What is a micro layout?

[47137]

I have re-read the post on ‘what is the maximum size of a micro layout’ and my reply to it, and I think the size of the layout is one of several criteria. That is, size alone does not define a micro.

 

I realise this forum deals with box file layouts and dioramas too, but if I can dismiss dioramas fairly swiftly, and then allow box file layouts be a subset of micro layouts for the sake of this one post ... I suggest that a micro layout needs to meet more than half (6 or more) of these ten criteria, off the top of my head:

 

(1) self-contained: the model is a complete model railway layout in its own right (this rules out a module or baseboard taken from a larger layout).

(2) compact: typically less than four square feet, regardless of scale.

(3) portable: the model can be transported by one person using public transport (this most likely limits the longest dimension to about four feet).

(4) operable: the model has some kind of potential for railway-like operation - this might be a terminus to fiddle yard or a terminus to terminus arrangement or even (just) the simple circle of a Pizza layout (this rules out a static diorama).

(5) engaging: the model has that elusive ‘charisma’ which can hold the attention of a viewer far longer than we might expect, in relation to its size.

(6) distorted: the model takes the idea of selective compression to an extreme, for example a paper-thin overbridge as a scenic break, or a siding able to hold only one wagon.

(7) believable: the model represents a real, or genuinely feasible prototype (it is more than an anonymous length of track a train can run along, and it is beyond the ‘black pudding and treacle mine’ theme).

(8) fictional: the model contains a feature which is unheard-of in real life, like a traverser dressed up as a piece of sliding ground, or a sector plate with points on it.

(9) showcase: the model is a showcase for the skills of the individual modeller, and quite possibly displays a technique new to the modeller or even new to the hobby.

(10) containerised: the model has been built in or on a ready-made substructure, like a briefcase, a box file or a sandwich box.

 

My own feeling is that the rules for size and the longest dimension are important, and that a layout 8 feet long and six inches wide, while still ‘only four square feet’ is an unwieldy thing, too long to manoeuvre in a domestic setting, and is not by any measure ‘compact’ ... and is probably not a micro layout. But if I saw such a layout, and enjoyed the ‘ethos’ that went into making it, and saw that another six of these ten criteria did feature in it ... well, I would have to backtrack a little.

 

Anyway, the idea here was to jot down a list of ten things, none of which defines a micro in its own right, but for which a majority do ... essentially, trying to formalise the suggestion that most modellers know a micro layout when they see one. Perhaps someone can improve this list?

[Ian Holmes]

In my opinion I don't think No. 3, 6, 7, 8, and 10 are relevant.

No. 3 because if your layout has legs that are 40" long (like my Purespring watercress) they'd be very awkward to carry.

No.6 doesn't just apply to micros, many regular layouts have paper thing scenic breaks. I always try to have siding lengths of greater than one wagon anyway

No. 7 there are quite a few "twee" unprototypical micros out there.

No. 8 Only one of my many micros has ever had an unheard of in real life feature. The Apple Valley light railway

No. 10 is not necessarily essential either I've built several micros that weren't conatinerised.

I don't see why we need to over analyse what a micro is. Carl Arendt described it perfectly when he came up with the concept al those years ago.

I hope that doesn't make me sound like a grouch.

 

Ian

[Stubby47]

As another eager promoter of the boxfile genre, I'm not too fussed about what does, or does not, make any of my layouts a 'micro'.

 

What's possibly more important is why the layout you choose to make is small.

 

In the case of 'Porth Byhan', it was an experiment to see what I could do in a small space - (the box file idea was copied from Mason)

In the case of 'Wheal Tiny', there was a maximum floor space dictated by the competition rules (3 x A4 sheets laid end to end).

'Laterite & Co Ltd' was built to be in boxfile, but to stretch the capability of the container whilst retaining their original function.

 

In all cases the legs to support the layout have been an ironing board, so with the crates for the layout, stock ,tools & controller I'd not be welcome (or be able to manage) on public transport.

 

Without also being too negative, I agree with Ian -

"I don't see why we need to over analyse what a micro is. Carl Arendt described it perfectly when he came up with the concept al those years ago."

 

Stu

[Guest Jim Read]

Hello all,

 

I concur about the rules, Carl Arendt's 4 sq ft of operational area is fine. To add anything to it would be to stifle the ingenuity of future modellers who will undoubtedly interpret the rule in new and novel ways.

 

Jim

 

tsk tsk [edit] speeling

[47137]

Hi Ian, Stubby47 and Jim,

 

Well I would much rather receive a slightly grouchy reply than none at all! I think there is more to a layout being a micro than it being less than a particular size, and my idea was to identify some typical characteristics so that size was no longer an essential parameter ... hence the 'majority' idea in 'six or more out of these ten'. However, I was rather hoping someone could shorten the list, so thank you, and I do now appreciate the potential dangers of over-analysing something, so thank you again.

