enjoyed the professionally build layout that was in a high rise condo (I think the owner had passed away). It was beautiful layout and a showpiece. There were also articles on Frank Sinatra's custom built layout complete with its own building that looked like a depot and the golf pro that built a garage with his layout room and collection on the second floor. I am glad that the hobby can support the craftsmen that build these custom layouts and structures that appear from time to time in CTT. Over the years, CTT has published many layout construction articles on how to build a layout from start to finish. Most, if not all of those layouts would fit into a small bedroom. I would say that over the years, the articles have continually taken the the landscaping techniques to a higher level, which frankly I like. It took me over 40 years before I attempted to build my first mountain (my first train book was "An HO Railroad that Grows"). While I should have done it sooner, I am glad that I was able to built it with some of the more recent techniques.
Lastly, I am not sure how the articles in the March CTT like building detail structures on page 38, or the terrific articles on the D-132 display or the improved track plan for the D-132 cater to the rich folks. I am a HUGE fan of Roger Carp and his articles and book on the Lionel Display layouts, which are in the 4x6 to 8x8 range. Carl Olsen's compact layout looks really nice as well.
Now that my oldest son has moved out of the house, I am able to convert his room (which, when he was a little kid, had a roll a way layout under his bed) to a train room complete with shelves. Come to think of it, I seem to remember a few articles on building under the bed layouts as well.
All the best, to everyone.
Dave from Tacoma
Good thread here.
Carl's layout is really very nice.
From the pictures I would not think of it as compact nor dense. Pages 60-61 certainly do not look dense to me. But it does look great. Page 61 sidebar 1 states, "small but highly detailed O gauge layout." So obviously someone thinks that it is small. Carl stated that "we decided to set aside space for a small layout." When Carl and his wife planned the layout they commented that, the layout takes up the space of what would have been 2 bedrooms.
Probably Carl thinks of his layout as small because it does not take up the space of many of the basement RR empires commonly found in many magazines. The editor probably looking for a synonym for small should have chosen another descriptive term for the sub-title when he realized that it wasn't an under the bed layout. LOL. Duh.
Otherwise, it is a mighty fine layout and the story is great too.
Dennis B-1
You have a well thought out thread. I don't do word battles so mine stands as written.
"IT's GOOD TO BE THE KING",by Mel Brooks
Charter Member- Tardis Train Crew (TTC) - Detroit3railers- Detroit Historical society Glancy Modular trains- Charter member BTTS
Wikipedia: "...the term 'compact' was coined by George W. Romney as a euphemism for small cars with a wheelbase of 110 inches (2,794 mm) or less. The U.S. automobile industry soon adopted the term."
I guess if you're young enough, that's the only way you've heard the word used; so you consider it to be a synonym, rather than a automotive-industry euphemism, for "small". If you're sufficiently well-read or, like me, old enough, you know that it meant and can still mean something else. If Peoplefinders doesn't deceive me, the author, Carl Olson, is about 71 and must have been familiar with the word well before Romney started messing with it.
Bob Nelson
The often-unspoken dark side of the 3-rail hobby is that if you're an operator and not solely a collector, it's going to take a lot of room. O scale is even worse, since scale modeling generally requires wider curves. All the same, any but the smallest 3-rail layout still takes plenty of space.
fifedogCTT is going to print what is submitted to it. Jon Brooks' layout is small. Heck, their recent project layout is small. Under Carl, Bob,and Roger, things have been way more balanced in the past year. If you guys want to see more small layouts in our beloved mag, then pick up this gauntlet and get writing. If you need a writer/photographer to help you out (and live relatively close) call me.
CTT is going to print what is submitted to it. Jon Brooks' layout is small. Heck, their recent project layout is small. Under Carl, Bob,and Roger, things have been way more balanced in the past year.
If you guys want to see more small layouts in our beloved mag, then pick up this gauntlet and get writing. If you need a writer/photographer to help you out (and live relatively close) call me.
HAY ! - No fair makin' sense.
Pete
"You can’t study the darkness by flooding it with light." - Edward Abbey -
sir james I In this post CTT has been strangely quiet. Nothing. As a kid anything over 5 by 9 would have seemed big. I like CTT but it's direction does seem to have gone toward big and fancy. When I reach the part about I had my layout built, I stop reading, look at the pictures and keep going.My choice. The latest mag is still sitting here, I thumbed it, have not read it. I do like the Lionel display articles, now thats classic toy trains. So does compact mean small or just stuffed?
In this post CTT has been strangely quiet. Nothing. As a kid anything over 5 by 9 would have seemed big. I like CTT but it's direction does seem to have gone toward big and fancy. When I reach the part about I had my layout built, I stop reading, look at the pictures and keep going.My choice. The latest mag is still sitting here, I thumbed it, have not read it. I do like the Lionel display articles, now thats classic toy trains. So does compact mean small or just stuffed?
Sir James ,
Please be more specific and explain what you mean by big and fancy. What size layout do you consider "big". What exactly do you mean by fancy? Do you mean realistic?
