Hi everybody,
I keep seeing all these references to “large layouts” and “small layouts”. I’m wondering if there’s some sort of threshold that takes one from one size to the next, or is it all arbitrary? I work in N scale and am trying to figure out the parameters for a layout that’s a few years in the future, and some guidance as to “how big is big?” would be super helpful.
Welcome to the forum. Your first few posts are moderated and will be delayed. But stick around, and that passes quickly.
The size definitions are arbitrary. It seems like the question you are actually asking is different, which is about how large of a project should one consider? If you have a very large space, it can be tempting to consider a layout to fill all of it. But the commitment of time and money to build a large layout is substantial.
If you’ve never built a layout before, constructing a smaller layout first would help you build skills and gain an appreciation for how long things take for you (which varies by the individual) and how much they cost.
Hollow-core-door sized layouts work well in N scale. This would be 30”X80” or 36”X80”. There are lots of hollow-core-door (often abbreviated HCD) N scale plans on the Internet.
Best of luck with your layout.
Byron
I should mention that the best indicator of time and cost is not simply size, but complexity. One could build a desert short line with a few small towns in a large space, filling the room with mostly scenery and a dozen-or-so turnouts. This would likely take much less time and money than a dense urban layout with a hundred turnouts in 200 square feet.
Turnout count is a (very) rough indicator of scope – and thus, time and cost. And in any case, the models (rolling stock and structures) may well be the most expensive part of almost any layout.
Pretty much arbitrary. I tend to think in terms of a 4’ x 8’ as the centerpoint for “small”, filling a average (?) size spare room as “medium”, and filling a two-car garage sized space as the starting point for “large”. But these are just my own perceptions, which I’ll readily admit don’t take the model scale into consideration.
My own HO layout fills a 22’ x 18’ room, which seems overwhelmingly gigantic considering my slow rate of progress… and way-too-small when I’m operating it! [%-)]
Jim
I agree with the above info. It’s a very arbitrary subject. My layout in our two car garage. It is 14’ x 10’ and I consider it small.
My layout above has 122’ of mainline HO flex track in what is referred to as a “Twice Around” configuration. It has a double crossover to allow continuous single loop on either the upper track or the lower track. It also has a loopback for reversing the direction of a train. The minimum mainline radius is 32”.
Mel
What difference would it make,as to what you call it ?
We each have a space, is it large or really big, compared to who’s.
Can you build 50 sq. feet. but not 51. or maybe only 49
We each have a budget, mine is not as big as yours, but I 'm sure its bigger then that other guy’s.
Build as mutch of what you want/can afford, call it yours. Putting a size lable on it will make no difference.
…and going on further into a careful response to the question (it’s never straightforward), the complexity of the design dictates how much room you’ll need for it. And, as alluded to, the scale in which one models, Z, N, HO, S, the narrow gauges, O, and G, as examples, will work in different spaces if one uses the same trackage layout.
An oval can be done in any scale under a Christmas tree. Or, severely altered, on a sheet of plywood. But, they get ‘tired’ very soon, so we want something more complicated and interesting. That means complexity, and now you have to consider geometry. Your rolling stock can only go around curves, and through turnouts, that are so tight. Will you mind seeing contorted trains? Or, would you like to have wider curves and more realistic ones where your trains don’t seem quite so toy-like…Christmas tree oval-like? Now you need more room.
I think a Z scale or N on a full sheet of plywood might charitably be called a medium sized layout. But, if you go with how long it takes to build a ‘large’ layout, and forget about details, just go by the number of ‘track miles’ on a main line, something the size of a large bedroom would probably be a ‘medium’ layout. Large layouts fill basements and warehouses…or museums. That’s a rough guide.
I can be windy at times and my answers get long. So, I thought I’d break up my reply only to agree with Byron’s (cuyama’s) reply as well, and to reinforce what the others say; go easy on yourself the first time. Build something considered, but on which you’ll be up and running trains inside of a couple or few weeks, not two or three years. Treat the first one as a learning experience, and not just to gain skills, but to learn more about how you’ll enjoy trains for more than a couple of weeks until your track layout gets boring. Learn more about trains, about your scale, about track planning, and then building something you won’t want to mothball inside of a month or two. You have to grow in a hobby…somehow.
I had every bit as much fun on my Plywood Pacific(s) I had as a kid as I have with my current layout that occupies a 15’ x 24’ room. I consider my layout to be on the larger end of a small layout. I just visited a layout that was huge compared to mine yet it was a lot smaller than some I have been to visit.
I just told the wife I was building a layout in the corner. Her mistake was not telling me how far out from the corner I could come.[swg]
I had a friend that had many 2’ x 4’ modules and would put as many together that was practical at his house. When the wife was away for a long weekend WATCH OUT it was train city all through his house. Usually, he would have a 12’ x 8’ set up in the spare room.
He would store them by stacking the modules on a rack on the wall in the garage much like you see how windshields are stored at the glass place.
I want to add a harbour section to my layout and it will be a modular add on situation as there will be times when it needs to come down.
I don’t know how many square feet my layout is, just that it is big enough for the room it is in that it would not be practical to try and do anything else in there.[oX)]
What’s missing on the first page of that article is the scale. It wasn’t HO, N scale wasn’t even a dream in 1939. It wasn’t even in the most common O scale. It was, IIRC, 7/16" scale.
