Small HO RR's

[Anonymous]

Hey rails!! Who's built a really interesting Small Ho RR out there? I mean really SMALL, like less than 4' x 8' ?[8D]

[Anonymous]

Wynn,

I think you'll find that hundreds or even thousands of small layouts have been built, not only by members on this forum, but by model rr'ers worldwide.

Why do you want to know? Do you have a specific question about small layouts?

There are lots of folks here ready and willing to help you, if you have a specific question.

Doug

[Anonymous]

At the moment I am working on a 10 x 36 inch layout of a small engine depot and a caboose track. When finished it will be a fully automatic 3d painting.

By the way, did you check http://www.carendt.us? It's a great scource for iedeas, especially when you want to re-use your expired credit card [:D]

[Jetrock]

My layout is 12 feet wide and 1 foot deep, aside from a 2x2 foot section, so in total area mine is about half the size of a 4x8--I model HO.

www.carendt.com is an excellent source of ideas for ridiculously small layouts, although it is not recommended for those who like to model giant articulated locomotives, 86' freight cars, or other items requiring huge curve radii like 15" in HO and whatnot.

Believe it or not, in much of the world a 4x8 layout is not considered "small"--generally European and Japanese layouts are much smaller, even in HO/OO! The canonical 4x8 is more "average sized" in my mind--if only because everyone seems to want to build one, despite their many flaws and impracticalities.

[Anonymous]

You'll also find a very active Small-Layout-Design Yahoo group for all scales.

Cheers,
Maureen

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CoertSmit

At the moment I am working on a 10 x 36 inch layout of a small engine depot and a caboose track. When finished it will be a fully automatic 3d painting.

By the way, did you check http://www.carendt.us? It's a great scource for iedeas, especially when you want to re-use your expired credit card [:D]

I've viewed the carendt site from time to time and am often impressed by both the workmanship displayed and the interesting alternate approach to the hobby many Europeans have, perhaps often for lack of space.

However, and in no way dissing the efforts of these individuals, I have to ask where does a simple diorama leave off and a very small layout actually begin? Most of the "micro layouts" on the carendt site don't allow for much more than a loco/tram and one car to travel in an extremely tight circle or to perhaps shift one car just a matter of a very few inches from one spot to another. To me this bespeaks of them simply being a static diorama to which someone has introduced an absolute minimum of motion.

A century ago one occasionally saw oil paintings that included some small amount of clockwork mechanical motion (a horse and rider jumping a fence, children on a see-saw, a bell tolling in a church tower, etc.) incorporated in the painted scene for the same purpose. The situation with these micro layouts I think is rather the same and really quite a world away from having a train of some reasonable length passing fully through a layout scene, or stopping briefly to perform some function before moving on.

So, I have to ask readers, do you think that there might be some logical point where it can be said that a diorama transitions into a true layout?

CNJ831

[jkeaton]

No, there's no point where a diorama turns into a layout. Instead, it's a huge grey zone. A diorama of a big city passenger terminal, after all, could well be bigger than 4' by 8' - while a mining layout with tight curves and short cars would fit into a space 3' by 5'.

Jim

[ereimer]

dictionary.com defines diorama as ...

1. A three-dimensional miniature or life-size scene in which figures, stuffed wildlife, or other objects are arranged in a naturalistic setting against a painted background.
2. A scene reproduced on cloth transparencies with various lights shining through the cloths to produce changes in effect, intended for viewing at a distance through an aperture.

although it doesn't specifically say it , a diorama is static . therefore if you can run a train of any length any distance it's a layout , not a diorama [:)]

[Anonymous]

My docksider used to operate on a 6x9 in R.R. small!

[Jetrock]

The question is one of operation--can you actually *do* something with the railroad? There are folks who build huge basement-filling layouts that are essentially nothing but loops--they love to watch trains going round and round. A mini layout modeler who cranks out a 1 square foot "pizza-box" layout is doing the same thing--creating an environment to watch the train go round and round.

Some of the smallest of the micro layouts are limited in operational potential, but you don't need that many square feet to integrate some form of switching. Most of the operations-centered micro layouts lean towards the larger end of micro building's theoretical upper limit of 4 square feet. There are several examples of the "switching puzzle" in this world--the Inglenook, Timesaver, Gumstump & Snowshoe, etcetera--and some micros intended to simulate real work, such as moving materials in a factory or dockyard, logging, or short-distance shuttling. These are the kinds of work that real "tiny railroads" performed--their scale equivalents should not be held to the standards of Class I long-haul operations. If you can switch a few cars, you can operate.

