Saddletank

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely agree with your opinion that the 4sq ft rule is an entirely arbitrary thing. I guess 4 sq ft is a rough maximum for a layout that fits in this subforum, but there are plenty of exceptions that look like a micro or small layout whilst being physically bigger. My suggestion of creating the biggest layout possible within the 4sq ft stems from having no spare time to actually model anything at the moment, other than a few spare minutes here and there when I get out my works notebook, turn to the scruffy ruled sheets at the back and doodle away another future may-have-been. Having a little bit of inspiration, such as the idea of having an 8ftx3" roundy, is enough of a starting point to go from. My personal opinion is that anything over about 4ft is probably more suited to being called a small layout that a micro, dependant on scale. 4ft would be a reasonable run in N and you can get enough in that selective compression may not even be necessary for a realistic depiction of a place. But in O the same 4ft is probably going to limit movement of trains for shunting etc to trickery such as movable cassettes or hidden traversers. Yet in OO 4ft gives just about enough length to create an interesting scene with decent operational potential, using a mix of proper pointwork and off stage trickery to expand the ability of the limited scenic area. So that's my rough personal idea of what constitutes a micro, 4ft in OO, 2ft in N and so on. As above though, it's an entirely pointless thing to suggest there are hard and fast rules to what constitutes a micro or small layout. Carl Arendt created the 4sq ft rule as a guideline for the sort of thing he wanted to show on his site but there are definitely some on there that don't conform to those guidelines and are every bit as much a micro as one that does. P.S. Love the tiny home movement! Something else I doodle occasionally, maybe one day...

Fair point, made the tired mistake of thinking half the scale but of course all dimensions are halved. It does raise an interesting question though, just how big a 'micro' layout is it possible to construct within the allotted 576 sq inches for a 4x1. Pushing the width down to the bare minimum of a handful of inches gives more length but at what point does it become more of a hindrance? Could you vary the width around the layout for example narrow running along a rock cutting, and wider around a station or major landscape feature. If fiddle yards aren't included in the 4x1 then you could concievably increase the circumference to provide a ft or two of off scene storage. Plenty of interesting considerations which largely have nothing to do with the OPs original question might but open up inspiration to others. I like the idea of a 10ft circumference, 6" wide layout with a couple of the linear ft given over to fiddle yard. You could set it up purely as end to end but I reckon proper roundy with a passing station would be better. A station at one end of the scenic section and a private siding for some low relief industry further round, with high enough back scenes so you wouldnt be able to see the major features both together which improves that sense of space. Could work rather nicely! The only downside is having to either design the layout to the available off the shelf track components or build your own points.

Actually, regarding the relative size of different scales' baseboards when conforming to the 4sq ft rule, an N gauge layout could legitimately be 2'x1', 4'x6", 6'x4" or EVEN 8'x3"! The earlier suggested 2'x6" is a quarter of the 4sq ft allowed for OO, not half. 8'x3" might be stretching the definition of a micro layout a little but you could potentially get a very small through station and a decent run of track while conforming to the Carl Arendt suggestion. If you then looped that into an 8ft circumference very thin roundy you could have an impressive and strictly speaking 'micro' layout - you might struggle to carry it comfortably under your arm or keep it rigid enough to run trains along though! Either way it's food for thought, a roundy doesn't necessarily have to be on one rectangular board if your woodworking skills permit. I'm not sure whether we include a fiddle stick or other off scene destination in the 4sq ft, seen plenty on Carendts site that don't count it. I still recognise a micro layout as such when I see it, regardless of any labelling. Typically it's cramped, uses trickery such as hidden traversers or mirrors to give an impression of greater size, usually incorporates shunting or a purpose for the stock to achieve, and is often accompanied by a story of wanting to try new techniques or have a go at a period or location different to the modellers usual stamping ground, or by someone with little space in their home to model the huge aspirational layouts of retirement or big money.

I think further to that, the majority of personal layouts (not built by a club / syndicate) prob fall into or close to the 'under 10ft shelf' bracket (no pun intended), like you say that being the only space available for the majority of modellers. It would probably be quicker to move the big exhibition layouts or 'layout of a lifetime' builds to a separate area, rather than the more numerous smaller types. That said I quite like the lucky dip variety available in the main layout topics folder rather than purposely hunting down specific types of layout. I keep gravitating back to micros though!

Congrats, it's been an interesting story from start to end over the last few months. Can you link to your new 009 project on here once (if) you put it on RMWeb?

Thanks for the heads up, I've downloaded the ipad edition and read your layout article, it's very good! Was enjoyable to read through the construction story again and I didn't realise just how tight a budget you managed to create a magazine quality layout on. Can't remember the last time I saw a properly small layout in BRM that wasn't a loco depot, it bucks the trend somewhat!

Ah I had wondered if it was his system you'd be reviewing. I'd had a look at the boards he offered but the sizes he was offering at the time didn't really appeal, this one should be a winner though. Might want to put up a message about these boards in the micro section once they become available.

Didn't realise this thread had moved from the micro section. I take my hat off to you for pushing ahead and filling a gap created by a huge company with something even more convenient for our modelling needs, hopefully the demand is there - I know I'll be ordering one anyway!

Your shed area is looking strikingly similar to what I was planning on Webb Lane, if I ever get the chance to crack on with it anyway. Looking good, keep going!

Now there's an inspiration - N gauge layout set on a piece of full size rail! Does bring it home just how small N gauge really is. Enjoy the magazine article, and be sure to fly the flag for APA and micro layouts - any hints which mag?

Entirely deserved, well done.

