Has anyone else noticed that in the pages of MR, MRP, and GMR, there seem to be more and more of the insanely huge layouts that have either the 3000-square-foot custom basement or a whole structure designed just for the layout? These are the layouts that require a dozen crewmembers to run.
I'm in awe, of course, but if this is where the hobby is going I fear I won't be able to keep up! I just read through MRP 2007, and while there are some decent smaller projects, I also see track plans with things like "future site for elevator" and "the workshop and crew lounge are on the ground floor of the specially-designed layout building." Jeez!
Certainly on a GI's salary I don't expect that sort of financial freedom, unless the stock market booms and my investments pay out sooner. Still, even if I had that kind of cash, I have so many other leisure interests beyond trains, I just don't see myself putting that much into a layout. Imagine having something that big. Would you ever finish it? Do you need to invite three people over just to run a train?
To me the ideal, being a lone-wolf like I am, would be maybe no bigger that 12x20 in N scale. That's big for N, but not overwhelming. I'm fussy about my scenery, so I'd probably scenic the thing myself, and much bigger than that would probably be too much. Even then, it'd be mostly around-the-walls so would not eat a huge amount of that space.
Big layouts are great, but I'd love to see some more of the small to medium-sized layouts that are more likely to be within the money, time, and space constraints of the rest of us. One of these days when things calm down I think I'll try to submit my layout to MR or GMR.
Modeling the Rio Grande Southern First District circa 1938-1946 in HOn3.
Dave,
I hear you loud and clear! I love them, too. I was in awe of the various coal railroads in the recent MR Greatest Layouts edition. Really cool to read about, but I don't know if I could dedicate so much of my money and time to such a project. I think they are better left to clubs and people who have the funds. I recently visited an O scale layout here in Michigan called Chi-town Union Station. All brass, DCC,etc... (Based in Chicago) It is in an old grocery store that one man bought to set all this up. Later that day my dad asked the local HS guy how much he thought was invested in the trains...the guy replied to my dad, "Could you afford to buy a Grocery Store?" ummm, no. We all got a chuckle out of it! ----Rob
Sorry to disagree but in MRP 2007 we have:
1. 5x7 = 35 sq ft
2. 19'8" x 23'6" = 465 sq ft
3. 53'x63' = but irregular - main section 32x50 = 1600
bump 6x14 = 78
bump 3x21 = 63
staging area 26x24 = 624
total = 2365 sq ft, also it's only virtual.
4. 30'x48' = 1440 sq ft
5. 4' x 8' = 32 sq ft
6. 1' x 16' = 16 sq ft (not including aisle)
7. 14'6" x 18' 6" = 268 sq ft (double deck equivalent 536 sq ft)
8. 38'x45' irregular main 28' x 42' = 1176
alcove 10'x12' = 120
bump approx 15
total = 1311 sq ft.
9. 14' x 25' = 350 sq ft.
10. 28'6" x 53' irregular main 25' x 53' = 1325
bump 3'6" x 10 = 35
bump 3' 6" x 14 = 49
total = 1409 sq ft (only 32 sq ft built, plan is not detailed)
In summary
3 layouts are under 100 sq ft.
3 are 100 to 500 sq ft
3 are 1000 to 1500 sq ft
1 is 2365 sq ft and it is not built, just a plan.
I think that MR's percentage of large layouts covered is higher than the percentage of existing large layouts. But I think they provide plenty of coverage for the smaller layouts. And let's face it, while the 4x8 is great starter layout not that many really different plans are available fot it. In fact, the one in MRP 2007 is the first really new one I've seen in years.
Enjoy
Paul
Dave, I can vouch that your plea has been expressed repeatedly for at least the past twenty years by a chorus of writers in the Letters to the Editor page of MR. While there have been occasional periods when the magazine briefly relented and smaller layouts did appear in greater numbers for a very short time, for the most part the pikes illustrated in MR have continued to grow ever larger and more unobtainable. Rather like yourself, I feel most are now so far beyond what is realistically possible, given the time and funds available to 98% of hobbyists, as to be largely irrelevant except as eye candy. However, these sorts of layouts do pander to the legion of armchair folks now in the hobby and to those who never get much beyond endlessly designing and re-designing their "ultimate layouts", which are likely never to be built.
