Maximum size for a micro layout

[Neil McGrath]

What would you consider to be the maximum size for a layout to be considered a micro layout? I guess that it may vary with scale but would be interested to hear your opinion. 

 

My own plan is to have an OO layout on a baseboard measuring 1m x 1m. Would this be considered a mini rather than a micro?

 

Neil 

[BG John]

Carl Arendt suggested 4sq ft of scenic area, regardless of scale, but then bent the rules a lot when posting layouts on his web site! I've done a combined O and O-16.5 layout in this area, and have an O-16.5 layout planned for it.

[bazzer42]

Paul a Lunn seems to take a broader view and seems to quite happily come up with micro designs that are 6 x 2 in some cases. In my eyes it is about being self contained, portable and easily stored.

 

My 6x1 I have posted as a micro using these criteria to justify it to myself, sorry if it is in the wrong part of the forum. My inspiration to actually build came from Carl's p84, Northleigh, a 4 foot layout with a 2 foot fiddle yard he adds defensively.

[BG John]

Paul a Lunn seems to take a broader view and seems to quite happily come up with micro designs that are 6 x 2 in some cases. In my eyes it is about being self contained, portable and easily stored.

 

My 6x1 I have posted as a micro using these criteria to justify it to myself, sorry if it is in the wrong part of the forum. My inspiration to actually build came from Carl's p84, Northleigh, a 4 foot layout with a 2 foot fiddle yard he adds defensively.

4ft x 11in scenic area is fine. It could have been an inch wider and still qualify as a micro! It's 4sq ft of scenic area plus fiddle yard. I've only got one layout I regard as a micro, as all the others I'm currently building are a square foot or two over that size.

[jamesg]

The 'four square feet' rule is a decent guideline, but the most important thing is that the layout is interesting to operate independently of a larger layout.  To quote Carl Arendt's website:

 

 

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 area is the last thing mentioned

[Eleanor Mentry]

The above definitions of a micro layout, means that my Proposed Killarney is a micro layout.

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/2136/entry-19085-micro-n-gauge-layout-6/

 

Eleanor

Edited March 27, 2017 by Eleanor Mentry

[shortliner]

Carls 4 square foot idea was intended for HO - It really depends on the scale you are using - It would be enormous in T gauge, and almost impossible in G! FWIW there is a Micro Layout group on Facebook

Edited March 26, 2017 by shortliner

[unklian]

So presumably my Gauge 3 ( 1:22 scale 64mm gauge ) thing is by the definitions a diorama ?  Although when I have built a loco small enough and made a shunting capstan that works, it will be shuntable. The turntable is already motorized.  At which point does it then become a micro layout ?  It all  fits in three box files, walls included and covers an area of about three square feet. Apart from many other firsts, this is the first layout I have built without having any stock able to run on it properly.  What I have is all a bit too long !

 

 

Cheers  Ian

[Hroth]

4 sq ft is appropriate in the small scales.  In N you could have a "Minories" with all the trimmings, or an extensive OO9 scene.  In OO/HO a decent branch terminus, an urban/suburban station, or an interesting industrial scene, depending on how your fancy takes you.  Anything bigger and its an interesting exercise on how much can be shoehorned into a limited perspective.  Marvels can be created, unklian's Gauge 3 layout above is a terrific concept and I hope we'll see more of it.

 

I would prefer to see a more flexible definition of area, depending on the scale being used.  Anything above 4mm/ft should be allowed a proportional increase, if only to account for the size of the vehicles to be used.  For example, O gauge or O-16.5 might be allowed to get up to another foot in depth, a 4'x2' baseboard isn't exactly spacious in 7mm.  Micro layouts shouldn't necessarily be an exercise in ingenuity or hair-shirted compactness, they should also allow the builder to tell a story!

[jcm@gwr]

My 0 gauge Inglenook is 6' 6" x 1' 4",

is that close enough?

[MarcD]

We had an inglenook that was 6ftx2ft it was replaced by a modular layout that has a 8ftx18inch inglenook at its centre. While it can be run at its full lenght of 21ft it spends the most of the time at the 8ft length does this count?

 

Marc

[Nearholmer]

I'm sure this self-same topic has been discussed on RMWeb before, so at risk of boring by repetition:

 

- the term 'microlayout' never had a definition when it was first put into print (I know, 'cos I was there. This page on Carendt is worth a read http://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-61a-may-2007/ ) was simply intended to convey "a lot smaller than a typical layout", and be catchy, which it certainly has been;

 

- the greatly-lamented Mr Arendt used 'four-square feet' as guidance only, not by any means a as a rule, and the 'four square feet' guidance definitely wasn't specific to one gauge or scale;

 

- both GDNGRS, in England, and GEMME, in France, who have set an awaful lot of tiny layout contests over the years, tend to define limits that increase with track gauge, and GEMME certainly (I'm not sure about GDNGRS) have issued rule-sets for competitions which define limits in terms of multiples of gauge, so (making one up) perhaps 10G x 30G, where G= gauge.

