Being an MR subscriber for many many years and working on my own layouts in fits and starts for nearly as long, I’ve developed some opinions. Here’s a few:
MR needs to do more features on small layouts. It’s nice and all to see these incredible fully functional and scenicked layouts that take up 1200 square feet and run with more organization and technology than my current employer, but they also serve to starkly remind me of my own lack of space, time, talent, and overall limited resources. How about more stuff that celebrates the ‘little guy?’
DCC is all the rage and I agree it gives options not available to regular DC layouts, but again for smaller layouts that might run maybe 3 locos in any given session, is it really worth the investment? I’m perfectly content with my old technology. (That having been said, are there any DCC converts out there who’d want to send me their cast-off unused Tech 4 walkaround control?)
This can be an expensive hobby! I’d love to run out to the LHS each week and plunk down a wad of money for another locomotive or set of individually numbered hoppers, but I’m a married father of four with a hungry mortgage to feed. Our shoestring budget allows me to make a purchase a couple of times a year. My question to all those with the huge empires is, How do you do it?
I’ve got a lot more, but let’s hear what others have to say.
I’ve got a 5x12 free-standing table, which is kind of small by MR standards. By my wife’s standards, it’s immense. So, yeah, I think MR Magazine should give some pages to smaller layouts. After all, most of the photos are of detail areas anyway, and the smaller layouts might offer even better details, because those modellers have concentrated more effort per square foot than those fortunate to have 2-acre basements.
As for DCC, well, I feel the other way. I think DCC really shines in a smaller layout. I can put a lot of action into a couple of short loops and a tiny 6-track yard, because DCC lets me keep several trains running simultaneously without a rediculous amount of block wiring and complexity.
I do like seeing the mega layouts, but I would also like to see more smaller ones. Keeping in mind most of have much more modest spaces and budgets.
DC vs DCC. If I was starting today, I’d go DCC, but I have 20 Athearn BB diesels. The thought of coverting them to DCC gives me the willies.
How do they do it…most don’t. Look closely at some of those mega layouts, and the only parts finished are those pictures in MR, the rest is Plywood Pacific. Some are constructed slowly over 20 years, and some people have teams helping them.
Me, I have a medium size layout, reused as much as a could from previous layouts, shop for deals, and when my budget runs out, I do without.
MisterBeasley is right on the mark, i couldnt AGREE more.[;)] i would love to see more small layouts in MR. as far as DC/DCC, DCC for ANY size layout is better. i’ve done DC for YEARS, and let me tell you, now that i’m into DCC, it would be WAY to hard to go back. things run so much better, no big wire mess, and i am running the engine, NOT the blocks.[;)] my two cents.[8D]
Not odd at all! Bang on, in fact. I always enjoy their articles about small layouts, especially ones that look bigger. if anyone has any sort of good power pack that they don’t want anymore, I’m using stuff from the sixties!
Matthew
The small layout is concidered to be a beginners layout. Like the layout featured in “Dream, Plan, Build” DVD, this is a “short term project” with somewhat limited operational possibilities. On the other hand some extreemly good, highly detailed small layouts have graced the pages of MR and the layout planning offerings. I do not think we are alone in the small, affordable dilemma. The yachting magazines do not do extensive reviews of small row boats, but rather the 50, 75, or 100 foot fully equiped sovereigns of the sea, the same is true of the other hobbies as well. It is the “some day I’ll” syndrome we all have at some point. In addition, what do we dream about, once our small layouts have reached the “finished” stage, something bigger, another 8 foot addition. What is good about your small layout that you could take pictures of and submit to a publisher, with an interesting descriptive text to be an article for the rest of us to drool over. Are there other ways we could execute a small diaorama that could be a forum topic/clinic or a full blown magazine article. The question is why aren’t we building and writing about this for our fellow modellers? (didn’t some one talk about something similar to this in 1960?) There is a wealth of talent here that could “create” these ideas and methods of producing small challenging layouts, are we doing our part, or in our heart of hearts wishing for that mammoth layout? These journeys starts with that first small step. Look what happened to Space Mouse,he started out to build a layout for his kids, Hogwarts and all, then he got bitten by the hobby bug and is on his way to building and operating an empire. Take a look at his posts about his layout, he has given us several small layout articles, right here on this forum.
