I have been gone from the forums for a long time mainly because last year I moved from my condo into a house (I know that seems a little backward). In the process, I had to disassemble my old layout and with a few exceptions, sent it to the great beyond. It had expanded into almost every available space in the basement and, even though it ran well, there were many unresolved problems and unfinshed projects. I had great visions that never even made it to paper. About 1/3rd of the scenery was done and the rest was 'scenery of the mind' - or what I thought it should be. So, I was glad to see it all go and I have come to the conclusion that it was just too big for one person.
Now I am in a house with a completely finished basement. I spent part of the weekend measuring and realize that whatever is built will be siginificantly smaller - probably half the size of the old - and maybe more manageable.
I am sure many of you have had the same challenge, so my question is, how big is too big and how do you make the determination? Is it resources, time, cost or some other factor?
i probably won't start any building until the snow flies here in Michigan, but i do wonder, how manageable will it become?
There's never time to do it right, but always time to do it over.....
For me, time is the biggest limitation. Even though I'm retired, family seems to soak up a lot of my time - baby sitting grandchildren 2-4 days a week, helping my 96 year old mother, etc. Add to that the normal chores around the house. Plus as I get older (I am 69) I slow down.
I am currently laying track on a 12'x31' foot layout that could expand into the rest of the basement, but I can stop there if I find it is enough. The size is based on the room.
My suggestion is to plan the big layout, but break it up in such a way that you can stop short of filling up the basement. For me, that's easy since I'm doing a point to point - just start at one end and build until I reach the other end, the thing is big enough, or I become unable to continue.
Good luck
Paul
How big is too big? I think you sorta answered your own question, Harold. Too big is what you can neither finish nor maintain. While the former can spur us on; the latter will make any layout less fun to operate. And, while I do enjoy building, I still enjoy running trains - even if the scenery is "in process".
Tom
https://tstage9.wixsite.com/nyc-modeling
Time...It marches on...without ever turning around to see if anyone is even keeping in step.
Harold:
Partly this based on what you want. If I had an opertunity to build anew in twice the space, I hope I would be smart enough to have the same amount of railroading, but bigger buildings for industries, and longer runs between towns. This would seem better to me, but others will differ.
Super detailing every square foot of layout is impressive, and therefore time consuming.
Have fun.
Dave
HaroldANow I am in a house with a completely finished basement. I spent part of the weekend measuring and realize that whatever is built will be siginificantly smaller - probably half the size of the old - and maybe more manageable
For me its always been keep it simple,easy to build and get it up and running as quick as possible.No need to build a layout that will take me years to build and hard to maintain solo.
Several years ago my late wife and I built a N Scale 1' x 12' ISL over a July 4th weekend complete with ballasting, basic scenery and a road crossing-what's the fun of having a ISL if you can block a crossing during switching moves? We spent another three months detailing the layout and then we displayed it at three different train shows..
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
HaroldA so my question is, how big is too big ?
so my question is, how big is too big ?
Harold, Harold, Harold.
Let me answer you this way. When you run out of room to build out, start building up.
Rich
Alton Junction
IRONROOSTER My suggestion is to plan the big layout, but break it up in such a way that you can stop short of filling up the basement. For me, that's easy since I'm doing a point to point - just start at one end and build until I reach the other end, the thing is big enough, or I become unable to continue.
Dan Stokes
My other car is a tunnel motor
I went from to big to to small but I'm happy with it anyway.I may at 71 live long enough to get it done.
My previous N scale layout was 25'6" long by 10'6" wide.The new one is 8'10" long by 10'6" wide.I have 90% of the track laid can run a train and this has taken less than a year.
More's Law - some is good, more is better, and too much is still not enough.
But, As mentioned my someone above, size and complexity are two different ideas. I would rather have larger curves, one 20' long freight yard, and a longer run rather than squeeze more in features and complexity just because I have more space.
A large but simple layout is better than a large complex one..........
