cacole wrote:And just where does MR get the data upon which they based their statement? They must be going solely on the average size of the monster layouts that they feature in their magazine and not the average size that most of us have. I don't recall their ever conducting a poll of their readers to see what size layouts we have. If they did, I certainly missed seeing it. The 15 x 15 foot figure would mean that the entire room is nothing but layout, with no open space to move around in, so the actual room would have to be much larger than that.
And just where does MR get the data upon which they based their statement? They must be going solely on the average size of the monster layouts that they feature in their magazine and not the average size that most of us have. I don't recall their ever conducting a poll of their readers to see what size layouts we have. If they did, I certainly missed seeing it. The 15 x 15 foot figure would mean that the entire room is nothing but layout, with no open space to move around in, so the actual room would have to be much larger than that.
The 15 x 15 size they mentioned most likely includes aisleways.
My layout will be around 800 square feet once I'm done finishing the basement. (I'm one of the guys who gets the whole basement..) I am ready to hang the doors and put on the trim now. Maybe it will be all ready in a couple months!!! Woo hooo!
Now MR is probably about right with 15 x 15 (225 square feet) average size. It doesn't take too many mega-layouts to skew the average above the median.
Of course there are many 4 x 8 layouts somewhat balancing out the large layouts, but for every 1200 square foot basement empire layout, there would have to be five 4 x 8 (32 square feet) layouts to keep the average at 225 square feet.
Algebra Content:
n = number of 4 x 8 layouts required to average with a single 1200 sqft layout and get 225 sqft
(32 * n + 1200) / (n + 1) = 225
32 * n + 1200 = 225 * n + 225
193 * n = 975
n = 5.05
Our layout is 13' x 14' (182 sq ft) in a room that is 13' x 28'. The actual footprint of the layout is 149 sq ft. My husband and I, each have our own work area under the layout. We have a home gym in the layout room so of course, the trains run while we work out.
Sue
Anything is possible if you do not know what you are talking about.
Hmmmm... the room is 15x21 feet and the bench work takes up a lot less that that, like this..
So, I guess I'm about average to a little under, more like a little under.
JaRRell
Hi my lay out is 8'3''x5'6'' and I use it all. frank
I have planned roughly about 576 ft^2 of plywood in 3/4's of a 32x32 basement. This is broken into two levels.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
The HO layout I'm presently building takes up a 15' X 20' (300 sq ft) space but it is not a rectangle. Actual benchwork space is closer to 215 sq ft.
Bill
Mine is a U-Shaped bench that is 13' X 19' X 8' and is between 4' and 5' wide so currnet foot print is 132 feet with 2 main lines. One DC and other one DCC. Have the lumber cut for the K-10 coal company, it will be 8' X 5' that will bring me to 172 feet. Room is 22' X 32' need to save a 3rd of it for desk, storage but still a lot of space to grow.
Small Ken
I hate Rust
38.5 sq ft in N scale.
When I was much, much, younger I only had a little one to play with. As I got older it got a little bigger and it was much more fun. Then I got to the age when all I wanted was a bigger one, cos I thought that bigger was better.
I grew up.
Now I know that its quality that counts and not quantitiy, its not the size that matters but how you use what you have, bigger isnt always better.
I would much rather have a fully scenicked and detailed 2x8 than a plywood 20x80, my thoughts.
Karl.
I would agree with some of the posts. The information is kind of meaningless, especially if no other qualifiers are given. If you cound that part of my layout that has benchwork, track and scenery on my layout it would be 164 square feet. I have a double track, big walk in L shaped layout in my two car garage. Should I add a bit more because there is about 20 square feet on the upper level? If you measure how many square feet the layout is including the "inside" where you operate it from, it is about 314 square feet. Now could we also count the workbench which is an old computer desk in the house that takes up another 15 or so square feet. I have my dads old Lionel trains on a shelf in the den that runs around above the doors and windows. Should I add that to as a 12' x 14' x 6" wide or as 188 square feet? I don't want to get pickey, but without more information we can not compare our home layout(s) to their "average" layout. I did not make it up, I do have trains all over the downstairs of the house. By the way I love my wife very much thank you.
