markpierce How does one measure the size of a layout?... Mark
How does one measure the size of a layout?...
Mark
Mark, I operate mine from the interior, in a central pit. It looks like a big box from the outside with tall fascia panels from floor to just above the scenic surfaces. Even though there is storage for our Christmas decorations under the layout, I feel the outer bounds of the "box" constitutes the size of my layout...it is usable square footage not really available, or conducive, to any other use except for shoving some large Rubber Maid containers under the frame members.
The outer dimensions are 9 X 13.75, and I claim that mine comes in at 120+ usable square feet.
-Crandell
First in the way of a reply, my current railroad (C&O Hawks Nest Branch) is just at 100 sq. ft. If I had more space I would have a bit more of the C&O main on the New River and maybe make a few small adjustment on the branch - but that's just me.
That being said, over the years I've been a MR nut this issue of 'only large layout articles' has come up any number of times. The more or less stock answers has been along two basic lines: (1) large layouts while uncommon are nonetheless felt to inspire all modelers and (2) MR (and other related mags) generally selects from what is contributed and most RR articles tend to be from larger railroads - why is another matter perhaps. I'm sure the editors at MR can give better answers than this, but you get the gist.
Now can smaller RR's be a source of a good articles - dang right. A while back my then very tiny railroad (H, around 20 sq ft) made it into a competitive model railroad magazine ( 6 pages. 11 photos) - so it can be done. The obvious consideration is the time and effort it takes to do this. I'm sure some of us are up to the challenge.
Oh agony of agony and woe is me! My poor little N Scale layout will be 8 square foot..
MR does have a tenancy to focus on Godzilla size layouts.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
Folks:
My own layout is a 4x8. The average home layout was about 50-60 square feet for a long time, according to various MR trivia-drops over the years, the latest being in the '90s, IIRC. I don't know where it stands now, but I wouldn't be surprised if that was still true.
I do think our hobby is in a phase that extols size, and we don't really devote much expertise to small layouts. I don't mean they're ignored, but that they're considered stepping-stones for newbies and not much more. I feel that this is an error.
Give me quality over sheer quantity any day. It's nice to have both, but how much time does the average person have, and how many operators can he call on? A lot of the MR layouts remind me of the big fancy kitchens with commercial appliances and track lighting, and the whole works - which are ultimately used to microwave some Hot Pockets, on most days. Everything's there but practicality, and the people who do the most cooking always seem to be working in a little kitchen with a 20 year old Hotpoint stove that has 3 working burners.
From what I see in the LD forum, a lot of people think they need more than they do, in order to have any fun. I thought so. I made a horrendous wreck of a layout, once, that had size, and plenty of it, but was a failure in every other way. I'm much happier with my current one.
Model railroading does tend to follow the larger culture in many ways. Perhaps now that we are exiting the SUV era, we will see a trend toward modest but high-quality layouts that are more practical for the average hobbyist.
I wonder how many of you pontificating on this topic have actually seen the MRP issue or read any of the other posts to this thread? Earlier in the thread, I pointed out the small layouts and LDEs in the issue -- about half the track plan diagrams are under 150 sq. ft. overall -- and that includes aisles. Your beloved HO 4X8s require at least 80 sq ft, even if one end is butted up against a wall, and that's with modest two-foot aisles.
As far as MR itself goes, they published a very nicely done 2'4" by 7'10" HO layout in the last year (April 2008), the current project layout is 4X12 in HO and the previous project this past year was about six square feet. How much smaller do you want these layouts to be?
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
BRAKIE Oh agony of agony and woe is me! My poor little N Scale layout will be 8 square foot..
Wow, Brakie, that's exactly the same size as the N scale layout in the February 2009 issue. Nice drama, though.
Currently under 10 sq. ft with plans to expand between around 700 sq. ft.
cuyama I wonder how many of you pontificating on this topic have actually seen the MRP issue or read any of the other posts to this thread? Earlier in the thread, I pointed out the small layouts and LDEs in the issue -- about half the track plan diagrams are under 150 sq. ft. overall -- and that includes aisles. Your beloved HO 4X8s require at least 80 sq ft, even if one end is butted up against a wall, and that's with modest two-foot aisles. As far as MR itself goes, they published a very nicely done 2'4" by 7'10" HO layout in the last year (April 2008), the current project layout is 4X12 in HO and the previous project this past year was about six square feet. How much smaller do you want these layouts to be?
c:
Well, 90% of my posts are pontifications on some subject or another, and I really saw this more as a chance to pseudo-philosophize a little, which seemed to fit with the spirit of the original post. Drift makes the world go 'round.
As for my 4x8, I'll just continue to have fun with it, I think. It works for me, and apparently for a lot of other people. The thing about theory is that it needs to match the practice. If it doesn't, well, it's time to reconsider the theory.
