I thought you and I could have some fun with issues around layout design. I know I enjoy learning more and researching layout design thinking and I’m betting most of you do to. So from time to time, I will be starting a thread around a certain issue that I find interesting or I think will be helpful for others. Not all issues I present will be earth shattering, some will be presented because I enjoyed learning about it and thought others would as well. Other issues will be playful or though provoking. This the first layout design issue is around calculating how efficiently you have used your layout space using a simple mathematical calculation I could even do. This concept was inspired by an article in the Layout Design Journal Fall of 1998 called – “Layout Planning through Analysis” by Joe Fugate. By using simple math you can figure out how optimized your floor space is. The original idea was that magazines would standardize their layout evaluations based on criteria from Joe’s article, which was a more recent update to an article by Dr. Roy Dohn in the 1968 MR (June), called “Layout Plans by Analysis.” Needless to say the ideas were so good no one used them. I won’t presenting the entire article here, but over a few threads I will try and hit all the analytical criteria proposed. First, let me say that I realize that how “optimal” a modeler uses his layout space, is no guarantee of how good layout it will be, but still it is fun to compare and see what some of the greats have done. Joe looks at four layouts, two 4 by 8 plans (Soo Redwing Division 12/94 MR and the Alkali Central 12/95 MR), Joe’s own layout (Siskiyou) and a design by John Armstrong (a multi-decked layout that was partially built then torn down). First calculate in square feet your room area. Next, calculate your layout area. Finally, by seeing what percentage of your room area, your layout is, you will have a feel for how efficient a layout is in optimizing space. If you take the two 4 by 8 layouts, the room area was estimated at 92 square feet, and the layout size was 32 square feet (8X4), so they both were 32 % of the room space. Joe’s layout (Siskiyou) room was estimated to be 810 square feet and the layout was 689 square feet, so it was 85% effective at optimizing the room. The last layout designed by John Armstrong was 105% optimal – not bad. But how did he do that, well by using more than one deck. So the room square footage was estimated at 695 square feet and the layout was 706 square feet, and hence the overage of 100%. (105 %). This statistic points out something we all know, that 4 by 8’s aren’t very efficient. So now you can calculate how efficient your space is in relationship to the layout. You’re not competing against anyone, your just figuring out how well you used the space.
Now here is an interesting endeavor.I have to ask though because i see some potential variables. An entire basement is a room yet for most,filling this would be near to impossible so, do you figure the square area of say 12x12 room and the percentage of track within?? Or, in my situation, a bedroom which has a questionable area as far as usability due to a valley in a roof,an entry door etc.The valley area has been turned into a workbench area which could be kept much lower than benchwork.If i were to figure entire room area I come in about 69% efficient while if i figue usable benchwork area i come in around 92%. Now, If i add an under the layout Hidden staging area,does this constitute additional Square footage??This would bring the figure to a bit higher percentage. I agree that this percentage doesnt mean your track plan is efficient just your use of space. By the way, thanks for posting over in MR's forum, It led me to this site which is such a far cry above thiers .In comparison,they have a module while the whole basement here is full and running several divisions
Tileguy, I'm glad you are enjoying Trainboard. Hoss, There is nothing wrong with your percentage if that was your goal. If your goal was to get as much layout in as the room could reasonably handle, it may have not met that goal. But if your goal was to produce a layout that size, then you have met your goal admirably. Like I said, it isn't a contest for the "optimal layout bragging rights" title. What it does is provide a tool for you to compare what you want with others who have a comparable size room size, and how they utilized their space. I think it was hoped by Joe that you could go to MR or other mags, and that stat would be included. Thus you could see layout designs that met your percentage of room utilization goal. Some like me want to use the space as efficiently as possible, with reasonable aisle width, so the statistic is some what relevant. Others have other criteria that determines space utilization - and that's okay too.
If it were me, I'd remove any non-useable space from the calaculation. For instance, in Hoss's case, his Wife's car takes a certain percentage of the space. That space was never ever going to be layout space, so it misleads you when you do the calculation. Measure the ammount of space the care takes up and remove it's square footage from the calculation. That space is irrelevent. What kind of percentage does that generate?
Haveing touched on only one point of Joe's formula I agree it is a good reference tool to have in your tool box. And a good read for all that would venture into layout building. Not only will it give you a very close aproxmation of how much railroad you can get into a specificed area, It will give you a good idea of how many cars and trains you can run, how much time and money you will end up in spending. And we all seem to under estimate that one. If there is a short comming, It is in ergomonics,The movement of people and the comfort in being within the layout room. Most plans desperatly try to cram as much trackage in as possibable and leave barely the mimium isle space with very little thought to where people will naturaly wander and congrate. There have been some books on this matter like Walkaround Layout Plans and others that have touched on this point. We are all starved for more room and we tend to put the trains before the people. I am becomming of the openion that planning for people first will in the long run create more pleasurable layouts to spend time with. It's a matter of thinking, How do I present my creation. And once that image is set, The nuts and bolts fall into place.
This reminds me of John Armstrong. By the standards generally accepted in online forums (36" aisles in most places on a multi-operator layout), practically all Armstrong plans fail. His aisles, typically 24"-30" for long distances, can't really handle larger crews. Despite all his discussion of baalncing track and scenery, his plans often stil look track-heavy. It took me a while to realize why: he favors once-through-the-scene, but also narrow shelves. His plans don't give much room for the railroad to have an environment. A "scenically sincere" layout can still be track-heavy where it shouldn't.
I only have one wall in my train space, so an around-the-walls design is out of the question, but I'm moving towards David Barrow's minimalist approach -- 30 - 36" wide aisles & 18" - 24" wide "dominos". Version 1.0 of my railroad model in the current space was a 132sf folded, twisted, double-track semi-dogbone spaghetti bowl with very little switching. The current configuration ("version 2") is a "doughnut" with 100sf of layout "surface area" that is still very heavy on the continuous running, although more "scenically pure". The next iteration ("version 3"), on the drawing board right now, will be an 82sf walk-around point-to-point operations-oriented design (with an optional drop-in "domino" for continuous running for when visitors show up). By Version 3, I will have reduced the "table space" by 40%, the number of structures by 50%, and the linear footage of track by 65%. Yet I'm confident that Version 3 will be the most enjoyable of the three versions I will have built because the trains will have a purpose, even if occasionally they run around the perimeter a few times as they drop off and pick up cars. This approach may not be everyone's cup of tea, but for me, less truly is more. Given my limited time available for railroad modeling, the more likely it is that I will get something done! ;-)
We have a large living room (apratment so the bedroom space is taken). I found a corner with some space available 3' x 5'. So I filled that entire 3' x 5' with the bench....I think I have used 100% of my space Not much on the board yet, but I planted my flag which will keep the wife from filling that space before I could LOL
What about when your layout is not designed for a specific room. If it's designed to be more or less portable. In that case, my 24"X48" small layout is 100% efficient . However, If I were to place it where I would like it to be permanently displayed then it would be only 10.5% .That's with subtracting the area the furniture takes up.
This sort of calculation is really only applicable when a whole room or at least a large area of one is available. For a portable layout, it's entirely irrelevant.
Link to Joe Fugate's WEB Site Sheldon, Poke your browser over to Joe Fugate's web site and read the entire article. You will soon become aware that it is the method of analysis that is important not any one statistical piece, The article is entitled: "LAYOUT COMPARISON USING STATISTICS" The case for better analysis of layout plans Joe has a lot of interesting information on his web site. I hope you enjoy reading his stuff as much as I have. Incidental, the ratio of the area of my train room floor to bench area is about 48%. I figure that's just about perfect. Jerry
