In the May MR there is an interesting article with this title by Jeff Kraker about his 200 sq ft layout. In the beginning he comments that his previous layout was 4 times the size but he never got a train to run more than a few feet. The implication being that a smaller layout is better.
As one who has never had enough space (certainly not 800 sq ft), I can't really relate to this. We recently purchased our retirement home and I have a nominal 1400 sq ft basement for my future layout. So I am curious, has anyone had this experience of too much space for the layout and then built a smaller one? Was smaller better? How so? I invite you to share your experience with us. As usual everyone else chime with their thoughts as well.
Enjoy
Paul
I experienced this . I had a 20ft by 60ft building with electricity insolated the works . I quickly filled the space . while this space was not huge but it quickly became to much to complete and to keep running . I had big dreams but it became more like work and less like a hobby . I think if I had a group of dedicated friends to help I would have been ok , but I did'nt and I really started to hate it , so since that time I like smaller better .
I had close to a 1000 SQ. FT. available to me. I built my 360 SQ. FT. layout after a lot of thought. I didn't want to bite off more than I could chew. If and/or when I get to the point that I figure I need to expand I can. In the meantime progress is being made at a pace I am happy with. I really wanted to get past the track on bench stage this time and get into some serious modeling.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
My current layout has kept me occupied for 9 years and it's less than 50 sqft. I'd like to let it grow to about twice this size, but my life includes other things. I'll retire in a few years and I'll certainly keep working on the railroad, but Cathey and I have plans to travel, and of course there are the grand kids and all the other things that make our lives rich. I think 90-100 sqft will be plenty.
Phil, I'm not a rocket scientist; they are my students.
I wish the article had delved deeper into the subject than it did. I was hoping for an indepth thought provoking discussion. While the layout visit/story was good, more was needed on the topic.
The less is more philosophy applies to not just model railroads, but to other hobbies and life activities as well. The question then becomes "what is less?" I don't think "less" can be defined in absolute terms. Less for Bruce Chubb for example would still be too much for me. A large part of defining what we can build, maintain, and operate in a model railroad is a function of our time, and the help we have, perhaps even more so than money in comparison to a bass boat for example. Each of us can only devote so many hours per week to a railroad. Some may have several hours per day. Others may only get one or two between work, yard work, soccer, little league, cub scouts and coaching, scout leader, etc besides the kids. If I can't devote a lot of hours and don't have a large group of builder/operators, to help, then maybe even a 4x8 is all I can handle. On the other hand, retired and grown kids, that "smaller" could well be a full basement.
For myself, I have cut down to a simplified layout. Single track, narrow shelves, branch line from the junction (staging) to town. That means fewer engines, cars, smaller trains, and don't have to build and scenic a yard or engine terminal. All that happens off set in the staging. But being a single operator, that lets me focus on what I can get done as both a builder and an operator.
~G4
19 Years old, modeling the Cowlitz, Chehalis, and Cascade Railroad of Western Washington in 1927 in 6X6 feet.
Paul,
Although I haven't read the entire article yet, the gist of the opening paragraph was that the smaller layout was "better" because it helped the author focus his efforts.
As someone already expressed, a too large layout can become a chore to build AND maintain, once you build it. And, too many choices can quickly become a hindrance rather than an asset.
The "optimal" size of one's layout really depends on how much time, money, and resources you have at your disposal. While I'd like to have more space, I still need to work on and finish my whopping 32 sq ft HO layout.
And, what is "small" to one person (200 sq ft) can be waaaaay more than enough to someone with 32 sq ft or less.
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
It is sort of like when you have lots of money, or any resource, you are more apt to squander them, or to be just a wee bit more careless...less focused is another way of saying it, as Tom has done. When you have tons of room, you think big, not necessarily more savvy. I think this is the message. Why build lots of stuff when you can have just as much fun, involvement, interest, and complexity, not to mention realism, in something that will take half the time to build and cost about half as much because it only needs half the materials to fill half the space?
To be honest, the thought of having to design a track plan to fill 400 square feet frightens me. I would work like a bear to build it all for the year it would take me, and I would be exhausted for weeks afterwards. I know myself well enough that something much more modest will have to suffice for my next effort...whenever that happens. So, something like 200 square feet will force me to take only the important elements, figure out how to place them so that they look good and operate well, and not be such a huge task that I can anticipate having to work on some part of it for the next five or eight years. No thanks!
