Hi everybody,
I keep seeing all these references to "large layouts" and "small layouts". I'm wondering if there's some sort of threshold that takes one from one size to the next, or is it all arbitrary? I work in N scale and am trying to figure out the parameters for a layout that's a few years in the future, and some guidance as to "how big is big?" would be super helpful.
Currently dreaming in the parents' basement...
Welcome to the forum. Your first few posts are moderated and will be delayed. But stick around, and that passes quickly.
The size definitions are arbitrary. It seems like the question you are actually asking is different, which is about how large of a project should one consider? If you have a very large space, it can be tempting to consider a layout to fill all of it. But the commitment of time and money to build a large layout is substantial.
If you’ve never built a layout before, constructing a smaller layout first would help you build skills and gain an appreciation for how long things take for you (which varies by the individual) and how much they cost.
Hollow-core-door sized layouts work well in N scale. This would be 30”X80” or 36”X80”. There are lots of hollow-core-door (often abbreviated HCD) N scale plans on the Internet.
Best of luck with your layout.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I should mention that the best indicator of time and cost is not simply size, but complexity. One could build a desert short line with a few small towns in a large space, filling the room with mostly scenery and a dozen-or-so turnouts. This would likely take much less time and money than a dense urban layout with a hundred turnouts in 200 square feet.
Turnout count is a (very) rough indicator of scope – and thus, time and cost. And in any case, the models (rolling stock and structures) may well be the most expensive part of almost any layout.
Pretty much arbitrary. I tend to think in terms of a 4' x 8' as the centerpoint for "small", filling a average (?) size spare room as "medium", and filling a two-car garage sized space as the starting point for "large". But these are just my own perceptions, which I'll readily admit don't take the model scale into consideration.
My own HO layout fills a 22' x 18' room, which seems overwhelmingly gigantic considering my slow rate of progress... and way-too-small when I'm operating it!
Jim
What difference would it make,as to what you call it ?
We each have a space, is it large or really big, compared to who's.
Can you build 50 sq. feet. but not 51. or maybe only 49
We each have a budget, mine is not as big as yours, but I 'm sure its bigger then that other guy's.
Build as mutch of what you want/can afford, call it yours. Putting a size lable on it will make no difference.
...and going on further into a careful response to the question (it's never straightforward), the complexity of the design dictates how much room you'll need for it. And, as alluded to, the scale in which one models, Z, N, HO, S, the narrow gauges, O, and G, as examples, will work in different spaces if one uses the same trackage layout.
An oval can be done in any scale under a Christmas tree. Or, severely altered, on a sheet of plywood. But, they get 'tired' very soon, so we want something more complicated and interesting. That means complexity, and now you have to consider geometry. Your rolling stock can only go around curves, and through turnouts, that are so tight. Will you mind seeing contorted trains? Or, would you like to have wider curves and more realistic ones where your trains don't seem quite so toy-like...Christmas tree oval-like? Now you need more room.
I think a Z scale or N on a full sheet of plywood might charitably be called a medium sized layout. But, if you go with how long it takes to build a 'large' layout, and forget about details, just go by the number of 'track miles' on a main line, something the size of a large bedroom would probably be a 'medium' layout. Large layouts fill basements and warehouses...or museums. That's a rough guide.
I can be windy at times and my answers get long. So, I thought I'd break up my reply only to agree with Byron's (cuyama's) reply as well, and to reinforce what the others say; go easy on yourself the first time. Build something considered, but on which you'll be up and running trains inside of a couple or few weeks, not two or three years. Treat the first one as a learning experience, and not just to gain skills, but to learn more about how you'll enjoy trains for more than a couple of weeks until your track layout gets boring. Learn more about trains, about your scale, about track planning, and then building something you won't want to mothball inside of a month or two. You have to grow in a hobby...somehow.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
I had every bit as much fun on my Plywood Pacific(s) I had as a kid as I have with my current layout that occupies a 15' x 24' room. I consider my layout to be on the larger end of a small layout. I just visited a layout that was huge compared to mine yet it was a lot smaller than some I have been to visit.
I just told the wife I was building a layout in the corner. Her mistake was not telling me how far out from the corner I could come.
