Mushroom layout

Marty,

I'm not sure I agree with your assessment of mushroom layouts. In a well done mushroom layout you shouldn't even be aware that it is a multi-deck layout. The upper level of a mushroom layout should not be any different than a single deck layout with respect to scenic vistas.

Paul's layout didn't offer an true "over the peninsula view", but his town scene was fairly deep and did present an marvelous vista. 

BCK

No double-deck in my trainroom either

Marty,

I share your opinion about multi-deck layouts and vistas, at least in my present situation.  I model the steel industry in a typical Great Lakes town, with a harbor and some huge structures (ore bridge, blast furnace, etc.), and I could never fit all those scenic elements together on a narrow shelf.  And, since a few of my mill structures reach within 18" of the ceiling, having a 2nd deck hovering over them just wouldn't look right IMHO.

What I might end up doing is having a 2nd layer that runs around the walls, while leaving the center area [where my steel mill is located] open.

Each design style has a place and a purpose

This may not be an exact analogy, but just as each artist has his medium of choice, be it oils, watercolor, acrylics, sculpture, clay, iron / metalwork, charcoal, mosaics, or photography, just to name a few. So too does the model railroader have his choice of layout design styles, be it single level vistas, double or triple decked wall bracket benchwork, or multi-level mushroom layouts.

And just as the artist can combine many art mediums into their work, so too can the model railroader in combining the various layout design schema into their modeling empire. Of course the main limiting factor is most commonly space considerations, and to overcome that typically the multi-level or mushroom helps to resolve those space issues, but you do have to give up the big espanse views in some respects.

Getting the right balance in design schema for a given space is not only a skill but an art!

You can get vistas on a mushroom

I have some nice vistas on my HO Siskiyou Line - they're seen by turning to the right or to the left in various places on the layout. I'll have to get get out the camera and post a few of them on here.

Because my layout uses the long serpentine peninsula philosophy (done to minimize space-eating turnback loops - also known as "blobs"), you can stand in certain locations and look down the deck for 40 feet at hills, valleys and bridges - it's a pretty cool long-range vista effect.

Because the mushroom LOOKS single deck, these nice vistas exist linearly along the layout just as Bernie suggests. And if the benchwork twists and winds as mine does, those vistas look pretty cool!

Traditional multideck visual clutter prevents even linear vistas from being very effective as you look up and down the aisles of a walkaround design. Rick Fortin's layout comes to mind - it's roughly the same size as my layout but uses a traditional double deck design. I've operated on Rick's layout several times and I don't get that same "vista" effect that I have on my layout.

So you can get nice vistas on a mushroom layout because visually it looks single deck.

Vistas are cool but

Vistas are cool but I've sought to divide my railroad into sequences of vignettes (although in certain places you can look down the benchwork and see a vista-like effect.

On the longest wall of my layout (about 60') the mainline crosses a creek on (what will eventually be) a steel trestle, dives through a short tunnel emerging into an area of cliffside running, crosses a high valley on another trestle, another (longer) tunnel, then emerges into the lower (then upper) Roberts Creek area before coming though a cut and into Oakhill where it passes the log loading spur, goes through another cut and comes out by the depot, wye, and gravel quarry.

The bridges, tunnels, and cuts divide up the space making an already longish run seem even longer. Basically a series of mini-scenes that I tried make flow together. Individually they're kind of vignettes, together there are some vista viewing opportunities (although the vistas are more like a slice of a vista rather than a sweep panorama).

One thing I did in the Roberts creek area was to put high scenery to the rear (disguising the wall). But I also put relatively high scenery on the aisle side. This area is already fairly high up so you need to peer at the track (unless you're standing on a stepstool) through a series of scenic view points. The view points are where Roberts Creek and it's tributaries wind on and off of the benchwork and into the imginary terrain in the aisle. The result is (well - will be when the scenery up there gets done) a series of views of the track as though you were hiking in the hill and mountains surrounding the area. In effect turning it into a series of mini-vistas.