To be fair, though, what does the person want? Does he want eight years of future puttering? Then maybe a large layout will be desirable. Does he want a decent layout of a decent size, but operable in eight months? Then something more modest is in the offing. Also, are we talking about someone who is 80 and in slipping health? Or are we 60 with one parent still living? If time is short, building big and long probably doesn't make much sense.
-Crandell
My situation dictates that I do not bite off more than I can chew. Having limited physical capabilities prevents me from being overly ambitious with the size of my pike. I have a room that is 11'x30' and if I tried to fill the entire space I would be overwelhmed by the amount of work it would take to get even the scenery done. I've purchased a basically complete 12'x10' open in the middle layout and will gradually add a branch to it. The thing is that it is runnable now so I can get some enjoyment out of it while I modify the scenery to suit the localle and when the additional benchwork is done I will tie it into the existing trackwork. Turning a layout that was set in a desert motif into southeastern wooded scenery is going to take a lot of trees that I plan to mostly hand build. So I too opened my May MR with interest and also felt they strayed from the headline theme rather quickly.
I have 70-75 sq. ft., depending on what part of the room is used in the calculation, and that is going to be pretty involved by the time I get it finished to some point where it starts to look like a facsimile of the real world. The layout is a tiered logging line and about the only thing I could wish for is another 20 sq ft. or so, (mostly in width) so I could have a better passing siding.
My first layout attempt was way to large. I tinkered with it for years and was frustrated by the amount to do. When we finally tore it out we built a basic bench with no scenery around 3/4 of the basement to run trains. If I build a car I gotta see how it operates. Then along one wall a super detailed 18" deep 10' long shelf was started for switching operations. This small section is managable and progressing nicely. When it is finished it will be part of the loop and a new section will be started. This way progress can be seen, and I don't end up overwhelmed by shear size of it all. Eventually the basement will be filled. I think smaller is better during construction.
To quote a Robert Heinlein book character:
"Everything in excess! Moderation is for monks."
Or as an old beer commercial said:
"You only go around once in life, so grab for all the gusto you can!"
If excess and gusto for you is a smaller layout, go for it. If it's a club-sized behemoth you'll never finish, go for that. You may never get close to done, but don't let that stop you.
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
That new smaller layout in the article is certainly large compared to what most can access
II would love to have that "smaller " 9x22
51% share holder in the ME&O ( Wife owns the other 49% )
ME&O
To quote Col. Sherman T. Potter "HORSE HOCKEY!" there are only two things that would stop me from filling a large space with trains and having the layout I've always wanted. Money and enough coffee to keep me awake to build it. As one poster put it life is too short so why go small when you can go big. If you have the financial wherewithal and the desire there should be nothing holding you back form building as large a train set and possible. Look at Howard Zane for crying out loud the man ran out of real estate for his train set so he has a backhoe come in a dig a new basement twice! oh and they put some house on top of the basements just for extra train storage. Nothing wrong with having a small layout if thats all you can afford financially or space wise but if you have the room and the money you just don't have your priorities in order.
i do such lousy work, the less i do the better it looks.
grizlump
grizlump9i do such lousy work, the less i do the better it looks.grizlump
Griz, I can sure relate, but I thought too much of my abilities when I started my layout. I have just over 1100 sq. ft when I started on my layout. I dedicated half of that space to my layout. As time went on, my scenery making techniques improved to the point that you can easily tell what was done when. I just hope that I really have improved... or is it my friends have just gotten better at lying?
Marlon
See pictures of the Clinton-Golden Valley RR
It's a tricky question. As a 'lone wolf' owner and operator of a relatively generous 24x24' garage 'empire', there are certainly some frustrations involved--keeping it clean and in good running shape, especially since during the winter months it doesn't see a lot of constant use (I'm one of those weird Californians who does most of their MR'ing during the summer when I can open the garage door).
In fact, right now, I'm in the midst of the annual "Spring Cleaning", going over (and under) the layout checking things out and deciding what the spring/summer projects are going to be for THIS year. Am I finally going to finish off the backside of Yuba Pass or do like I've been doing the past two years, hoping that a natural Geologic process will do it for me (). And I really need to fill in that one bare corner of the garage with SOMETHING! Right now, it's still pink, and it's been staring at me for the past eight years.
And I ain't gettin' any younger, folks. Those wiring inspection trips under the layout stopped being fun some time ago. Luckily, the wiring is simple and easy to trace, but it's still hard on the knees and back and butt!