But very much ahead of its time in being a simple linear railroad.
–Randy
One way to see it is: Where to start and how to expand. Do you have lots of room? If yes, you can start with a small layout, with expansion tracks built in to expand later. Starting small is wise, like others have said.
Simon
Some people manage to get lucky, and get what they want on the first try, with maybe some future expansons. But I’d say the majority do not. If you’ve never built a layout before, be prepared to make the first one relatively small, and treat it as a learning experience. Often called a “chainsaw layout” these days, because when you are done and ready to move on to your ‘dream’ layout, you take a chainsaw to this one to get rid of it and make way for the new construction. It’s never a complete waste, as you have the skills learned, the rolling stock, structures, electronics, and even some of the track cna be salvaged for later use.
I’ve been considering putting together somethign small, only because it has been more than 6 years since I last worked on my old bedroom size layout and I feel I might be getting rusty, plus I want to run some trains. But I am finally making progress on the basement remodel so by next year I should finally have construction underway.
–Randy
Hello All,
When I think of the difference between a “small” and “large(r)” pike I consider the minimum radius curves and turnouts that can be used.
On my HO scale 4’x8’ pike the largest radii curves I can employ are 22-inches. The largest turnouts are Atlas Snap Switches; approximately #4.
The smallest radii is 15-inchs and the smallest turnouts are #2’s.
I would definitely consider this track arrangement a “small” pike.
Pikes that can employ larger radii trackage; e.g. 34-inches or more, I wold consider a “larger” pike.
Some have posted that it might be the complexity of the pike- -scenery or trackage- -that defines the “size” of the pike.
To throw the proverbial “spanner into the works” scale plays a part in the consideration of “size”.
What might be considered a “large” N-scale pike, with the same area, could be considered a switching or “Time Saver” in O-scale. This is where the terms become relevant to the scale.
Others may- -and will- -disagree with my opinions. You asked for guidance and not an absolute definition.
Hope this helps.
I think that there really are no clear lines between the sizes of different model railroads. I guess I’d say 4x8 ish and smaller are small, though a bit bigger could still be considered small. However I‘d say if you start to fill a small bedroom you are reaching the lower end of medium. Garages and larger bedrooms, and even smaller basements, would kind of still be medium, but I feel like some larger garage and basement layout approach big. Now the typical big layout would be the kind of this that takes up basements and such.
Now with double (or triple…) deck layouts I’d say that a bedroom sized layout approaches big, as opposed to medium. Scale is also a bit of factor, a room sized O scale layout would be small and a room sized n scale layout would be a bit bigger…
Minimum curve radius and turnout size are often good indicatons, but not always. I guess 22-18” HO, <10” for n would be small, 24-30” for HO, 11-18” for N medium, and then 32“+ for HO and 19”+ for N. And then maybe #4 or 5 turnouts for small, 6 or 7 for medium, and 8+ for large, at least on mainlines… These values are kind of random, and not always correct, my layout for example has 15” minimum radius (n scale) and #7 turnouts yet is just a loop, siding and two spurs, so it’s small…
I think this is really up to the individual to determine…
In
Right, in other words, it doesn’t really matter. Nothing to “head trip” over.
STRATTON AND GILLETTE:
.
Hollow core door in N scale. Completed in 1984, rebuilt in 1985.
Massive N scale layout in its own special designed room. 16 by 30 I think. Somehwere around there. Never even got to the point of running trains. House was built in 1989, razed in 1991.
N scale switching layout in dining room. 30 inches by 8 feet. Great experience and was supposed to expand into L shaped layout in living room. Then I switched to HO scale.
Ho scale switching layout in master bedroom. Also 30 inches by 8 feet. Was completed in 1998. Moved to new house in 1999 and sat on sawhorses for four years.
Spare bedroom layout created when oldest daughter moved out. 10 by 11 foot room. Was supposed to incorporate the switching layout, but there was not enough room to make it work. Switching layout was scrapped. This layout was originally around-the-walls, but the duckunder was no good, and the lift out bridge was not the right solution. Converted to point-to-point operation with a wye and a turntable. Never completed, scrapped in 2017.
.
I have an excellent solid plan for the next layout, but some of that is up in the air right now due to a possible new house or a possible new job in Wisconsin.
.
Anyway… layout size means little. A small layout like my 10 by 11 foot HO layout seemed like a huge undertaking because of all the changes in plans and complicated trackwork.
.
That “dream house” N scale plan sounds like an empire, but it had very few turnouts and was mostly supposed to be doube track mainline. It would have been very simple to build. It was designed that way on purpose.
.
I have seen small layouts and huge layouts that were equally impressive and loved by their builders.
.
Complication means more than actual size.
.
-Kevin
.
Yeah I’d agree to that. Honestly a better way to classify layouts would be by Quanitiative size (i.e. 4’x8’ or 20’x30’) rather than qualitative classifications like big or small!
Any experience or thoughts on the success rate of those expandable plans? Where you start with a small layout that is intentionally designed to be added on to in the future. Does the concept actually work or do your skills improve so much that you can’t stand the look of the older portion? I’ve often thought about this as I hate the idea of waste but I can see arguments for both.
It’s like the supreme court decision in the 60’s on pornography - (and I paraphrase) “I may not be able to define it, but I know it when I see it”.