Autobus Prime Well, 90% of my posts are pontifications on some subject or another,
Well, 90% of my posts are pontifications on some subject or another,
Oh, I had noticed, actually.
Autobus Prime As for my 4x8, I'll just continue to have fun with it, I think.
As for my 4x8, I'll just continue to have fun with it, I think.
What's ironic here is that if you had actually looked at MRP 2009 before commenting, you would have noticed an HO 4X8 on page 20 of my article that I adapted from an MR plan for my client as a "warm-up" layout (over my objections -- I thought he should have built it in sections -- and I was right).
In the end, the HO 4X8 was impossible to move out of his basement -- like a ship in a bottle. But he's not sure he'll have the heart to tear it down, so he may incorporate it into the larger layout, even though it will compromise the minimum radius he desires (another reason I suggest against 4X8s and suggest 5X8, 5X9, or 5X10 instead for HO island layouts). My article includes the HO 4X8 trackplan and how it might fit into the larger design.
My point has always been that the 4X8 "sacred sheet" is suboptimal for an HO layout and a slightly wider layout will nearly always fit. But if someone already has the 4X8 monolith built, there may be ways to use it better than the typical 2-spur, 2-siding HO 4X8, as I just posted over the weekend in this thread.
Autobus Prime The thing about theory is that it needs to match the practice. If it doesn't, well, it's time to reconsider the theory.
The thing about theory is that it needs to match the practice. If it doesn't, well, it's time to reconsider the theory.
Huh?
ByronModel RR Blog
Westport Terminal RR - H0 - in my basement is about 370 square feet including aisles.
Wolfgang
Pueblo & Salt Lake RR
Come to us http://www.westportterminal.de my videos my blog
The Hard Knox Valley RR will be 96 square feet, if you add in the 3x6' hole in the middle for construction and operations, it pushes it over 100 square feet. Yeah!!! I enjoy articles about the larger layouts...give me inspiration. I don't particularly care for articles about scales besides HO, but I do realize it's a model railroading magazine. Not an HO model railroading magazine. I don't really understand the continuous bashing of the magazine...for 75 years it has done nothing but promote the hobby we all love.
Mainetrains
'there's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear' Modeling the Hard Knox Valley Railroad in HO scale http://photos.hardknoxvalley.com/
cuyama Autobus Prime Well, 90% of my posts are pontifications on some subject or another, Oh, I had noticed, actually.
Excellent. I'm trying to build a reputation and you just can't do that if everything slips under the ol' radar.
Pontifex, of course, literally means "bridge-builder", and we model railroaders do love our bridges. It is therefore natural that we should love to pontificate, don't you think?
Unfortunately, my 4x8 doesn't have a bridge. I just couldn't work one in. It's the one regret I have. It's fun to operate, and fun to work on, but it doesn't feel complete without a bridge. Maybe I can finagle in a culvert.
Autobus PrimeGive me quality over sheer quantity any day. It's nice to have both
I'd prefer both; there have been many notable layouts over the years that are both large and well-done, carefully-detailed examples.
Under 1000 sq in floor space.
It's about 700sq feet, but a double decker. So does that make it 1400 sq ft?
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
cuyama BRAKIE Oh agony of agony and woe is me! My poor little N Scale layout will be 8 square foot.. Wow, Brakie, that's exactly the same size as the N scale layout in the February 2009 issue. Nice drama, though.
That's only 2x4 foot..Not very big by MR publish layout standards----not even for the wee scale...LOL!
This thread started out badly because it is based on a strawman argument. Nevertheless, it is good to know the discussion has remained civil.
There are hundreds of small track plans and articles on small layouts. I get the feeling that small layout owners (like I've been) are frustrated that we can't fulfil our dreams in 32 or 100 square feet and want to see how it can be done.
Oh well, the small layout is more likely to be completed than a large layout and much less work to highly detail. Thus, less reason not to have good photo scenes and viable magazine fodder.
No layout for me yet but...... I put the wagon in front of the horse and stocked up on loco's, dcc equipment, and intermodal stuff. That being said I found the layout I liked in the under 100sq foot track plan database of this site (Meramec Valley)but I'm going to make some mods to it..... benchwork should be up shortly. So I will definately be under 100sq feet (40.5 to be exact)
88 Square feet HO.
Brakie; there's one fellow who has had a 'diorama' set up on a 7'x 16" shelf---it is almost close enough for a small MRR story---- ----then this kind of sizing up the layout and the bigger layout getting written about sort of goes along the line of an ad from a pizza joint that says--paraphrasing here---" When it comes to your chicken wings---SIZE MATTERS---
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
My layout is a simple 2 X 8 foot layout. Therefore, it is under 100 square feet. I too was very disappointed with the 2009 Model Railroad Planning issue. I was hoping for more smaller layouts to be included. I guess that Model Railroader believes that "big means better. "
I think you're wrong, I liked the issue and thought it was pretty well balanced. One thing to keep in mind, they do not do the articles, layout owners do. So smaller layout owners, get your articles in. My layout is 1800 sq ft.