So, as I get older (and older), would it behoove me to cut back? Tear out the Yuba River Sub and start over again smaller--say, concentrating on the engine terminal at Deer Creek and spend my ops sessions changing out locomotives and just working with a 'hidden' mountain loop? Well, yah, I could do that, but then I look at all the work I've put in over the last nine years or so, and all the work I've got to do yet, and I just figure--"Oh the Heck with it, just push ON, Tom!"
I figure I'm only going to be around once, so enjoy what I've got. And WOULD I have started out 'smaller' and stuck to it when that big 2-car garage became available? I don't think so. My eyeballs started popping and I started salivating, and that was a NEAT feeling!
And despite everything, it still is!
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
I haven't read the article yet, but if the author couldn't make his train to run more than a few feet, then he's obviously too incompetant to be building any model railroad no matter the size. For pity's sake, ever year new people to this hobby using only sectional track can make their train go around the X-Mas tree. And this author in MR cannot get his trains to run more than a few feet on an 800+ sq. ft. layout? Sheesh.
I have a 25' x 50' HO layout. It's large, but simple, with a 200' long double track mainline. There is no helix, the track does not pass through the same scene twice, and it's all on one level. I have one staging yard, two freight yards, and a passenger terminal. I use Digitrax DCC with one Zephyr, one UR91 radio receiver, 3 DT400R radio throttles, and a half dozen UP5 plug in panels. No block detection, no circuit breakers, no extra boosters. It's simple to wire, easy to install. I have approx. 250 freight cars on the layout, with around 50 passenger cars and 30 engines. My operations generally take around 2 hours for 3 to 4 people.
My point is that "big" does not have to mean "complex". Not every big layout has to be on the level of the Gorre & Daephetid, Northlandz, or any other multi-level layout.
Of course, if we're talking about layout quality, then smaller layouts can be made to be higher in quality over a large one for a lot less effort and expense. I could have gone that route and made a super detailed table top layout, but instead I wanted something that I could operate with my friends. Therefore, my decision was to make compromises that effected layout quality to concentrate on filling the size basement I have. So instead of handlaying Code 70 rail, I use Atlas Code 83 flex track. Instead of buying Kadee, InterMountain, or Branchline cars, I have a lot of Athearn, Accurail, and Roundhouse cars. Instead of using all Tortoise machines for all switches, I move the points with my fingers or use ground throws.
But I still get more enjoyment out of my larger yet simple layout than I would have out of a smaller, higher quality layout.
Paul A. Cutler III
Paul3 I haven't read the article yet, but if the author couldn't make his train to run more than a few feet, then he's obviously too incompetant to be building any model railroad no matter the size. For pity's sake, ever year new people to this hobby using only sectional track can make their train go around the X-Mas tree. And this author in MR cannot get his trains to run more than a few feet on an 800+ sq. ft. layout? Sheesh. Paul A. Cutler III
Paul,I agree..Large clubs operate several trains on DC/DCC yet this man can't get a train to run a few feet?
I can nail snap track directly on a 4x8' and run trains without problems just like any newbie would do..
There must be a unknown factor.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
From looking at the pictures in the magazine the man can build a railroad. I have a feeling that the statement about only running a few feet was an exaggeration to get people to look at the article.
Paul3My point is that "big" does not have to mean "complex". Not every big layout has to be on the level of the Gorre & Daephetid, Northlandz, or any other multi-level layout.
This is one point on which we are in complete agreement Paul. For me big provides the opportunity for more gentle grades, larger curves and turnouts, longer yard/passing and stagging tracks, more realistic scenes, longer runs, longer trains, better isles and access, and more action for more operators.
But it does not mean seeing how much more, or how many more repeated layout "elements" I can cram in the room.
I prefer more prototype length trains and don't want the caboose in one town as the engine enters the next.
I model each major element only once - one large freight yard, one large passenger terminal, one engine terminal, one belt line industrial area, one coal mine, one rural industrial area along the mainline, one large piggyback terminal, etc.
The only thing "duplicated" are rural/suburban passenger stations to support the local commuter service operations.
Turnouts that would have been ground throws in real life, are ground throws. Only turnouts that would have been CTC or tower controlled have switch machines (because we do have detection, signaling, CTC, and working interlocking plants).
Trains can be "display" run or "operated" or some of both at the same time.
I do think people should consider their resources before deciding how much to try to build, but a well done medium sized or large layout is always better than a similarly skilled/detailed small one in my book - for the reasons I stated in the beginning - larger curves and turnouts, more gentle grades, longer trains, etc,etc,etc.
