In the May MR there is an interesting article with this title by Jeff Kraker about his 200 sq ft layout. In the beginning he comments that his previous layout was 4 times the size but he never got a train to run more than a few feet. The implication being that a smaller layout is better.
As one who has never had enough space (certainly not 800 sq ft), I can’t really relate to this. We recently purchased our retirement home and I have a nominal 1400 sq ft basement for my future layout. So I am curious, has anyone had this experience of too much space for the layout and then built a smaller one? Was smaller better? How so? I invite you to share your experience with us. As usual everyone else chime with their thoughts as well.
I experienced this . I had a 20ft by 60ft building with electricity insolated the works . I quickly filled the space . while this space was not huge but it quickly became to much to complete and to keep running . I had big dreams but it became more like work and less like a hobby . I think if I had a group of dedicated friends to help I would have been ok , but I did’nt and I really started to hate it , so since that time I like smaller better .
I had close to a 1000 SQ. FT. available to me. I built my 360 SQ. FT. layout after a lot of thought. I didn’t want to bite off more than I could chew. If and/or when I get to the point that I figure I need to expand I can. In the meantime progress is being made at a pace I am happy with. I really wanted to get past the track on bench stage this time and get into some serious modeling.
My current layout has kept me occupied for 9 years and it’s less than 50 sqft. I’d like to let it grow to about twice this size, but my life includes other things. I’ll retire in a few years and I’ll certainly keep working on the railroad, but Cathey and I have plans to travel, and of course there are the grand kids and all the other things that make our lives rich. I think 90-100 sqft will be plenty.
I wish the article had delved deeper into the subject than it did. I was hoping for an indepth thought provoking discussion. While the layout visit/story was good, more was needed on the topic.
The less is more philosophy applies to not just model railroads, but to other hobbies and life activities as well. The question then becomes “what is less?” I don’t think “less” can be defined in absolute terms. Less for Bruce Chubb for example would still be too much for me. A large part of defining what we can build, maintain, and operate in a model railroad is a function of our time, and the help we have, perhaps even more so than money in comparison to a bass boat for example. Each of us can only devote so many hours per week to a railroad. Some may have several hours per day. Others may only get one or two between work, yard work, soccer, little league, cub scouts and coaching, scout leader, etc besides the kids. If I can’t devote a lot of hours and don’t have a large group of builder/operators, to help, then maybe even a 4x8 is all I can handle. On the other hand, retired and grown kids, that “smaller” could well be a full basement.
For myself, I have cut down to a simplified layout. Single track, narrow shelves, branch line from the junction (staging) to town. That means fewer engines, cars, smaller trains, and don’t have to build and scenic a yard or engine terminal. All that happens off set in the staging. But being a single operator, that lets me focus on what I can get done as both a builder and an operator.
Although I haven’t read the entire article yet, the gist of the opening paragraph was that the smaller layout was “better” because it helped the author focus his efforts.
As someone already expressed, a too large layout can become a chore to build AND maintain, once you build it. And, too many choices can quickly become a hindrance rather than an asset.
The “optimal” size of one’s layout really depends on how much time, money, and resources you have at your disposal. While I’d like to have more space, I still need to work on and finish my whopping 32 sq ft HO layout.
And, what is “small” to one person (200 sq ft) can be waaaaay more than enough to someone with 32 sq ft or less.
It is sort of like when you have lots of money, or any resource, you are more apt to squander them, or to be just a wee bit more careless…less focused is another way of saying it, as Tom has done. When you have tons of room, you think big, not necessarily more savvy. I think this is the message. Why build lots of stuff when you can have just as much fun, involvement, interest, and complexity, not to mention realism, in something that will take half the time to build and cost about half as much because it only needs half the materials to fill half the space?
To be honest, the thought of having to design a track plan to fill 400 square feet frightens me. I would work like a bear to build it all for the year it would take me, and I would be exhausted for weeks afterwards. I know myself well enough that something much more modest will have to suffice for my next effort…whenever that happens. So, something like 200 square feet will force me to take only the important elements, figure out how to place them so that they look good and operate well, and not be such a huge task that I can anticipate having to work on some part of it for the next five or eight years. No thanks!
To be fair, though, what does the person want? Does he want eight years of future puttering? Then maybe a large layout will be desirable. Does he want a decent layout of a decent size, but operable in eight months? Then something more modest is in the offing. Also, are we talking about someone who is 80 and in slipping health? Or are we 60 with one parent still living? If time is short, building big and long probably doesn’t make much sense.
My situation dictates that I do not bite off more than I can chew. Having limited physical capabilities prevents me from being overly ambitious with the size of my pike. I have a room that is 11’x30’ and if I tried to fill the entire space I would be overwelhmed by the amount of work it would take to get even the scenery done. I’ve purchased a basically complete 12’x10’ open in the middle layout and will gradually add a branch to it. The thing is that it is runnable now so I can get some enjoyment out of it while I modify the scenery to suit the localle and when the additional benchwork is done I will tie it into the existing trackwork. Turning a layout that was set in a desert motif into southeastern wooded scenery is going to take a lot of trees that I plan to mostly hand build. So I too opened my May MR with interest and also felt they strayed from the headline theme rather quickly.