http://www.youtube.com/user/ClinchValleySD40
http://www.flickr.com/photos/52481330@N05/
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/page/1/ppuser/8745/sl/c
ClinchValleySD40 I think you're wrong, I liked the issue and thought it was pretty well balanced. One thing to keep in mind, they do not do the articles, layout owners do. So smaller layout owners, get your articles in. My layout is 1800 sq ft.
Neat stuff. Wasn't your layout featured recently in one of the magazines? Looking at the pictures, it's a case of "deja vu all over again" . I'm pretty sure it has, but I don't remember where.
I am envious. The HOUSE from which this reply emanates is only about 1000 sq. ft.
Andre
I'm into HO scale geared steam and under 100 sq ft. I'm building in sections knowing a move is coming and I can't bolt all the sections together presently unless I move the Mini out of the garage first. Roy
Roy Onward into the fog http://s1014.photobucket.com/albums/af269/looseclu/
Mine is a 5x12 foot table layout, so it's 60 square feet. I will be ballasting the last of the trackwork in a few weeks, and I hope to have the remaining small patches of pink foam covered with scenery by the spring. That will be about 4 years of actual construction.
Later in the year, I hope to get permission to expand. The addition will be about 40 more square feet.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
MRRSparky I just received my copy yesterday, and am somewhat disappointed with it. I have kept my copies of the last several years; the 2009 is short on content and pages in comparison. In addition, most of the focus (in fact all of it except for the last article on On30) is of large to huge layouts. I was a lot more interested in problem solving for small to medium size layouts. However, this seems to be the focus of Model Railroader so I should have expected to be disapponted. I think it would be interesting to get a survery going: Raise your hand if your layout is: Under 100 sq. ft. Under 250 sq. ft. Under 500 sq. ft. Under 1,000 sq. ft. If this has been done before on this forum, maybe somebody could direct me to the results. My thinking is that MR is directing its content to an audience that has a large layout or might aspire to having one, but most of us either have room for only a smaller layout, or maybe have none at all.
I just received my copy yesterday, and am somewhat disappointed with it. I have kept my copies of the last several years; the 2009 is short on content and pages in comparison. In addition, most of the focus (in fact all of it except for the last article on On30) is of large to huge layouts.
I was a lot more interested in problem solving for small to medium size layouts. However, this seems to be the focus of Model Railroader so I should have expected to be disapponted. I think it would be interesting to get a survery going:
Raise your hand if your layout is:
Under 100 sq. ft.
Under 250 sq. ft.
Under 500 sq. ft.
Under 1,000 sq. ft.
If this has been done before on this forum, maybe somebody could direct me to the results. My thinking is that MR is directing its content to an audience that has a large layout or might aspire to having one, but most of us either have room for only a smaller layout, or maybe have none at all.
I hope you are not going to try to tabulate these answers based upon your selections. Not having four arms I will have to vote once four times; the size of my (current) layout is zero square feet and that is under 100 sq. ft. and under 250 sq. ft. and under 500 sq. ft. and under 1,000 sq. ft. On the other hand I have an acquaintance whose layout is 1,001 sq. ft. and he can't vote at all.
I will be buying my copy of MRP on the Newsstand out at Luke Field the next time I get out there--10% discount and no sales tax and all that jazz. Like GMR, MRP varies greatly in its appeal; I look upon it as a "Think Tank" and I view the articles from that perspective. Like all other editors TK has to work with what is available; at St. Louis in 2001 I hunted him up and congratulated him on the latest issue because I had found it loaded with a bevy of "Think Tank" features; his next issue, however, went flat on it's nose. It would well be that the quantity and quality of features for this current issue of MRP simply were not there.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
About 450 square feet in HO/HOn3. It incorporates a 3'x5' module that grew like Topsy.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
Robby P. I'm not sure on the sq. for my layout. Its a 8x12, so I am guessing less than 250sq.
I'm not sure on the sq. for my layout. Its a 8x12, so I am guessing less than 250sq.
You, my friend, are absolutely correct in your calculation. Your layout is not only less than 250 sq. ft. it is also less than 1,000 sq. ft and 500 sq. ft. and even less than 100 sq. ft. Please send your calculator to Washington D.C.; B.O. could use it to compute the National Budget.
One nice thing about planning your layout on computer, I can tell you exactly how big it it:
Total Area = 104.91 Sq Ft ...call it 105 Sq Ft
Have fun with your trains