And I fail to understand the problem you and others have with someone having a layout built for them. As someone else stated--some people don't have the time or are not interested in the building process but they still like trains. Obviously, they can afford it so I don't see the problem. It's not what I would do but I enjoy exercising my creativity. I enjoy wiring. I enjoy doing scenery and building structures. Nevertheless, who am I to say what aspect of this diverse hobby one should embrace. Who am I to say that one who simply likes to run trains on a layout that he didn't actually build is any less into trains than I am.
In a similar vein, how many people enjoy collecting and have no layouts? And is one any less of a collector if one buys someone elses collection through an auction house rather than search for individual pieces on his own?
Regardless, we can learn from any layout--big or small. And it doesn't make any difference who did the work. Did you ever stop to consider that layout builders are hobbiests like us? They just happen to be good at it and found a way to earn money doing what they love.
And just because a layout is large, it is still composed of small scenes, any one of which could be the inspiration for something on your small layout. So please enlighten me--where is the downside?
Dennis Brennan
Words can have different meanings depending upon how they're used in a sentence. In this context, the meaning of compact is clearly "dense"-- not small.
DennisB-1Texas Pete Sorry, but the March issue set me off when it referred to an 11x23.5 foot layout as "compact." ... Pete You're complaining because of your interpretation of the word compact? The word is being used in the sense of "dense." dense solid sacked in compressed condensed squashed squeezed together
Texas Pete Sorry, but the March issue set me off when it referred to an 11x23.5 foot layout as "compact." ... Pete
Sorry, but the March issue set me off when it referred to an 11x23.5 foot layout as "compact." ...
You're complaining because of your interpretation of the word compact?
The word is being used in the sense of "dense."
So, by your interpretation a Hummer stretch limo could be called "compact" if it had enough "feetchas" crammed in? You funny dude.
dense
solid
sacked in
compressed
condensed
squashed
squeezed together
Often I have laughed at what CTT or OGR have called a "small" layout...but I guess that, appearing on the cover, sells magazines. There is also the myth that EVERYONE wants a huge layout. Most of the track plans I've seen for very small layouts have every square inch covered with track (this is suppose to cure "boredom").
My layout is only 5x8, 2 loops and a siding, and it is mainly scenics that took me 2 years to build. I do not want a larger layout, although I do belong to a modular group www.liberty-hi-railers.com , where I enjoy creating more scenics. I also have a small Christmas "O" layout, as well as small "S" and "N" layouts.
Hmmm... maybe someone wants a layout but does not have time to build one? Running trains is VERY relaxing, building a layout can be frustrating. I see the be benefits of contracting out the construction because some people simply are not interested in that aspect of the hobby.You could stack 5 4x8 levels every 12 inches and you would consider that large? Come on!
fifedog I'm of the belief that the smaller the area one has to work with, the more vertical the efforts should be. I want my trains to run through the scenery, to help "extend" the run in the mind's eye. Take for example the faithfull 4 x 8 layout. I want to get away from the flattop look, and run my scenery above and below my roadbed. Why not have the train skirting a mountain cliffside, crossing a tall timber trestle, or using a switchback to get up to the lumber camp. Or using a metropolitan setting with tall buildings and underground stations. Why not model a shortline or industrial railraod that serves an industry like a steel mill or auto plant? You could spend years researching and constructing any of these small layouts.
I'm of the belief that the smaller the area one has to work with, the more vertical the efforts should be. I want my trains to run through the scenery, to help "extend" the run in the mind's eye. Take for example the faithfull 4 x 8 layout. I want to get away from the flattop look, and run my scenery above and below my roadbed. Why not have the train skirting a mountain cliffside, crossing a tall timber trestle, or using a switchback to get up to the lumber camp. Or using a metropolitan setting with tall buildings and underground stations. Why not model a shortline or industrial railraod that serves an industry like a steel mill or auto plant? You could spend years researching and constructing any of these small layouts.
I agree completely with this! I am planning to start an O scale layout (finally getting out of n-scale!) in what is basically a 13' x 11' room. I have the full room. I wish I had a basement but I don't. I don't think mountains would be believable in such a small space so I intend to do an industrial switching layout. I want bench height to be higher near 4 feet and I want buildings that are several stories tall. I want to look up at the tops of them. This way I won't see the edges of the flats against the wall which helps add to the illusion of greater size. I wouldn't attempt mountain scenery unless I had lots of room to do so as I'd want mountains that I look up at.
A layout doesn't have to be large to be fun or wonderfully detailed. It can be very small. It's all about illusion. The first step however is being honest with yourself about what you want compared to what space you have. If you have a room even my size, which I consider pretty small, wanting to run a Big Boy or any modern diesels in that area with long trains isn't realistic. It technically can be done but how good would it look? While I like many different things, I try to buy what could be used believably in the space I have. If I had a Big Boy or something similar, the only way it would look realistic would be as a static display outside of a station. What fun would that be! I'm going to run an 0-8-0 and a 4-6-0 along with 40' cars as that would be believable in my space.