So if you're a scenery guy, and the whole reason to build a giant mountain empire is to be able to sit back and watch the trains, then the pizza box certainly qualifies as a real layout--and a lot faster and cheaper to construct than the basement-filler! For the operations guy, simulating a dock operation where the action consisted of moving boxes from one end of the pier to the other does't need a whole lot of complexity to accurately simulate what a real railroad would have done (and keep in mind that before the days of forklifts, industrial railroads did a lot of this sort of work.)

Another type of micro, the scene-changer, represents another school of thought. This can be flat like the pizza-box or set up like a switcher, but uses some kind of tunnel, building or other view block to separate the view into multiple scenes. This can help create the same sort of illusion as one finds on a larger model railroad--a layout designed to move products from point A to point B, but without showing any more of the distance between those points than is absolutely necessary. Lots of "pizza box" layouts show this sort of work--and if they stop to load or unload passengers or cargo, then you can have your loop and operate it too!

"Real layout" means more than a crude measurement of square feet...

[CNJ831]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Jetrock

The question is one of operation--can you actually *do* something with the railroad? There are folks who build huge basement-filling layouts that are essentially nothing but loops--they love to watch trains going round and round. A mini layout modeler who cranks out a 1 square foot "pizza-box" layout is doing the same thing--creating an environment to watch the train go round and round.

"Real layout" means more than a crude measurement of square feet...

Although I'm sure it will upset more than a few newer hobbyists here, I repectfully have to disagree with this interpertation of just what constitutes a model railroad layout. A layout is not a layout simply because one says it is. As someone who has been in the hobby for decades, it was always my understanding that a "layout" was an attempt at representing at least a small slice of reality that would be recognizable as such to most viewers. Layouts also need to represent a reason for the train's existance, i.e. implying the moving of passengers or materials over a significant distance that would be impractical via other means of transportation. Below the classification of "layout" always were "modules" and "dioramas". While a module might represent a facet of train operation (say switching) or a series of modules might be connected together to make a (purposeful) layout, a diorama always remained a diorama since the trains were really more part of the scenery than having actual purpose.

Tiny dioramas on which scale trains run are nothing new. These have been with the hobby almost since the beginning, running on the brim of a woman's hat or atop a man's straw hat. As someone who has participated in NMRA contests over the years, I saw and built many a diorama that included some track, a freight car or two, and perhaps even an engine, in the scene. Neither I, nor anyone else entering such a display, ever would have considered these a "layout", even though many were larger than the "micro layouts" under discussion and allowed the locomotives to move back and forth.

As with the early oddities of trains running on hat brims, most hobbyists who have been around for years considered ultra-tiny train displays as jokes, displays done tongue-in-cheek, or meant as extreme caricatures of model railroading itself and are never taken very seriously. Such displays do not represent real life even when accepting selective compression, since locomotives are not imployed to move cars less than a scale 100' between tiny shacks (a real manufacturing facility would have such a distance enclosed and probably use overhead cranes) and running around in a minute radius circle can not imply any real purpose (at least beyond an amusement park ride).

A pop-gun is not a hunting rifle and a tiny operating diorama is not a layout.[;)]

CNJ831

[Anonymous]

Although I'm sure it will upset more than a few newer hobbyists here, I repectfully have to disagree with this interpertation of just what is a model railroad layout. A layout is not a layout simply because one says it is. As someone who has been in the hobby for decades, it was always my understanding that a "layout" was an attempt at representing at least a small slice of reality that would be recognizable as such to to most viewers. Layouts also need to represent a reason for the train's existance, i.e. implying the moving of passengers or materials over a significant distance that would be impractical via other means of transportation. Below the classification of "layout" always were "modules" and "dioramas". While a series of modules might be connected together to make a (purposeful) layout, a diorama always remained a diorama since the trains were more part of the scenery than having actual purpose.

CNJ831

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: ALL model railroads, no matter how large, are ridiculously compressed. Even the largest of basement empires doesn't come close to the real thing in scale.

I'm with you on that. No matter how large or how well detailed any model might be, it still falls under the heading of "ce n'est pas un ferroviare", to crib a line from M. Magritte.

Although I don't feel inclined to build a real micro layout myself, I do like modelling in small spaces, and so find the discussions and results of the micro-layout builders very helpful. For me, its a wonderful study tool to learn how to get the most out of a small space. The challenge of working within the size constraints of the specs on Carl's website really gets one thinking. The lessons learned from that have been quite helpful in our design process.

