Questioning size... How small is too big ?

[gazmanjack]

Just before I decide to post up a thread on my latest layout build, how small is too big to qualify in this catergory of 'Boxfiles, Micro Layouts and Dioramas' ?

My newest project measures 5' x 1' scenic area and a seperable 2' x 1' fiddle yard. I'm in two minds whether I should start a thread here, or would I be better of starting a thread in 'Layout Topics' ??

 

Hmmm...??

 

Cheers, Gary.

 

 

[BG John]

According to a definition I've read, the maximum size of a Micro is 4sq ft plus fiddle yard, but I'm sure there are plenty of other definitions. I think it was Carl Arendt's definition, but I think he broke the rules with some of the layouts he put on his web site. I've got two in progress (or rather part built!) that fit that definition, and one is in 'Boxfiles, Micro Layouts and Dioramas' and the other in '7mm+ modelling'.

 

I think it's the attitude behind it that's most important though. If you have micro layout attitude to it, but it's a bit bigger, stick it in 'Boxfiles, Micro Layouts and Dioramas' where it may inspire other people. On the other hand, more people may spot it in 'Layout Topics' and be inspired to build small and/or micro layouts.

[Bill_J]

As BG John says, Carl Arendt's 4 sq ft seems to be the commonly accepted limit for a micro, though he wasn't averse to bending his own rules. I have also seen examples of modular layouts, where each module fits into the 4sq' rule but the combined area exceeds it. Personally I feel that scale and gauge also play a part, I would consider that O gauge on 5' x 1' is a micro layout, but I might not feel the same about N or Z gauge.

 

Can you reduce the width to 9 inches? Then it still fits the rule.

 

I also have a couple of on-going ideas for minimum space layouts as a test bed for skills and techniques, but am just in the middle of a major move, so all plans are on hold for a little while longer and, as I'm new to this forum, this is only my opinion. 

[leadie69]

Hi Gary,

 

It wouldn't bother me to see that size listed as micro - I tend to think of micro more as 'manageable' - easy to move an operate by one person.

 

Ian

[BG John]

Personally I feel that scale and gauge also play a part, I would consider that O gauge on 5' x 1' is a micro layout

I'm squeezing both O and O-16.5 into 4x1 to comply with the rules, so I don't want anyone changing them .

[Bill_J]

I'm squeezing both O and O-16.5 into 4x1 to comply with the rules, so I don't want anyone changing them .

I've been following your Cheapside Yard thread with great interest. 

[CourthsVeil]

Gary,

don't you remember you have posted the same question already?

Have the answers given in this thread (and others) not been sufficient?

 

Regards

  Armin

 

 

edit: it's becoming boring

[gazmanjack]

Apologies for asking the same question twice Armin, my mistake. I had forgotten about asking this question over 4 months ago in the above mentioned thread. The build has been slow due to family commitments and I have slowly been getting back into it, hence asking the question again. Sorry to bore you.

 

In regards to Carl Arendt's theory of a 'micro layout', his layouts are American and HO scale (3.5mm:1'), not OO (4mm:1'). So does that mean there is some lee-way for a larger scale, OO model...? Not sure if this has ben looked into previously, but, a 4' (1220mm) long base board is 348 scale feet in HO (1:87) but in OO scale (1:76), 348 scale feet is a tad over 4'6" (1370mm). Then the width of 1' or (305mm) is scale 87' in HO scale , and 87' in OO would equate to 34.8mm wide.

Call me pedantic or over analysing, but scaling up, should/could count for a little more space, according to scale...!

 

Then again, I could ditch all my OO and go in favour of a return to HO...

 

Cheers, Gary.

[Stubby47]

I set the group up as a way of collating the smaller layouts together, as I felt the concept of the micro layout would get lost among the larger group of Layouts.

 

If you feel your layout is of a size to be called micro ( the definition of which is open to many interpretations), then please add it to this section - good modelling will be seen wherever it is placed.

