westerner Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 After seeing what is happening to Eastwood Town, it has occurred to me that however much we say I would like more space I wonder what is the optimum size for a layout being built by a single modeller rather than one which is being built with input from other modellers. For me it would be about garage sized and then only if i was building a single track layout such as Wencombe. Any larger or more complex means the extra maintenance and standard of consistency means it is difficult to finish the layout in a reasonable time scale and use it as more than a glorified test track. I wonder what the rest of you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted December 3, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 3, 2011 I think it depends on your level of interest, time available and, obviously, finances. However, I wouldn't disagree with westerner that garage-sized may be a practical limit for an individual aiming to complete a project to a decent standard in a reasonable (1-2 years?) time. My last layout, occupying a bedroom, at about 10 feet by 9 feet, took me 8 years in fits and starts. With a bit more time on my hands I'm starting a 16 foot by 12 foot in a garage...with a time-frame of 5 years. It's a deliberate long-term project, so I'm happy with my plans. I remember Black Rat commenting, in an early Model Rail, that "no more biggies for me", as he wanted to spend time on the detail. In the end, it's a very personal thing, but, yes, for me - in OO - it's a garage size. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coombe Barton Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Too big = more than you can maintain. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Where the interest lies has to be a major factor. I don't want a model railway of anything other than a busy mainline operation with full size trains, and would abandon the hobby if that was impossible. This has meant layouts that are sparely detailed beyond the ballast and the occasional railway building, it's all about operating the trains. Physically big is no obstacle, provided you build-in reliability in the construction phase. Over -engineered for bomb-proof reliability and ease of maintenance so that repairs are a rare requirement and quick and easy to carry through; proven technique for ultra reliable running with OO RTR gear adhered to without deviation, large radius curves, gentle gradients, large radius points. Had a forty yard main line run previously, and now a 70 yard scheme in design. The intention with the 70 yard scheme is that it will have a scenic section (about 10% of the whole) which will be detailed over 15 to 20 years, if I am spared. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted December 3, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 3, 2011 Had a forty yard main line run previously, and now a 70 yard scheme in design. Wow!! That's a hell of a sized bungalow you have there 34!! Regards, Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 3, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 3, 2011 The room it will go into has a clear space between walls of just over 16ft x just under 11ft and some of the railway will be very simple although the intention is that part of the scheme will be rather more complex despite my having acquired the view that less is definitely more. Mind you once the construction phase gets underway my hopes for the 'more complex' might evaporate! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest dilbert Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 The intention with the 70 yard scheme is that it will have a scenic section (about 10% of the whole) which will be detailed over 15 to 20 years, if I am spared. Somewhat similar - however the garden sirens are sweetly singing ... regardless of the scale, the scenery will never scale and there are also seasonal variances to take into account that operating the lot will not be practical 365*24. One idea being 'mulled' is to have the station throat in the garage with shunting capability. Underground tunnels in the garden will not be built for maintenance purposes ... dilbert Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
coachmann Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 I'm by nature a minimalist but not having built a layout since 1964, the one I built in 2007-8 was silly! It represented Diggle in 4mm scale, which looked cutish when viewing the real thing in the 1950s but had a canal, four tunnels, a three-platform station, local goods yard, two marshalling yards, a private siding, two loops and a four track mainline with two double junctions! The straight section was housed in a 16ft long shed and was supposed to carry on around the garden. I couldn't even reach across the baseboard so that was when big was too big for me and the lot went down the council tip. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim Hale Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Too big = more than you can maintain. How true, you have clouted the nail. To extrapolate slightly, despite building it a sectional design I have abandoned any idea to take the the layout out on the exhibition circuit and am building a 4x2 diorama. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
34theletterbetweenB&D Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 - however the garden sirens are sweetly singing ... ... It's a great place, that was where my forty yard run was. Majorly easier to do today in control terms thanks to DCC. Had hoped to be out in my present garden, but the squirrels persistently returned to damage the first section constructed, so no go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenton Posted December 3, 2011 Share Posted December 3, 2011 Too big - anything over 8ft including fiddle yard! I have trouble enough keeping focused on planks even smaller than that. Having enough space is no doubt a problem. My biggest layout was in N in a space some 26ft square - the track was down and working and trains would exercise almost every day but in the end I simply got bored with it and needed the space for other things. Since then it has always been plank size - and I have enough trouble with that. For me layouts just do not give the same punch as building kits - but it would be nice to get one finished again someday. I admire others dedication to works of a lifetime but that would be like asking me to stand still forever, just not my character. