# Is bigger better ?



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

As a sidebar to the current thread "Who has the largest garden railroad" .... I realize that thread is not saying bigger is better. It is just looking for some statistics on who's got what. That's fine. But rather than derail it, I thought I would start this one.


There are several problems with BIGGER ... Regardless of scale, indoors or outdoors. It takes longer to complete or more likely, it is never completed. Thus you spend more time building than enjoying. And that's fine, as I can certainly agree that for many folks the building is more fun than the end result (operation). My biggest concern is maintenance! Assuming your railroad is at best a two person crew (man and wife), how much time do you have to keep it up?


My personal railroad is 150 feet of track with one siding which takes up an area of about 20' X 30', plus a train shed. I do have plans that would expand that to double the size, but it will never happen. I enjoy what I have, and I don't want the additional work.

When I was starting out, visiting all of the railroads I could find in Colorado, I attended many of the Denver club's summer tours. During one tour I drove to the address, and as I passed by looking for a parking place I could see that the "railroad" was nothing more than a loop of track around a tree, in the front yard no less. I was tempted to just keep driving, but thought the hosts had probably seen me, so I stopped out of courtesy. I was right. The "railroad" was a loop of track, about 8-10 in diameter at best, around a tree. Believe it or not, I spent nearly an hour looking at this railroad. I think I learned more about what it takes to build a garden railroad, and got more ideas I could use from this little loop than I ever did from all of the huge railroads I had previously visited!


I guess all I'm saying is, for each person there may be a size for you that is a compromise between too much maintenance and not enough fun. A smaller railroad may allow more detail, and more manicuring. A larger railroad may allow more realistic operation and more trains.


The same goes for "How many locomotives can one person own and operate?" I think we all have more than we need. But good grief, some of you guys are just over the top!


----------



## Trains (Jan 2, 2008)

Bigger might be better, but a heck of a lot more to take care of! I have about 250 foot of track and that's more then enough.


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

Bigger is not necessarily better, more fun is better! 

My layout is shoehorned into a small lot, but can be plenty fun, especially if you want to run 2 trains in opposite directions on the main line! 

There's 2 passing sidings equally spaced on the main line, and a wye to turn trains, and a double ended yard for switching. I can keep 4 people busy all day, and a 5th if he wants to run a local freight. I'm adding more spurs for industries, and the time can fly when you are running around. 

My layout is sure no competition for any of the large, photogenic layouts, but fun is what I have. 

Regards, Greg


----------



## Randy Stone (Jan 2, 2008)

Bigger is impressive and what dreams are made of. The bad part of bigger is those that tell the newbies that they have to find a way to use 8 or 10 foot diameter curves when the newbie already said they only have an area 8 foot wide by so many feet long. Telling someone to use the largest diameter curves they can is fine, but saying you wouldn't bother if you couldn't run at least 8 foot diameter curves is a dis-service to the hobby. There are plenty of layouts out there with 4 foot diameter curves and they provide plenty of satisfaction and fun for the operators and their on-lookers. That GG1 traversing a 4 foot diameter curve, may look silly to some and maybe even to the owner who is running it, but if they can only fit a 4 foot diameter curve into their layout and they love the GG1s, why not? 

Maybe I'll start a thread for layouts using nothing bigger than 4 foot diameter curves. 

Randy


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

When Roger and Faith Clarkson come here, Roger plops down in a chair, watches the trains run and says, "This is nice and you can take care of it. Mines too big."


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

I think we all chase that impossible dream. If you have a small layout and you are not happy with it and can afford it, bigger may be better but how big is big enough? We each have to answer that question for ourselves.

Personally I think some large layouts (such as mine) expanded out of a desire to make a dull layout more interesting.

Not just money but how much time does one have to build and maintain a large layout? If the layout gets too big for one person to take care of it he may spend most of his time working and not much time playing.

An older retired guy for whom his layout is his primary recreational outlet may need a large layout to keep challenged and entertained (per hour the cost is minimal). A younger working guy with less free time and other activities might be making a huge mistake by trying to build a layout he never gets around to finishing.

If you sit around with nothing to do you may need a larger layout. If you are busy most of the time you would probably not enjoy a large layout anymore than a smaller layout and you might actually end up resenting the amount of time and money you spend building it.

I know a number of people who have been "in the hobby" for years but have not yet laid a single track. A tiny layout on the ground tops a huge layout in one's mind every time.

Sometimes a big layout might be like a swimming pool - more fun if a friend has it and is happy to share it rather than everyone having to build their own.

