What constitutes to a micro layout?

[toolongtoremember]

What size constraints constitute to a micro layout or other characters?

 

I'm building a roundy roundy N gauge 3'x2' layout and I'm not sure what category it belongs in!

 

Thanks!  

[Joseph_Pestell]

Micro is different in N to what it would be in O.

 

In this household, micro is anything small enough that SWMBO will allow me to build it.

[toolongtoremember]

Micro is different in N to what it would be in O.

 

In this household, micro is anything small enough that SWMBO will allow me to build it.

Just like my household lol!

[Guest]

I don't think anyone's actually written guidelines that say if it's bigger than "xxx" by "xxx", it's NOT a micro layout... happy to be corrected on that. Even if "guidelines" have been written, who's to say we have to follow them? I've always thought that if you could fit the bare board (sans scenery etc) under your arm and move it easily, it's a micro. Obviously, a load of 3' x 2' boards joined together to make something bigger wouldn't qualify.

[switcher 1]

Originally the term came from Carl Arendt's web site, http://www.carendt.com/

It suggested a 4ft x 1ft area, or eqivalent, in H0 scale.

Nowadays, mainly it is a very small layout that actually functions, (as against a diorama).

(Equivalent size for N gauge would therefore really be about 2ft x 6ins, & for 0 gauge 8ft x 2ft.)

[Kenton]

 

Obviously, a load of 3' x 2' boards joined together to make something bigger wouldn't qualify.

That would be a "Modular" layout?

 

When does a micro become a diorama? (we have had that debate before and it never resolved)

 

I don't think size really matters.

[Pacific231G]

Originally the term came from Carl Arendt's web site, http://www.carendt.com/

It suggested a 4ft x 1ft area, or eqivalent, in H0 scale.

Nowadays, mainly it is a very small layout that actually functions, (as against a diorama).

(Equivalent size for N gauge would therefore really be about 2ft x 6ins, & for 0 gauge 8ft x 2ft.)

 

That's not quite true; Carl Arendt usually suggested a maximum of four square feet but it was about the overall size and compactness of the layout so was the same whatever scale you used. The term Microlayout had actually been around for quite some time before Carl Arendt developed his website but, certainly in the English speaking world, he probably did more than anyone else to popularise it. That's not to belittle Alan Wright's influence with Inglenook Sidings but that seems to have not been much known outside Britain and Australasia. The first use of the word Microlayout in English that I've been able to find came from 009 News in 1988 but it appeared quite often from about 1990 and was well established by the time Carl started his website in 2002. 

 

Carl and I wrote a pair of articles for the fifth anniversary of his site in 2007 looking at the development of "minimalist" layouts on both sides of the Atlantic, mine is on   http://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-61a-may-2007/  and included what I'd been able to discover about the name but his article on the subject should be read with it http://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-61-may-2007/

 

Carl's maximum of four square feet was never hard and fast but gettting a working G scale layout into four square feet is obviously more of a challenge than doing the same in N scale but that's always been part of the fun

 

 

  That would be a "Modular" layout?

 

When does a micro become a diorama? (we have had that debate before and it never resolved)

 

I don't think size really matters.

 

 

Carl was always very clear about the difference between a microlayout and a diorama or a module. He set it out here http://www.carendt.com/articles/secrets-of-designing-micro-layouts/ and I think it would be hard to better his description.

 

"Planning an ultra-small micro layout is slightly different from traditional model railway design methods. It has a lot in common with theatrical stage set design, where you carefully pick a single location then figure out how to squeeze the illusion of it into an extremely small space........ a micro layout fits into even the smallest flat or bedroom. You can finish it in a reasonable amount of time at reasonable cost. It can be carefully detailed to any degree you wish, and it will provide a significant amount of operating fun. The requirement for “operating fun”—things to do on the layout—is what distinguishes a micro layout from a diorama or a module. A micro layout is a self contained, working model railway with a clear purpose and operating capability — usually occupying less than three or four square feet!"

 

The stage set analogy did allow for "backstage" fiddle yards and it was interesting that Carl accepted Cyril Freezer's Minories as a microlayout on the grounds that it had been designed originally as a 60x8 inch  TT-3 layout.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Pacific231G

[Saddletank]

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.

Edited February 27, 2015 by Saddletank

[Kenton]

 

or by someone with little space in their home to model the huge aspirational layouts of retirement or big money.

that's most of us :sigh:

[Pacific231G]

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.

 

 

Sorry if I wasn't clear but, under Carl Arendt's guidelines, which seem to be the most widely accepted, the maximum four square foot idea applies to any scale so an N scale microlayout could be 4ft by 1ft or 8ft by 6ins or whatever. It could of course be smaller than that but if you want to build an 0 scale microlayout on Carl's definition you'd still have to get it into four square feet. That was why he included Minories as one of the classic plans IF it was built in TT or smaller.

 

I did to Carl's great delight have some fun with a "Passenger Inglenook" plan in H0 

http://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-44-december-2005/

I mocked it up and it really could handle trains with five main line carriages. It WAS a bit less than four square feet but it was also eight and a half foot long when opened up so although Carl accepted it as such I'm not sure that I really would claim it as a microlayout. It might though be useful to test and display main line stock without actually building a complete main line layout.   

 

Clearly when you get down to scales smaller than H0 a microlayout could in its trackplan become more like a conventional layout in a larger scale. The "little fiddle" layout in N scale comes immediately to mind but though the plan was a fairly conventional BLT, building the whole thing into a violin case (including the very appropriately named fiddle yard)  was pure microlayout thinking. However, apart from some competitions the concept has always seemed to be far more an approach to layout building than a fixed set of rules. 

 

My own rule of thumb is a layout you could operate at an exhibtion right up to closing time and still walk out with it before the last of the visitors. I do know one layout that pretty much fits that bill but can still be operated to a proper schedule with both passengers and freight and doesn't even look cramped.  

