Generally speaking, how large would the following layouts be?:
A small layout,
A medium
A large
A Humongous
I see mrr’ers refer to their layouts in these terms and wondered how big " big" was.
Jarrell
How long is a piece of string?
Since there are no NMRA standards to define these terms it is very subjective.
I would say 4x8 or smaller = small
Larger than 4 x8 to a small room = medium
Basement = large
Big basement or purpose built structure = Humongous
This is based on an HO view of life. Z scalers would probably consider a room layout as being large.
My grandpapa used to say “How Long is a China man.” A statement, not a question…lol.
Sorry couldn’t resist.
Trevor
How about this:
small = up to 50 sqft
medium = between 50 and 200 sqft
large = between 200 and 1000 sqft
humongus = over 1000 sqft
Edit: After a little more thought, I changed the upper limit of medium from 100 to 200.
Gee Simon, your response wasn’t there before I started typing mine. We are pretty close, but I would say that it is independent of scale. What a person does with the space doesn’t really matter. By the way, those numbers are meant to be benchwork dimensions, not room size, ie aisle space doesn’t count.
Rather than physical size I would suggest turnouts as a measure of size. A railroad built on a 4’ x 8’ sheet of plywood could have 6-10 turnouts. One filling a basement could have 6-10 turnouts and not be much more to maintain. Scenery would take longer to finish but maintenance is the deciding factor in how much one can mange.
For layout size, I agree with ndbprr: use complexity as a gauge, rather than “size”. If I had the space, I’d love to fill a 70x30 basement with a double-deck layout, but with only 3-7 switches per town (spaced two scale miles apart) it wouldn’t be a very complex layout. My current 12x25 triple decker is a LOT less complex than some smaller layouts I’ve seen.
I think you are confusing size with complexity when you start counting turnouts. Personally, I stopped counting turnouts, when drawing track plans, years ago. Now I draw what looks and feels right for the space.
How much maintenance is there with a switch anyway, once it is installed. Most of my switches will be controlled by ground throws. Only the mainline switches will have motors. Right now I have over 40 switches, and I haven’t even started with yard space. I expect the final count to go over 200, but the plan is still evolving. It only becomes final when the track is laid.
If we look at my square footage (actual layout), and the switch count, we can get a ratio. In my case, it’s about 1:10. That’s one switch per 10 square feet, but I work in O. That’s a pretty complex layout, but it is also large (humongous) at about 2000 square feet of benchwork.
I supose I could have just put a couple of loops of track in my space, and it would still be large at 38’ x 46’, but without complexity, it wouldn’t be much fun.
By definition size is area.
Another factor is scale–the 32 square feet of a 4x8 slab of plywood holds almost four times as much railroad in N scale as it does in HO–so, based on the above suggested scale, the same chunk of wood is a “small” layout in HO and a “medium” layout in N.
A lot also depends on who is building the model: European and Japanese model railroaders normally build layouts that are much smaller than American layouts, even in the same scale–the 32 square feet of thta 4x8 is considered pretty big by European modelers–although they will typically cut that lumber into four pieces to make a larger donut-shaped layout with an operator’s hole in the middle.
Switches makes a difference in complexity but not necessarily in size–a switching puzzle/yard layout typically has as many switches as a much larger layout that features a big chunk of “dead space” in the middle (aka: a 4x8 loop) and the typical number of sprurs.
My layout could serve as an example of ths: 32 square feet, 14 switches. That’s almost a 1:2 switch:square feet ratio–five times as dense as Big_Boy_2005’s 2000 square-foot layout. So I would agree with Big_Boy above that number of switches helps determine complexity, but not necessarily size.
I was just wondering. I’ve always noticed magazine articles when giving the physical size and scale of a layout they’ll usually say ‘medium’ or ‘large’ etc.
Jarrell