I would consider my layout to be 314 square feet. I would measure the outside of the layout and include the walk in portion of the layout where it is operated from as part of the layout.
Paul
Dayton and Mad River RR
HEdward wrote:Well now it looks like we have to get together and buy ourselves a million square foot building and fill it with Z scale trains. That way we can model an entire prototype Class 1 railroad.
You laugh - but there's apparently a guy in Alexandria, VA who has done just that - the NMRA Potomac Division is doing a tour of his layout in April. It's a Swiss-themed prototype - this is from the Potomac Division website:
"April 29, 2007 - Oxon Hill, MD - The Swiss Gotthard Line is a Z scale Alpine empire, and believed to be the largest Z scale layout in the world. It depicts the main north - south crossing of the Swiss Alps between Italy and Germany as it exists today. The layout is an irregular shape layout that occupies a space of approximately 50 x 25 feet, with additional extensions. It is located in 3,000 sq/ft of industrial warehouse space in Alexandria, VA. The layout is 100% DCC, and is computer controlled using Railroad & Company software and Digitrax block detectors. There are over 150 blocks in the layout, and normal operations have the computer running about 20 trains simultaneously. The layout is built to the Z-Bend Track modular standard. The first four modules were built in less than 100 days in 2001, and then displayed at NTS 2001 in St. Louis, and NTS 2002 in Ft. Lauderdale. The main section of the layout depicts the spiral tunnel approaches to the Gotthard tunnel. In this section, the trains climb over three feet in vertical height to reach the summit. This section was completed in 2005 and the entire layout was displayed at NTS 2005 in Cincinnati. The layout was created to illustrate the possibilities of the smallest commercial scale. It was designed from actual maps and surveys with a minimum of scenic compression. Over 5000 photographs and two research trips to Switzerland have resulted in one of the most realistic models of this famous European rail line. Even if you are not a fan or European trains or small scales, the Swiss Gotthard Line is a "must see" for any model railroad enthusiast."
http://mprailway.blogspot.com
"The first transition era - wood to steel!"
Well, I'm looking at only 12 sq ft, now. But built as 1X6 modules in N scale in dominoe style within a larger plan waiting for the completion of these two.
By the way, nice work Karl (UKguy) and Jon Grant. Love the pics. Jon, that is what I'm trying to achieve on my modules before making any further. Hopefully the planning commission and CEO will grant more right of way if the first two are done well.
Well I had a good reason to measure what I realy had in benchwork sq ft. Looking at another house MAYBE.
Benchwork is 1,526 sq ft on one level, no double deck. The house we are looking at has a 46 x 115 clear climate controlled 3rd floor with and attic above that and an equal size basement. Oh yes there are bedrooms and the other normal stuff. It is a mansion built by one of the people from J&J Money in 1950's. It is a little under 16,250 sq ft
SpaceMouse wrote: That is the figure put forth in the MAR 07 MR. That is a 15 x 15 room. I don't know if that is room size or the layout square footage. Either way it seems on the large size to me. Is yours bigger or smaller.My current layout is 40 sq ft. The one I'm just starting is room size: 88 sq ft--add staging and it is 106 sq ft. Actual Benchwork sq ft. 44 sq ft--with staging 56 sq ft.
That is the figure put forth in the MAR 07 MR. That is a 15 x 15 room.
I don't know if that is room size or the layout square footage. Either way it seems on the large size to me.
Is yours bigger or smaller.
My current layout is 40 sq ft. The one I'm just starting is room size: 88 sq ft--add staging and it is 106 sq ft. Actual Benchwork sq ft. 44 sq ft--with staging 56 sq ft.
Yes, it is 15 x 15, which is a respectable-size (very respectable!!) "spare bedroom." It is also 20 x 11, which might fit in a spare garage bay. It's also well less than 1/3 of the basement dimension of a typical 25 x 40 foot "garrison colonial" house of the style common here in the northeast US.
Now . . . if you think of the "minimum" as 4 x 8, that's 96 sq ft. The claimed "average" of 225 sq. ft. is 129 sq ft. more than that, or 2.3 times the area of the 4 x 8. Expressed slightly differently, the "average" is 2.3 four by eight plywood sheets.