 

But, "why should the layout you choose to make be small?" I hope, at least in part, for the same reason I have been setting up a Tomy 'Thomas' set on the carpet this evening: for pleasure. There is a chance you will finish a micro before the enthusiasm that got you started fades away; and a micro does let you (if you wish) to experiment with modelling techniques which might be too laborious on a larger scheme. Many other parts of the answer are, I hope, unique to each modeller and their layout.

 

I do know that 'lower cost' is not a factor - my micro has cost more per square foot than any 'full size' layout I have built. Perhaps there is a 'personal modelling variety factor', meaning the ability to try something new (for me, narrow gauge).

 

I still feel something unwritten remains, something to do with the character of a micro and the ethos behind it, but trying to pin it down, without taking something away from Carl's original explanation, is beyond me at the moment.

 

Richard.

 

 

 

[Rods_of_Revolution]

The 4 square foot recommendation for the operating area is the close as you'll come to a definition of a "micro layout". There are many competitions but they all have slightly different rules on size, so unless you're going for a standard size, such as a boxfile, then the definition of a "micro layout" is what ever you want it to be.

 

It's better to not worry about whether it is or isn't a "micro layout" and just build a layout that suits you and your requirements.

 

Kindest Regards,

 

Jack

[Stubby47]

Hi Richard,

On re-reading the thread, I realise now what you were trying to achieve - that a micro is not a micro because of it's size, but because of its character.

 

We don't tend to categorise other styles of layout by size, but we do have the BLT, the MPD or TMD, the Roundy-roundy ,etc, which are easily spotted by their generic features, so why should the Micro layout be any different.

 

But, if the subject modelled interests the viewer (GWR, EWS, Thomas, for example) then does the style of layout matter ? A GWR BLT or a GWR model of Paddington - to a GWR enthusiast these would both be worth a view, but, to a fan of Class 37's, maybe not.

 

 

As for me, I model small layouts for various reasons - as yet I've not developed the ability to stay focused on one project, so need to keep starting new ideas, I'm still learning and refining basic modelling techniques and I don't have the space at home to run anything big. I also enjoy the challenge of squeezing as much as possible scene into very small containers, just to see what can be done.

 

Cheers

 

Stu

[Pacific231G]

I don't think you'll ever pin down a definition for a micro layout but you'll know one when you see it. Carl Arendt was always suitably vague "Micro layouts are small model railroads, usually less than three or four square feet in area, that nonetheless have a clear purpose and excellent operating capability." so a philosphy rather than a rule. The origins of the term are also obscure "Throughout their long history there had never been a generic name for all these tiny layouts (starting with A.R. Walkley's 1925 "portable goods yard" ) . They had generally been described as "minimum space" ... "compact" ... or simply "very small" layouts, but in 1987 an article by Giles Barnabe in Scale Model Trains describing plans for minimal space 0 scale layouts was punningly titled "Micr-O Lines". In a later article in 1989 the tag became "Micr-O Layouts". However, the first use of the term "Micro Layout" so far discovered was in the February 1988 edition of 009 News (the journal of the British 009 Society). Kevin Payne used it to describe a 48x12in layout in two halves" I wrote those words for Carl's site (http://carendt.us/scrapbook/page61a/index.html for my complete article) but I think he came to prefer the term minimal space layout which is more a philosophy. The four square feet rule would after all include the original TT-3 version of Cyril Freezer's Minories which is a complete main line terminus whereas though it was five by one foot I'd definitely classify Peter Heath's original "Piano Line" as a micro layout.

The French N.G. group GEMME did come up with rules for "Micro Reseaux" for their annual competitions at Expometrique but these changed each year and though beautifully modelled often seemed to me more like automata with a fixed sequence of events than meeting Carl's "excellent operating capability" definition.

[Ian Holmes]

I'm still going to disagree...

A micro is a micro solely because of its size.

Character is that indefineable quality achieved by modelling skills, observation and presentation. It's not really anything to do with the size. There have been micro layouts of character and micro layouts devoid of character.

Wether the Micro layout term was coined in 1929, 1989 or 1999 Carl used the power of the internet to give the term and the philosophy the exposure it wouldn't have got had it been left to the model railway press.

 

Ian

[Guest Jim Read]

Hello Ian,

 

I agree with you and especially about the press they are concerned about their advertisers and will only use copy to support them. It's exactly the same in photography with readers being constantly blackmailed into buying stuff they don't need and perpetuating the 'single stunning image'.