There are those who claim that mega layouts serve as a great source of ideas. But in reality, this is largely untrue when one considers that single scenes within the mega pikes often approach the size of a typical hobbyist's entire layout. In such situations, there is no way they are convincingly adaptable. Regardless of what level of selective compression one might apply, you simply can't put an entire steel mill or a representation of a downtown, high-rise, urban area in a few square feet of space and make it believable to the viewer (at least not in HO!).
Once upon a time, MR was considered The magazine for the advanced model railroader. However, a number of years ago MR seems to have revised its objectives and chosen as its target audience mainly the armchair and novice hobbyists, to which articles addressing impossible-to-attain, mega layouts, appeal most. I'm sure that it was simply a business decision and perhaps the most profitable avenue to follow in an era when declining skills and diminishing free time are prevalent. The number of intermediate and advanced modeling projects in the pages of MR have decidedly dwindled in recent years, largely, I'm afraid, at the cost of increasingly loosing them the more skilled and advanced hobbyists as regular readers.
CNJ831
Paul,
I did note in my original post that MRP 2007 had a few decent small projects. Actually, if I had to point to a bad case of the lack of balance, it's GMR 2007. I thumbed through it at the LHS and put it back on the rack. First time in 12 years I didn't buy it. Why? They were nearly all too huge to comprehend. That and only one was in N scale.
I remember a while back there was an article in MR as to what makes a layout "Great." It was a Tony Koester article. Among those things Tony requires for a layout to be "Great" are wireless DCC, sound, staging, etc. I disagree, but I'm not a recognized model railroading expert with a long list of books and publications to my name. But he didn't mention size.
Now, MR is doing a good thing by having the small layout contest. I also think that keeping their project layouts small is a good thing (although who's going to shell out $750 just for the track for an HO 4x8 courtesy of Kato?). My main beef is that it's very hard for me to imagine having a private railroad that rivals a club layout for size and scope even if I could afford it and had the room. I'm more inspired by the guy who built his layout in the spare bedroom or things like Doug Nelson's N scale Pennsy in a closet.
In short, the enormous layouts are neat to read about, but let's not lose sight of the more common small and medium layouts. I'd love to see more MR articles on HO 4x8s or N scale layouts on doors; not MR project railroads, but ones that other people have finished.
Dave Vollmer wrote: Has anyone else noticed that in the pages of MR, MRP, and GMR, there seem to be more and more of the insanely huge layouts that have either the 3000-square-foot custom basement or a whole structure designed just for the layout? These are the layouts that require a dozen crewmembers to run.I'm in awe, of course, but if this is where the hobby is going I fear I won't be able to keep up! I just read through MRP 2007, and while there are some decent smaller projects, I also see track plans with things like "future site for elevator" and "the workshop and crew lounge are on the ground floor of the specially-designed layout building." Jeez! Certainly on a GI's salary I don't expect that sort of financial freedom, unless the stock market booms and my investments pay out sooner. Still, even if I had that kind of cash, I have so many other leisure interests beyond trains, I just don't see myself putting that much into a layout. Imagine having something that big. Would you ever finish it? Do you need to invite three people over just to run a train?To me the ideal, being a lone-wolf like I am, would be maybe no bigger that 12x20 in N scale. That's big for N, but not overwhelming. I'm fussy about my scenery, so I'd probably scenic the thing myself, and much bigger than that would probably be too much. Even then, it'd be mostly around-the-walls so would not eat a huge amount of that space.Big layouts are great, but I'd love to see some more of the small to medium-sized layouts that are more likely to be within the money, time, and space constraints of the rest of us. One of these days when things calm down I think I'll try to submit my layout to MR or GMR.
I'm with you Dave. Now I'm a semi-armchair modeler I guess. I have HO rolling stock that I run on the club layout when I can. I live in a double wide 1750 square ft mobile home in which one bedroom will be my train- hobby room since I also have an interest in R/C planes. I plan on utilising a 10x8 area of that room for an N scale layout. How ever that will be in the future as living-medical expenses have top priority here. At present I'm trying to come up with a track plan for this and have a good idea in mine as to how I want it. I would love to see layouts this approximate size just for ideas for track planning. For the time being things are on hold now as far as hobby spending goes. Wife is doing better so hope to get started in the next few years. In the mean time I just keep looking at layouts in the mags and here for ideas and options. Ken
I'm also a car enthusiast, and read car magazines. They always seem to feature tests and reviews of cars that I'll probably never even see let alone drive or own. The newest Rolls Royce convertibles, the extremely high end V-12 Mercedes, the Porches, etc., ,many costing in the hundreds of thousand dollars! Nice to look at and dream, but no where approaching reality for me. Sort of what these huge layouts are, way beyond the capabilites and finances of most model railroaders.
