BR-Green Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 I would say 8 feet long is small for 0 gauge. I'm interested to see what you do as I have an O gauge diesel shunter but nothing at home to run it on. I believe that its possible to have a layout on 5ft with O gauge I have in fact seen one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted October 31, 2016 Author Share Posted October 31, 2016 Yes, it is definitely possible to make micro-layouts in 0, as much as in any other scale, and there are several featured in various corners of RMWeb. However, this one is more 'mini' than 'micro'. Kevin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR-Green Posted October 31, 2016 Share Posted October 31, 2016 Yes, it is definitely possible to make micro-layouts in 0, as much as in any other scale, and there are several featured in various corners of RMWeb. However, this one is more 'mini' than 'micro'. Kevin Is there really a difference to me I've heard of shelf layouts and micro layouts Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 I believe that its possible to have a layout on 5ft with O gauge I have in fact seen one.I've got one!! http://www.westernthunder.co.uk/index.php?threads/even-smaller-o-scale-layouts.44/ 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
F-UnitMad Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 . And this is a Micro layout; O Scale in an A4 Boxfile. 4 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Alex TM Posted November 1, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 1, 2016 Hi folks, Is that the smallest '0-gauge' layout there is? I've seen box-file layout in 0 some years ago, but it was around three times the length of this one. Regards, Alex. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Stubby47 Posted November 1, 2016 RMweb Gold Share Posted November 1, 2016 Hi folks, Is that the smallest '0-gauge' layout there is? I've seen box-file layout in 0 some years ago, but it was around three times the length of this one. Regards, Alex. This one is quite small : http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/14157-taunton-members-day-sunday-17th-april-2011/?p=379117 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted November 1, 2016 Author Share Posted November 1, 2016 Is there a difference, asks BRG? Well, Carl Arendt gave us a working definition of a micro, as being up to four square feet. Before he defined it, it just meant "much, much smaller than a normal layout", although, by coincidence, I seem to have been the first person to write the term "microlayout" down, and the layout in question was four square feet. Personally, I would use the term "mini" to mean "bigger than micro, but still pretty small", which is anything but precise! To me, while four square feet in 0 is quite good fun, it doesn't permit a layout with sustained operating interest. Kevin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 To me, while four square feet in 0 is quite good fun, it doesn't permit a layout with sustained operating interest. Kevin Carl's definition was four square feet of scenic area, with a fiddle yard added. I think an O gauge 3-2-2 inglenook and an O-16.5 terminus in a scenic area of 4x1 should be fairly interesting to operate, when I get the last little bit of Cheapside Yard done, and some narrow gauge rolling stock built! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR-Green Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 Is there a difference, asks BRG? Well, Carl Arendt gave us a working definition of a micro, as being up to four square feet. Before he defined it, it just meant "much, much smaller than a normal layout", although, by coincidence, I seem to have been the first person to write the term "microlayout" down, and the layout in question was four square feet. Personally, I would use the term "mini" to mean "bigger than micro, but still pretty small", which is anything but precise! To me, while four square feet in 0 is quite good fun, it doesn't permit a layout with sustained operating interest. Kevin Ok last post didn't go up we're talking about 5-8 foot here isn't interest a opinion Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted November 1, 2016 Author Share Posted November 1, 2016 BGJ and BRG Yes, of course, what is operationally interesting is a matter of personal taste, which is why I begun that sentence with "personally". I don't much enjoy playing with inglenooks, but four square feet is, personally speaking again, enough to get an interesting layout in 0-16.5. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 BGJ and BRG Yes, of course, what is operationally interesting is a matter of personal taste, which is why I begun that sentence with "personally". I don't much enjoy playing with inglenooks, but four square feet is, personally speaking again, enough to get an interesting layout in 0-16.5. I'll have to come up with something different for the next version of Cheapside Yard then, involving some hidden sector plates and other devious stuff! 