Layout area, minus aisles, is taking ~ 195 sq ft of 322 sq ft of overall area.
Regards,
Tom
tomikawaTT wrote: As a former working statistician, this kind of statistic comes under the general heading 'meaningless.'
As a former working statistician, this kind of statistic comes under the general heading 'meaningless.'
pkeppers wrote: I think 225 is probably a good median number.I consider my layout to be at about the 70th percentile of the ones I have been to meaning that 70% are smaller and 30% are bigger.
I think 225 is probably a good median number.
I consider my layout to be at about the 70th percentile of the ones I have been to meaning that 70% are smaller and 30% are bigger.
Maybe that 69% are smaller and 29% larger, with yours grouped in the 1% of your percentile ranking?
I would like to know the mode. Not that it would be representative, at all, but I bet it correlates highly with the average bedroom or garage space left over after everything else is put away properly.
Did the researchers who gathered the data from an appropriately selected target group consider the scale of the modeller? 225 Sq Ft of G scale track in my garden is not a big layout. 225 feet of Z Scale could model the railways of the scottish highlands (well almost).
I model N and have 2.8 m2 (american = 30 sq feet). So just 195 sq feet to go. Yikes! Best go to G if I'm ever going to make the average.
A more meaningful average would be the average pike size by scale modelled.
I can only believe this 225 if there were a lot of O and G scalers in the sample group, plus a number of basement sized HO groups.
Best get working on that other 195 sq feet.
I dont pay attention to averages.
But I do pay attention when Im adding roughly half of the footage that totals what my home is when looking at what it will cost to build the train room/workbench and tool area.
Im only about 10 square feet right now. Im already at 400 square feet in planning.
My layout room is almost 22' x 24' or 528 square feet.
I live in the Washington D.C. area and have seen a whole lot of layouts bigger than mine. So many, that I feel my layout is on the smaller side. I've been in homes where you almost needed binoculars to see the other side of the layout. Of course, this is an area where many people (me not included!) have huge incomes and live in homes with basements the size of bowling alleys. So a 15 x 15 foot layout seems on the small size to me.
But also believe me, size does NOT equal quality. Certainly one of the top 10 layouts in the country, Paul Dolkos' Boston and Maine is only slightly larger than mine. Lance Manheims is considerably smaller than mine, but again is one of the finest anywhere.
Dale Latham
Pathfinder wrote: My room size is 9x13 (117 sq ft). The layout is around-the-walls, with a 2' depth for the most part so actual layout sq ft is much lower (and no second level to make up for it).I am so below average
My room size is 9x13 (117 sq ft). The layout is around-the-walls, with a 2' depth for the most part so actual layout sq ft is much lower (and no second level to make up for it).
I am so below average
I'd like to see a few pictures of your layout if you don't mind. Mine is 11X7 around the walls shelf layout with a 4' lift out and a 2' swing shelf. I'm wondering how much track you were able to run along the walls.
As it stands now, I have over 400 sq. feet of layout space, all of it around the walls of my basement. If and when I get the branchline built on a center peninsula, that will add roughly 150 sq. feet.
I have about 80 square feet. See my WWW below.
John
Wow. I'm far below at 74 sq ft.
"Being misunderstood is the fate of all true geniuses"
EXPERIMENTATION TO BRING INNOVATION
http://community.webshots.com/album/288541251nntnEK?start=588
jecorbett wrote: As it stands now, I have over 400 sq. feet of layout space, all of it around the walls of my basement. If and when I get the branchline built on a center peninsula, that will add roughly 150 sq. feet.
LUCKY...
I have a 10 by 20 layout. Most of the bench work is 2.5 feet wide. So I have about 117.5 square feet of bench work. So I'm about half way to the 225 square feet. But I would say that 225 sounds like a good center point for modelers out there. I have seen some really good size layouts and some medium size layouts. So it sounds reasonable.
Happy railroading
James
My HO scale layout is 8' x 24', which amounts to 192 square feet. It may be a bit below average, but it's plenty of space for me.
-Brandon
212 square feet of main line footprint, 136 fquare feet of mountain line footprint, possible future addition of 24 sq.ft All told about, 350 square feet on two levels.
The room is 29 x 16-1/2 with a staircase coming up at one end. I built a new carriage house and decided to add an upstairs for a new layout. It can out great; light, heat, insulation etc. Only one small problem - it didn't leave much money for the actual trains . It's OK though, you can't build a house wthout a good foundation and you can't build a railroad without a good space.
Previous layout was +- 160 square feet in the house attic, the one before that 64.
I wonder if the "average" statistic is skewed by club sized layouts? Of course we don't know the validity of the sampling methods. Still it's an interesting topic for conversation.
Remember, "it's not how much railroad you have, it how much you put into the railroad."
Karl
The mind is like a parachute. It works better when it's open. www.stremy.net
Well I guess I am a little overboard. When all is done a little under 1,200 Sq ft The Basement is 120 x 32. So far I am 32 x 28 and still THINKING about growing.
Our club memebr is building one that is 2,300 sq ft. which at his age he may never finish but neither will I.
Should I have gome smaller, YES! That is why I have not started on the phase two Benchwork yet.
Well using the math that you all are using:
Basement=3,840 sq ft
Main line room is 896 Sq ft
Nanticoke extension area is 184 sq ft
Adding the main room and extension you have 1080 sq ft
Main line is a folded dog bone whaich is about 60% or 537 Sq ft
Nanticoke is 66 sq ft
So Layout at this stage is 603 Sq ft of track.