But if all they showed were the small plain Jane cars and layouts, what could we aspire to?
My modeling is on two pairs of HO scale modules. And I'm thinking about where I could do something in On30, but don't have much room. I hardly ever see anything on modular model railroading.
I drive a Dodge Magnum SXT, with a 250hp V-6, but never see it featured in the car magzines because to them the only one of interest has a Hemi enigne with 340 or 425 hp! I'd love to have one, but the extra $10K to own one was beyond my interests and budget!
We all have to live within our means but we can dream.
Bob Boudreau
CANADA
Visit my model railroad photography website: http://sites.google.com/site/railphotog/
Railphotog wrote: My modeling is on two pairs of HO scale modules. And I'm thinking about where I could do something in On30, but don't have much room. I hardly ever see anything on modular model railroading.
Good point, Bob. And on the off chance a modular layout is featured, rarely is prototypical operations addressed in the article. I'll bet half the members of this forum have never even heard of FreeMo.
-George
"And the sons of Pullman porters and the sons of engineers ride their father's magic carpet made of steel..."
The problem with MRP(and MR in general) is that they seem feature monster layouts, or somthing very small and not expandable. MRP 2007 has been somewhat better:
I did not count 'ideas' or track plans that have not been built. One of the problems for MRP ia getting photos of 'finished' layouts, and many time it appears that the large layouts where the owners have the time/money to complete them are what is available.
In my case, the layout is in a 25' by 20' area(with a 9' by 11' utility/laundry room in one corner). The layout is more than enough for me to build, and I hope to have all of the basic scenery complete this spring. If I had to start over in a larger space, I would plan something larger(but not too much larger). Operationally I have what I want.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
Model railroads, like the prototypes, come in all sizes. The great thing about the hobby is we all get to choose the size that's right for us. Just because the bigger layouts get the lion's share of the ink doesn't mean that is where the hobby is heading. There's no reason modelers should feel compelled to emulate the big layouts costing tens of thousands of dollars to build. Most of the guys with smaller layouts will probably never get featured in the magazines but so what. I would hope that is not the main reason any of us got into the hobby. The joy of model railroading is in building and operating railroads in miniature. I am fortunate to have been able to build a retirement home with room for one of those monster layouts. I have been in this home less than six years but I have been in model railroading for more than 40 and loved it even when I was in much smaller spaces, including a basic 4x8. I don't know if my layout will ever get featured in one of the publications but that is not the reason I have put so much time, effort, and money into it. I do it because I enjoy model railroading for its own sake.
I agree with all of the points here. Two more points I'd like to make:
1. The guys with the HUGE layouts have often done great work that deserves to be recognized. I'm not saying they don't.
2. HUGE layouts can be inspirational to everyone.
That said, I still would like to see a more representative mix of sizes, particularly in GMR. As some have pointed out, there seem to be a lot at the cartoonsihly small and freakishly large ends of the spectrum, but the average Joe's size seems a bit under-respresented.
It's up to us average Joes to submit our layouts to be counted.
Dave Vollmer wrote: I agree with all of the points here. Two more points I'd like to make:1. The guys with the HUGE layouts have often done great work that deserves to be recognized. I'm not saying they don't.2. HUGE layouts can be inspirational to everyone.That said, I still would like to see a more representative mix of sizes, particularly in GMR. As some have pointed out, there seem to be a lot at the cartoonsihly small and freakishly large ends of the spectrum, but the average Joe's size seems a bit under-respresented.It's up to us average Joes to submit our layouts to be counted.
Obiously, size matters to the MR publishers but I would hope quality is what counts the most. I would much rather see an 8x12 with lots of high level craftsmanship and detail than a much larger layout with a lower quality of work. Maybe that is because I have opted for the latter type of layout, knowing that in doing so, I have to compromise some on craftsmanship if I ever hope to get it completed. The typical layout feature has only about 8 photos and a reasonably completed mid-size layout could certainly provide that. Such features could show the contrast between the types of operations that can be done on smaller layouts as opposed to the Class 1 type operating schemes of the bigger layouts.
