Sorry, but the March issue set me off when it referred to an 11x23.5 foot layout as “compact.” The previous February issue featured “small” layouts that ranged in size from 5x18 to 12x12. This is totally absurd. None of these layouts is small or compact, IMO, although I concede that the 8x8 display layout in the March issue may qualify as being marginally “small.”
Therefore, I propose that the layout upper size limit that should be referred to as “small” be 72 square feet, or 6x12. If I was a betting man I’d wager that a sizable majority of stateside setups are smaller than this.
An 8 by 8 layout is by no means small.
IMHO, when magazines publish articles refering to what most people would consider good sized layouts as small, they are helping to kill the hobby. Just think of a newly interested party reading an article about a compact 11 by 23.5 layout. They only have a fraction of that space available. So their layout would be smaller than compact. Why bother?
Even when I was more of an operator than a collector, my largest layout was 8 by 12. Most folks who came to visit thought the layout was tremendous. Yet it was only about 1/3 the size of that “compact” layout.
Not small IMO. CTT seems to have gone more toward the highly scenic, someome else built it, kind of mag. To some degree they have gone back to it’s roots of classic trains but they do tend to go with fancy a lot. So I guess to them that layout is compact unless they are saying it’s overcrowed. Who knows.
5x9 is small. My L shaped layout is 10’x5’ wide one leg of the L and 12’x 3’ 7" the other leg. Two loops one is 38’ of track, and 34’. One loop go’s up and over the other. I also have a reverse, and a 4 track yard with a short yard lead. Also a crossover from one loop to the other. I would have liked passing sidings and industrial spurs but no room and I wanted some scenery space. One loop of Gargraves is operational and the roadbed is made for the rest. It’s in my living room.
I think we’re being a little too hard on CTT about the word “compact”. The extreme dimensions of the layout in question are 11 x 23 1/2 feet, but much of that is only because of a small peninsula on one end. The bulk of the layout is 7 x 17 1/2, half the area that the first numbers imply.
It’s not unreasonable to think that even that size is not small. But the article said “compact”, not “small”. The relevant definitions that I find for “compact” are, “having a dense structure or parts or units closely packed or joined”, and, “occupying a small volume by reason of efficient use of space”. So it’s not really a synonym, although automobile manufacturers have used it so much to avoid saying “small”, that it may seem to be.
Train mags are like Car mags. They cater to the rich and ignore the average guy, Thats why I quit buying mags and no longer watch the car shows on SPEED and Spike.
I was wondering if maybe when they said compact if they didn’t mean small layout but everything was compact into this layout as it had a lot of items per square foot or what ever not as the actually size being compact.
I have no full scale cars on my pike, so IMHO it is small.
IMHO, some people will just find anything to complain about… geez! How many rivets are on that boxcar? WHAT!?! A real one has more than that! … Size is relative guys… if you are this uptight about schematics, you need to relax and run more trains.
As a newbie (less than 1 month into the hobby) I;m still trying to determine a layot to fit my space, and as mentioned, for some of us with a small area and no full basement, seeing some of these awesome, but gigantic layouts offered in the mag and the links in this forum, are inspiring but overwhelming. I’m trying to do something with a 5 x 9 or maybe, if I’m lucky, 5x12 space, and am beginning to realize that It may be considered “small”, but it’s what some of have to deal with. And, it’s not thesize that matters [;)], but the quality.
I think it means little to me how big a given layout is, it is more what the builder has filled the available space with. I have seen a layout size referred to say, 12 x 30 and yet it is about 3 feet wide going all the way around the room. Not that there is anything wrong with that, in fact, a lot of good operations can be done that way. But for actual layout square footage, it can be deceiving. There are different ways of categorizing layouts in my opinion. There is the WOW factor…how detailed and how well the scenery is done. There is the expanse factor…how big the overall layout is. Then, there is the FUN factor. To me, that is the most impressive aspect of a layout. How enjoyable is it to run? I have seen some fantastic layouts with great scenery, covering lots of space. In the end, it was just like rail-fanning in miniature. Was fun for a while, but I would rather do some maneuvering, working some sidings, making some accessories work.
In terms of “terms”, I don’t get too excited over what things are called. While most know that a turnout is called just that, I wouldn’t jump all over a guy for calling it a “switch”. We know what is meant. If someone calls a layout compact, if it is not meant in a mean way, I wouldn’t worry. I have seen some spectacular work done in a “compact space”. Look at Scott Smith’s layout. He has it encircling his desk and yet it is very well done. I am sure he doesn’t feel slighted if someone calls it Compact.
Hot Rod magazine for example has a lot of professionally built very expensive cars and the idea is to inspire the regular guy to greater heights. CTT is doing the same thing I imagine. A full basement layout can be I’m sure a overwhelming project that in some cases only get’s partially done. I wish CTT would feature more average size or small size layouts that are more something most people have the room for.
I wonder how many folks have a layout that is borderline or completely unmanageable from a maintenance standpoint because it’s just plain too durn big. I bet they won’t admit it if they do.
Well, I’ll bet every layout has a sort of timeline - the planning, the building, the operating or playing and finally either dismantling or rebuilding - repeat cycle. Perhaps at a certain time in a person’s life, a larger layout that was built when younger gets to be a bit much.
I am about to move into a larger place. My train room (we don’t have basements down here) is going to have a usable area of roughly 11’ X 11’. I’m not going to make it a solid layout utilizing every inch of that space. I need room to get up in there too so it will be an around the walls industrial switching layout and I’m going to hold curves to no less than O-72! For n-scale I’d consider this room completely adequate but in O scale it isn’t all that large. This is why I’m going to do a theme that fits in and can be believable. No mountains here. When I think small though, I really think a 4 x 8 sheet of wood but usually much less. I am finishing up a table for my nephew right now that is a 3 x 6-1/2 foot hollow core down and is all O-27. It’s small for O (a scale football field!) but still larger than the n-scale layout I had growing up. It’s all relative but when someone calls something that is larger than my largest room “compact”, I’m going to respectfully disagree.
My new layout measures 8’6" x 13’10". My previuos one was “small” at 4’ x 6’. When I first started to build the current one I thought that it was “big” in comparison to my old layout. When I look at it now as I run my trains I realize that it is not big at all. But, I have realized, it is still nicer than the one I had.
Some people pay to have layouts custom built, which is fine for THEM. I look at my layout in its still unscenicked state, and think “I did this myself with a little help from my kids”. I appreciate these huge, huge layouts. They are nice to look at. But, I can’t help but feel that something is missing when you don’t build it yourself. That is a huge part of the fun of toy and model trains, buliding it. You get to do carpentry, electrical, mechanical and artistic (scenery) things. As my kids helped me some I know that they were also learning and having fun.
As far as classic cars go… My car is not really anything spectacular. It’s in nice shape. It is fairly fast. But, it is nowhere near being Barret-Jackson car quality. But, you know what? I did it myself! I never did any of that type of work before. I replaced everything under the hood, from motor to transmission, radiator, electrical, you name it. And, it runs fine! I also replaced the carpet and stereo system. I know that sometimes the guys who buy the “shake the box” new Corvettes are looking down their noses at some Car Shows. And, then again, they never turned a wrench on their cars.
Now as far as small or medium or large layouts goes, it is all in the owner’s eyes as to what size THEY feel their layout is. Although I myself consider small to be anything under about 10 x 14, medium to fall into sizes up to 20 x 20 or so. Large would be anything bigger. And, by the way, I would LOVE to see Tony Lash’s layout in person. His layout is awesome. I am glad that CTT f