Big vs Small

[NZRMac]

mines a-little too big for a first layout but I couldn't help myself. I've built a 16'x16' layout in a 2 car garage, and you do need to be aware of whats happening behind you!! When there's 4 sound equipped loco's running it gets a little noisey!!!

Ken.

[AggroJones]

The largest size layout I could comfortably build and maintain by myself would fit in a 2 car garage. 20 x 20 feet or so. I need to be able to keep an eye on things running in various places. Any bigger would be too large. I don't have to worry about that happening though. I'm stuck in my little bedroom! [(-D]

In MR, I wi***hey'd feature more "mid-size" and "small" layout. All the "How big is your layout" polls here indicate not everyone has a giant basement empire.

[Anonymous]

Bigger is truly better when it comes to operating trains. It is so very nice when you have amoden big engine running on the mainline at top speed without going on turns every foot or two. You can see the realism of speed and power of those beautiful engines. I wish I had a huge basement to build an empire like that.

[Eriediamond]

My future Erie layout will be around the walls in a small room. Of course I'd like a football field size layout but my wallet is is only card table size. However, it will be small enough to manage by myself, yet give plenty of room for switching and road operations. I don't think a layout needs to be big for interesting modeling, but a small 4x8 doesn't interest me either. To me the scenery makes or breaks a layout. Thanks, Ken

[Anonymous]

For me, the best size would be 10x12, but I like to dream of having the biggest one!

[rtstasiak]

I've found that medium-- 8 x 10 in HO or 3 x 7 in N work out pretty well. Enough room for conventional curves, continuous running, operations, and scenic variety, but small enough to keep construction, maintenance, storage, and transport manageable. This could change, however, if I win the Lottery and my next wife turns out to be a Dallas Cowboys cheerleader who likes to clean track. (lol)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CARRfan

Bob Boudreau,

Have you ever found the need for DCC on your small modules? Do you "park" your engines using blocks, etc.?

No, my modules were built long before DCC came upon the scene, and I've only operated them with our local club. All of the turnouts are Peco, which are electrically selective - if some engines are parked in the engine house or wherever, they will not run if the turnout is turned against them. I usually shuttle an engine and a few cars back and forth on the modules when they are set up, using the Peco turnouts to select which ones I want to run. DCC is overkill in this situation. I have probably a hundred or more engines, so adding DCC to them for any reason isn't in the cards!

Bob Boudreau

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by FundyNorthern

I do my modeling on two pairs of HO scale modules, one is 2' by 8', the other is 30" by 8'. I also have several dioramas and photo dioramas. Many people think I have a basement full of a layout, which I don't. I couldn't even if I wanted, as our house is a split level model, with both levels completely finished - no wide open basement to use.

I worked on my last pair of modules for several years, adding details, rearranging scenes, etc. I never missed not having a large layout.

See my stuff on my website:
http://www.geocities.com/fundynorthern/

Small is good enough for me!

Bob Boudreau

Bob Boudreau,

Have you ever found the need for DCC on your small modules? Do you "park" your engines using blocks, etc.?

I am very inspired by modules and other very small layouts (David Barrow's South Plains district, for example, or the other one he planned for MRR Planning a few years back)

I'm considering DCC for a 2 x 8 densely packed switching layout, with an unscenicked "loop" of track that runs around it so I could have continuous running.

I just don't know if I need DCC or not, so I'm considering building it all as one giant block, then adding DCC if I feel I need it. Another option would be to build it in blocks so I could "park" engines when not in use. But this would cause me to have to basically wire for both DC and DCC.

With MRC Prodigy advanced going for $200, by the time I purchase two MRC DC power packs (I have one now) to run one switcer while a train "orbits" on the loop (mostly unscenicke) I'd be halfway to the cost of getting into DCC - which would be cool for anyone else to "play with my trains".

Any insight to operations on modules, and the need / lack of need for DCC?

Along the same subject, I recently read in some George Sellios article somewhere that he totally understands the type of model railroader that doesn't actually have an operating layout. Seems like the hardcore model builders are comfortable in the diarama/module MRR'ing "lifestyle".

[ukguy]

I kind of agree with both sides, I love and admire the intricate details of a diorama, small highly detailed layout or modules (I am always in awe of your work Bob when I visit your site for inspiration, which is quite often).
With that said I also love to watch a model run through an expanse of scenery headed for a town or industry further down the layout.

The compromise I have decided on is for my next layout to have a sectional around the room, probably 2' to 30" deep, with each section to be between 4' and 8' long. This way I can initialy have the track and benchwork completed fairly quickly to run trains and operate and then also work on a not so overly large section for scenery and details. I also plan on having several interchangeable/replacement sections so that the 'feel of the layout can be changed faily easily and quickly.

Ultimately its whatever make you happy, somepeople can spend years detailing a small area while others can paint a 30' section of plywood green and call it grass.

Beauty is in the eye of the railroader.

Have fun & be safe.
Karl.

[Anonymous]

I agree - half the challenge is making the best use of space. I started with a 4'x2' N scale setup but now feel that shelf layouts are the way to go - currently have an 8'x1' HO. The advantage of this is that it allows you to have long sidings and limited scenery - no need to spend a fortune on building mountains, etc. You only need to model anything within about a scale 6in of the tracks which makes the build process faster and cheaper. You can also build a layout in a room that's used for other purposes - mine occupies a wall in the spare room, so in the rare event of relatives coming to stay it's not taking up much space.

[Anonymous]

I do my modeling on two pairs of HO scale modules, one is 2' by 8', the other is 30" by 8'. I also have several dioramas and photo dioramas. Many people think I have a basement full of a layout, which I don't. I couldn't even if I wanted, as our house is a split level model, with both levels completely finished - no wide open basement to use.

I worked on my last pair of modules for several years, adding details, rearranging scenes, etc. I never missed not having a large layout.

See my stuff on my website:
http://www.geocities.com/fundynorthern/

Small is good enough for me!

Bob Boudreau

[selector]

I believe, having experience limited to my modest 8X11' basement layout, that getting the most out of a given space should be the goal of anyone who is into 'modelling', but tastes in railroading vary. Some are much happier just running trains, and leave the details to the imagination. There is room for everyone at any railroad.

I, as you have realized, agree that a smaller layout will challenge in a way that the larger ones don't. Trying to shoehorn an O guage layout onto a 4X8' sheet of foam or wood with some structures and topography will test the most mature roader. The danger, though, is that such a layout, if too complex (busy), will lose out over the long run; it will lack staging, or operations that keep one occupied and interested, or it will lack depth and enough detail that it will never be completely satisfying, depending on the scale.

Really, Mile23, a person could spend months detailing an n-scale 3x6' if the work were fine enough to require it.

How's the weather out there on the Niagara?

[Anonymous]

Although I'm always in awe of those full basement size empires we see and read about in MR and other publications, I'm begining to be more fascinated with more modest size layouts. I'm sure that for most of us, we are limited to a room, garage or corner of an attic or basement, so whenever I see a smaller layout featured in a mag, my eyes are more drawn to the details. Adding alot of features to a larger layout must be easier than adding some to a smaller one without having that "too much stuff in too small an area" syndrome.

Anyways, just a thought I wanted to share this Saturday afternoon.