Starting thought

Dear Joe,

At the risk of "leading with my chin", I'll jump out and say

"12' x 8' single person bedroom or smaller"
(Yes, this opens the "does that include aisleways?" discussion,
but assuming everyone is respecting the "max 30" reach-in benchwork depth" wisdom,
the resulting form-factors should shake-out the available aisleway space in consequence).

Personally, I'd look for smaller than that,
(Insert Prof K mandatory "small/micro-layout" and "sectional exhibition layout" references here )

but "whatever can be fit within a single person bedroom",
(particularly if the room is used for other purposes, not a "pure layout room" )

is one reasonably 1st-world-relevant planet-wide metric for "achieveable"...
(Think apartment and condo dwellers, layouts which need to co-exist within domestic spaces, etc)

Happy Modelling,
Thanks for considering the "Small Layout",
Prof Klyzlr

PS didn't you have a "minimum-space for a mushroom" spec noted in your original MR "Meet the Mushroom" article? IIRC it was 12 x 8, as 8' was the minimum "levels slide over each other" dimension?

One measure

Mushroom minimums

My basement ceiling is 7'-9" or 93" ... so it's less than 8 feet. Getting a mushroom in was a tight fit as to height. I could have used another 3 inches!

But as to width, 12 feet getting close to a minimum. You need two aisles (30 inches) and three benchwork decks to get the mushroom to fit. Two minimal aisles is 5 feet, which leaves 7 feet for benchwork decks, with each deck at just over 24" wide.

If you crunch it down, you might be able to get a mushroom in 11 feet of room width, but that's getting things pretty tight. The whole layout would need to have either fairly narrow decks or fairly narrow aisles.

What is "Small"?

By the Prof's definition my upcoming around-the-walls layout I've designed (hope to start construction this fall) is too big, for the room it will occupy is 12' 4" x 9' 6". (Plus access to a 9' 6" x 2' closet.)

Such a tangled web: Defining a "Small Layout".

Andre

"Small layout"

Joe's comparison of a 30ft shelf layout with a more complex 4 x 8 kind of answers the original question itself. In some ways the number of turnouts is a better definition of "small", where actually what we are talking about is complexity, cost and time-to-completion.

However, for simplicity's sake, I like the idea of "what fits in a small bedroom",

(Although a small bedroom in the US is often significanltly large than one in the UK!!)

John

Small

I would say anything the size of a 1 car garage and smaller

-Scott

Functional Capacity

Maybe equate layout size to an upper limit of rolling stock that could be operated on the layout at any given time?

Therefore the 1 X 30 foot layout with a capacity of 20+ units of rolling stock maybe considered medium along with the complex 4 X 8 (as mentioned above)

Turnouts = small vs big

I think using turnouts is a good idea as you can compare across scales. For example if I say I have 300' linear feet of track but don't give a scale one would think that's a massively huge N scale layout when in reality it's a small large scale layout. Instead by saying that I have 12 turnouts total it makes it seem a little more manageable. I'd roughly classify a micro layout as 0-6 turnouts, a small layout 6-12, medium sized 12-24, and a large layout 24+

Small layouts? Big layouts?

  I prefer to just view small layouts as part of a large layout and large layouts as many small layouts linked together. They both require the same level of craftsmanship and dedication to pull off successfully. So for a small layout to be interesting enough for an article I think it should have a well thought out theme, be well built with some unique features or operations potential that we might learn from and not just written up because it is small....DaveB

It also depends on scale as.......

......I have a 19 X 21 foot layout that is in O scale 2 rail and I consider that very small.  It would be medium big in HO and huge in N.

Peter

I'll jump in

I think "achievable" is the better defining characteristic for the many reasons covered already.  I just look at my own journey over the past 12 years since really getting back into this hobby and I'm very happy I built the small N scale layout featured in MRH.  I've started six layouts, but the scope of five of them was just too much at the time, in many ways because I wasn't sure what to do next or if I could do what was required next.  This small layout gave me a lot of practice and confidence trying different things that I knew would be easy to rip out and redo if it didn't turn out and it wouldn't take me forever to redo it.  