Think sea containers are available as printable downloads cheap at scalescenes and a few others, shouldn't be more than £2 for as many as you like. People might be a challenge to do cheap by the weekend, you can buy bulk packs for next to nothing off ebay but they come from the other side of the world and need painted first. Most of the rest of the list are easy hits and add a lot to the effect for little modelling time invested. Good luck! Edit: Or how about some free building kits? http://www.wordsworthmodelrailway.co.uk/railside.html

An empty cable drum or three rotting away in the overgrowth and a pile of old ballast would make some sense, just think about what clutter normally gets ignored after a line possession, which is an entirely plausible backstory for that little yard. Depends how far you want to take it, burnt patch of grass and a couple of bent / removed palisade verticals from the yoofs raising hell perhaps? Litter on a modern urban railway line is compulsory unfortunately, and not modelled enough. Vegetation should probably be much taller and thicker than the short lawns laid so far In railway terms, point motors or more likely levers and rodding, plus buffer stops, yard lights and some cabling along the retaining wall will probably just 'look right', and add interest to the scene without taking up much room. You can get away without signals on the lower level under the assumption the yard throat is off stage, but will probably need something for dispatching trains from the platforms.

Horizontal outlet and hinges, packing box for a toilet? Layouts progressing nicely by the way!

The cheap ones are a bit flimsy, if you're thinking about going down that route it might be a shrewd idea to 'persuade' the missus to invest in one of those extra wide expensive boards, they seem to be built like a tank and with wider feet and better construction - less wobble - it should be stable enough to support the weight of a portable layout. Of course, the only proviso being that you can borrow it occasionally

But why are they still full?

I like this, made so many plans for the APA waiting patiently in the cupboard but I never seem to have the time to start. Yours is a lovely wee model that is developing well and I'm looking forward to seeing more of it - just wish you'd put it in the Micro layouts sub-group so I'd seen it months ago rather than now! Just a suggestion, you'd get away with that grey sky much more convincingly if it were a few shades lighter and the corners weren't so right angled. I'm sure it'll look better with a light source within the box though - the shadows don't help visualise what's there currently. Oh, and is that ramp leading to a loading bay or customer car park? Sounds like a silly question, I know!

You're nothing if not ambitious!

Agreed, so far there's been a wealth of useful back-to-basics information for the modeller starting out, and it's all explained in a way that's accessible and easily understandable. So far it has also kept spending outlay to a realistic budget for a beginner without all the years worth of collected bits, bobs and tools at their disposal (a stockpile many article writers seem to take for granted), which is doubtless appreciated by many who haven't huge disposable income available for a new hobby, or who haven't yet firmly decided to fully invest in railway modelling. Hats off Phil, looking forward to Pt3.

Just had a check on amazon last night, at £40 ish each I think I'll be pointlessly hoping one is under the tree! Might have to keep an eye and wait for one at a more realistic price. Thanks for the info about formations, I thought that would likely be the reason as I think I remember reading something about the linkages being quite slack and difficult to control from the carriage.

Stacks of pictures of autocoaches on this page about the Plymouth - Launceston line. http://www.cornwallrailwaysociety.org.uk/plymouth-to-launceston-the-gw-route.html I'm going to have a look for that book, thanks for the information. By the way, was there any specific reason they operated longer Autotrains in this configuration rather than all coaches one end of the loco? All I can think of is that the linkages might have been harder to operate the longer they were, beyond that it seems like a bit of a hassle to position a loco between the coaches. Maybe the driver just wanted a nice warm seated driving position in both directions!

Thanks, that's great information. I'm a little hobbled working in N and preferably mid-30s, restricts RTR choice somewhat - so if I want to run a B set rake of 4 I'm looking for a pair of non gangwayed full 3rd coaches in addition to a B set. The autotrailer option sounds interesting as a less modelled train. So that's 4x autocoaches required, I presume that's because they already had all the necessary push-pull operating linkages installed rather than retrofitting standard coaches to use on the inner ends nearest the engine? And is that with brake ends together for each 'set' of autocoaches either side of the engine? Thanks again!

Pardon my dragging up an old thread, but I'm a little short of info regarding use of these B sets. It's been mentioned that they were operated in more urbanised areas as fixed rakes of 4 coaches, what would the formation comprise though - two B sets, or a B set coupled at the outer ends and different coaches in the middle of the rake? And would these additional coaches be BCKs typically or something else like a pair of all 3rd coaches? What was used before 1938 Collett corridor stock was introduced? Oh, and one last question - Karhedron mentioned that some areas favoured auto trains, what's the composition of the rake here, I'm guessing it was headed by an autocoach normally seen on its own with a tank engine, but what other 3 coaches were usually employed in those rakes? Lots of questions, I can only apologise - I don't have nearly as much information available on GWR practices up here as some of you seem to have to hand!

Thanks for creating this series of articles Phil, it's given me the necessary kick up the backside to finally get a move on and create an actual layout rather than just scribbling track plans and buying stock. In terms of the level it's being pitched at I'm finding it more comfortable and engaging than the series of 'first layout' articles running concurrently in Hornby magazine, though that's just personal opinion. The section on wiring up and point control was useful without being overwhelming, the only thing I came away from that article wondering about was how a more complex trackplan with single / double slips is wired, though I'll soon find out the answer from elsewhere on this site. For a first effort, peco solenoid turnout motors seem perfectly usable and that guide dispelled the confusion I had about installing them electrically, I was prepared to go wire in tube to avoid them before I read it. One small point to note, on the ipad edition of BRM the last couple of pages of your supplement seem to have jumbled up and the page headed for constructing a plastic kit has content for attending an exhibition, with content for the kit construction missing. That aside, I'm looking forward to next months issue and who knows, I might actually have something built by then myself (wouldn't bet on it just yet though!). Thanks again.

Good stuff, been a while since there's been a proper boxfile on this sub forum!