 

Personally, I rather like the 'multiples of gauge' approach, but the approach in the current GDNGRS contest is good too, see rule-set here http://expong.org/dave-brewer-challenge .

 

Kevin

 

PS: Shortliner, if you ferret around on Carendt, there are a couple of very good four saquare feet jobs in G scale on 45mm gauge, one being a giant version of 'Carl's Exports'.

Edited March 26, 2017 by Nearholmer

[BG John]

Personally, I rather like the 'multiples of gauge' approach, but the approach in the current GDNGRS contest is good too, see rule-set here http://expong.org/dave-brewer-challenge .

I designed an O-16.5 layout for the current Dave Brewer Challenge, but decided that as it's highly unlikely I'd actually be able to attend the event, and I'd have to extend it quite a lot to make it usable, I may as well build something a bit bigger instead. So I've now got a genuine 4sq ft plus fiddle yard micro planned, as a full working O-16.5 layout. I did like the idea that the size was related to scale and gauge though.

[Pacific231G]

I'm sure this self-same topic has been discussed on RMWeb before, so at risk of boring by repetition:

 

- the term 'microlayout' never had a definition when it was first put into print (I know, 'cos I was there. This page on Carendt is worth a read http://www.carendt.com/small-layout-scrapbook/page-61a-may-2007/ ) was simply intended to convey "a lot smaller than a typical layout", and be catchy, which it certainly has been;

 

- the greatly-lamented Mr Arendt used 'four-square feet' as guidance only, not by any means a as a rule, and the 'four square feet' guidance definitely wasn't specific to one gauge or scale;

 

 

Hi Kevin

It was me wot wrote that page for Carl's website.

 

Tne term microlayout never has been defined (and a good thing too- who needs more rules in their life?) but in the subsequent ten years I've not found any earlier use of the word than in 009 News in 1988 in reference to a specific layout and then in 1990 by Yuji Niwa referring to the tiny but complete H0e layouts being produced in Japan based on Joe works locos. If you do know of any earlier references I'd be very interested.

 

Carl 's ideas certainly changed during the years I and others here were corresponding with him but four square feet was only ever a guideline and the "microlayout" is far more an attttude of mind than an actual set of dimensions. 

 

Ten years ago we both had a go at tracing their history from both sides of the Atlantic but it was a fairly convoluted story. 

 

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

 

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

 

I was slightly teasing Carl when, after we'd been discussing the four foot "rule",  I came up with a design that would handle five coach passenger trains but still be less than four square feet. I didn't and don't really consider a layout over eight feet long as a microlayout  but Carl loved it and persuaded me to mock it up for his site. 

 

http://archive.carendt.com/scrapbook/page44/index.html

 

My favourite definition is a working layout that you could close up at the end of an exhibition and be out of the door carrying it before the last visitor has left !! 

Edited March 26, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Nearholmer]

231G

 

Page 61a is a very useful point of reference, or rather should be, for anyone who is into very small layouts, and you did a great job putting it together.

 

When I wrote the article in 009 News, describing "Orznash", I'm fairly certain that I coined the term micro layout, but I wouldn't want to swear to that ........ I may have read it somewhere and not remembered the fact.

 

What I do know for certain is that my thinking at the time was influenced by Japanese layouts, which were just becoming known in the UK through a small book circulated by the Joe Works team, but the book was wall-to-wall pictures and Japanese text ....... it might have said 'microlayout', but, given my ignorance of Japanese, it might equally have said 'rubber soled shoes'.

 

Kevin

[Pacific231G]

231G

 

Page 61a is a very useful point of reference, or rather should be, for anyone who is into very small layouts, and you did a great job putting it together.

 

When I wrote the article in 009 News, describing "Orznash", I'm fairly certain that I coined the term micro layout, but I wouldn't want to swear to that ........ I may have read it somewhere and not remembered the fact.

 

What I do know for certain is that my thinking at the time was influenced by Japanese layouts, which were just becoming known in the UK through a small book circulated by the Joe Works team, but the book was wall-to-wall pictures and Japanese text ....... it might have said 'microlayout', but, given my ignorance of Japanese, it might equally have said 'rubber soled shoes'.