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northroader Posted November 1, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 1, 2016 Mind you, I feel that the Carl Arendt definition of 4 sq. ft. was intended in an OO/HO context, and an O microlayout could be larger. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 Mind you, I feel that the Carl Arendt definition of 4 sq. ft. was intended in an OO/HO context, and an O microlayout could be larger. I don't think he distinguished between scales, although he was very flexible with size when putting layouts on his web site! When planning layouts I aim to stick to 4x1 plus fiddle yard if I want to create a micro layout, regardless of scale. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted November 1, 2016 Author Share Posted November 1, 2016 One of the best set of rules that I have seen for a tiny, to avoid the word 'micro', layout contest, was in a French magazine, and I think it originated with GEMME. It used the track gauge as the unit of measure, and then set limiting dimensions of A x B units, something like 10 x 15 for the scenic area, IIRC, and limits on "off stage" space in similar terms. This seemed to work, without getting too crazy, and I think that GDNGRS have adopted similar for some of their contests. Somewhere, I think there might be a finescale 'micro' in gestation, waiting until after Paltry Circus is finished, and my main layout has progressed a bit, because I'm beginning to feel the structures, scenery, and rusty bucket sensation creeping up on me. No clear idea what yet, except that it might be interesting to do a Victorian/Edwardian something, using only electric and internal-combustion power; the white heat of technology c1901. Kevin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 So I'd have more space allowed for a broad gauge layout! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted November 1, 2016 Author Share Posted November 1, 2016 Indeed. Although you clearly wouldn't be in with a huge chance of winning a competition run by either GEMME of GDNGRS, because both are dedicated to sub-standard-gauge matters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted November 1, 2016 Share Posted November 1, 2016 It's not winning that matters, it's taking part . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted November 1, 2016 Author Share Posted November 1, 2016 That, I suppose, might be one of IKB's several epitaphs. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
CourthsVeil Posted November 2, 2016 Share Posted November 2, 2016 (edited) Mind you, I feel that the Carl Arendt definition of 4 sq. ft. was intended in an OO/HO context, and an O microlayout could be larger. Not quite right, I'm 'fraid. From Carl's site, section "About Us": quote: From the beginning, "micro layouts" have been defined as "small model railroads, usually less than three or four square feet in area, that nonetheless have a clear purpose and excellent operating capability." The prescribed layout size is more a state of mind than a rigid dimension, although "four square feet or less" ("under 3600 square centimeters") has become the canonical size for a micro, regardless of scale. What distinguishes these layouts from simple dioramas is the requirement for "excellent operating capability". These are working railroads, not just display scenes or tail-chaser loops. unquote However, as he said himself, Carl didn't stick stiffly to this definition: "... more a state of mind than a rigid dimension...", which is too often overlooked, imho. Regards Armin Edited November 6, 2016 by CourthsVeil 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BR-Green Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 Carl Arendt? Who is this guy every one talks about. I ask as I keep hearing the name crop up i.e. Someone says xyz and someone says your wrong because Carl Arendt said xyz. Not wanting to offend anyone but I keep hearing that name Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG John Posted November 5, 2016 Share Posted November 5, 2016 Carl Arendt? Who is this guy every one talks about. I ask as I keep hearing the name crop up i.e. Someone says xyz and someone says your wrong because Carl Arendt said xyz. Not wanting to offend anyone but I keep hearing that name http://www.carendt.com/about-us/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Northroader Posted November 5, 2016 RMweb Premium Share Posted November 5, 2016 I have to admit, I miss the guy. He had a really inventive, enquiring mind, and the steady stream of ideas, with worldwide input, made a great read and source of ideas for the small layouts. Since he's gone, they've tried to keep a thread of sorts going, but it s nowhere near what it used to be. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nearholmer Posted November 5, 2016 Author Share Posted November 5, 2016 Very true. The gentleman running it now does a sterling job, but Mr Arendt's wise and genial avuncularity is an exceedingly hard act to follow. Kevin Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomboid Posted November 6, 2016 Share Posted November 6, 2016 Any new content there is a bonus, I'm mostly pleased that the site and all the old content is available. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now