I would love to have perhaps three or four times the area that I have, but I would not be married to the same woman....or in the same home. It's just the way it is for each of us. While I admire and drool over the fabulous and immense layouts that do appear in MR frequently, and very often in the MRP and such issues, I would not enjoy the maintenance that would be required. Keeping it clean, let alone operational, would demand lots of time. Also, I am a lone operator, so a smallish medium sized layout would be all that I could enjoy consistently. Something with 300' of double main and 8 industries or so would be a major PITA for me.
So, it makes sense, from the point of view of one's operating, to have a large layout if you have the space and help, not just in operations but in the periodic maintenance. Surely there is far greater realism in the temporospatial sense to have industries and towns well spread out, where you could watch a limited run in the open for perhaps 20 full seconds at scale speed before it disappears into a tunnel or through the backdrop/wall.
I think there will come a time when I have used my layout that is currently being completed that I will want to take a couple of locomotives and my throttle (it if is compatible) to a larger layout and enjoy the expanses of view and different track arrangements. I am sure that is one of the great appeals of going to a club.
jecorbett wrote: Obviously, size matters to the MR publishers but I would hope quality is what counts the most. I would much rather see an 8x12 with lots of high level craftsmanship and detail than a much larger layout with a lower quality of work. Maybe that is because I have opted for the latter type of layout, knowing that in doing so, I have to compromise some on craftsmanship if I ever hope to get it completed. The typical layout feature has only about 8 photos and a reasonably completed mid-size layout could certainly provide that. Such features could show the contrast between the types of operations that can be done on smaller layouts as opposed to the Class 1 type operating schemes of the bigger layouts.
Obviously, size matters to the MR publishers but I would hope quality is what counts the most. I would much rather see an 8x12 with lots of high level craftsmanship and detail than a much larger layout with a lower quality of work. Maybe that is because I have opted for the latter type of layout, knowing that in doing so, I have to compromise some on craftsmanship if I ever hope to get it completed. The typical layout feature has only about 8 photos and a reasonably completed mid-size layout could certainly provide that. Such features could show the contrast between the types of operations that can be done on smaller layouts as opposed to the Class 1 type operating schemes of the bigger layouts.
A few weeks back, one of the editors came to us in response to a post and said that most of the articles they get are submissions. Now if you were a amateur/semi-pro writer and in the course of your wanderings ran into a big layout you might think, Wow! what a great layout. I think I'll write about it.
If on the other hand you ran into a nice 4 x 8 or door layout that was well done. You might think, "nice layout" but it might not be grand enough for you to spend a couple weeks jumping the hoops to publish about it.
Dave, you have a nice layout. Submit it.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Dave Vollmer wrote:2. HUGE layouts can be inspirational to everyone.
I'm not sure if I can agree with this one. Certainly, I want a large layout, but i am not inspired by what I'm seeing. Instead, they I feel an acute sense of bewilderment. It's the same kind of feeling you'd get if you showed the programmers of Pong a modern computer game. They'd be amazed, flabbergasted and shocked, but none of them would go home any wiser, because what they saw was so completely beyond their frame of reference.
John Allen's first article was on a half finished less than 4x8. Asd he added more, they had aditional articles. I do not think they should have stopped because it got kind of large and professional looking.
One thing I like about the large layouts is that they all have some unusual feature or look, that I can learn from,and copy even with out that size layout.
Here we go again.
What is the deal with the rabid hatred of "large" layouts? I have nothing against smaller layouts, and in fact enjoyed building my former 11 x 12 foot MA&G very much. But it limited what I really wanted to be doing...long passing sidings, lots of staging, wide radius curves, etc. Now there will be people out there that even consider 11 x 12 to be a "huge layout". So does that mean that my previous efforts, which were published in the April '05 MR , were an un-inspirational waste of magazine space simply because some guy considers it to be "too big"? Please tell me the hobby of Model Railroading is not falling into such a Socialist mindset.
