Pierre Koenig’s Stahl House and Vermeer’s “Woman Holding a Balance” are both fairly small dimensionally. Even so they’re held up as the pinnacles of artistic excellence.
The subtle psychology of semantics, word choice, can be fascinating. Often we slip into, and make very telling, word choice selections without even knowing it. Case in point, the terms “just” and “only”. A quote from the net makes the point… The words “just” and “only” come across as an apology, even when it’s not intended to be. For example, saying “I was hoping you could “just” consider raising your hand before speaking” can sound like an apology when it could be more directly stated as “please raise your hand before speaking”.
The issue always comes up in model railroading with layout size. It’s “just” a switching layout. It’s “only” switching layout. And then there is a well-intentioned email I got from a reader of the RMC East Rail article, “Sure, American homes keep on getting bigger but many young adults have not reached the salary level where they can yet afford the behemoth homes we see getting built seemingly everywhere. Until the day that a modeler has that large basement, layouts such as East Rail II fit the bill nicely.” Ouch…. sort of like saying, “Hey Lance you run pretty fast, ……for a fat old guy”
Switching layouts, because of their size, are often viewed as substandard ventures by those who don’t have them. They’re looked upon with pity. What’s worse, and the focus of today’s blog, is that those who own them give their own layouts the same negative connotation. They apologize for their work. If this is you, stop it, stop apologizing.
It’s a failing of human nature, particularly in modern times, to associate quality with size. Doing so is sign of artistic ignorance, maybe benign ignorance, but ignorance just the same. The Mona Lisa and Vermeer’s Woman Holding A Balance, considered some of the most brilliant works of all time, are relatively small (15” x 14” in the case of the Vermeer). Pierre Koenig’s Stahl House in LA, considered an architectural masterpiece, is a relatively small home.
There are excellent model railroads of all sizes, John Wright’s Federal Street and Tim Nicholson on the small side, Tom Johnson and Klimoski in the medium range, and Mike Confalone on the large side. Excellent each and all.
For those that don’t view layout size as a dick measuring contest, there are really two factors that come into play in planning and ultimately selecting your format. Surprisingly, available space isn’t often one of them. I would say that more than half of the switching layout owners I know are either financially comfortable or, cough, quite a bit more than comfortable. They have average to large homes. So, lack of space often isn’t the driver for selecting that format. So, what are the two considerations?
First, is the preferred rail fan style you like most. It’s like chocolate vs. vanilla, your tastes are what they are and won’t change. There are two groups. The largest is those who enjoy main line running. To them, watching a train (often a long one) go from A to B to C to D is where their interest lies. Math being what it is, this format requires more space, and a longer run to pull off, which makes for an inconvenient preference as a result. The second group, the switching layout crowd, is more interested in what happens at a single location. That’s me. I love watching the slow rhythm of a train working an industry and the crew dynamics. You can’t get this with a container training whizzing by at fifty miles per hour. From a railfan standpoint, switching operations give you a much longer “movie” to watch. A mainline train appears on the horizon and then passes by in minutes. End of show. With switching, you can watch a single operation for twenty or thirty minutes…or hours in the case of a yard.
The second consideration when selecting a layout size is resource-related. It’s available time. By virtue of their smaller size, you can bring a switching layout to critical mass more quickly. It’s easier to bring an intense level of focus to them. It’s easier to create a higher quality level of modeling to the table because you aren’t looking down the gun barrel of another thousand square feet of layout that needs attention. Many of the owners of switching layouts I know are successful professionally. Those professions don’t leave a lot of free time. They may have large basements, but they don’t have the time to fill them with layout so they make the wise decision to not bite off something they don’t have the time to work on…or maintain.
Make your layout format decision based on the operational style you prefer and the amount of time you want to allocate to the hobby. Stand by that decision, do good work, and stop apologizing for something that doesn’t need to be apologized for.
Nice summary, Lance, as always. I was always a ‘continuous running’ guy by default because that’s what I thought I liked, until a change of circumstance forced me to go smaller and investigate actual operations. I have to say I’m an evangelistic convert, and having way more fun on a 9 foot long shelf than I ever did with ’roundy roundys’.
Probably depends on your modelling focus too, and as you’ve previously stated, a bit of self awareness goes a long way. Superdetailing stuff is really my bag, which would make a big layout a bit of a nightmare to ever finish.
Here in Australia, we’re in the middle of a housing affordability crisis which is hitting young people pretty hard, to the extent that a lot are questioning whether they’ll ever own a home. Against that background, I do wonder if the obsession with basement empires in parts of the hobby press isn’t rasing the entry bar too high for young modellers, or turning them off either the magazines or the hobby altogether.
Cheers, Tim
Thanks Tim. The issue isn’t so much the size of a layout, it’s the reason for the size. If a modeler’s preference is on the train’s journey from A to B to C to D, then it makes sense to want a longer run. Where people get in trouble is wanting something big for no reason other than they equate large dimensions with a better system. Size and quality are totally unrelated. You see the same psychology with homes.
As usual, you nailed it, Lance. In our NMRA division there seems to be not just two groups, which you described perfectly, but a third: the collectors. They are happy to accumulate shelves full of boxed models with no intent to build a layout. I happen to fall into the switching layout type; I model Jones Island, Milwaukee in the winter of 1970. I have room for much more, in fact I tore down a large, double-decked to build my switching layout, which I really enjoy, not to mention the benefit of far less maintenance! As my old a buddy Curt Baker used to say, “Less is more.”
Good points Mark.
I always enjoy your writing and am finally commenting. You are right, switching and small layout builders get a patronizing pat on our lowered heads in the model press while the big dogs are ready to whip out their rulers again for the latest issue cover layout.
I have an 8′ x 1′ N-scale layout. It is in the living room; I made it look nice with a dimmable LED valence and finished fascia. It represents a small town on the N&W Shenandoah line. It has six switches. I made a mimic N&W switch/car list. I fill it out with set-outs and pick ups, and get to work. It is about 30-45 min of pleasure. I stop to let a brakeman get off or on at a switch. I don’t care how many moves it takes. The layout has no hidden track. I see all the cars and my one engine. I don’t wonder where my train is in the helix or what track it is on in staging. I won’t get yelled at during an intense operating session if I miss a meet or something. Plus it is all code 40 with a growing collection of 3D printed structures I design and print. I stuffed a large keep-alive in the loco so it and the fun never ever stalls. I can do all this in my limited modeling time because the scope is reasonable but remains very rewarding in multiple facets.
I think that once people (Americans?) get the bug that bigger is better things are never big enough. Then frustration and dissatisfaction sets in. Lance, you are one of the few to help modelers learn to relish the simple act of dropping one car on a spur. I grew up close to a NY,NH&H/PC/CR/PVRR branch. I would run over to watch them service a single customer, one siding, 1-3 cars to pull and set out. It took four men an hour or more. Relatives lived next to the B&A/NYC/PC/CR main line. Double track, 100 car trains. That’s what I wanted to model as I grew up, likely influenced by the massive track plans in MR and RMC. But I have never been more satisfied than with my current layout. Please keep spreading the word of what is possible and attainable!
Thanks, John