Another priority that had to be set was the see everything from everywhere vista vs. the don't let the operators see the next town making it more 'exciting' to head off down the track to the next town - if the DS or crew blew it there may be an unexpected headlight waiting for them). A thing Tony the K refers to as having some 'skin' in the operations game (as opposed to running on smoke signals).

This area is in a traditional double-deck portion of the railroad (with Redland in the land-down-under) but one needs to stand relatively close to the benchwork to get the good views of the scenery in the Roberts Creek area so I find I don't notice the fact that there is a subterranian culture of strange troglodytes with trains beneath.

Is it as good a vista as the Caliente area of the San Diego Model Railroad club and the trackage coming and going from it? Well no, not actually I suppose, but then I don't have a 5000 sqft train room either. When I designed the track and scenery for the area I was thinking "How do I fit in enough mainline to make for an interesting single track operation with resorting to non-sincerity (having the same route pass through a scene more than once)".

There's a panorama of the entire Bear Creek and South Jackson at s145079212.onlinehome.us/rr/bcsj3/construct080726/constr_080726_01.htm check out the area from Canyon Creek to Oakhill.

So compromises had to be made.

Cheers,

Charlie

Railroads are linear

It is a personal choice, but I'm not a "Big Vista View" person desiring a big rectangular layout.  Seeing trains loop around seemingly random in and out of tunnels, crossing parallel bridges, and so on is disconcerting and "toy-like."  Railroads are linear, so layout scenes with linear views are more satisfying, as when looking down a peninsula or shelf.  There is a sense that the layout represents a no-nonsense railroad going somewhere.

Linear and vista not mutually exclusive

I think you can still have a sincere linear design and still have nice scenic vistas. It just means committing some space here and there on a layout to provide depth to some scenes. Lance Mindheim's Monon layout pops to mind. You could also be creative in where you allow the rest of the layout in the view.

This is something I have to give some thought to as I start work on the next layout's design. I have been a big fan of breaking up the layout into individual scenes, something I tried to do on my little practice layout. I still think thats a good idea, but there is something to be said for having some spots where the rest of the layout becomes the backdrop or provides depth for a scene in an otherwise linear layout.

Chris

referenced layout: http://www.monon.org/mindheim.html

Sample vista from the Siskiyou Line

Here's a sample vista from the upper deck of my HO Siskiyou Line (a mushroom benchwork configuration):

From the track in the lower right corner to the end of the train disappearing off to the upper left is perhaps 25 feet. Even with the unfinished scenery in the background, this vista makes for an interesting scene with lots of apparent depth.

From fascia to backdrop, this scene averages 30 inches deep along the entire run, and the river under the bridge meanders around a bend under the bridge to become parallel to the back drop for 6 feet and then disappears around another bend into the backdrop right where the trees end along the backdrop. The total run of the river is maybe 8 feet - a significant distance for a HO model river.

Even though the Siskiyou Line is a linear "shelf" layout, the mushroom configuration enables visually pure lengthy vistas along the layout's meandering right of way. I have other such vistas - I'll post them in other posts later on.

 In the classic "mushroom"

In the classic "mushroom" design the upper level have a backdrop as well as the lower level, so when you're looking at the "lower deck" of the mushroom you see the rear of the upper level backdrop - otherwise you'd be able to see the upper deck from the lower deck. Correct?

I understand in the plan we've been working for my basement the lower deck would be on the side opposite the entry to the room so the "vista" would still be preserved - at least partially. 

 Don't equate "vista" style

Don't equate "vista" style layouts with spaghetti bowls - one of the reasons I detest the term "sincere" when describing the serpentine-style narrow shelf layouts is the way that implies any other kind of layout is somehow "insincere."