I am inspired by excellent modeling. Period. I don't care if it is on a 12-inch square diorama board or fills the Super Dome. To turn your nose up at a layout because you don't personally have equal space, resources or disposable income is just ignorant. Apparently there is a segment of hobbyists who first look at the size of a layout before studying the craftsmanship shown in the photos. If I were to say all 4x8 layouts are child-like wastes of time, I would be branded a snob. But it's perfectly fine to bash those who have decided to do things on a grand scale. Notice I didn't say superior, better or preferred. The largest layouts can just as easily be poorly executed as a small layout. I will say, however, that the people who make a major investment in designing specific spaces for a mega layout are not very likely to just throw up some ill-planned or executed piece of junk. It is obviously something they are very passionate about doing well.
Based on this school of thought the layouts of Bill Darnaby, Tony Koester, Allen McClelland, George Sellios, Harold Werthwien, the Reid Brothers, Howard Zane, David Barrow, Chuck Hitchcock, Rick Rideout, and John Armstrong are complete wastes of time. Why, oh why could they have not stuck with 4x8's so that they could have made some real contribution to our hobby. Such a shame to see all of those wastes of space.
I would hope that modelers would not quickly dismiss layouts, or an entire magazine like GMR (puh-Leeze!!) just because they consider the layout spaces to be a ridiculous exercise in over-indulgence and greed. But that appears to be precisely the case for a lot of guys.
Sounds a bit like another kind of male envy which shall remain nameless.
Hey here's a radical idea. Not enough layouts being published in your preferred size? How about submitting your OWN work!! Naaah...what am I, crazy? It's much easier to sit and cast stones, harbor resentment and boycott the magazines.
To those excellent modelers out there, keep up the great work......regardless of the size of your layout.
You may now resume the vilification of the wealthy.
Cliff Powers
www.magnoliaroute.com
What is a "large" layout?
The Old Dog would argue that one should be careful not to try to do too much and create a maintenance nightmare. But that is as much a function of the time available as the space available.
Also, "large" is as much a measure of complexity as sheer size. A "large" layout with a good deal of single track running through scenes with great scenery may be no more "complex" then a smaller layout with multiple tracked mainlines and large yards.
Have fun
maandg wrote: What is the deal with the rabid hatred of "large" layouts? I don't think anyone, least of all me, expressed any such hatred. I am inspired by excellent modeling. As am I.Period. I don't care if it is on a 12-inch square diorama board or fills the Super Dome. To turn your nose up at a layout because you don't personally have equal space, resources or disposable income is just ignorant. Apparently there is a segment of hobbyists who first look at the size of a layout before studying the craftsmanship shown in the photos. If I were to say all 4x8 layouts are child-like wastes of time, I would be branded a snob. But it's perfectly fine to bash those who have decided to do things on a grand scale. We didn't bash or turn our noses up at anything. And, I'm anything but ignorant, thanks very much. Last week I passed my doctoral candidacy exams. Granted, they were in meteorology and not model railroading or economics...Based on this school of thought the layouts of Bill Darnaby, Tony Koester, Allen McClelland, George Sellios, Harold Werthwien, the Reid Brothers, Howard Zane, David Barrow, Chuck Hitchcock, Rick Rideout, and John Armstrong are complete wastes of time. Why, oh why could they have not stuck with 4x8's so that they could have made some real contribution to our hobby. Such a shame to see all of those wastes of space. Again, our plea was for balance, not just small layouts. Nobody in this thread said that MR should just do small layouts.I would hope that modelers would not quickly dismiss layouts, or an entire magazine like GMR (puh-Leeze!!) just because they consider the layout spaces to be a ridiculous exercise in over-indulgence and greed. But that appears to be precisely the case for a lot of guys. Never said anything about greed. My argument is about equating size and greatness. I chose not to buy GMR this year because it didn't relate to me in a meaningful way, not because of some crusade.Sounds a bit like another kind of male envy which shall remain nameless.That's just silly and stupid to say. But then since I have devoted my life to the service of my country I probably won't ever have the cash to do what some of those guys do. But I'm not saying they shouldn't either.Hey here's a radical idea. Not enough layouts being published in your preferred size? How about submitting your OWN work!! Naaah...what am I, crazy? It's much easier to sit and cast stones, harbor resentment and boycott the magazines. I fully intend to if I can get some decent magazine-quality photographs of it.To those excellent modelers out there, keep up the great work......regardless of the size of your layout. You may now resume the vilification of the wealthy. Nobody villified anything. Failure to relate to something is neither hatred nor villification.
What is the deal with the rabid hatred of "large" layouts?
I don't think anyone, least of all me, expressed any such hatred.
I am inspired by excellent modeling.