I had a friend that had many 2' x 4' modules and would put as many together that was practical at his house. When the wife was away for a long weekend WATCH OUT it was train city all through his house. Usually, he would have a 12' x 8' set up in the spare room.
He would store them by stacking the modules on a rack on the wall in the garage much like you see how windshields are stored at the glass place.
I want to add a harbour section to my layout and it will be a modular add on situation as there will be times when it needs to come down.
I don't know how many square feet my layout is, just that it is big enough for the room it is in that it would not be practical to try and do anything else in there.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
gregc
What's missing on the first page of that article is the scale. It wasn't HO, N scale wasn't even a dream in 1939. It wasn't even in the most common O scale. It was, IIRC, 7/16" scale.
But very much ahead of its time in being a simple linear railroad.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
One way to see it is: Where to start and how to expand. Do you have lots of room? If yes, you can start with a small layout, with expansion tracks built in to expand later. Starting small is wise, like others have said.
Simon
Some people manage to get lucky, and get what they want on the first try, with maybe some future expansons. But I'd say the majority do not. If you've never built a layout before, be prepared to make the first one relatively small, and treat it as a learning experience. Often called a "chainsaw layout" these days, because when you are done and ready to move on to your 'dream' layout, you take a chainsaw to this one to get rid of it and make way for the new construction. It's never a complete waste, as you have the skills learned, the rolling stock, structures, electronics, and even some of the track cna be salvaged for later use.
I've been considering putting together somethign small, only because it has been more than 6 years since I last worked on my old bedroom size layout and I feel I might be getting rusty, plus I want to run some trains. But I am finally making progress on the basement remodel so by next year I should finally have construction underway.
Hello All,
When I think of the difference between a "small" and "large(r)" pike I consider the minimum radius curves and turnouts that can be used.
On my HO scale 4'x8' pike the largest radii curves I can employ are 22-inches. The largest turnouts are Atlas Snap Switches; approximately #4.
The smallest radii is 15-inchs and the smallest turnouts are #2's.
I would definitely consider this track arrangement a "small" pike.
Pikes that can employ larger radii trackage; e.g. 34-inches or more, I wold consider a "larger" pike.
Some have posted that it might be the complexity of the pike- -scenery or trackage- -that defines the "size" of the pike.
To throw the proverbial "spanner into the works" scale plays a part in the consideration of "size".
What might be considered a "large" N-scale pike, with the same area, could be considered a switching or "Time Saver" in O-scale. This is where the terms become relevant to the scale.
Others may- -and will- -disagree with my opinions. You asked for guidance and not an absolute definition.
Hope this helps.
"Uhh...I didn’t know it was 'impossible' I just made it work...sorry"
I think that there really are no clear lines between the sizes of different model railroads. I guess I’d say 4x8 ish and smaller are small, though a bit bigger could still be considered small. However I‘d say if you start to fill a small bedroom you are reaching the lower end of medium. Garages and larger bedrooms, and even smaller basements, would kind of still be medium, but I feel like some larger garage and basement layout approach big. Now the typical big layout would be the kind of this that takes up basements and such.
Now with double (or triple...) deck layouts I’d say that a bedroom sized layout approaches big, as opposed to medium. Scale is also a bit of factor, a room sized O scale layout would be small and a room sized n scale layout would be a bit bigger...
Minimum curve radius and turnout size are often good indicatons, but not always. I guess 22-18” HO, <10” for n would be small, 24-30” for HO, 11-18” for N medium, and then 32“+ for HO and 19”+ for N. And then maybe #4 or 5 turnouts for small, 6 or 7 for medium, and 8+ for large, at least on mainlines... These values are kind of random, and not always correct, my layout for example has 15” minimum radius (n scale) and #7 turnouts yet is just a loop, siding and two spurs, so it’s small...
I think this is really up to the individual to determine...
Regards, Isaac
I model my railroad and you model yours! I model my way and you model yours!
In
SPSOT fanI think this is really up to the individual to determine...
Right, in other words, it doesn't really matter. Nothing to "head trip" over.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
STRATTON AND GILLETTE:
.
1) Hollow core door in N scale. Completed in 1984, rebuilt in 1985.