Well, anyway, those are my thoughts/
Tom Curtin wrote: SpaceMouse wrote: That is the figure put forth in the MAR 07 MR. That is a 15 x 15 room. I don't know if that is room size or the layout square footage. Either way it seems on the large size to me. Is yours bigger or smaller.My current layout is 40 sq ft. The one I'm just starting is room size: 88 sq ft--add staging and it is 106 sq ft. Actual Benchwork sq ft. 44 sq ft--with staging 56 sq ft. I got intrigued by this, as I tend to be by claims of "average." Yes, it is 15 x 15, which is a respectable-size (very respectable!!) "spare bedroom." It is also 20 x 11, which might fit in a spare garage bay. It's also well less than 1/3 of the basement dimension of a typical 25 x 40 foot "garrison colonial" house of the style common here in the northeast US.Now . . . if you think of the "minimum" as 4 x 8, that's 96 sq ft. The claimed "average" of 225 sq. ft. is 129 sq ft. more than that, or 2.3 times the area of the 4 x 8. Expressed slightly differently, the "average" is 2.3 four by eight plywood sheets.Well, anyway, those are my thoughts/
Maybe my education is sub-standard; however, where I went to school, 4 x 8 = 32 not 96. That makes the "average" layout about 7 sheets of plywood in overall size.
Hmmm. Garage is roughly 13'x23' but there is a good section of it (about 4 1/2' x 13') that I can't put a layout in... and I've got 30" aisles as well.
And a 4'x13 1/2' section is still lying on the floor waiting to be cut up and assembled as well.
Tom Curtin wrote: Now . . . if you think of the "minimum" as 4 x 8, that's 96 sq ft. The claimed "average" of 225 sq. ft. is 129 sq ft. more than that, or 2.3 times the area of the 4 x 8. Expressed slightly differently, the "average" is 2.3 four by eight plywood sheets.Well, anyway, those are my thoughts/
That's okay, Tom. We all have our daze...
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
tomikawaTT wrote:As a former working statistician, this kind of statistic comes under the general heading 'meaningless.' Kind of like saying the average woman wears a size 8 shoe. The woman you're looking at may be a pixie-sized gymnast or a bodybuilding amazon. What shoe size does SHE wear?Whatever layout I had at any given time was average - FOR ME. Sizes ranged from 16 x 96 inches, to 3 x 6, to spare bedroom, to (finally) double garage. As for whether Joe Jones had an N-trak module or a layout big enough to model the state of Rhode Island, I kneweth not - nor did I care.As I once posted about the ubiquitous 4 x 8, it can be anything from a cramped O scale engine terminal to a Z scale empire. It's not how big the space is, it's what is done with it and how satisfying it is to the owner. One size does NOT fit all!Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in a 2-car garage)
As a former working statistician, this kind of statistic comes under the general heading 'meaningless.' Kind of like saying the average woman wears a size 8 shoe. The woman you're looking at may be a pixie-sized gymnast or a bodybuilding amazon. What shoe size does SHE wear?
Whatever layout I had at any given time was average - FOR ME. Sizes ranged from 16 x 96 inches, to 3 x 6, to spare bedroom, to (finally) double garage. As for whether Joe Jones had an N-trak module or a layout big enough to model the state of Rhode Island, I kneweth not - nor did I care.
As I once posted about the ubiquitous 4 x 8, it can be anything from a cramped O scale engine terminal to a Z scale empire. It's not how big the space is, it's what is done with it and how satisfying it is to the owner. One size does NOT fit all!
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in a 2-car garage)
My layout is still in progress of being built and is around the perimeter of a 12'x15' room - in Large Scale. I strongly agree that it's not how big the space is but what is done with it. If the owner is happy with it, it's OK. I've seen some huge layouts that all look the same adorned with all the garden-variety commercial products and kits that are currently available and some much smaller layouts in less than 4'x8' - some in 7/8" scale! - that are truly masterpieces.
Ray Seneca Lake, Ontario, and Western R.R. (S.L.O.&W.) in HO
We'll get there sooner or later!
howmus wrote: Does MR say how the statistic was calculated?
No--just a reference in passing.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.