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gordon s Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 An interesting topic, as I have learned first hand... It guess the answer lays in your own ability and the amount of pre planning that goes into it. My imagination knew no bounds at the beginning, so it was something of a shock to find just how many hours were involved in just producing the simplest part. Although I thought I had covered most bases, the number of times elements had to be changed to overcome obstacles I had never even considered were considerable. Creating a two dimensional plan is one thing, but then converting that into three dimensions is another thing all together. Gradients can be a nightmare, but clearance for under board wiring and Tortoise point motors are often overlooked. Then you have access, track cleaning and maintenance and so it goes on. How many hours do you have? When I started ET, I was still working and had some hours at weekends and the odd one or two in an evening. Now I'm retired, I have unlimited hours within reason and now realise ET would never have been running in my lifetime, hence the change. So back to the OP question. A hard one to answer as it is a combination of size and complexity and really depends on how much trackwork and scenic elements are in place. If you are building your own trackwork, one turnout can be completed in an evenings work. If you have 60 of them, then that's three months gone allowing for other domestic and social needs. Baseboards in an area of 18' x 18' will add another couple of months, depending on the design and what tools are available. Wiring will be often be far more complex than you think and ballasting is a very time consuming and boring task. All of this and you still haven't built any scenery, buildings or stock to run on it. OK RTR is straight out of the box, but add decoder fitting if using DCC and weathering and perhaps some detailing and each loco will need several hours. It took a holiday for me to realise I had bitten off far more than I was capable of, so all I can add is that any layout build will probably need considerably more time than your estimate. We cannot work endless hours as fatigue and sheer boredom will eventually set in. Go too far down this route and you will find you become demotivated over the lack of progress and then this becomes a vicious circle when the amount of work spent on the layout dwindles to almost nothing and then it dies. Remember that this is a hobby in which we can forget our daily troubles, whatever they may be. Once it becomes a full time job, the magic has gone and then it ceases to pleasurable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 I think too that the answer is really dependent on the individual and their circumstances - and to some extent, their budget - there is no "fixed point" where a layout becomes unmanageable. I remember seeing a humungous layout in ModelRail a year or so back, which was built and operated by one person, but most of the actual control was DCC computer operated (several screens iirc) so you could easily "sit back and let it run itself" whilst pootling about shunting manually in the freight yard, for example. Of course, for many of us, the thought of programming all that lot would make our brain melt. Also, bigger layouts generally need more stock and track, so budget comes into it as well. I currently am struggling to build a layout, not because of time, budget, stock or skills - but due to the space I have available, or lack of it. I'm struggling to come up with a plan that will satisfy my 'needs' within the space I have. It's all too easy to plan in a 4 platform station, freight yard, diesel depot, branchline, junction(s) and storage facilities when you have a loft to play with - however it won't fit in 8ft x 2ft unless I move to T scale. Hence, compromise is needed. I've always ended up building beyond my capabilites although it's often taken some years into the project before realising and accepting that fact, despite promising myself I can learn the various skills I will need to acquire, or getting inspiration from magazines and RMWeb. Hopefully now I'm married my wife will keep me in check, preventing me from planning on taking over half the house, buying frivolous purchases on a whim that are "maybe one day" (example being I'd love the Bachmann MPV as I see them regularly, but it's 25 years too new for the rest of my stock so it either means a mass trade-in or running "out of place" stock on the layout) and encouraging me to keep going because of the time and money spent on the project so far - and, you never know, I might even get her interested in helping out... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Kris Posted December 4, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 4, 2011 Whilst size is an issue for maintenance and construction to me the biggest issue is complexity. It's all very well having a layout with 4 running lines, 7 platforms and more sidings than you can shake a rake of unfitted wagons at, but if you're on your own, then trying to operate all of this is a real nightmare. It always strikes me that most large / very large personal layouts built by one person seem to then generate an operating crew. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 4, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 4, 2011 I do wonder if part of the answer to larger spaces in any scale is to build several 'layouts' joined together. This doesn't avoid the carpentry element of building baseboards or whatever goes underneath it all and it doesn't avoid the tracklaying but it can possibly reduce the visible track in any scene thus giving you one at a time to work on before moving on to the 'fresh layout' of another visible scene. the risk of curse is that you finish up with track hidden (or more likely not meant for public viewing) between your 'layouts' thus wasting 'attractive modelling space' but perhaps that might be something to come back to in the future. So just an idea but garden work permitting I shall hopefully be giving it a try next year when the first scene will be a 'simple' through station and the roundy bit needed to let me watch the trains go by (at which point I may well find I'm thoroughly content with train spotting and the other idea will vanish into limbo - but that's a risk I'm more than prepared to take). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
