How Big Is "Small"? (Mild Rant)

Texas Pete

Sorry, but the March issue set me off when it referred to an 11x23.5 foot layout as "compact." The previous February issue featured "small" layouts that ranged in size from 5x18 to 12x12. This is totally absurd. None of these layouts is small or compact, IMO, although I concede that the 8x8 display layout in the March issue may qualify as being marginally "small."

An 8 by 8 layout is by no means small.
IMHO, when magazines publish articles refering to what most people would consider good sized layouts as small, they are helping to kill the hobby. Just think of a newly interested party reading an article about a compact 11 by 23.5 layout. They only have a fraction of that space available. So their layout would be smaller than compact. Why bother?
Even when I was more of an operator than a collector, my largest layout was 8 by 12. Most folks who came to visit thought the layout was tremendous. Yet it was only about 1/3 the size of that "compact" layout.

Not small IMO. CTT seems to have gone more toward the highly scenic, someome else built it, kind of mag. To some degree they have gone back to it's roots of classic trains but they do tend to go with fancy a lot. So I guess to them that layout is compact unless they are saying it's overcrowed. Who knows.

IMHO KISS

SMALL - layout fills one room in home.

MEDIUM - layout takes up entire basement in home.

LARGE - People feel obligated to make a monetary donation as they leave.

JUMBO HUMUNGO - Your last name is probably Lash.

Glad I could help.

I think we're being a little too hard on CTT about the word "compact".  The extreme dimensions of the layout in question are 11 x 23 1/2 feet, but much of that is only because of a small peninsula on one end.  The bulk of the layout is 7 x 17 1/2, half the area that the first numbers imply.

It's not unreasonable to think that even that size is not small.  But the article said "compact", not "small".  The relevant definitions that I find for "compact" are, "having a dense structure or parts or units closely packed or joined", and, "occupying a small volume by reason of efficient use of space".  So it's not really a synonym, although automobile manufacturers have used it so much to avoid saying "small", that it may seem to be.

 Train mags are like Car mags. They cater to the rich and ignore the average guy, Thats why I quit buying mags and no longer watch the car shows on SPEED and Spike.

I was wondering if maybe when they said compact if they didn't mean small layout but everything was compact into this layout as it had a lot of items per square foot or what ever not as the actually size being compact.

 I would agree that a small or compact layout should be contained to an area or room that is indeed small or compact. LOL. 

I have no full scale cars on my pike, so IMHO it is small.

IMHO, some people will just find anything to complain about... geez! How many rivets are on that boxcar? WHAT!?! A real one has more than that! ... Size is relative guys... if you are this uptight about schematics, you need to relax and run more trains.

See Fife's response. Couldn't agree more.

Hi -

As a newbie (less than 1 month into the hobby) I;m still trying to determine a layot to fit my space, and as mentioned, for some of us with a small area and no full basement, seeing some of these awesome, but gigantic layouts offered in the mag and the links in this forum, are inspiring but overwhelming.  I'm trying to do something with a 5 x 9 or maybe, if I'm lucky, 5x12 space, and am beginning to realize that It may be considered "small", but it's what some of have to deal with.  And, it's not thesize that matters  , but the quality.

Matt

I think it means little to me how big a given layout is, it is more what the builder has filled the available space with.  I have seen a layout size referred to say, 12 x 30 and yet it is about 3 feet wide going all the way around the room.  Not that there is anything wrong with that, in fact, a lot of good operations can be done that way.  But for actual layout square footage, it can be deceiving.  There are different ways of categorizing layouts in my opinion.  There is the WOW factor....how detailed and how well the scenery is done.  There is the expanse factor....how big the overall layout is.  Then, there is the FUN factor.  To me, that is the most impressive aspect of a layout.  How enjoyable is it to run?  I have seen some fantastic layouts with great scenery, covering lots of space.  In the end, it was just like rail-fanning in miniature.  Was fun for a while, but I would rather do some maneuvering, working some sidings, making some accessories work.

In terms of "terms", I don't get too excited over what things are called.  While most know that a turnout is called just that, I wouldn't jump all over a guy for calling it a "switch".  We know what is meant.  If someone calls a layout compact, if it is not meant in a mean way, I wouldn't worry.  I have seen some spectacular work done in a "compact space".  Look at Scott Smith's layout.  He has it encircling his desk and yet it is very well done.  I am sure he doesn't feel slighted if someone calls it Compact.

Dennis

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.

Pete

it depends on the scale G to Z.

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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

I believe that it is a matter of perception ands affordability.

Can we add to Fifedog's list "IS A BIGGER LAYOUT BETTER " ?

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.

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.

Pete

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

How Big Is "Small"? Small is somewhere between "under the tree -> a spare bedroom in a modest home."

Medium fits in a one car garage.

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

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.

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.  

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 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.

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!

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.

Texas 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

DennisB-1

Texas 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

So, by your interpretation a Hummer stretch limo could be called "compact" if it had enough "feetchas" crammed in?  You funny dude.

Pete

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?

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.