The other side of the coin is the question of what we can take from the mamoth empires that we can make use of on our smaller pikes. Each of us has a different set of talents, available space and disposable income to shower on our layout. Are we makin
I would like to see more of the smaller layouts too. I would also like to see more “A Railroad you can Model” type articles on shortlines or branchlines both steam and modern. These types of railroads would certainly be suitable inspiration for many people that must model in smaller areas. An example would be the article on the Crystal River Railroad they did a few years back.
My layout at 12 x18 is medium sized I guess. The track plan could very well be operational in a 9x12 space just less stretched out. Small railroads with thoughtful planning can be fun to operate, are not too expensive, and are easy to maintain. Some small layouts would probably make better model railroads than complex monsters even if someone had a huge area but stretched out the plans.
MR does great with the small introductory layouts but it would be nice to see some slightly larger plans that have operations just complex enough that it would keep the layout fun long after its built. One track plan that comes to mind that is a good example of a small design is Andy Sperandeo’s absolutely elegant San Jacinto District in the Feb 1980 issue. Bruce
I would love to see more small layout articles. I’d love to see them do switching plan in a smaller scale (Like HO or N) for one of their project layouts. The old Pioneer Valley O scale project scales down into a nice compact form factor, in the smaller scales.
I like to read articles on small layouts that people have built, as well. As much as I like to see what people can do with a huge room to put a railroad in, my favorite articles from my own collection of back issues (mostly mid and late 90s) are the Arcadia Terminal, and the Three Sisters railroads. Both little more than large switching plans, though the Three Sisters is somewhat spread out.
Articles on keeping operations on such a layout would be welcome, too.
As a modeler gains experience they usually replace their old layout with a newer one so that they can correct problems they have in their existing one. At least this is what I have read in the model magazines and on the forums.
I have done the same thing. Each new layout I built was better, in my eyes anyway, than the last! And they always seemed to get a little bigger. This is also the way it is at the club. When we remodel the layouts we always try and add to the size.
This was my wish with my latest layout. I had the chance to built a very large layout as we moved into a new home. This allowed me to build a layout design that our club had started back in 1990 but was cut short by a fire.
As for affording a large layout, this was done over the last 20 years, one piece at a time! Now that I am nearing retirement and the kids are gone, it seems that the expenses are not as great as they once were. This has made it easier to build a large layout.
Am I happy with this very large layout, YES! Am I going to be able to finish it, HOPE SO! But I am not going to spend a lot of time worrying about finishing it. I am enjoying the progress now. It is in operable condition and I have OPs every two weeks.
Having the guys in to operate also makes me keep focused on making progress, no matter how small.
As for the size, any layout can be fun to operate. And Operations is the work here. Just running trains around in a circle soon gets boring. But having the layout/railroad doing work (switching) keeps the interest going.
I’m not a doctor or a shrink< Jim, but I don’t think your thoughts odd at all or for that matter venting. I also would like to see the results of someones more modest individual effort in the magazines because that is where most of us are at. The humungo layouts are awesome but totally out of the question until the kids grow up and the mortgage is paid, yet the idea is for me to share the layout with my son while he’s here. I carved a 12 x 12 room out in my basement but work will proceed when i have the finance to do it. There is no shame in working on a budget or when time permits in fact if you’re sharing the layout with your kids, patience and responsibility are worthy lessons. I have no problem with the people who have worked hard all their lives and can kick back now and have their layout as they please, but I appreciate the articles on smaller endeavours more. MRR may have figured this out too if the cheap kitbash station article was any indicator this Nov. Just my 2c. J.R.
I agree about “small layout” coverage because I have 2 REALLY small ones, a 5x8 “O”, and a 2x4 “N”. I’m ammused at some of the layouts that the “O” magazines call small…like 8x20! When they DO show a really small one, it looks like a overcrowded toy-train nightmare. I’ve managed to get a fairly decent “realistic” look to both of mine. Yes, they are both flat, but the city / urban settings give me plenty to build and detail.