If you just want to see trains run and don't care about realistic modelling, your options are far wider. Maybe an O-27 layout on a hollow core door would be enough. That's pretty small. If you want operations and want a much more believable and realistic feel, you'll need a larger space.
Small is relative to what you want to do but by no means is it not fun.
Wow, a lot of opinions! I think the "terms" used are relative to the writer's view as he sees it. Some of us don't have attics, basements or space in a garage and some of us "empty nesters" have taken over a vacant bedroom. To me, "small' is a layout in the corner of a multi-purpose space, "compact" is loading the layout in the space given with as much 'stuff' as is possible and "large" is a layout that fills the entire overall room space available.
OF course, in the March issue of CTT, Lionel's catalog of the store layouts calls the 8x8 layout "Huge". To me, a Huge layout would be any over basement size. Large would take up more than the average size room, moderate would take up a good size room. Small would be about a 4x8. I have said before that I am more impressed by what folks do within a given space than the amount of space taken up.
Dennis
TCA#09-63805
Medium fits in a one car garage.
Gee.....I now realize that because of the diminuitive size (Fife missed that one) of my layouts, I must not have been having so much fun for over half a century when I thought I was having so much fun. I think I will go back to SPF, look at Laz' Ole Mil tanker cars, throw one down, and contemplate the future of my empty existence which I erroneously thought was not empty.
Jack
IF IT WON'T COME LOOSE BY TAPPING ON IT, DON'T TRY TO FORCE IT. USE A BIGGER HAMMER.
Cobrabob8 Some people pay to have layouts custom built, which is fine for THEM. I look at my layout in its still unscenicked state, and think "I did this myself with a little help from my kids". I appreciate these huge, huge layouts. They are nice to look at. But, I can't help but feel that something is missing when you don't build it yourself. That is a huge part of the fun of toy and model trains, buliding it. You get to do carpentry, electrical, mechanical and artistic (scenery) things. As my kids helped me some I know that they were also learning and having fun.
Some people pay to have layouts custom built, which is fine for THEM. I look at my layout in its still unscenicked state, and think "I did this myself with a little help from my kids". I appreciate these huge, huge layouts. They are nice to look at. But, I can't help but feel that something is missing when you don't build it yourself. That is a huge part of the fun of toy and model trains, buliding it. You get to do carpentry, electrical, mechanical and artistic (scenery) things. As my kids helped me some I know that they were also learning and having fun.
Sorry to've snipped a bunch, but I'm really glad you wrote that paragraph, Cobrabob8, because I feel the same way. Whenever I see those "store-bought" layouts in a magazine I get to wondering how long the folks who have custom layouts built for them remain in the hobby.
I believe that it is a matter of perception ands affordability.
Can we add to Fifedog's list "IS A BIGGER LAYOUT BETTER " ?
My new layout measures 8'6" x 13'10". My previuos one was "small" at 4' x 6'. When I first started to build the current one I thought that it was "big" in comparison to my old layout. When I look at it now as I run my trains I realize that it is not big at all. But, I have realized, it is still nicer than the one I had.
As far as classic cars go... My car is not really anything spectacular. It's in nice shape. It is fairly fast. But, it is nowhere near being Barret-Jackson car quality. But, you know what? I did it myself! I never did any of that type of work before. I replaced everything under the hood, from motor to transmission, radiator, electrical, you name it. And, it runs fine! I also replaced the carpet and stereo system. I know that sometimes the guys who buy the "shake the box" new Corvettes are looking down their noses at some Car Shows. And, then again, they never turned a wrench on their cars.
Now as far as small or medium or large layouts goes, it is all in the owner's eyes as to what size THEY feel their layout is. Although I myself consider small to be anything under about 10 x 14, medium to fall into sizes up to 20 x 20 or so. Large would be anything bigger. And, by the way, I would LOVE to see Tony Lash's layout in person. His layout is awesome. I am glad that CTT features layouts of all sizes. I feel that all layouts, no matter the size, inspire all of us to build our layouts! Cobrabob.
Toy Trains, they are not just an adventure, they are a way of life !
These layouts are small and I love them! Yes there is O scale and even larger in here.
www.carendt.com
I am about to move into a larger place. My train room (we don't have basements down here) is going to have a usable area of roughly 11' X 11'. I'm not going to make it a solid layout utilizing every inch of that space. I need room to get up in there too so it will be an around the walls industrial switching layout and I'm going to hold curves to no less than O-72! For n-scale I'd consider this room completely adequate but in O scale it isn't all that large. This is why I'm going to do a theme that fits in and can be believable. No mountains here. When I think small though, I really think a 4 x 8 sheet of wood but usually much less. I am finishing up a table for my nephew right now that is a 3 x 6-1/2 foot hollow core down and is all O-27. It's small for O (a scale football field!) but still larger than the n-scale layout I had growing up. It's all relative but when someone calls something that is larger than my largest room "compact", I'm going to respectfully disagree.
it depends on the scale G to Z.
Doug Murphy 'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...' Henry V.
I wonder how many folks have a layout that is borderline or completely unmanageable from a maintenance standpoint because it's just plain too durn big. I bet they won't admit it if they do.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month