And, I will say, those are important factors/features by which I judge any layout, big or small.
Obviously there are a number of factors that determine what grades, curves, siding lengths, etc are suitable for various eras or themes, but taking that into proper consideration a layout with curves too sharp, or grades too steep, or sidings too will leave me unimpressed, no matter big or small, well detailed or not.
Sheldon
twhite (I'm one of those weird Californians who does most of their MR'ing during the summer when I can open the garage door). Tom
Tom I Google earthed your house and used street level as I was hoping to see your layout. I thought just maybe he will have had his garage door open when the Google car went by. No such luck though. All I saw was a green beetle. That is if the satellite took me to the right Tom Whites house.
Less Space - Better Railroad?
I don´t think that this formula works. The size of a layout is in no way correlated to the quality of it. Both size and quality of a layout finally depend on each individual´s ability to dedicate time and resources to it, and, of course, skill. Sure, a smaller layout (What is "small"?) can be finished in a much shorter time than a bigger one, but again this is no quality issue, unless, should you be building one of these wonderful basement empires, you decide to give up in the middle of the job.
If you can swallow the chunk you have bitten off - it is the right size.
I prefer smaller layouts - and not only for financial reasons. I just cannot picture myself staying with one theme over several decades - variatio delectat!
My personal experience is the exact opposite. When I was only using 'my' half of the double garage, trying to squeeze my 45-year-old master plan into 9'x16' was like trying to shoehorn a size 14 lady into a size 6 dress. I was building, but stuck with compromises I didn't really like...
Then my wife ceded me 'her' half of the garage. Suddenly the plan expanded - but only in size. Visible track added a total of three turnouts (I could model one more town.) Now I have room for some nice scenic effects, when I reach the point that I can build them. I can also run 20 car trains instead of being limited to fourteen.
So, what if my 1150 sq ft abode suddenly grew a basement? I would loosen the strings a bit more, but most of the additional space would go to aisleway width, back-of-the-shelf access and developing the two narrow-gauge feeders that are currently static displays. I might add some length to the JNR main line and the Tomikawa Tani Tetsudo, but only enough to include some scenic features which my prototype had that were selectively compressed out of my present design. Also, a sizeable area would become a proper workshop, and the 9x12 spare bedroom would revert to being just a bedroom.
I'd also have to change my fast clock from 5:1 to 4:1. I think I could live with that.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - TTTO, 24/30)
I'm afraid some of what has been posted to this thread so far has been a case of criticizing an author's assumed statement in an article that the poster hasn't even read!
Mr. Kraker remarks in the first paragraph of his article, "For years I couldn't run a train more than a few feet at a time because the amount of work needed to get the layout running was overwhelming."
This is by no means meant to imply any modeling shortcomings of the author, but rather points out a case of biting off more than he could chew. And to that premise I can say that in touring home layouts at NMRA conventions I've seen more than my share of basement-filling empires that were in the track-on-benchwork stage on my first visit and very little changed when I saw them again maybe 6-8 years later!
Now there are certainly industrious hobbyists who can tackle huge layout projects, often with outside help, but far too often the average newbie, or casual model railroader, chooses to attempt a pike well beyond his capabilities the first few go-rounds and as a result ends up frustrated and quits the project (something the hobby itself) entirely.
So, I give great credit to Mr. Kraker for admitting his mistake and his intestinal fortitude in submitting an article promoting a relatively small layout...to a magazine known for its display of basement-filling empires.
CNJ831
CNJ831 I'm afraid much of what has been posted to this thread so far has been a case of criticizing an author's assumed statement in an article that the poster hasn't even read! Mr. Kraker remarks in the first paragraph of his article, "For years I couldn't run a train more than a few feet at a time because the amount of work needed to get the layout running was overwhelming." This is by no means meant to imply any modeling shortcomings of the author, but rather points out a case of biting off more than he could chew. And to that premise I can say that in touring home layouts at NMRA conventions I've seen more than my share of basement-filling empires that were in the track-on-benchwork stage on my first visit and very little changed when I saw them again maybe 6-8 years later! Now there are certainly industrious hobbyists who can tackle huge layout projects, often with outside help, but far too often the average newbie, or casual model railroader, chooses to attempt a pike well beyond his capabilities the first few go-rounds and as a result ends up frustrated and quits the project (something the hobby itself) entirely. So, I give great credit to Mr. Kraker for admitting his mistake and his intestinal fortitude in submitting an article promoting a relatively small layout...to a magazine known for its display of basement empires. CNJ831
I'm afraid much of what has been posted to this thread so far has been a case of criticizing an author's assumed statement in an article that the poster hasn't even read!