2) Massive N scale layout in its own special designed room. 16 by 30 I think. Somehwere around there. Never even got to the point of running trains. House was built in 1989, razed in 1991.
3) N scale switching layout in dining room. 30 inches by 8 feet. Great experience and was supposed to expand into L shaped layout in living room. Then I switched to HO scale.
4) Ho scale switching layout in master bedroom. Also 30 inches by 8 feet. Was completed in 1998. Moved to new house in 1999 and sat on sawhorses for four years.
5) Spare bedroom layout created when oldest daughter moved out. 10 by 11 foot room. Was supposed to incorporate the switching layout, but there was not enough room to make it work. Switching layout was scrapped. This layout was originally around-the-walls, but the duckunder was no good, and the lift out bridge was not the right solution. Converted to point-to-point operation with a wye and a turntable. Never completed, scrapped in 2017.
I have an excellent solid plan for the next layout, but some of that is up in the air right now due to a possible new house or a possible new job in Wisconsin.
Anyway... layout size means little. A small layout like my 10 by 11 foot HO layout seemed like a huge undertaking because of all the changes in plans and complicated trackwork.
That "dream house" N scale plan sounds like an empire, but it had very few turnouts and was mostly supposed to be doube track mainline. It would have been very simple to build. It was designed that way on purpose.
I have seen small layouts and huge layouts that were equally impressive and loved by their builders.
Complication means more than actual size.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
riogrande5761 SPSOT fan I think this is really up to the individual to determine... Right, in other words, it doesn't really matter. Nothing to "head trip" over.
SPSOT fan I think this is really up to the individual to determine...
Yeah I’d agree to that. Honestly a better way to classify layouts would be by Quanitiative size (i.e. 4’x8’ or 20’x30’) rather than qualitative classifications like big or small!
Any experience or thoughts on the success rate of those expandable plans? Where you start with a small layout that is intentionally designed to be added on to in the future. Does the concept actually work or do your skills improve so much that you can't stand the look of the older portion? I've often thought about this as I hate the idea of waste but I can see arguments for both.
rrinkerSome people manage to get lucky, and get what they want on the first try, with maybe some future expansons. But I'd say the majority do not. If you've never built a layout before, be prepared to make the first one relatively small, and treat it as a learning experience. Often called a "chainsaw layout" these days, because when you are done and ready to move on to your 'dream' layout, you take a chainsaw to this one to get rid of it and make way for the new construction. It's never a complete waste, as you have the skills learned, the rolling stock, structures, electronics, and even some of the track cna be salvaged for later use.
It's like the supreme court decision in the 60's on pornography - (and I paraphrase) "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it".
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
My layout was about 100 square feet. It will be a bit smaller this next time around. I would call both the previous and next ones "medium."
How much time do you have? If I took all the time I spent building it and divided that by the physical size, I would get about one month per square foot. So, my 100 square foot pike took a bit over 8 years. Rebuilding would be quicker, because all the rolling stock is weathered, all the structures are built, painted, detailed and weathered, and all the locomotives have decoders.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
carl425It's like the supreme court decision in the 60's on pornography - (and I paraphrase) "I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it".
I like that.
to the forum. Color me skeptical.
I sincerely hope I am wrong, but this strikes me as one of those opening posts by a newbie that gets everyone wound up....and then we never hear from you again.
In the words of someone we all know, "What difference does it make?" Most of us have a fixed amount of space, time and money. One of our members has expanded his basement twice, a huge undertaking in itself, to have a 2800 sq ft layout.
Big by any definition, but how much are you up to building/creating. I would need another lifetime to fill 2800 sq ft.
I'm an HO guy but in N scale, even 4x8 in N scale, doesn't seem big enough for me. You have to consider how much you want to detail your railroad, what sort of operations you want, vs round and round.
None of our railroads are ever finished, but maybe you would be happy with tracks on bare plywood and Walthers buildings assembled without any extra painting or weathering. Some of our members are into ultra detail, Mel and Doctorwayne are only two of many that super detail every scene. Are you up for that?