Now that I've done it, I'm happy enough with the results, learned some things I will do differently next time, but most importantly, I have the confidence now to tackle a larger layout if I want to.  If I had started with a large layout plan instead of this smaller layout, I would likely not have accomplished nearly as much over the same period of time.  But maybe that's just me.

Cost factor

I might look at layout size the same way any project is measured in the business world and that could be by cost.  I don't often see this used to define a layout but I could imagine, let's say, $1500 or $2000 defines something mall.  In HO that might include 2-3 DCC/sound locos, maybe 8 - 10 cars and some buildings scenery power etc.  In this way, table dimensions could fluctuate quite a bit (under normal economic situations, of course, where wood isn't inflated like it is today)  So you could have a large area with sparse modeling on top.  This would probably make for a generally uninteresting layout and not much to write an article about.   Or you could have a hollow core door with skysrapers on it which wouldn't look good either.  I'd say what you're really deciding to publish is a balance of cost and presentation and you could start with cost as a first metric...

(This is, of course, a raw value and not necessarily the friendliest way to size up someone's layout but it is impartial)

Spare room sized and below

That's my definition for HO scale. It's hard to define achievable. My current layout is around seven years old and it's operational and completed to a base level of scenery. Is that achievable? Of course it is for me but my experience in getting this far with it has taught me that I would not want something much bigger. Other folks might consider that too long a time to get to where I am. Some guys fill basements in seven years, albeit probably not to the level of scenery I have on the entire layout.

Search archives

Hasn't Joe asked this question several times before?

What was the answer the last time?

Small means small, doesn't

Small means small, doesn't it?

You can come up with many justifications for calling a medium sized or large layout small but at some point you are just playing games. Small has to have a limited number of square feet and complexity of track plan to keep the name honest. In old style HO think a small layout would mostly be a table top that you and some friends could pick up and move in a room. 5x9 and 4x12, classic sizes, would be the largest anyone could honestly call small. So say 48 sq ft and smaller in HO is small, which is enough for some interesting shelf layouts that don't overwhelm.

If anything, that's too much to be small at the limit.

Turnouts do not define a

Turnouts do not define a small layout.  Guy is building a  2 level mushroom Tehachapi loop in a RV garage space is massive but the number of turnouts and sidings is very few something like 4 to 6 sidings for a total of 12 turnouts.  Most of the Turnouts beyond that will be in the loop around staging at either end so it will have constant running.  end to end run time he estimates to be 60 to 90 minutes at scale speeds.

Mainline will be massively long but it is all main line running.   I'm not sure of everything but I think it has SP and ATSF running on parallel but separate tracks like the real line he is copying etc.  Not in the full know on that.

But looking at it everything will be hand laid it is just lots of track with lots of running and nothing as complex as a few passing sidings.

I look at small as anything you can pickup and move in a 4x8 U-Haul Trailer, if it fits it ships.

Pick a Range

When we were looking at houses last summer, bedroom size depended a lot on when the house had been built. The older the house the rooms were down to 8x8. The newer the house they eventually went up to 10x10 or 10x12.

Our current house was built in 2005. kids bedrooms are 11x14 and 12x14 and a 3rd bedroom, guest or another kid in the basement is 13x17.

My layout is in what we consider a store room or hobby room. It is 10x14 with the door in a corner. No closet or windows.

Jack

Less than 50 square feet

How can we differentiate between a guy that likes mainline run as compared to a guy that likes to do switching? I don't think that we can, so I don't think counting switches will work. Money spent won't work because how can you compare someone with a larger layout who can only afford paper buildings with a guy that can afford craftsman kits but that are situated on a small 2x6 layout? I don't see scale as a criteria because based on the style of running that we like we might go for N for seemingly long runs or possibly ON30 for switching but in the same space.