 

Stu

[BG John]

On the other hand, Americans do everything bigger, so need a smaller scale to fit it in the space us more modest Brits could do it in! You seem to be trying to bend the rules to suit something you've done that doesn't comply with them, rather than working to them in the first place. And I'm very well qualified to say that, as I'm building a genuine micro in 7mm scale .

[Stubby47]

There are no 'rules', are there ?

 

To me, a micro layout is one the builder decides is such - whether that fits with any perceived limits, sizes, scales or whatever.

 

As for qualifications - Wheal Tiny is 7mm scale in 90cm x 21cm   (the size of 3 x A4 sheets of paper)

[Zomboid]

I think of this as a place to look at small layouts. If it has 1/2 a square foot more than some arbitrary limit then who cares?

 

Actually to me if your layout is 5x1 in its entirety then that fits the spirit of this section much more than a 4x1 with an additional fiddle yard. But that's just my opinion, and what do I know?

[glennofootscray]

A small/micro layout is one that can fit the space allowed or that is restricted, measurements or demensions are only a suggestion. It's your layout.

 

Regards Glenn

[SMR CHRIS]

From another post

#36 What constitutes to a micro layout?: post #36 switcher 1

Member

Posted 02 April 2015 - 21:11

"I think 'Boxfiles, Micro/Small Layouts & Dioramas' is a more apt title for this area of the forum.

(I don't look in 'layouts' because I expect them to be more like club layouts rather than a home layout)"

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

----Should We get the mod to change the Name or if I knew how to start a new section I would do so, it would solve all the knicker knots.

 

"Micro/Small layouts and Dioramas" or we have a new section started for "Small Layouts", would makes it easy for people who are specifically looking for some inspiration for something small layout wise that's not to big to find without having to trawl all the layout in the layout section looking for the smaller ones.

 

I agree with Switcher 1 re this as far as I can see there is no section specific to layouts that fall in between micro and an average layout that you could consider 6x4 and up. i.e., starts to get into the roundy round typical train book size plans etc.

whilst the layout section isn't just about club layouts there are so many layouts of all sizes in it finding one of a specific size takes quite a while

 

Getting your nose all out of joint over a layout size, when there are no "real" rules only people's interpretation, well all I can say is get over it and get back to some modelling and start enjoying the Hobby again after all it is a "hobby" not a dictatorship and modellers license allows all and sundry to to model what they want in a size they want.

 

Remember Modellers licence revokes any and all rules that's why I enjoy modelling in so many scales and I don't get in a huff if a modeller wants to run a period correct train or Harry Potter Hoggswart Express, as long as they are enjoying it, that's all that maters.

 

If you don't like the size of a layout in this or any other section of RMWeb don't open and read that thread Simples

 

And as far as Gary's new layout goes it could be 10ft as long as he calls it a Diorama if will fit right in.

If your worried about the amount of traffic in this Section/Tread, its not in any need of traffic signals any time soon.

 

I'm off to do some more modelling (I'm enjoying the hobby) been typing whilst waiting for some glue to set and that's just about done now where's that next peice gone.

Happy Modelling

[Stubby47]

The section was set up as I'd made a boxfile layout and felt it was sufficiently different to warrant it's own area of the forum.

In order to encourage others to post ( which they have done ) the title was set as is.

 

What is a 'small layout' ? Less than 6ft ? Less than 3 points ? Only uses 4 wheel locos ?

 

I think that the current title explains what's included quite unambiguously - adding 'Small' would blur the destinction and cause confusion.

 

Creating a new group of 'Small Layouts' is fine, if a definition can be agreed on, but then are 'Medium', 'Large' and 'Massive' distinctions also required ?

 

But, it is only toy trains.

[BG John]

As my current layouts, including ones that are part built or vaguely started, measure 6ft x 2ft reducing to 1ft including fiddle yard, 5 x 1 including fiddle yard, 4 x 1 plus fiddle yard, and probably a bit under 4 x 2 plus fiddle yard, I never know where to put them. In here, Layout Topics, 7mm+ modelling, or just spare the world from them altogether and keep them to myself? So I reckon 4x1 plus fiddle yard is a micro and goes in here, and anything bigger goes in the other forums depending on the scale, so I spread the suffering around a bit .