I suppose if I was having a custom model railroader build my layout, small, medium or large would have relevance. That would take most of the fun away.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Thanks for the input, everybody. It sounds like big is "whatever I'm willing to dump the time and money into" while small is "enough to keep me motivated." As of now, I've got a half-finished layout that used to fit under a twin bed until I added legs to it. It's been around longer than I have, and it's kind of become mine by virtue of I'm the only one doing anything with it.
I've got some experience and plenty of energy for all this, but almost literally no time or money, as it all goes to school and work. I'll be around, though, lurking in the shadows and gleaning bits of wisdom.... Who knows, I may even work up the guts to post pictures!
BigDaddy...Mel and Doctorwayne are only two of many that super detail every scene. Are you up for that?....
I'm honoured to be mentioned in the same sentence as Mel (or many others here) but I only detail some items, and definitely not much of the layout itself.
Right now, I'd say that my medium-size layout is about 3/7s or 3/8s "done-ish". Most of the portion under the fairly-recently added upper level is close to presentable, as is part of Dunnville, the largest town on the layout.
Some of the rest has basic landforms, but no scenery such as ground cover, trees, structures, etc., etc. Some, mostly the peninsula leading to the upper level, has only track - no landforms, just an open drop, on both sides of the roadbed, straight to the concrete floor. The partial upper level has useable track all the way to staging, but not much else. I have the rest of the track, the structures, even most of the scenic materials on-hand, but am too busy with other stuff - some not involved at all with model railroading, and some very involved with model railroading, much of it for others, along with a long list of specific locomotives and cars that I want to build for my own enjoyment.
There are days when I think that it's time to simply be done with it, and other days when I feel like I can go on forever.
Wayne
Sodj Hi everybody, I keep seeing all these references to "large layouts" and "small layouts". I'm wondering if there's some sort of threshold that takes one from one size to the next, or is it all arbitrary? I work in N scale and am trying to figure out the parameters for a layout that's a few years in the future, and some guidance as to "how big is big?" would be super helpful.
There are no standards or bright-line breaks between sizes of layouts, in a square-footage way of measuring.
The way I think of it generally follows room size, since the size of our layouts generally max-out the available space devoted.
I would say that a 4x8 is a small layout
A large-bedroom size layout or single garage size layout is a medium layout.
And a double garage size layout would be a large layout.
Of course, each of these layouts could be in a different location than described, like in a basement, but the room size defintion, IMO, works well.
With that in mind, its probably rare for a MRR to build a large N scale layout, if all choices are equal. Given the choices of space and scale, and that the size of our layouts tend to be driven by whatever space we have available, most would likely choose HO scale if they had a double garage or a basement to fill. But I'm sure there are many large N scale layouts around also.
- Douglas
Sodj I've got some experience and plenty of energy for all this, but almost literally no time or money, as it all goes to school and work.
I've got some experience and plenty of energy for all this, but almost literally no time or money, as it all goes to school and work.
I defnitely hear that; as a working professional with a family, time and resources for my (definitely small 4x6 HO) layout are thin. But I find that if one is dedicated, and can manage 15 minutes a day, or even an hour a week, progress can be made. As for money, my miniscule hobby budget comes from recycling and selling off former hobby stuff. The artifacts of my misspent 20s are building my layout.
Donn
As many others have suggested, complexity means more than size.
I am about to start a layout that will fill a 1600 sq ft room, but I have seen 400 sq ft layouts with way more complexity than I am planning.
Sheldon
The hobby's the thing, size doesn't matter unless you have gone too large to enjoy the hobby by not being able to get and/or keep things running properly.
As time passes children require less of your attention and having a layout to work on already no matter what the size helps with a seamless transition into a different phase of your life. At some point you are likely to have more than enough time for trains, life is a journey, not a destination.
Originally was going to do a 4' x 8' and grew into 9' x 10'. Based very loosely on the Burlington Northern project in the 1990 issues of MRR with a Cheyenne theme. I think it is small but feels big for the work to be done. About as much I could get in the room. This is 5 months of work. Sometimes I wonder if it will ever get done. Maybe took on too much for my first layout.
Sodj I'll be around, though, lurking in the shadows and gleaning bits of wisdom.... Who knows, I may even work up the guts to post pictures!
The drive by posters never appear for a second post. You are here for a while. We look forward to seeing pictures of your progress.