Sheldon
How old are you? How healthy/agile are you? Those are two big issues when deciding on size of layout.
Another is how efficient you are at making use of available time. I am retired but find that due to being inefficient with my time, I am making no more progress on the layout than when I was working. This is irritating but there it is. Oh, I seem to be very busy with model railroading but it tends to be workbench projects rather than the layout itself. Maybe "easily distracted" or "lazy" are more accurate terms than "inefficient."
I knew a modeler who was an airline pilot so he worked a few days (and was not at home at night needless to say) and then had several days off. During those days off he of course wanted to do things around the house and yard and with his wife and such, but he also got a tremendous amount done on the layout because he was so efficient with his time. Every time I visited there was tremendous progress on his layout. So even though he was a busy guy a really large layout was practical for him because in a matter of weeks he built all the benchwork, then in a month or so laid all the track, and then in a few more months did all the wiring. It was astounding what he got done in less than a half year. Interestingly some of the actual modeling (super detailing diesels) he was able to do at nights in his motel room while away from home.
For someone like that guy, no layout is too big it would seem!
Dave Nelson
dknelson ... some of the actual modeling ... he was able to do at nights in his motel room while away from home.
... some of the actual modeling ... he was able to do at nights in his motel room while away from home.
Just like Rod Stewart!
richhotrain HaroldA so my question is, how big is too big ? Harold, Harold, Harold. Let me answer you this way. When you run out of room to build out, start building up. Rich
Most of the layouts I see built "up" were planned that way so they could have a helix, under neath staging etc. I imagine building "up" after a room is filled ideally needs the old layout torn down to make it happen "well".
Iron Rooster has the best plan, design the layout to be build in stages that will allow it to be completed in stages and operated but with room to expand.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
My layout is 13' x 17' all the benchwork is in, even for the lower level plus the helix to know where yet. All the track work is done on the main level and the upper main.
Scenery is done on the north 17' and partially on the west 13', and I enjoy going down, running trains and working on it. Have lots of plans but, in reality I realize that at 75 I might not be able to see it completed. SO WHAT...., it is what I chose as a hobby and I am enjoying it as well as my associations here on the forums. So what else matters ?
I guess my point is to make your layout a reasonable size to give yourself enough room to run the trains of a size you like. Make some provisions for expanding it in the fuuture if you are young in health and heart, and then just work on what you feel like day by day. That is the wonderful thing about Model Railroading, there is so many aspects to it that it never gets boring and there is always something new to learn. some days you will choose to model build either rolling stock or buildings, another work on some scenery, another do some wiring or signals, another day just go and run some trains through the scenery that you have created or are imagining, and enjoy that peaceful time.
This is why I feel so endeared to my layout. There are other days that I call "RIP TRACK" days,those are days I set apart for correcting problems that have come up on rolling stock or locos while running and I just set them aside with a note as what is wrong or suspected and attend to a number of them on those days. It is interesting to note that as you get more experienced and knowledgable that those days get fewer and farther apart. Thats a good thing.
It is an escape without leaving home.
Happy Railroading to all..
Johnboy out.
from Saskatchewan, in the Great White North..
We have met the enemy, and he is us............ (Pogo)
I just finished building a house. My only requirement was it have a 600 sq ft area for a layout. I could have excavated under the garage for an additional 600-800 sq ft, for $30-50k. That was too much money.
My friends urged me to "build up", to consider a double deck layout which would have doubled my run. I will be retiring soon and I wanted to handlay the track. I figure that gives me about 4-5 years to build benchwork and track, then another 5-10 years to so scenery and structures, so I can have it "done" in about 10-15 years. That will put me in my 70's. If I built a double deck layout I would be in my 70's before I finished the track work. I intentionally chose to NOT double deck so I would have the chance to "finish" the layout by the time I'm 75.
Too big is more money than you can afford, more construction than you have time, more maintenance than you have the patience for and a completion date beyond the actuarial date for your cohort.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Hard to put numbers on how big it too big. Some of us work faster than others. And it's a hobby, so we don't really mind things taking a little longer.