Jerry


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By rlvette on 11 Jun 2010 07:41 PM 
Maybe I'll start a thread for layouts using nothing bigger than 4 foot diameter curves. 

Randy 

It can be an eye opener when one realizes how much more can be done in the same space with small diameter curves:


----------



## John J (Dec 29, 2007)

The last one could be a fun layout if all the loops had switches where they touch. HE HE HE HE HE HE


----------



## Dennis Paulson (Jan 2, 2008)

Like a idiot I looked at the drawing and imagined it with all the switches , and I got dizzy imagining a train running on it .


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

I moved 'up' from R-1 to R-2 when I went outside this spring. But R-1 did me just fine for more than a decade. For a long time all I had was a 5' x 8' indoor oval. Gave me lots of time to mess with scenery. 

My first layout was about 8' x 14' with R-1s, and lots of scenic value 









After the divorce came the 5' x 8' but I still had LS trains 









Then came the 5' x 8' plus a little 









This spring I finally had room to build larger, yet I still didn't go hog wild huge. The layout has most of what I really wanted, yet can still be weeded in 20 minutes and watered with 4 gallons. I don't NEED more.... well except a few plants, rocks and ballast


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Dennis Paulson on 12 Jun 2010 10:11 AM 
Like a idiot I looked at the drawing and imagined it with all the switches , and I got dizzy imagining a train running on it . 
Just imagine if someone actually built it and had little trains running in all directions on it. Talk about a mind boggler.


----------



## Jerry McColgan (Feb 8, 2008)

Posted By Mik on 12 Jun 2010 10:45 AM 
I moved 'up' from R-1 to R-2 when I went outside this spring. But R-1 did me just fine for more than a decade. For a long time all I had was a 5' x 8' indoor oval. Gave me lots of time to mess with scenery. 

My first layout was about 8' x 14' with R-1s, and lots of scenic value 


After the divorce came the 5' x 8' but I still had LS trains 


Then came the 5' x 8' plus a little 


This spring I finally had room to build larger, yet I still didn't go hog wild huge. The layout has most of what I really wanted, yet can still be weeded in 20 minutes and watered with 4 gallons. I don't NEED more.... well except a few plants, rocks and ballast 








Very Nice. It looks like it has everything really big layouts have.


----------



## Richard Smith (Jan 2, 2008)

What you say Del is exactly what I had to decide when I began the final incarnation of the Port Orford Coast R.R. I had already been there and done that with the grandiose dreams and almost insatiable desire for railroad "stuff". When in HO I at one time had over 100 brass locomotives. I never came close to having a railroad to justify so many locomotives. I couldn't even keep them all running let alone ever bring a railroad of even moderate size to completion. Many were in boxes and didn't see the light of day for several years between runs. Even when in On3 I had too many engines and because of the time involved in building them, too few cars. 

The POC began with a totally new concept. First I decided on a theme for the railroad and stuck with it. Second I placed a limit on the number of locomotives I would acquire. Only what could be justified by the railroad's theme would be allowed with a very small fudge factor. If I found an engine beyond my numerical limit that "I had to have" I would have to dispose of an existing one. This made the decision for acquisition less spontaneous. It also allowed for having all the "bells and whistles" on the locomotives that I wished, something impossible with 100+ locomotives. I currently have six locomotives on the active roster each with battery R/C and Phoenix sound plus additional detailing and modifications. Five are original Delton C-16's and one is a Bachmann 4-4-0. There is also a Bachmann Shay sitting on the sidelines that one day after the railroad is complete will get a face lift and join the Old Mill Lumber Co. Roster with a small Whitcomb diesel bought for scenery rather than operation. Plastic engines, each of the six have about $1400 invested in them, an amount I could never justify with a large roster. 

One big advantage of elevating the POC on to benchwork was the fact that when I began in 2004 it wasn't done much except for the rather spartan live steam tracks. This made everything experimental from benchwork design, drainage, scenery to track support. Even the garden railroads done in England from the 20's and 30's were different than what I wanted. 

Thus the decision was made to complete the railroad in sections so everything including structures could be built using various techniques and exposed to the elements while the railroad was extended section by section. Techniques that didn't work out so well could be eliminated on future sections and those that worked continued and improved upon. Also as each section is completed it requires maintenance which allows for an assessment of just how large of a railroad I could comfortably maintain. I do have room for additional length beyond what I have planned but I won't go there. 