As am I.
Period. I don't care if it is on a 12-inch square diorama board or fills the Super Dome. To turn your nose up at a layout because you don't personally have equal space, resources or disposable income is just ignorant. Apparently there is a segment of hobbyists who first look at the size of a layout before studying the craftsmanship shown in the photos. If I were to say all 4x8 layouts are child-like wastes of time, I would be branded a snob. But it's perfectly fine to bash those who have decided to do things on a grand scale.
We didn't bash or turn our noses up at anything. And, I'm anything but ignorant, thanks very much. Last week I passed my doctoral candidacy exams. Granted, they were in meteorology and not model railroading or economics...
Again, our plea was for balance, not just small layouts. Nobody in this thread said that MR should just do small layouts.
Never said anything about greed. My argument is about equating size and greatness. I chose not to buy GMR this year because it didn't relate to me in a meaningful way, not because of some crusade.
That's just silly and stupid to say. But then since I have devoted my life to the service of my country I probably won't ever have the cash to do what some of those guys do. But I'm not saying they shouldn't either.
I fully intend to if I can get some decent magazine-quality photographs of it.
Nobody villified anything. Failure to relate to something is neither hatred nor villification.
Larry
Conductor.
Summerset Ry.
"Stay Alert, Don't get hurt Safety First!"
For the record, my frustration stems from the recent rash of threads which have dealt with this subject since GMR '07 hit the newsstands in October. There have been several negative threads (this was not one of them, BTW) which have indeed vilified large layouts and, as such, their owners. My tone of frustration is more a response to this trend of disdain for other's work based solely on the size of their layout. It was not intended to be a cheap shot or direct response to any of the above, specifically.
I apologize if my comments came off too harsh or offensive.
I do stand by my bottom line opinion that excellent modeling comes on layouts of all sizes and deserves to be judged on those merits alone.
I really like your layout and would love to see it in print someday!
maandg wrote: Dave,For the record, my frustration stems from the recent rash of threads which have dealt with this subject since GMR '07 hit the newsstands in October. There have been several negative threads (this was not one of them, BTW) which have indeed vilified large layouts and, as such, their owners. My tone of frustration is more a response to this trend of disdain for other's work based solely on the size of their layout. It was not intended to be a cheap shot or direct response to any of the above, specifically.I apologize if my comments came off too harsh or offensive.I do stand by my bottom line opinion that excellent modeling comes on layouts of all sizes and deserves to be judged on those merits alone.I really like your layout and would love to see it in print someday!
Thanks for that. I appreciate your clarification. For the record, I remember your layout and I liked it very much. I spent much time in the Gulfport/Mobile area while at the Air Force Weather Training School at Keesler AFB in Boloxi, and you did a spectacular job capturing the feel of the area.
It looks much different now in light of the hurricane...
Anyway, thanks for the comments about my layout and the clarification. I'm sorry if my response was also harsh.
I didn't read of any maligning of the wealthy, only that there seems to be a polarity in the breadth of the layouts that appear routinely. The only 4 X 8's that I have seen get coverage to any great extent in my short two years in the hobby have been the Turtle Creek and this latest clone. Even the Argentine one of this past month, a point to point and switching exclusively, is monstrous by my standard.
Many of us build and operate alone, and although we work within our means in every sense, these expanses can offer inspiration, but also make us shake our heads at the shear size of them.
Maybe it is because we all learn to find contentment, if we are smart, with what he have at our disposal, and find it hard to relate to the much larger creations, all the other wow factors aside.
Cliff,Wasn't your MA&G in MR or GMR?? I recall it being a publish layout but,forget which issue..
Anyway I think your layout can rank with the best..
Dave V., Um, not for nothing, but you said you don't mean to bash or villify large layouts. Ok, but if that's the case, then why is the name of this thread "Insanely huge layouts..."?
Perhaps using the term "insane" may not be the best way to go here...you know?
Just trying to be helpful...
Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Paul3 wrote: Dave V., Um, not for nothing, but you said you don't mean to bash or villify large layouts. Ok, but if that's the case, then why is the name of this thread "Insanely huge layouts..."?Perhaps using the term "insane" may not be the best way to go here...you know? Just trying to be helpful...Paul A. Cutler III************Weather Or No Go New Haven************
Got your attention, didn't it?
I guess I need to take Remedial Superlatives 101!