In your position, I would design the smallest layout I could, just big enough to permit continuous running of trains. Then design an addition to it, or maybe two or three additions. Build the core, the smallest possible layout, and get it running to your satisfaction. Then if still motivated, start on the addition. If you find the energy for more building is lacking, just keep operating the small core.
David Starr www.newsnorthwoods.blogspot.com
I moved 10 years ago (June 2006) into a house that had a larger basement. I decided to try doing things one section at a time...that is, I started with a city area that's essentially a switching layout, and did the track, scenery etc. before starting work on the next section. For me, I felt the idea of doing all the benchwork, then all the track, and so on, was a little daunting on this large a space. Eventually I plan on having a large completed layout, but in the meantime I basically have a small 'completed' layout that looks good and is fun to operate.
As a lifelong Chicagoan, I am reminded of Daniel Burnham's stirring words.
Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized. Make big plans. Aim high in hope and work.
If you have the time, space, and budget, build the biggest layout you can. Show me a big layout that is not impressive. I will show you a bunch of small layouts that are not impressive.
If you look at the various John Armstrong track planning books, one thing jumps out. His really big plans were designed 'build this first, then expand later.'
My present layout occupies a space 19'4" square, and seems to be working out as, 'just right.' If my room suddenly doubled in size I wouldn't add a single set of points to my present track plan. Instead, I'd widen some curves, lengthen some tangents, bring the under-the-scenery staging out into room light (but still hidden from the 'active' part of the layout) and arrange to give the three 'static display' railroads a few meters of operable first track.
After several years and several layouts, I've come to realize that it's not size, but complexity, that's the big enemy of the urge to get it built. You could probably build the benchwork of a basement filler in about a week, checkbook willing. If you lay one track completely around the room, with two passing sidings and another turnout or two to the place where you want a yard, you could be running on smoke orders by the end of June, assuming that you fill your pickup bed with shelf hardware, steel studs and fasteners tomorrow. Once wheels are rolling you can expand across the rest of the benchwork at leisure.
If you decide that some early work was not the best possible solution, it can be rebuilt, right down to (and including) the benchwork. For what the 1:1 scale folks did about tight curves and less-than-perfect alignment, just bring up your favorite map program, switch to satellite view and follow the rails east from Benson, AZ. Lots of line adjustments made possible by modern earthmoving equipment, and made necessary by longer trains.
Back to the model world, a few thoughts:
Above all, have fun.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Well this is not my ID - somehow in the software update a couple months ago my login got switched here.... but I'm going to post anyway.
I now have a very large space 90'x60' or so. Fortunately before I started working on any sort of layout I also started volunteering at a local model railroad musuem with a layout of about the same size. Considering all the work at the museum, I concluded that even if I could get a layout built in that much space, it would take all my time maintaining it.
Before I had that realization, I was also lost in space. I've spent 40 years learning how to cram more operations, more scenery, more everything into tiny spaces and became rather good at it. Now that I don't have any of those limitations to work into, my planning is just awash at the possibilites. There are so many possibilities how does one choose, but there is still caught up in not quite enough space to do a real small branch (like the Santa Fe Bristol branch). Then working with a minimum radius or 44" there are new and different problems in actual track plan design.
So for the moment with my time resources 90x60 is too big. Thinking more like 20x60.
dehusman Too big is more money than you can afford, more construction than you have time, more maintenance than you have the patience for and a completion date beyond the actuarial date for your cohort.
Never too big. But keep the layout simple at first. Instead of building the whole town right away just put in the passing sidings and plain scenery at first. You can go back and add the additional sidings and buildings later if you wish without disrupting the layouts operation.
I have recently rethought my current layout and am simplifying it and eliminating a branchline while extending the main line length. Less clutter more train running.
Steve
This is certainly not too big:
My 2 by 2 ft. Z scale layout - a true table top layout!