So you're the guys who skewed the statistic!
I'll bet there are people who dream of a basement that size. Your basement has more square footage than my house. Wow! There's even room for the wife's stuff down there. Maybe you can rent space to another modeler? he he he
What do you mean "go smaller"? Just do it in room sized modules.
claycts wrote: Well I guess I am a little overboard. When all is done a little under 1,200 Sq ft The Basement is 120 x 32. So far I am 32 x 28 and still THINKING about growing.Our club memebr is building one that is 2,300 sq ft. which at his age he may never finish but neither will I.Should I have gome smaller, YES! That is why I have not started on the phase two Benchwork yet.
I have forgotten, is your layout in FL or SC? Your present space is just about perfect.
Sue
Anything is possible if you do not know what you are talking about.
ranchero wrote:i bet i have the smallest non modular HO layout, less than 6 square feet
Tetsudo Mokei Shumi (the Japanese equivalent of MR) regularly publishes photos and plans of HOj and HOe layouts smaller than that. (HOj is 1:80 scale, HOe is also known as HOn30.) The HOj layouts are usually caricatures, while the HOe layouts frequently do a nice job of representing some selected facet of the 762mm prototypes that once existed in Japan.
They even had an On30 layout the size of yours!
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in a garage, not a suitcase)
My floor space is 31 X 29, for a total of 899 sq. ft. But since it's a double-deck layout, should I claim 1,798 sq. ft.?
Actually, the benchwork square footage, when finished, will be about 1140 sq. ft. It's substantially less than that now. Hmmmm.... Probably WAY to big!
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton
jon grant wrote: Sweeyhome Chicago is only 34 square feet, little more than a piece of 4 by 8. Shucks!! One way The other wayJon
One way
The other way
Jon
AggroJones wrote: jecorbett wrote: As it stands now, I have over 400 sq. feet of layout space, all of it around the walls of my basement. If and when I get the branchline built on a center peninsula, that will add roughly 150 sq. feet.LUCKY...
Having room for a large layout is both a blessing and a curse. Sure, you have room for the dream layout, but that also multiplies the cost, time, effort, and headaches involved in building and maintaining a large layout. I've been working on my current layout for almost six years and it is not even close to finished, even though the mainline track has been in place for about four years. Each section I work on brings a whole new set of problems that need to be worked through. Had I opted for a more modest sized layout, I probably would have it reasonably completed and probably could have done higher quality work as well. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have what I do, but I'll be even happier with it when the scenery is completed and the trains are operating a full schedule like I planned when I began the layout. Up until now, I've done far more building and far less running than I'm sure a lot of modelers with smaller layout have done.
I've got a big room, 24x24, but only a small 5x12 foot layout in it. I've left options for expansion at a few points in my track plan, though. I can appreciate the value of being able to "complete" a more modest layout, as I've got significant areas looking pretty finished now. Operationally, it's pretty cramped, so I'm thinking of adding a fold-up staging yard if the ladies of the house won't let me have the space for a permanent one.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
SpaceMouse: Context, please? Did they describe a 15x15 layout as being "average sized" or do they claim that the average (meaning adding up all the layouts' square footage and dividing by the number of layouts), or the most popular result on a MR survey (where people probably checked off a box stating roughly how big their layout was?)
My current stats: In a 275 square foot room, 16 square feet of scenicked layout with 12 feet of mainline, another 3.33 square feet of unscenicked module with track, and another 6 feet of yard module currently under construction. When I get done running this thing all the way around the room I plan on a total of about 80 square feet of operating layout, physically the equivalent of 2.5 sheets of 4x8 lumber but with a heck of a lot more track.
Jetrock wrote: SpaceMouse: Context, please? Did they describe a 15x15 layout as being "average sized" or do they claim that the average (meaning adding up all the layouts' square footage and dividing by the number of layouts), or the most popular result on a MR survey (where people probably checked off a box stating roughly how big their layout was?)
The 15 x 15 was me contextualizing 225 sq ft.
The quote was one in passing like "...blah, blah, blah...a few years ago MR conducted a survey in which we found the average size model railroad to be 225 sq ft....blah, blah, blah,..."
No methodolgy, context, etc. I could probably find the page again if you were that interested.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Check out the Deming Sub by clicking on the pics:
150 square feet - O scale
Brunton wrote: jon grant wrote: Sweeyhome Chicago is only 34 square feet, little more than a piece of 4 by 8. Shucks!! But the quality is stupendous, Jon!
jon grant wrote: Sweeyhome Chicago is only 34 square feet, little more than a piece of 4 by 8. Shucks!!
But the quality is stupendous, Jon!
Thanks for that, Mark.
Perhaps the small size of the layout meant I could get to the advanced scenic stage that much quicker.
I intend the next one to be only 12' x 18" but with a future option of adding it on to the current one.
Sweethome Chicago is now on Facebook
Sweethome Alabama is now on Facebook
Hudson Road is now on Facebook
my videos
my Railimages
jon grant wrote: Sweeyhome Chicago is only 34 square feet, little more than a piece of 4 by 8. Shucks!!One way The other way Jon
Sweeyhome Chicago is only 34 square feet, little more than a piece of 4 by 8. Shucks!!
This what my comment about I should have gone smaller. THis what I WISH mine would look like instead of the MONSTER it has become and still getting BIGGER.
Very nice work!!
GARRY
HEARTLAND DIVISION, CB&Q RR
EVERYWHERE LOST; WE HUSTLE OUR CABOOSE FOR YOU