Edited March 28, 2015 by Pacific231G

[ajaxjones]

N gauge on two sheets of A4?

[toolongtoremember]

Mine certainly wouldn't qualify as a micro layout in this case! However it is very small and does use (eventually) the "theatrical" method described by layering it up and creating the illusion that there is more space than appears by building up above the fiddle yard a street scene. Here's the first ever running session; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ecLeC7Hs17M&feature=youtu.be

 

Note the two plywood bits of wood attached to the sides will eventually be the supports for the street scene to go over the top, with a retaining wall along the front. 

[Joseph_Pestell]

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.

 

Well, that's right. When we are talking areas, N (2mm) is a quarter the size of OO (4mm).

 

An 8' circumference roundy roundy would only be just over 30" wide so very manageable to carry (or roll!). Ruling track radius therefore would be about 13.5" which is not great but OK for a light railway style prototype.

 

Could be quite a fun idea and would certainly work at 36" wide and 5" wide baseboard (which would allow a slim operator in the operating well).

[Pacific231G]

N gauge on two sheets of A4?

Why not? two sheets of A4 have the same area as one sheet of A3 and there was a very succesfull A3 layout competition in the Wealden Group a few years ago which I think included at least one N gauge layout.

[d_c_b]

I've always fancied making an n gauge layout in a full size violin case. Once saw a fully operational, fully scenic model in a violin case and it just blew me away.

 

Simple things for simple mind

[PatB]

By my reckoning you could do a circular layout 4' diameter with boards just fractionally under 4" wide and get under 4 square feet. Ample for an N (or even 2mm) double track and through station. Or single track and a workable siding or two, in the manner of some of Ian Futers' North British layouts.

[Joseph_Pestell]

By my reckoning you could do a circular layout 4' diameter with boards just fractionally under 4" wide and get under 4 square feet. Ample for an N (or even 2mm) double track and through station. Or single track and a workable siding or two, in the manner of some of Ian Futers' North British layouts.

 

I have been thinking over the same idea. I would probably choose a single track with sidings - something like Blackwell Brewery by MidEssex MRC. J15 in N please, Mr Hornby!

 

The great joy is that it can all be built from 1 8'x4' sheet of ply with no baseboard joins to complicate life. The down side is that 4' diameter is just a bit big to transport easily in most cars. The internal area of the car (in my case an ancient Freelander) is OK but the doors are generally not much more that 3' wide even on hatchbacks/estates.

 

A bit big to be really a micro layout but it could be a lot of fun and a good testbed for my first attempt at fiNetrax.

[Saddletank]

Well, that's right. When we are talking areas, N (2mm) is a quarter the size of OO (4mm).

 

An 8' circumference roundy roundy would only be just over 30" wide so very manageable to carry (or roll!). Ruling track radius therefore would be about 13.5" which is not great but OK for a light railway style prototype.

 

Could be quite a fun idea and would certainly work at 36" wide and 5" wide baseboard (which would allow a slim operator in the operating well).

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.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Saddletank

[BG John]

To me the appeal of micro, or small, layouts, is creating something practical that can be used in a small space, rather than the challenge of creating something as big as possible that complies with the rules! I'm involved in the growing tiny house movement, so am interested in anything that is designed to fit, and be used, in small spaces. A tiny home is probably anything under 400sq ft (although opinions vary!), and fitting all the facilities of a home into that space in a way that makes it a great place to live, encourages some creative thinking! I don't think I've seen any that include a model railway yet though. Apart from my tiny home that is, that currently has two under construction, that are both too big to be classified as micro layouts! Anything between a tiny home and a "normal" sized one is classed as a small house, so maybe we need definitions of micro layouts, and of small layouts.

[Guest]

To me the appeal of micro, or small, layouts, is creating something practical that can be used in a small space, rather than the challenge of creating something as big as possible that complies with the rules! I'm involved in the growing tiny house movement, so am interested in anything that is designed to fit, and be used, in small spaces.

 

Personally, I couldn't agree more. I'm not particularly interested in any "rules" that may have been written... to me a micro layout is anything designed to fit into a small space, be it an alcove or an under-stair cupboard etc etc etc. I've read a lot about the so-called "4 square feet" rule in this thread, but I'm afraid it means little to me. Just an opinion, 'tis all...

[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...

Edited March 1, 2015 by Saddletank

[Joseph_Pestell]

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.

 

There are a couple of layout threads on here currently (Glenfinnan, North Cornwall) doing something similar. They are managing fine with Peco curved turnouts which would be even easier at 10' circumference. And see the Grantham Streamliners in the 30s thread for how to tweak the geometry of the Peco a bit.

[edcayton]

As long as you don't make a diorama out of a crisis.

 

Ed

[TheSignalEngineer]

As long as you don't make a diorama out of a crisis.

 

Ed

That would rule out my next idea

 

 

Fits OK into 4 square feet, but is there a height limit?

Edited March 2, 2015 by TheSignalEngineer

[Pacific231G]

Personally, I couldn't agree more. I'm not particularly interested in any "rules" that may have been written... to me a micro layout is anything designed to fit into a small space, be it an alcove or an under-stair cupboard etc etc etc. I've read a lot about the so-called "4 square feet" rule in this thread, but I'm afraid it means little to me. Just an opinion, 'tis all...

I do agree that it's more an approach to building very small layouts than a set of rules. I think four square feet was really just a way of differentiating them from small layouts in general so, though it was five foot by one, I'd certainly see P.H. Heath's original "Piano" line as a Microlayout because it incorporated a clever idea to include the whole operation of a terminus, including trains arriving and departing, onto that one board. 

Edited March 4, 2015 by Pacific231G