My favourite coffee mug is placed right in the harbour ...
I see several more people seem to agree with me, size and complexity are two different issues.
Example - A double ended freight yard with eight tracks has the same complexity no matter its length, but 20' long is way more realistic and operationaly functional than one only 8' long - the longer one takes nearly three times the space.....
Again, my vote is large curves, long sidings for longer trains, but a simple plan.......
ATLANTIC CENTRAL large curves
Russell
In the past, I've always wanted the biggest layout I could build for the space given. Today, if I had unlimited space, I would of course have several factors to consider. Specifically:
- Finances.......a layout is expensive, and bigger equals a higher cost.
- Design.......which comes first - the design or the space?
- Age/Health.......at 72, even though in fairly good health, I'm not about to tackle a huge layout.
- Maintenance.......sometimes an overlooked factor. The bigger a layout, the more maintenance required. And, that also comes down to the builders ability. Did he lay bullet proof track, proper curves, etc., etc.? Or did he just get it down anyway he could? IMO, anyone with a sizeable layout will usually have at least one track/car/loco/electric issue come up with each operating session.
My thought to the OP is to design what you want, get it right on paper, and then translate it to the layout and build it.
ENJOY !
Mobilman44
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
mobilman44 In the past, I've always wanted the biggest layout I could build for the space given. Today, if I had unlimited space, I would of course have several factors to consider. Specifically: - Finances.......a layout is expensive, and bigger equals a higher cost. - Design.......which comes first - the design or the space? - Age/Health.......at 72, even though in fairly good health, I'm not about to tackle a huge layout. - Maintenance.......sometimes an overlooked factor. The bigger a layout, the more maintenance required. And, that also comes down to the builders ability. Did he lay bullet proof track, proper curves, etc., etc.? Or did he just get it down anyway he could? IMO, anyone with a sizeable layout will usually have at least one track/car/loco/electric issue come up with each operating session. My thought to the OP is to design what you want, get it right on paper, and then translate it to the layout and build it.
All true, all good points, but again bigger and more complex are seperate ideas.
As for cost and maintenance, 100 turnouts is 100 turnouts, no matter if they are squeezed into bedroom sized layout or spread out over my 1000 sq ft room.
Yes, a larger layout will cost more, but in terms of cost per sq foot, a large but simple layout will cost muct less per sq foot - cost is not directly proportional to size.
As for construction standards and quality of workmanship, that might be a seperate topic - but high standards regardless of layout size are necessary for good operation.
I know lots of guys with large layouts, and they are no more prone to problems than many poorly built small layouts.
And my bias on this topic comes from the fact that I like modeling large Class I railroads of the 1950's, I like trains to be near prototype lenght, etc, so to get the right visual effect, you need space.
What I don't need is see how much I can cram into every sq inch.........
First, I primarily enjoy railfanning my own trains, and I only own a couple brass and brass hybrid steamers, now. I don't own much rolling stock, either.
I have a very simple track plan: just a basic folded dogbone, with one long single ended siding, that's it. The mainline at somewhere over 80' is long enough to pass through 3 completely different scenes, because when I started out I was doing a western railroad and wanted to create the illusion of distance, and I also wanted to have the different seasons of the year represented, along with completely different locales.
I went with the largest curves I could possibly fit while only taking up part of the basement, because my wife wanted the boys to still have room to play, so a good bit of the layout is a narrow shelf along one long wall.
Though only a simple plan, I'm mostly happy with it after 10 years or so now.
I had a friend who built a brand new structure just to house his layout. He started a monumental size layout, bigger than any club layout I ever visited. He was older, contracted cancer, and never got to the scenery phase of the layout, and it was so big that the somewhat hastily constructed trackwork resulted in poor operation. While I enjoyed visiting him, running trains on the layout was nothing short of painful.
He has since passed on.
I would say build what can be reasonably completed to some degree of scenery that one is comfortable with, and build what can reasonably be maintained.
John