So, I give great credit to Mr. Kraker for admitting his mistake and his intestinal fortitude in submitting an article promoting a relatively small layout...to a magazine known for its display of basement empires.
I read the article, and his layout is very nice, and I agree one should not "bite off more than one can chew".
That said, I still believe in "Moore's Law" - If some is good, more is better, and too much is still not enough, assuming equal quality.
The question however, as Paul and I addressed, is more of WHAT? More track in the same space? more features?, more structures?, more complexity?
Maybe first attempt was not too big, but rather too complex for his resources or planning skills?
OR, how about more realism with bigger curves, more gentle grades, more stagging, longer bridges (I hate all the 40' wide "rivers" I see on layouts, we call those streams here in the Mid Atlantic), longer trains, less selective compression of structures, etc.
But we have well established that my modeling views are well outside of all accepted "averages" - thank goodness for that.
tomikawaTT My personal experience is the exact opposite. When I was only using 'my' half of the double garage, trying to squeeze my 45-year-old master plan into 9'x16' was like trying to shoehorn a size 14 lady into a size 6 dress. I was building, but stuck with compromises I didn't really like... Then my wife ceded me 'her' half of the garage. Suddenly the plan expanded - but only in size. Visible track added a total of three turnouts (I could model one more town.) Now I have room for some nice scenic effects, when I reach the point that I can build them. I can also run 20 car trains instead of being limited to fourteen. So, what if my 1150 sq ft abode suddenly grew a basement? I would loosen the strings a bit more, but most of the additional space would go to aisleway width, back-of-the-shelf access and developing the two narrow-gaige feeders that are currently static displays. I might add some length to the JNR main line and the Tomikawa Tani Tetsudo, but only enough to include some scenic features which my prototype had that were selectively compressed out of my present design. Also, a sizeable area would become a proper workshop, and the 9x12 spare bedroom would revert to being just a bedroom. I'd also have to change my fast clock from 5:1 to 4:1. I think I could live with that. Chuck (Modleing Central Japan in September, 1964 - TTTO, 24/30)
So, what if my 1150 sq ft abode suddenly grew a basement? I would loosen the strings a bit more, but most of the additional space would go to aisleway width, back-of-the-shelf access and developing the two narrow-gaige feeders that are currently static displays. I might add some length to the JNR main line and the Tomikawa Tani Tetsudo, but only enough to include some scenic features which my prototype had that were selectively compressed out of my present design. Also, a sizeable area would become a proper workshop, and the 9x12 spare bedroom would revert to being just a bedroom.
Chuck (Modleing Central Japan in September, 1964 - TTTO, 24/30)
Sounds like Chuck and Paul feel the same way I do about this.
There is a BIG difference between bigger and more complex.
Over the years I have layouts from a 2x6 switching layout to a 20x12 empire and I have found out that size was not a factor in my enjoyment of the hobby but did find out that a large layout took more time to mantain than I wished. My current layout is only 40 sq ft and will be a switching type. On the down side I would like to make it larger but only have 400 sqr ft in my whole apartment .10% of my living space is all I can spare. I have to have a bed. On th plus side I will be able to get it running quickly and will be able to spend more time on details. So I guess the perfect size of a layout is one that lets you complete your goals .
There is no such thing as a bad day of railfanning. So many trains, so little time.
I think 1000 sq ft room for a layout would be ideal for 2 rail O scale. In my opinion when you have that much space, you will have more fun operating larger trains and there will be less chore work concerning scenery than there would be in HO or N.
Isn't there some ridiculously large N scale museum layout in NY? I forget the name of it, but it looks like a hideous monstrosity. Millions of toothpicks used for repetitive bridges and various structures. It seems like such a waste of space, the layout was relatively old from what I have heard, very hard to keep up with. I can't even imagine the wiring, and the trains don't look impressive, rather they appear to be little catepillars wriggling along a decaying wasteland of globs of paint, toothpicks, and cobwebs.
There is a certain amount of irony to all this. Jeff Kraker announced over on Railroad Line Forums that he will run one more op session and then begin tearing out his current layout to start afresh with a new layout based on the narrow gauge Manns Creek Railroad.
Andre