The only disadvantage to the way I'm building is the fact that I'm an operations nut. It has been hard to only dream of the completed railroad and the operation I've planned for. Even though operating the partially completed POC is enjoyable it falls far short of what I ultimately want. Hopefully within the next two years I'll have the track work completed. The way I've done this, while practical in my situation, is definitely not for anyone requiring instant gratification, hehehe! Fortunately I enjoy the planning and the construction as much as the operations. 

I love really large operating railroads such as those of Fred Mills and TOC but they require more than one person to maintain. I had to face the realization that there just aren't very many people interested in such things around here and that 95% of my railroading and 100% of the maintenance would be done by me alone. I've been invited by several others to visit and operate on their railroads but all are too far away to go there on a regular basis and, of course, it is just as far for them to come here. So the POC is designed for one man operation but with enough capacity to accommodate up to four or five when completed. Certainly more than what I'll ever have here at one time. 

I guess what I'm saying is that assessing not only your own dreams and desires when building a railroad it is important to realistically assess your individual talents and situation as well. 

Westward Ho the rails!


----------



## Dennis Paulson (Jan 2, 2008)

Lucky me , one of my sons and his buddy broght a bucket truck with a 50 foot boom , and trimmed some trees for me , and took some pictures from up above my 16' X 40' layout .
Its enough for me to enjoy and maintain , even elevated 3 feet up . I really like this picture





















and the spur into the garage with a 4 foot by 24 foot area switch / storage yard yard of 5 tracks .


----------



## Del Tapparo (Jan 4, 2008)

Nice layout Dennis! And a real bonus at three feet up!


----------



## Nicholas Savatgy (Dec 17, 2008)

Dennis, That IS one cool looking layout. Good for you Sir


----------



## Dennis Paulson (Jan 2, 2008)

Thanks guys , and oh yes , inside the layout the walking area has those 4 foot by 6 foot horse stall ribbed mats from TSC , they have lasted for years now , and just need swept off once in a while . Its never muddy from the rain , and the lawn chairs do not sink down on the mats . 
Easy is better .


----------



## Gary Armitstead (Jan 2, 2008)

The comments from this thread and "Got a small layout? Stand up and be counted" ought to be combined. This thread has ideas without sounding like whining. JMHO


----------



## ShadsTrains (Dec 27, 2007)

This is a very interesting topic. Thanks for starting it Del. I've been struggling with this same question over the last few months. To date, I've amassed a large collection of rolling stock and locomotives. All but three of my locos are 6 axle diesels. The larger diesels outnumber the others by at least 2 to 1. I've always wanted to model modern day trains. To me, to make everything look right, it requires large sweeping curves. I have the room in the backyard.. But I lack one major component. Track. I don't have any. I had some, but it was sharper curves so I sold it a while ago. This spring, I looked at what it would take to get my base layout started. After I cut things back down to a bare folded figure 8, I was still looking at a starting cost of over $2000.. Add to that the fact that I hate weeding and doing yard work past mowing the lawn. (I love mowing). Add to the the time requirement, and I had to do some serious reconsidering about what I wanted to do. I've decided to cut WAY back. Most if not all of my 6 axle diesels are going up for sale. A lot of my rolling stock is also headed out the door. I plan on keeping the two four axle locos and purchase maybe a gp40 and another gp38-2.


----------



## chuck n (Jan 2, 2008)

I can't figure out if I have a large small layout or a small large layout. I have about 90 feet of track with three long passing sidings.

All of my curves are 5' radius and all to the switches are the new 18000 LGB series which are supposed to be about 8.5' radius. The over all shape can best be described as a T-bone steak. The side with the passing sidings is the New York strip side of the steak and the other side, trenderloin, has a reverse curve that brings in down to the 10 curve at the tip end. 


New York strip side. 












Reverse curve after passing the T-bone end





















As you can see I can run larger engines, so I guess that this is a small large layout.

I am thinking about redoing the layout so that my USAT streamliners will look better on the curves.

This layout is small and much simpler than the one that I had in Denver. There are no automatic switches, block and signal here in Virginia.

With this current set up I can park 2 long trains, for me long is 10 - 12 cars and run a third. I also have a reversing track that brings coal to the back of the coaling tower.


Chuck


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

The 2 inner spurs made it bigger and better, the passing siding made it better and bigger. The wye and reverse loop made it bigger and better. The mine spur, once I build the mountain, will make it bigger and better and finally the storage barn will add another dimension. 
So yes all my biggers have made it better. 
These are the only comparrisons I can make. Mine suffers from sectional track, flex and benders became known too late to justify the expense to use. I also have a loop, (oh the horrors after On3) while I'm leaning towards a linear line w/ reverse loops at each end. Would a change to dumbell from ovalish make it bigger? I dunno, but I'd get back a parking space! Yet critter management naysays a change... long detours might inspire destructive shortcuts. Yikes! 