[Pacific231G]

Gary,

don't you remember you have posted the same question already?

Have the answers given in this thread (and others) not been sufficient?

 

Regards

  Armin

 

 

edit: it's becoming boring

Then don't read it.

Some topics will always come up again because people are constantly interested in them so I don't think it really matters if similar discussions happened four months or four years ago.

 

Nobody has ever agreed a definition of microlayout, except for specific competitions, because it's more an approach to modelling than a definable thing and you just know when something is a microlayout without getting the ruler out. It generally involves a degree of ingenuity and stage craft to make a haf look like a pint. The original Japanese approach seemed to be about building a complete working layout in the space normally regarded as suitable only for a diorama and I think it was Joe Works who came up with that. A lot of it was about enabling people to build and operate a model railway who didn't have room for a model railway.  

 

Carl Arendt's four square foot guideline (he never tried to make it a fixed rule) was independent of gauge so a three foot by one foot 00 microlayout probably wouldn't be if you scaled it up to 0 gauge.

On the other hand, you could easily build a fairly complete model of Ashburton in 2mm scale in four square feet but I think it would be a small layout rather than a microlayout (unless you built it complete with its fiddle yard into an instrument case!) On the other other hand,   I'd certainly regard P.H. Heath's original Piano Line as a microlayout even though it was five foot by by twelve inches because it was completely self contained and he could lift it down from the top of the piano, put it on the dining room table plug it in and carry out a complete range of station operations.  I'd also see A.R.Walkley's original "portable shunting yard" (which was similar to Inglenook Sidings) as a microlayout even though it unfolded to six feet by twelve inches.

 

Carl even accepted Cyril Freezer's Minories as a microlayout in its original TT-3 form as it was designed to be a five foot by eight inch folding layout where you could unplug the fiddle yard, fold it up into a box and put it away. 

 

For me (but not necessarily for anyone else) I also think that extreme portability has something to do with it. My personal ideal is a layout that you could operate at an exhibition (without wanting to chew your leg off after an hour) then close up and walk off with while the public were still leaving.

[47137]

The section was set up as I'd made a boxfile layout and felt it was sufficiently different to warrant it's own area of the forum.

In order to encourage others to post ( which they have done ) the title was set as is.

 

What is a 'small layout' ? Less than 6ft ? Less than 3 points ? Only uses 4 wheel locos ?

 

I think that the current title explains what's included quite unambiguously - adding 'Small' would blur the destinction and cause confusion.

 

Creating a new group of 'Small Layouts' is fine, if a definition can be agreed on, but then are 'Medium', 'Large' and 'Massive' distinctions also required ?

 

But, it is only toy trains.

 

The next size up from a micro is what I would call a "compact model railway" but the discussions here a while ago showed this was typical of what many modellers have - and it is too late and too long-winded to try to split these layouts away from the main layouts area into a new area of their own.

 

We don't build very many dioramas it seems, and when we do they are usually quite small. Thinking of shows during the last fifteen years, I have seen only one new diorama which might seem out of place in this forum, this is the "Great Train Robbery" by the Luton group. So dioramas fit in well with micros.

 

I have a model of nine square feet with a topic in this forum and I pondered for some time whether or not to post it here. In the end I did, but with with the specific purpose to advocate the idea of multiple micros interwined together. I made a personal rule to use the topic to write about only the aspects of the model which pertain to micros - and I set up a blog for the other details.

 

It's always up to an OP to take the responsibility to post a new topic in the correct forum, but asking for the forum title to change to accommodate a particular layout seems very wrong to me. I would hope anyone building a layout will know well enough whether or not their model is a micro - if only by looking through Carls' work and some of the existing layout posts here.

 

The present title is just right.

 

- Richard.

[CourthsVeil]

 

Then don't read it. …

 

 

Nobody should try to advise me what to read or what not to read.

It should be obvious that one can decide whether he is bored or not 

after he has read (at least) the opening post.

 

Well, there are people who like participating in discussions more than modelling. Let them be…

 

 

I imagine Carl Arendt is smiling about the ramblings here. If we only could hear him,

he would say "Don't you waste your time, go to your baseboard and MAKE something."