I have 70-75 sq. ft., depending on what part of the room is used in the calculation, and that is going to be pretty involved by the time I get it finished to some point where it starts to look like a facsimile of the real world. The layout is a tiered logging line and about the only thing I could wish for is another 20 sq ft. or so, (mostly in width) so I could have a better passing siding.
My first layout attempt was way to large. I tinkered with it for years and was frustrated by the amount to do. When we finally tore it out we built a basic bench with no scenery around 3/4 of the basement to run trains. If I build a car I gotta see how it operates. Then along one wall a super detailed 18" deep 10’ long shelf was started for switching operations. This small section is managable and progressing nicely. When it is finished it will be part of the loop and a new section will be started. This way progress can be seen, and I don’t end up overwhelmed by shear size of it all. Eventually the basement will be filled. I think smaller is better during construction.
“You only go around once in life, so grab for all the gusto you can!”
If excess and gusto for you is a smaller layout, go for it. If it’s a club-sized behemoth you’ll never finish, go for that. You may never get close to done, but don’t let that stop you.
To quote Col. Sherman T. Potter “HORSE HOCKEY!” there are only two things that would stop me from filling a large space with trains and having the layout I’ve always wanted. Money and enough coffee to keep me awake to build it. As one poster put it life is too short so why go small when you can go big. If you have the financial wherewithal and the desire there should be nothing holding you back form building as large a train set and possible. Look at Howard Zane for crying out loud the man ran out of real estate for his train set so he has a backhoe come in a dig a new basement twice! oh and they put some house on top of the basements just for extra train storage. Nothing wrong with having a small layout if thats all you can afford financially or space wise but if you have the room and the money you just don’t have your priorities in order.
Griz, I can sure relate, but I thought too much of my abilities when I started my layout. I have just over 1100 sq. ft when I started on my layout. I dedicated half of that space to my layout. As time went on, my scenery making techniques improved to the point that you can easily tell what was done when. I just hope that I really have improved… or is it my friends have just gotten better at lying?
It’s a tricky question. As a ‘lone wolf’ owner and operator of a relatively generous 24x24’ garage ‘empire’, there are certainly some frustrations involved–keeping it clean and in good running shape, especially since during the winter months it doesn’t see a lot of constant use (I’m one of those weird Californians who does most of their MR’ing during the summer when I can open the garage door).
In fact, right now, I’m in the midst of the annual “Spring Cleaning”, going over (and under) the layout checking things out and deciding what the spring/summer projects are going to be for THIS year. Am I finally going to finish off the backside of Yuba Pass or do like I’ve been doing the past two years, hoping that a natural Geologic process will do it for me ([:-^]). And I really need to fill in that one bare corner of the garage with SOMETHING! Right now, it’s still pink, and it’s been staring at me for the past eight years.
And I ain’t gettin’ any younger, folks. Those wiring inspection trips under the layout stopped being fun some time ago. Luckily, the wiring is simple and easy to trace, but it’s still hard on the knees and back and butt!
So, as I get older (and older), would it behoove me to cut back? Tear out the Yuba River Sub and start over again smaller–say, concentrating on the engine terminal at Deer Creek and spend my ops sessions changing out locomotives and just working with a ‘hidden’ mountain loop? Well, yah, I could do that, but then I look at all the work I’ve put in over the last nine years or so, and all the work I’ve got to do yet, and I just figure–“Oh the Heck with it, just push ON, Tom!”
I figure I’m only going to be around once, so enjoy what I’ve got. And WOULD I have started out ‘smaller’ and stuck to it when that big 2-car garage became available? I don’t think so.&nb
I haven’t read the article yet, but if the author couldn’t make his train to run more than a few feet, then he’s obviously too incompetant to be building any model railroad no matter the size. For pity’s sake, ever year new people to this hobby using only sectional track can make their train go around the X-Mas tree. And this author in MR cannot get his trains to run more than a few feet on an 800+ sq. ft. layout? Sheesh.
I have a 25’ x 50’ HO layout. It’s large, but simple, with a 200’ long double track mainline. There is no helix, the track does not pass through the same scene twice, and it’s all on one level. I have one staging yard, two freight yards, and a passenger terminal. I use Digitrax DCC with one Zephyr, one UR91 radio receiver, 3 DT400R radio throttles, and a half dozen UP5 plug in panels. No block detection, no circuit breakers, no extra boosters. It’s simple to wire, easy to install. I have approx. 250 freight cars on the layout, with around 50 passenger cars and 30 engines. My operations generally take around 2 hours for 3 to 4 people.
My point is that “big” does not have to mean “complex”. Not every big layout has to be on the level of the Gorre & Daephetid, Northlandz, or any other multi-level layout.
Of course, if we’re talking about layout quality, then smaller layouts can be made to be higher in quality over a large one for a lot less effort and expense. I could have gone that route and made a super detailed table top layout, but instead I wanted something that I could operate with my friends. Therefore, my decision was to make compromises that effected layout quality to concentrate on filling the size basement I have. So instead of handlaying Code 70 rail, I use Atlas Code 83 flex track. Instead of buying Kadee, Inter
From looking at the pictures in the magazine the man can build a railroad. I have a feeling that the statement about only running a few feet was an exaggeration to get people to look at the article.