 

Kevin

Thanks Kevin and congratulations; I'm looking at your 009 News article now and I think you might actually be the father of Microlayout as a word in English - though not the   レイアウト マイクロ * nor possibly the Micro-reseau.  The only similar reference I could find anywhere before that was the title of Giles Barnabe's Micr-O-Layouts article for small O gauge layouts in Scale Model Trains .

 

Some of the illustrations for my article have gone a bit awry in its current format and the photo shown for J.A.Patmore's work is not of his earlier layouts but of his final TTn3 layout (though being completely self-contained in a lidded box that does fulfil my first out of the exhibition door criterion) .His two halves of a box TT-3 Larpool and Easington was particularly neat and I've seen the same idea used very effectively in Geoff Latham's current N gauge Tuxedo Junction-Mahwah layout.  

 

Do you have a copy of the Joe-works book?  I've been trying to get sight or a scan of it since before I wrote the article for Carl.

 

* (I butted the words for micro and layout together to make this supposedly cod Japanese word but to my surprise got it right and as a search term in Google etc.it does yield some interesting images)

Edited March 27, 2017 by Pacific231G

[Dunsignalling]

My definition would be a single baseboard incorporating any hidden fiddle facilities, and any switches, etc. in excess of a hand-held controller, within its confines.

 

Size. Small enough to go on the back seat of a modest car, so no longer than 4' and no wider than 15".

 

Whether that constitutes micro or mini, I'll leave others to argue but, If it needs two people to move it around without risk of damage to layout or handler, It's neither. 

 

John

Edited March 28, 2017 by Dunsignalling

[Nearholmer]

Unfortunately, I've never had a copy of the Joe Works book. It was rare as hen's teeth, even at the time, and I got to look at someone else's' copy at a 009 Society meeting.

 

I used to study the offerings of the Joe Works catalogue (I still have one of those somewhere), but always struggled to save-up fast enough to get the things I fancied, before they went out of production. The locos were a pig to get to run smoothly and cool. If the mech was tight they'd run hot, and burn the motor, hence the way Mr Sibley designed his absolutely brilliant layout. There was a chap in our 009 group who could get them to run sweet and cool, but the work involved was immensely time consuming: he would use engineer's blue to find the tight spots on the gears (which were mildly eccentric, in many cases), and valve-grinding paste on a sheet of glass. He worked as a kitchen refurb salesman, and had appointments with clients at all sorts of odd hours, with great gaps in between, so he'd keep the bits in his briefcase, and sit in a layby working on them when he had time between clients! Tony ......??? I forget his surname.

 

I'm fairly sure there were other snippets of information about Japanese stuff, too, maybe in NG&SLG, although I may be getting the order of events confused. Certainly I was influenced by the style of scratchbuilding on display it that magazine.

 

Another thing I don't have is a copy of my 009 News article ........ I don't think I've seen it since it was published. So, if you do have a copy, would you be able to PM me, and arrange to scan and email a copy?

 

K

[BG John]

My favourite definition is a working layout that you could close up at the end of an exhibition and be out of the door carrying it before the last visitor has left !! 

I could get a single baseboard about 12ft x 18in in my van, so if the legs were built to form a folding trolley, I could wheel it straight out of the exhibition hall, and as I pushed it against the back of the van it would fold up and slide in . Or with 6ft hinged extensions that fold over it could be 24ft x 18in. Or if it was hinged longways, 12ft x 3ft. Or if I could do both, 24ft x 3ft. I know I wouldn't be carrying it, but it's not really any different to being able to fold it up and put it in something like a shopping trolley!

[BG John]

I think having an agreed definition is useful, so we're consistent. If I'm planning a micro, I aim for no more than 4sq ft of scenic area, plus fiddle yard, which I'm sure was a definition on Carl's site at some time. If I go a fraction over that, I consider the plan a failure, which is part of the challenge. That's what I've done with the O-16.5 layout I'm currently planning.

 

I don't know what to call anything bigger though. Is it "Small", "Mini", or just a layout?

[CourthsVeil]

...

 

I don't know what to call anything bigger though. Is it "Small", "Mini", or just a layout?

 

Dwarf

 

Armin

[BG John]

Dwarf

 

Armin

I'm 6ft 2½in tall, so don't call me a dwarf .

[CourthsVeil]

I'm 6ft 2½in tall, so don't call me a dwarf .

 

  You should know what (not who) was meant…  

[BG John]

Most of the layouts I'm currently building are around 6ft 2½in long, give or take a few inches, too .

[Nearholmer]

I think the Latin names of plants follow a convention whereby decreasing size is denoted by: minima; minor; micro.

 

To cause further confusion, perhaps we should have minimalayouts, and minor-layouts, also without absolute definition, just for fun. Or perhaps layoutii japonica.