Greetings all, very glad to have all the gang back together again.
I know this might sound like an often discussed subject, but maybe not this specific point. When speaking with fellow model railroaders we always ask, “how big is your layout?” In general terms, we answer small, medium, large, massive. So my query is, how to you describe small? Medium? Etc.
Regards, Chris
This question comes up every once in a while and I have never seen it settled. There are always a lot of opinions and in reality at least for me, it doesn’t matter.
Do we measure the square footage of the actual layout or if it fills an entire room, just give the room size. I tend to just give the room size and leave it at that.
Maybe the NMRA has standards on what constitutes layout size as in small, medium, large or massive. I have always just posted a photo of mine and said the room is 16’ x 24’ and the actual layout is this big. Not ever having figured out the square footage of the actual layout is not high on my priority list.
Having said all that, in previous discussions on the subject the general consensus on my layout is, it is a larger size in the small layout category.
Just in my view…
A small layout is roughly 6X10 feet or smaller.
Medium would be up the size of a standard spare bedroom, say 12X12.
Large would be up to around 30X40 (basement-sized for an average house, roughly).
Massive would be anything bigger, and would include any large multi-deck layout.
But that’s just my definitions.
Just in general:
Mini layout: 2x4 square feet or less (common dimensions for a starter-loop N scale layout) or smaller, including a 12" deep shelf layout less than 8 feet long. (A smaller subset, the micro layout, tops out at 4 square feet or less.)
Small layout: Hollow-core door (30"x7’, common for N scalers), 4x8 (plywood sheet) or 5x9 (ping pong table size, an older style often chosen for HO scalers wanting 24" curves) or shelf layout of comparable dimensions (along one or two walls of a small room).
Medium layout: Bedroom or spare room filling size (10x10 or so) up to a single-car garage (about 12x20 feet); I’d say this applies whether it’s a narrow around-the-room shelf or an island that occupies most of the room.
Large layout: Entire house basement, multi-car garage, or dedicated building of comparable size (like 300 square feet or larger), including multi-level or “mushroom” layouts.
Club layout: Very large room or building-filling size, dimensions are “the sky’s the limit”
These categories tend to apply regardless of scale, whether you’re modeling Z or G; while there are compact G scale layouts (typically narrow gauge, or using sub-G gauges like Gn15, G scale models running on HO track), even a small G scale layout will need at least a “medium layout” amount of room. And while there are large Z scale layouts, they’re often better suited for the modeler who wants to fit a loop in a briefcase–or someone who wants the maximum possible ratio of scenery to railroad!
Here in the U.K. I class a small layout that is easily portable on one board. I used to have a layout on an old ironing board that folded down and put away. (in 00 gauge).
A medium sized layout is in a small bedroom (or equivalent.). My current layout is 11ft x 8ft.
Any larger room is a large layout. I had one in the loft of the house 24ft x 11ft.
Just a small part of ‘my empire’.
David
My layout is small by virtually any definition. It is nominally 2 feet by ten feet along one wall of the smallest bedroom in our beachfront condominium. Even a cool three million does not get you much room when your home is directly on the beach. Definitely no room for anything but a small layout.
For me, small is fine. I am 66 years old, and do not have enough time for a big layout. I also have a sports car, motorcycle, and fishing boat competing for whatever time I have left. Oh, and the spouse needs attention also.
Then also, I model in Proto:48n3 at an incredible level of detail, so I doubt I will even finish half this layout before the lord calls me back home.
As with cars and many other things, the British category equivalents compared to American layout sizes are comparatively smaller! The American “one board” is typically the stereotypical 4x8 loop. But a small shelf layout has other advantages; easy to relocate if you move, easy and economical to finish, and you can go into a much greater level of detail than a “basement empire” that never gets past the “Plywood Pacific” stage. Plus, they can also be expanded into sectional layouts if more space presents itself in the house or the budget.
By those definitions, I have a medium size layout. Single car garage with the layout wrapping around all four walls. (Roughly 12x24) Started out as a 8x20 in my former apartment and grew from there once I bought my house and the garage that went with it.
Arbitrary room or layout dimensions or room sq footages leave out other issues in defining the “size” of a model railroad.
I believe “complexity” is another important factor, especially as size increases. One can build a spaghetti bowl of track or one can have expansive scenic vistas - that makes for two completely different layouts that might fill a given space.
I’m building a layout (finally making some progress) that will pretty much fill a 1500 sq ft basement. And it will be complex enough - BUT, I could have easily filled the space with three times the amount of track and turnouts, which are my primary measure of complexity, and by extension “layout size”.
