How Big Is "Small"? (Mild Rant)

[dwiemer]

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

[GN_mountain_goat]

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

[Anonymous]

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.

[hrin]

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

[rtraincollector]

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.

[Doofus]

 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.

[lionelsoni]

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.

[fifedog]

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.

[sir james I]

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.

[cwburfle]

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.

 

[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."

Therefore, I propose that the layout upper size limit that should be referred to as "small" be 72 square feet, or 6x12. If I was a betting man I'd wager that a sizable majority of stateside setups are smaller than this.

Pete