Well when my children were growing up. I did very little. As you say the mortgage and the food soaked up most of it and what was left over went to buy clothes, school supplies and other frivolous things. I had several years where a couple of magazine subsriptions and one or two car kits was all I could afford.
But now the kids are grown and that mortgage payment is for a house I bought in 1979 so it’s not so bad in todays dollars. What I have learned is that while it’s fun to get some of the latest and greatest stuff, this can still be an enjoyable hobby on a budget. I had a lot of fun when I started out with Tyco trains, Atlas brass track, and Atlas buildings. Even though I can buy more these days, I still can’t afford everything I want. But I still have fun with what I can buy and truth be to told it’ll take a couple of years or more to build all the kits I have stockpiled.
Enjoy
Paul
I think we should be able to see both in MR, I have had small layouts most of my life, but never less than 4X8. My next will fill a small room it should be about 12X12 around the walls and some places on the inside. I have been trying to decide on DCC or DC the DCC sounds great but that means I need to change over 20+ Locomotives!! I love the fact that you can set them and let go and move in other directions(DCC). But we need more for the low budget railroader.
Hi all
I would have to disagree with the statement small layouts are short term layouts.
question
How many of you have found time to paint rabits herons owls and other small wild life for your layout or repaint figures for no other reason than don’t like the colour or landscaped the house gardens even making pot plants
in the process[?] or even just for fun hiding a nasty terrible beasty in a ruined
tower with the evidence out side to make people wonder what did that and where is it[}:)]
Not many[?] you don’t see this kind of detail much on the large layouts
but on the small layouts you have time to do this kind of thing
or brutaly rip out that hill you just built because the shape is not quite right.
In Answer to mononguy63’s question
You start with a six by four and a lifetime later you end up with the G&DRR
that started as a well planned 6’ x 4’ and look what it ended up as before its demise it wasn’t no small one them
regards John
One thing of great importance( I know, I did some photo work for a manufacturer) is that you have to have room to be able to set up equipment and obtain a good shot- one suitable for publication in a magazine. Many small layouts are jammed in a room where it is not possible to do this. Also the camera basically just shoots through the railroad and you get the guys bedrrom closet. While many great photos are made on very small dioramas, they are most portable so you can place them so you have room to work.
Requests for small layout articles in the pages of MR stretch back into the 1960’s and these pleas appear at quite regular intervals in the Letters to the Editor column. If you go back through decades of MRs you’ll find this call heeded from time to time but there is always a progressive shift back to the mega layouts for the feature articles. Like so many magazines, MR is in the “selling a fantasy” business, just as with other magazines about cars, boats, houses, etc., today. These fantasy layouts particularly appeal to the armchair segment of the hobby, which is much larger than I think most of us realize. Now that we have seen Photoshop “adjustments” creep into a layout tour, even what you see may no longer be real! Don’t expect any change in this overall pattern.
As to the much ballyhooed DCC, yes, in many applications it can do more than DC but it still represents the operating source for only a small fraction of all layouts today. And this will remain unchanged for a very long time to come because of the demographics of the hobby. Small layouts function perfectly well with a minimum of blocks and DC, since relatively few of us run anything beyond a circling train (two if double-tracked) on the mainline while we are switching in the yard. In great measure it is the younger, newer hobbyists that are driving DCC, not the long established ones.
Addressing the cost of mega layouts, indeed, the guys with them are rich compared to most of the rest of us. From long experience in the hobby I can tell you that a great many of really big layouts you see in the pages of MR total well beyond $50,000. While that figure may be spread over years, if most of us mere mortals attempted that sort of expenditure we’d find ourselves out on the street without layout, wife, or home! But as I said earlier, MR is selling a fantasy that few are truly expected to copy. One might compare it to TV’s This Old House. They started out renovating an $18,000 Boston suburb starter home. Today it’s all about multi-mi