 

Regards

   Armin

[Guest]

Got out of bed on the wrong side? Your original reply came across as rather rude, Armin, especially your It's becoming boring parting shot, so David's Don't read it response would make perfect sense.

As has been said, a topic *may* get more views in the "Layout Topics" section. I have a fondness for micro layouts but confess to not visiting the "Boxfiles" section that often.

As has also been said, good modelling will stand out like a perfect rose in a nettle patch and will attract an appreciative audience regardless. Good luck with the project wherever you post it.

[CourthsVeil]

Got out of bed on the wrong side? ..

 

No, I feel quite well!

 

… Your original reply came across as rather rude, Armin, especially your It's becoming boring parting shot...

 

Indeed, I was tempted to answer with "Don't feed the TROLL ! "

Instead I resorted to It's becoming boring. Less rude, me thinks.

 

HTH

[Pacific231G]

Nobody should try to advise me what to read or what not to read.

 

It should be obvious that one can decide whether he is bored or not 

after he has read (at least) the opening post.

 

I imagine Carl Arendt is smiling about the ramblings here. If we only could hear him,

he would say "Don't you waste your time, go to your baseboard and MAKE something."

 

Regards

   Arm

I wasn't but it did seem like you were telling other people what not to write and telling Gary off for re-opening the thread. Oh well maybe a misunderstanding and perhaps I should have said "You don't have to read it" . 

 

I'm sure Carl would be smiling, he and I discussed what constituted a micro layout quite often especially when he'd asked me to write the UK angle on its history.

http://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-61a-may-2007/

 

I hope that is not too boring for you

 

(Carl's part of that article is the preceding page 61 and well worth reading)

[jcm@gwr]

Well, I don't know if my exhibition layout (plank) is classed as a micro or not.

It's 66" x 16" (x 11"), 7mm Inglenook style, and it's only that short because I

used a 3-way, not 2 separate points.

It's also light enough to be picked up with one hand, but a bit easier with 2!

[CourthsVeil]

I wasn't … 

 

 

No? Looks just like – to me at least. Sorry for misunderstanding.

 

 

… but it did seem like you were telling other people what not to write and telling Gary off for re-opening the thread. Oh well maybe a misunderstanding…

 

 

Right: a misunderstanding – I asked Gary whether he doesn’t remember… And I dared to express my feelings.

 

 

… I'm sure Carl would be smiling, he and I discussed what constituted a micro layout quite often especially when he'd asked me to write the UK angle on its history.  http://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-61a-may-2007/

 

I hope that is not too boring for you

…

 

Not at all ! I remember that I did quote your very words in the above linked thread, post #29. To which I obviously agreed (and still agree). So why do you suppose your musings (right word?) be boring? Another misunder­standing, perhaps…     

 

 

 

Apart from that: this thread evolved into a classical case of “Wie man in den Wald hinein­ruft, so schallt es heraus” - “What goes around, comes around”.

 

That’s the reason why I now retreat from this thread.            

 

Regards

  Armin

[Pacific231G]

Well, I don't know if my exhibition layout (plank) is classed as a micro or not.

It's 66" x 16" (x 11"), 7mm Inglenook style, and it's only that short because I

used a 3-way, not 2 separate points.

It's also light enough to be picked up with one hand, but a bit easier with 2!

It is if you decide it is and Inglenooks in almost any scale seem to be microlayouts in spirit. I did once tease Carl by coming up with a folding Inglenook for passenger trains that was over eight feet long but still less than four square feet. Though I still think it has possibilities as a minimalist shelf layout I would never have classified it as a microlayout but he decided it was so got me to mock it up for his website. http://archive.carendt.com/scrapbook/page44/index.html

 

The first example I could find of the term Micro being applied to any layouts in Britain was in 0 gauge. It was in the title of a 1987 article by Giles Barnabe in Scale Model Trains describing plans for minimal space 0 scale layouts titled “Micr-O Lines”. I'd have to dig it out but I'm pretty sure those layouts were larger than four square feet so the size is arbitrary.