 

Hopefully the internet will gradually eclipse them and a more personal approach will prevail.

 

Jim

[Pacific231G]

I'm still going to disagree...

A micro is a micro solely because of its size.

I tend to agree with Carl Arendt who thought that size wasn't enough, a micro layout also had to include meaningful operation. So he didn't regard Pizzas as micro layouts even though he included them in Small Layout Scrapbook. He did though count my "Passenger Inglenook"- a 5-3-3 Inglenook for full length passenger stock- as a micro-layout simply because it was less than four square feet (52x10inches folded) though I now think I'd stretched the definition beyond breaking point as the layout was 104 inches long when unfolded. Seeing just what you could cram into four square feet was fun though.

Whether the Micro layout term was coined in 1929, 1989 or 1999 Carl used the power of the internet to give the term and the philosophy the exposure it wouldn't have got had it been left to the model railway press.

Hmm. I'm not so sure about the press. It was only because they were in the model railway press, especially RM, that I knew about Inglenook Sidings, Larpool and Easington, The Piano Line, Don Sibley's tramways and other ultra small layouts while Loco Revue and its NG offshoot Voie Libre did give a lot of coverage to the GEMME Microreseaux. I do agree though that while he may not have coined the term microlayout Carl did do do far more than anyone to give a definite and coherent identity to what before had simply been various ultra small layouts that appeared from time to time. I'm really glad that Jack and others have found a way to keep Carl's site alive but I do miss his emails.

[cornamuse]

I think small but with meaningful operation is the closest - but I wouldn't want to be too strung out on a specific size, as some of the larger scales would need a little more, whereas in T scale 4 feet is enough for an elegant layout! On the other hand, even that doesn't always seem to follow, as larger scale models often seem to be more convincing in the small spaces thn the smaller scale ones. Anyone any idea why? My 7mm stock seems to fit happily on 4ft, where as my 2mm stock (when I had it) just seemed to underline how small the space was...

[Pacific231G]

I think small but with meaningful operation is the closest - but I wouldn't want to be too strung out on a specific size, as some of the larger scales would need a little more, whereas in T scale 4 feet is enough for an elegant layout! On the other hand, even that doesn't always seem to follow, as larger scale models often seem to be more convincing in the small spaces thn the smaller scale ones. Anyone any idea why? My 7mm stock seems to fit happily on 4ft, where as my 2mm stock (when I had it) just seemed to underline how small the space was...

Slightly off-topic perhaps but I've also noticed that the larger the scale the more compression you can get away with without it looking silly and that often makes layouts very different in the flesh than in photographs. I think it's all about how much the human eye can take in at a single glance and the sheer bulk of a large scale model must help with that too.

[cornamuse]

good thoughts, both, thankyou - and apologies for straying off the topic

 

I also agree with the "you know one when you see it" sentiment...

[47137]

Reading forwards from cornamuse at post no. 12 ... I think the reducing effect of micros in smaller scales is to do with my original point no. 5 'engaging'. Yes it is physically possible to built a complete 3-2-2 shunting puzzle in N gauge in a box file, and probably throw in a small mpd or a canal lock as well, but the whole thing is in danger of looking like something of nothing ... your vision takes in all you can hope to see too quickly. In comparison, a similar shunting arrangement in a larger scale, with the expense of an external 12-inch head shunt outside the envelope of the box file, can let you see the buffers compress or the loco take up the slack in the couplings - there is 'more to see' when you look closely.

 

Also it is easier to arrange view blocks like buildings, bridges and even trees in larger scales, and these too make a small space look bigger because you have to move around to take in the whole scene.

 

If the model can draw you in to look closer and then hold your attention, this is what I have called 'engaging', and I think it is an important part of 'knowing a micro when you see one'.

[switcher 1]

I think I would define a micro as :-

 

As small as you can get away with, without it looking silly.

[Stubby47]

I think I would define a micro as :-

 

As small as you can get away with, without it looking silly.

Ah... oh, well...

[Lisa]

Just as important, the layout should work well, be interesting to look at for more than 3 seconds and stretch the modelling skills of the builder.

Lisa

[Guest Dave.C]

(9) showcase: the model is a showcase for the skills of the individual modeller, and quite possibly displays a technique new to the modeller or even new to the hobby.

 

and stretch the modelling skills of the builder.

 

Are we saying that if I knock up something using my current skills using traditional methods it is not worthy of being called a micro?

[jcm@gwr]

Are we saying that if I knock up something using my current skills using traditional methods it is not worthy of being called a micro?

Not if you are stretching your abilities more than usual!