Also for those modelling in small, but not micro, spaces -- the micro plans offer some good nuggets that can be expanded on or linked together to make something larger. Our home layout is designed on this concept -- I'd actually call it a mid-sized layout overall (8' x 11' L in N scale), but its designed essentially as a series of interlocked small layouts representing 3 different railways, one of which breaks down into two subdivisions. Eventually it will also include its own micro layout too -- a small trolley loop with two stations on either side of a scenic divide.

Cheers,
Maureen
(Disclaimer: I am a minor contributor to one of Carl's plans -- the Graffitti Bros. Construction Co.; which came about from a discussion on creative new ways to make a scenic view block to hide a fiddle track.)

[Jetrock]

QUOTE: A pop-gun is not a hunting rifle and a tiny operating diorama is not a layout.

Tell that to varminters who use .17 caliber, a bullet diameter more associated with BB guns than hunting rifles.

One of my favorite real-life locomotives is the Mattole Valley #1, a 30" narrow-gauge locomotive whose only job was going back and forth two miles from the Mattole Valley carrying tanbark from a stand of trees to a wharf. Lots of other real, actual locomotives didn't travel significant distances--the carendt.com site has ACTUAL DOCUMENTATION of small industrial railroads that traveled no farther than a small complex of buildings--or within a single buildings.

A micro layout can model a micro railroad--thus maintaining prototypical appropriateness and dinky size.

My layout is a bit too big for a micro (16 square feet in HO) but I would be very resistant of the idea that it can't simulate the "real railroad work" you suggest as the basis for a layout.

[CNJ831]

The apparent interpretation by some (the latest generation?) hobbyists as to what constitutes a true layout is most interesting but I have to say it flies in the face of hobby history.

As long ago as the 1960's, MR's greatest editor, Linn Westcott, wrote in an MR editorial about classifying "layouts" by track curvature. As I recall the editorial's commentary, Westcott had suggested that anything having curves with a radius of 18" and above was classed as "standard" layout. Those with curves in the 15" range were considered "bantam" or "pug" layouts (Walthers even introduced a line of "pug" passenger cars to fit such layouts). Anything less (other than traction) was not worthy of being called an actual layout, implying that these were either a display, an operating diorama, a switching puzzle, etc..

So...it would seem that, at least on this forum, the situation is one of, "it's a layout if I say it is", regardless of convention or logic.

CNJ831

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CNJ831

The apparent interpretation by some (the latest generation?) hobbyists as to what constitutes a true layout is most interesting but I have to say it flies in the face of hobby history.

But even the example you site is not necessarily hobby history, but and editorial and commentary. Meaning it was one's opinion, even if that person was Lynn Westcott or John Armstrong, or ???. I believe John Armstong is the one who also proposed drawing the geologic sub-structure of the layout on the front benchwork - now that was a good idea! [(-D]

By the definition given in your example, John Allen's original layout that became the famous Gorre & Daphetid <sp?> would be a "bantam". Than the proposed definition fails on several other points. [}:)] First is that it is obviously HO-specific. By that hard definition almost all TT, N, and Z scale layouts would be "not worthy of being called a layout". Second, that would put some of the layouts that are actual displays or operating diorama's into the "real" layout category because they have no curves at all. Max radius = infinity.

I could make the argument that the term "layout" isn't even being properly used in this context anyway. A "layout" is mearly the track arrangment of one's imaginary world. I believe the term "pike" might be the more generic term of the whole model railroad environment[?]. A model railroad pike has a layout but not vic-versa. Anything with track has a "layout" of that track. I have modular units that in order to connect to others they have a dictated "layout" of the track. But I would never consider them to be a "layout" or "pike" when they are standing on their own. This gets us back to the never ending thread [zzz] on the model railroad general form of "what is a model railroad". Some people don't even consider out door G-Scale to be a model railroad, yet they all have track layouts.

QUOTE:
So...it would seem that, at least on this forum, the situation is one of, "it's a layout if I say it is", regardless of convention or logic.

Is there any place where the NMRA, national magazine, or other national modeling organization has accepted something as a written standard - then it would become convention at least.

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Wynn Sands

Hey rails!! Who's built a really interesting Small Ho RR out there? I mean really SMALL, like less than 4' x 8' ?[8D]

I had made several for my wife to sell at craft shows. The most interesting one was 76"x42" that fit on the top bunk of a bunkbed. Unfortunately, I gave it away over Christmas so I don't have a picture. Here are two I have left after the great purge. The one is 57"x42" and the smaller one is 36"x30".
http://www.walkersquawker.net/images/swichman.JPG
http://www.walkersquawker.net/images/tinyloop.JPG