Marty McGuirk's Layout Journey

Thank you, Marty.  It 's so good to read that someone, that's as talented and experienced as you, could decide not to follow the common ideas of layouts and build what you want.  I wish more would take that attitude.

Great article - 5 stars!

Course correction

An excellent decision!

Marty, thanks for sharing your journey towards finding what you really want in a layout. It can really be gut-wrenching to take out a layout that you and others love. I experienced simialr feelings when I dismantled my N scale layout and switched scales to On30. It's been six years now, but I never looked back.

I applaud your choices to swim against the stream on many of your design decisions...your strategy is a sound one, and the railroad looks like it would be a delight to operate. I share your views of double-level design and hidden staging (although I do love grades) and your 'less is more' design really has produced a distinctive design.

Great to see your thoughts in columns every month in MRH, keep the creative juices flowing...and have fun!

Great Call

That's why I prefer the mushroom

The traditional multideck visual clutter is one big reason I prefer the mushroom. The other big reason for me is on a traditional multideck layout, none of the decks are at optimum height - the layout feels like big one room-filling compromise.

With a mushroom, I get the "more layout in the space" advantages of multi-deck, but the layout does not look multideck. And the raised floor on a mushroom lets me keep the upper deck closer to optimum height off the floor.

But a mushroom requires the ceiling be close to 8 foot and the room width needs to be circa 12 feet or more, otherwise the mushroom configuration won't easily fit.

Great job Marty

I really enjoyed your article Marty.  I remember discussing some of your concerns with you as you were sharing them on the Proto-Layouts list, so it was neat to see the entire process summarized in this way.  I'm glad you found a solution you're happy with.  Looks terrific!

Up

Only if you can tolerate the ceiling being mere inches over your head. You really need 10' or greater ceiling height to make a mushroom work well without imparting a claustrophobic feeling. I guess I wasn't cut out to be a submariner.

Focus

... But a mushroom requires the ceiling be close to 8 foot and the room width...

I personally can tolerate a close ceiling a lot better than I can tolerate none of the  decks being at the right height.

One of the keys I've learned from operating is that once I get engaged in running my model train realistically, I find I zone in so much that I hardly notice much of anything outside the rails and the immediate vicinity of the train.

Different Strokes For Different Folks

No doubt. But what about all the rest of the time? It's probably just me. Low ceilings bug me.

Whack!

Until the cranium makes contact with that beam hanging down from the ceiling!

Charlie

I tend to agree with Alan....

When I visit layouts that have a low ceiling, even when I operate on them, I always felt a tad uncomfortable, believing my head is going to hit the ceiling at any moment, even though there still was a couple inches to spare with nothing hanging down from the ceiling, so there was no real danger at all. 

But we all make compromises to accommodate our Given's and Druther's.  I would only humbly recommend if you are planning on having regular Op-Sessions, and you haven't built the layout yet, to discuss such issues with those you would think would be regular operators to get there input and to at least consider it when designing your model railroad empire.

Ken L

Abandoning what's done so far...

Back to commenting on the actual article...

Marty, I think you made a difficult decision but you're not going to be sorry you did so. The new track plan looks more doable, lacks an evil helix that needs to be negotiated while on the main, will be much easier to light for decent photo ops, and will have better scenic opportunities.

Good job!

Charlie (who at one point was thinking about a proto48 island layout for the basement instead of the BC&SJ)

Would that mean Mr. Fithers would be 1/2 his size then?!

I'm just wondering?!

Ken L.

Thanks Joe,

Although it's been a lot of work to get from "there" to "here" I think it was time and effort well spent. 

Marty

I did look at a mushroom

approach before starting construction of the first layout. A couple of things prevented me from taking that path. 

1. The shape of the layout room - it has a very narrow "neck" in the middle - only a little more than 8 feet wide for about 14 feet of the length of the space. Just seemed a little too narrow to work no matter which mushroom approach I tried. 

2. The basement is completely finished - so the thought of building even more infrastructure in the form of a raised floor was somewhat of a turn off. 