cromptonnut Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 I do wonder if part of the answer to larger spaces in any scale is to build several 'layouts' joined together. The 'modular concept' is actually a good idea if you have a small space too - if you have a definite 'scenic break' such as a bridge at the entrance to the 'fiddle yard' at each end, then any subsequent modules can end in whatever way you wish, and if you build to a 'standard' then theoretically you can put the modules in any order. I quite fancy the idea of a terminus station on an 8ft board, then another 4ft for an industrial facility, then another 4ft for a big scenic feature (such as a river valley with a bridge), another 4ft for a branch off to a quarry, etc etc etc. You can then have the layout in any configuration at home, giving a basic 'something to play with' but then also the opportunity to have the full layout up at an exhibition, or in the summer in the garden, or whatever. DCC makes all this much easier for train control, and if you have a small control panel on each board and a 16v supply across boards so every unit is self contained, then space is really no longer an issue as you can then build as much as you like, as long as you have room to put up the two fiddle yards (or one, if it's a terminus project) and almost have a new layout a day if you swap modules round. NTrack is the popular modular standard in N Gauge, I believe the DOGA have a OO modular standard, and there's an area on RMWeb in the O gauge section trying to define an O gauge 'standard' - although there's no reason why we can't make our own standard for our own layout as long as we stick to things like track alignment and wiring, but of course the benefit of sticking to an accepted standard is that you have the opportunity to link up with other people working to the same standards. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerner Posted December 4, 2011 Author Share Posted December 4, 2011 I must admit that, as said in my original post that a garage sized Wencombe or a a layout based on Kingswear for me would be the ideal, giving a decent run, I'm very much of Iain Rice's idea that the scenic section should be at least 3x the length of the longest train. Not over complex, a single line, not over many buildings (my weakness) not too complicated for wiring (another weakness) some good scenery ( a strength I think) and interesting to operate by a single person. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted December 4, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 4, 2011 Gordon S's comments very much mirror my own experiences and I couldn't agree more. The complexity of even the "basic" infrastructure is something that cannot be rushed, so sets another limit to the size of many layouts. I like to include a LOT of scenery, with the railway (hopefully) integrated into the landscape. So a garage-sized layout based on this premise can be achieved in a reasonable timescale. BTW, wrt the OP, I've just looked at Wencombe. Westerner seems to have got the compromise of size, buildings, operations and level of detail just right. How large is Wencombe as a matter of interest? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold The Stationmaster Posted December 4, 2011 RMweb Gold Share Posted December 4, 2011 I must admit that, as said in my original post that a garage sized Wencombe or a a layout based on Kingswear for me would be the ideal, giving a decent run, I'm very much of Iain Rice's idea that the scenic section should be at least 3x the length of the longest train. Not over complex, a single line, not over many buildings (my weakness) not too complicated for wiring (another weakness) some good scenery ( a strength I think) and interesting to operate by a single person. Quite agree with those basics plus I would add that platforms should be at least twice the length of the 'usual' train (the sort of passenger train which appears most often - i.e. the local stopping service) unless you are modelling modern 'train length' platforms. As far as single lines are concerned I think that in visual terms they more than double the apparent length of a layout compared with double track. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torn-on-the-platform Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 It must depend on whether you want a continuous run or prototypical operations, but even so, with unlimited funds and time to build your perfect layout, surely it could be any size with the increasing availability of DDC and computer control? I personally would not go down the route of computer control but if you did want a large layout with several trains running, stopping, shunting etc without other operators, I'd have thought it would be the way to go. You could watch the trains go by whilst maintaining other areas of the layout. In DC terms, my club runs a moderately complex set up which is more about running a railway than having perfect details. Most of the stations can be operated by one member, but the termini and middle station with 6 platforms and a junction at each end generally require 2 people for smooth operation. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jim s-w Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 something like Jim's is a 'lifetime' project and requires a far different mindset to achieve it, let alone the space consideration. I do think that in a lifetime I wont build any more layout than the next person. Rather than a series of quick win layouts I am just building one big one. As I have said many times, for me it's about the journey not the destination Cheers Jim Edit - there's absolutely nothing wrong with going for the quick win BTW Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
westerner Posted December 4, 2011 Author Share Posted December 4, 2011 Jeff, Wencombe is 11ft 6inches by 8ft. Mike on Wencombe the platform is about twice the normal local, 2 coaches and small tank and about 1 1/2 times the longer in terms of distance and train (3 coaches and tender loco) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edwin_m Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 I have a garage-sized N gauge layout which has been under construction for five years and although I can run trains on most of it, it is nowhere near finished! The way I get my head round this is to think of it as a series of separate "scenes" which will be separated by scenic breaks. Not only will this hopefully give an impression of trains passing through several locations on a main line, but it also means I can concentrate scenic work on a single section in an attempt to have that reasonably realistic before I move onto the next one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted December 4, 2011 RMweb Premium Share Posted December 4, 2011 Hi Alan, thanks for that. I've spent quite a bit of time going through the galleries, looking for ideas. It's sometimes difficult to gauge the scale of layouts (sorry about the puns) so your information is very useful. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RJS1977 Posted December 4, 2011 Share Posted December 4, 2011 I seem to remember Cyril Freezer saying 20' x 12' was about the biggest one person could comfortably handle - beyond that could only really be handled if it was a smaller plan expanded out, but since there are few spare rooms that size anyway there would be no point in building one that big if you could fit the same plan into a smaller space. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.