Is mine better bigger? Yes. Yet right now it's closer to good enough because I've learned a lot since I laid the oval. 

The passenger train runs the loop and the freight utilizes the reverse loop to make car setouts. Plenty enough for a one man show. 

Bigger than his, smaller than X, I don't really care.... 

John


----------



## ORD23 (Jan 2, 2010)

Great post. I too have a ton of rolling stock. It takes up half of my two car garage. Going over this post has helped me to decide to get rid of the tons of cars and engines I don't run. They just sit in my garage and rob me of valuable space. Thanks for posting this and giving me that kick in the pants I needed to really act and down size.! 

Ed


----------



## StanleyAmes (Jan 3, 2008)

Is bigger better? Absolutely not, just different. The only key element is the degree of fun we have. If you are having fun that’s all that’s important.

Each of us have a concept for their railroad and these concepts vary as much as size.

Our railroad is bigger than most. When phase 5 (the final phase) is completed late next year we will have around 3500 ft of track with our longest run about 1200 or so feet. Our concept is a point to point railroad with two divisions and multiple branches.

We do have a few loops for display running but these are blocked off during operating sessions

When we operate we take trains from point A to Point B with switching and car setouts.. So for our concept bigger was better which is why we decided to build phase 5.

While our layout is large in terms of size it is small when it comes to structures. We have few other then bridges, maybe someday but for now we are having to much fun building and operating.

Stan Ames
www.tttrains.com/sjrp


----------



## East Broad Top (Dec 29, 2007)

Build what you have time for. My railroad in Western NY was 600' of track over a 40' x 100' area. After 5 years, it was never remotely close to being finished. The plants never grew in, I never got two of my sidings built, and I was never happy with it. Many garden railroaders would sell their firstborn for a perfectly flat, blank-canvas yard as I had. I thought I had it made, too. 

When I moved to Colorado, I had learned my lesson. I didn't need a huge, expansive yard. There was no way I'd have time to maintain it and get the railroad up to where I wanted it to be. 









(Thanks to Gary and Carla for the photo--believe it or not, I don't have a good overall shot of the railroad.) 

While not "small" compared to some garden railroads, my line isn't exactly expansive, either. I've got a grand total of 300' of track in a rather small suburban back yard. For my lifestyle right now, it's the perfect size. I can stay on top of the plants with an hour or so of trimming (while the trains are running around) and it's easy for me to put out a locomotive after I get off work and just sit back on the back porch and watch it run around. I've gotten much more use and enjoyment out of this railroad than I ever did my old one. For me, it's a combination of mature garden and trains that makes the railroad work. The old, expansive line never had the mature garden. So, in answer to the question, "bigger" is not "better," if you don't have the time to nurture it. Bigger can easily be an albatross, always getting in the way of enjoying the hobby. 

Later, 

K


----------



## Mik (Jan 2, 2008)

Posted By East Broad Top on 13 Jun 2010 09:14 PM 
Build what you have time for. 
...So, in answer to the question, "bigger" is not "better," if you don't have the time to nurture it. Bigger can easily be an albatross, always getting in the way of enjoying the hobby. 

Later, 

K 
Yeah, what he said. Those 3 sentences should be engraved someplace.


----------



## Dr Rivet (Jan 5, 2008)

Bigger is ONLY better if you have at least one of the following: 
1] lots of friends to help maintain the layout 
2] like to do track work and maintenance yourself as part of the "FUN" 

The IE&W Ry was deesigned specifically for large engines and long trains. I made a deliberate decision when I started in 1993 that the running track would be for mainline running with "weekend events". I find this a great part of the social aspect of the hobby and accepted that this was far mor railroad than I would ever need. At the time of initial construction there were very few places for "live steam meets" and we had the space for a big track. The cost of the line is not insignificant, but spread over the 16 years it has been around, it is not so painful. After several revisions to the construction, maintainence is down to about one hour for evey 30 feet of track [per year]. This does not include line additions or major relocations. 

I always "advise" newcomers to design what they think they want, cut it in half, and then think about how much time they want to spend maintaining the line. 

My first line was only 250 feet of track and took only modest effort to maintain. Small tracks can be a very GOOD thing. Chuck N's layout is a very manageble size and works for all but the largest motive power and rolling stock. 

Jim


----------