Different strokes, right? 

Marty

Thanks Charlie,

The photo possibilities are already much better (and frankly, easier to deal with) on the revised layout. I'm finding you don't need a "super long" mainline to create a sense of distance. And the prototype was not a "racetrack across the plains" railroad but a mountain railroad, meaning the train speeds are lower. Therefore, even for TT&TO I don't really need a "super long" mainline. 

To rip or not to rip?

No matter the size of an existing railroad, often the decision whether to rip it out and start over hinges on "how long will it take me and how much will it cost me to construct the replacement and do I reasonably have that much time and dinero?"  If the answer to either of those is no, then a rip out and restart doesn't make sense (at least for the contemplated replacement).

But it's also true that if construction is your primary interest in the hobby having time to reach completion wouldn't be a gating factor in the decision to start over.

Marty, I hadn't thought about the lower speeds of your layout due to mountainous terrain and how that makes TT&TO operation easier to implement (definitely a factor on the BC&SJ). I do wonder about how you'll feel regarding a mountain railroad with no grades?

Charlie

Re: A mountain railroad with no grades

I feel great about it when it comes time to switch cars - no more runaways. This isn't "mountain railroading"with helpers being cut in and out etc ,,,,

Sometimes we go down a decision tree in model railroading - if you have grades, you need a way to make sure trains don't start rolling away when you're switching things. You can (1) Make all the towns, and a "train length" stretch of main on either side of town - which in essence is reducing the length of the grades. Or you can (2) increase complexity by coming up with all sorts of clever "hill brakes" and the like. 

Finally, you can rely on scenery to simulate the appearance of the grades without the aforementioned hassles. 

I've chosen the path of least resistance I guess!

A gutsy call

Nice commentary on your

Nice commentary on your thought process, Marty. I imagine I will have to make the same mistake myself before I learn though. The lure of having as much mainline, as many towns, and using all the space efficiently is hard to resist. Every time I sketch a plan that doesn't use all the basement it just pales in comparison to what I can do with those extra few feet of space.

The "J" shaped peninsula is better than the "I" or "L". "h" works even better on paper. But I can't help but wondering as my "J" design leads to partial double decking, if it isn't creating too many challenges in the design to overcome. Course that makes the final product more satisfying in the end, if there is time to get all the work done.

You gave me more to think about. But I am not giving up my N scale, Eric.

Made the change

Great read and a good insight into design decisions!

Thank you Marty for the insight into how you worked with what you have to achieve what you want!  I'm in the early stages of a layout (all in my head at this point) and have second guessed myself so many times I can't remember. I've gone down the road of "if I can just fit that second level in and cram in another turnback, I can get some good operating potential", when in fact I need to work within the constraints of what I have and create a layout that works well within it.  Reading your challenges and decisions really helps focus the questions I need to be asking myself. This is one of many reasons I love MRH; well-written in-depth articles that take the time to work through a concept, not hitting the highlights.  Thank you again!

Thanks for the insights, Marty

This is a great read, Marty. The three layout-planning cardinal rules you advocated in your MRP 2000 article on the SNE -- site, then scale, and then subject -- are exactly how you approached finding your solution this conundrum! And the resulting new layout design looks like a real winner.

Paul Schmidt

Excellent insights

This article should be one of the "mandatory" reads before the first line is put to paper....too many folks, myself included start out trying to see how much can we fit (read cram) into a given space...let's see if I bend that rail just a little maybe I can fit a....you pick the answer...Even the model makers do this with the ads assuring one and all that this new and better behemoth of an engine or cars will in fact negotiate 18 inch curves but would look better on 22 inch track. So with this encouragement we try to squeeze all we can into a given space.

It is so refreshing to see someone who has taken his space into account and is willing to make the adjustments needed, even if in hind sight, to build a more pleasing railroad. You can't please everyone so you might as well please yourself to quote an old song.

Congratulations on following the KISS principle and laying it out so well in this article. I will be giving some serious thought to my planned hidden staging with its problems...more is not always better...Joe