So the “stats” of my planned layout:
I like scenic depth. I built (tried to build) one multi deck shelf layout 25 years ago - took it down before it was complete. I was simply not happy - and it was too complex.
For those who have not seen it, here is my track plan:
Here are a few pictures of the slow but ongoing progress.
Lighting
Benchwork
With any luck there will be another big construction push in the next few days. Materials are on hand for another 20-25 feet of benchwork.
So, yes I would call this a large layout, but given its footprint, it is not an overly complex layout.
I will propose this analogy - which is more complex? - a 6 track freight yard 12 feet long or a six track freight yard 26 feet long? One in “bigger”, but they both are of the same “complexity”.
One other issue with size vs complexity - radius, turnout size and grades.
My choices - 36" minimum with most more like 40" radius, all with easements. And mainline/yard/staging turnouts all #6 or #8. A few 4.5’s in some industrial areas. Grades all 2% or less.
All of these factors take up more space without adding complexity.
So I did quick approximate calculation of benchwork sq footages verses aisleway sq footage - Benchwork - 950 sq ft, aisles - 550 sq ft.
Sheldon
Welcome back, Sheldon!
Ditto! Welcome back Sheldon.
Thank you.
The old forum had become too much of an operational challenge to read or post.
And, I have been pretty busy with work and family.
But some of that is changing as I am winding down my business for retirement, or at least some form of semi-retirement.
Sheldon
I generally think of a small layout as under say 150 square feet, medium about 150 to 500 square feet, large 500 to 1000 square feet and huge 1000+ square feet. That’s for single deck layouts. If it’s two or more decks it gets large or huge a lot quicker. Area isn’t a perfect measure since as others mentioned complexity factors in but it’s a good generalization. My old layout was about 600 square feet but it had two full visible decks with a third partial staging deck. My new layout is about 1300 square feet and us all single deck with the exception of one lower level branchline town. The two layouts have a similar amount of track and I’d consider them both to be large layouts. The first one crammed in a lot more into the space it had than it probably should have so I’m overcompensating on the second to make sure it’s spread out.
Welcome back to the forum, pkeppers!
Sheldon, thnx once again for yet another in-depth response to a question or issue. Much appreciated. And it’s certainly good to see you back here my friend.
Regards, Chris
Sheldon, welcome back !
Your layout progress is great to see.
Rich
Good to see you Sheldon 
Sheldon,
I see the point you are trying to make, but I do not completely agree.
My layout is small and the track plan is not complex. There will only be nine switches and less than 25 feet of track.
However, your comparison completely disregards the effect of high building standards on what constitutes the total complexity.
Building in Proto:48n3 scale means all the track needs to be hand built. All the equipment needs substantial modifications and upgrades for operation. Being realistic in O scale is a fight in different arena than HO. An O scale figure needs eyebrows to look effectively convincing. That makes the whole ordeal much more complex than in HO. That was just an example, but the same conditions hold true for structures, trees, wagons, fences, animals, and everything else.
So, while by your set of parameters my layout might not be considered large or complex, I can assure that complexity is a factor in every part of it.
Well agreed, modeling standards are another factor in any measure of complexity.
And you said yourself, high detail O scale is a fight in a different arena.
My comments were not to establish some hard set of guidelines, but rather to simply to point out that a 1000 sq ft layout with 200 turnouts is likely a more difficult build than my 1500 sq ft layout with 116, 24 of which exist strictly for operational staging.
I admire people who build layouts like yours, and I am a serious kitbullder/kit basher/scratch builder - been at this hobby pretty steady since 1968. But I am a big picture kind of modeler with what I feel is a pretty balanced interest in all aspects of the hobby - model building, scenic effect, operation and display running.
My layouts have all been designed accordingly.
My own modeling standards require close coupled passenger cars with working/touching diaphragms, large curves for realistic appearance, modeling of “non railroad” scenic features, working signals, crew, single operator and display operational abilities, and historic scenic context to my 1954 period. Another feature important to me is the running of reasonably realistic length Class one trains - 40, 50 or more cars in many cases.
But What I don’t require - not every model needs to be a museum grade accurate model, it is ok if detail levels vary from one piece of rolling stock to another as long as they “look the part”. Track, wheels, turnouts, couplers - reliable operation takes precedence over actual scale size or detail.
So the point is, that to do what I do, even with a list of compromises and low percentage of track to benchwork, a layout of my size is no small task. You are painting eyelashes, I am building my own control and signal circuits.
Modeling standards might be a great topic for a different thread.
Sheldon
Thanks to all for the kind words, hopefully more layout progress to share real soon.
Sheldon