I started way back when with a 32 square foot 4x8 in a small bedroom and that seemed small when the caboose just left and suddenly the engine came back around again almost immediately. At the time when I visited others with a 5x9 ping pong table top that seemed a lot bigger at 45 square feet but I wouldn't have called it large. So was 32 square feet small and 45 square feet medium? I saw a 5x9 as larger (but soon undesirable because of the reach issues) but 45 square feet did seem to be the upper limit for a small layout.

I'm now 70 and I've down sized to a small house and luckily have a 13x38 foot room in the basement for my present layout but I do have a small 8x10 bedroom and because of this post I just measured around the walls for what would comfortably fit in that small bedroom and came up with about 45 square feet. If I double decked it would fit 90 to 100 feet and that I think would push it beyond small, so complexity of construction does enter in to even a small room layout.

So, I would suggest less than 50 square feet as MY definition of a small layout. 

4x8 = 32sq feet

so if it take more than one sheet of plywood to make it is no longer small. 

8" x 48' = 32 sqft

1' x 32' = 32 sqft

2' x 16' = 32 sqft

16" x 24' = 32 sqft

4' x 8 = 32 sqft

etc. etc.

And with one sheet of 4' x 8' you can end up with a lot of railroad if you plan it correctly

Turnouts = small vs big...or does it?

I rather like the turnout count as a measure of layout size, but it doesn’t factor in the effort involved in building the benchwork, and especially the scenery. 300 linear feet of benchwork/scenery is a big effort.

16 square feet or less

I think any layout that is 16 square feet(2,304 square inches) or less is a small layout. Not everyone has the room to build a 4X6 or 4X8 layout. A lot of urbanites that live in condominiums, apartments, or townhouses don't have the room to build a large layout. This includes 4X6 or 4X8 layouts. A 1X16, 1.5X10, 2X8, 2.5X6, 3X5, or 4X4 layout fits within the 16 square foot area.

Wendell

Small/Miniature layouts that are 16 square feet or less 

http://www.model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/30394

How Big is a Layout

This was the topic of an Old JA article in MR. he ended up using a number of factors including area, complexity of trackwork, scale, etc.  How Large ...
 

Some thoughts:

John was interested in how much could be accomplished over time (now to define that ...) and cost. Interesting. My own thought would be that scale and area play a big part along with track complexity. The more switches certainly add time and expense as much as building rolling stock or structures but remember that in his day much had to be build from kits not much more that a box of sticks. 
 

My own S scale layout is 18” x 14’ long with six switches. It is very small by any standard. An N scale layout in the same area could be quite complex. Even my On30 trains would feel at home on a layout this size with the exception of structures. A ratio of area over scale times a complexity variable might be interesting to come up with a number.  64(scale)/21(sf) = 3 x 6(switches are handlaid) is a factor of 18. The same layout in N scale would be 160 / 21 x 7 (more switches and track) = 56. Less track might be 48. In On30 it might be 12. In HO = 24. Anything over, say, 50 would jump from small to medium. 
 

I like the

spare bedroom definition. Yes, they vary in size, mine is 11' by 11' and I've also incorporated the ( 10' ) closet via a tunnel.

It's small to me.

I'm on 3 sheets of plywood, I've had two of my previous layouts ( basements ) make it up to 7 sheets. All three being made up of 2' by 4' modules.

I think that square footage,

I think that square footage, track complexity and possibly costs could be all part of the definition of small, but another way to look at it could be through the lens of ops. And I use ops here quite broadly. I would imagine a small layout is one that is built with the intention of being run by one or perhaps 2 or 3 people. And in this case ops could mean round round or switching puzzles all the way up to the full Monty. But I suspect when people say they want to see small layouts. What they want to see is the quality present in the famed large layouts, but on a more intimate scale. Something that may be shared with others, but doesn't require others to make it complete if that makes sense.