Somewhere I have a photo of Dick Elwell's new layout (see Great Model Railroads 2008) that shows the vista I'm talking about. The closest I can find is this view is one of the old layout, with my good friend Dave Frary taking some photos. Since it's not my photo I don't want to paste it here, but you can find it at 

http://hoosacvalley.com/album/details.php?image_id=84

Dave is in the aisle, but you can see how Dick has arranged the hills and buildings to create a vista of the New England countryside. And the mainline is quite logical and looks a lot like New England railroads (where the railroads did frequently cross, and re-cross one another at grade and on bridges). 

Marty

Vistas are easier in N scale

 Chris, agree with you about the wonderful vistas on Lance's old Monon layout - I remember well seeing those photos and rushing them in to show Andy Sperandeo who was wondering where we'd find a nice N scale layout to feature in MR. 

But that "deep" scene in N scale you're thinking off was about 2-3 feet deep if I recall correctly - to get the same effect in HO you'd need 4-6 feet in depth. 

One of my favorite scenes on my first SNE layout was in Chagford - it was the MRP 2000 cover scene. That scene, was about 5 feet from fascia to backdrop - which gave lots of room for scenery and structures behind the track as well as in front.

Marty 

 Ah, "skin in the game" -

Ah, "skin in the game" - love the phrase - and I see Tony's point, but I don't think TT&TO operations requires (1) a super long (I think 10 scale miles was the minimum until Tony got "only" 8 or so onto the NKP and that seems to work) OR (2) Track running on narrow shelves divided up by backdrops. 

Unless you're completely oblivious to your surroundings you can tell when someone is around the bend, so this idea of not knowing what's around the corner doesn't recreate any feeling of railroad "jobs" - nor does it make a lot of sense. 

We frequently operated Paul Dolko's B&M layout using TT&TO rules with a total mainline - including staging yards - of less than one scale mile. And yes, Paul had one backdrop on his only peninsula but its purpose was scenic and not to isolate operators from knowing what was around the corner. 

Paul's mainline was a little short - and we frequently had to watch out for trains in Town A fouling up things in Town B - but he had a waiting list for operators, and frequent out--of-towners, including the big guns of TT&TO - proving that although it's okay to have one of those linear isolated layouts to enjoy TT&TO ops, it isn't a requirement. 

Marty

Vista and Sincerity

Ok Marty, "sincere" is a bit perjorative to those who don't have it. What would you personally like to call such a design.

And those layouts that were until recently referred to as being "sincere" don't have to be serpentine or narrow shelf. A layout built in the 2 mile long stanford linear accelerator building with 10,000' of 30' wide benchwork would also meet the requirements for that style of layout (but for most mortals such a layout is rather impractical physically and costwise).

Issues facing the vista-style layout designer would seem to include walk-around operation (if that is desired) without duckunders or races around peninsulae and a tendency to pack a whole lot of stuff into a small space. A 30'x30' room is only 1/2 mile square in HO. Having everything visible at once may give a feeling a bit like being in Disneyland. In N scale the problem is only half as difficult but still there. Normally one wouldn't find 4 or 5 towns in a 1 square mile area. (not to say that nearly any style of model RR doesn't also suffer from compression issues).

Regards,

Charlie

I will dig that article up

I will dig that article up tonight. I keep the MRPs handy in the bedroom library! I really liked that N scale Central Vermont plan you never built. I think that someone standing in the aisle at Waterbury would get a fabulous "vista" looking toward "Slip Hill" and Summit. I am going to try for a similar effect on the inside of the C formed by my current projected "next layout" which will hopefully be the summit between Lyndonville and Orleans Vermont. It goes to example of how to build a layout with relatively shallow scenes to still create vistas similar to what Joe did below.

I think you could still build in Monon style foreground, you would just have to be creative in providing access. I take your point about the relative challenges depending on scale.

Chris

Challenge hiding backstage looking the long way

Thats a great scene! However, even on my small layout, I have found it a challenge to screen the viewer from the "behind the scenes" benchwork and lighting when they look down the long axis of the layout. I was actually pondering blocking those views on the next layout with a backdrop. I like the long view as shown above but am not sure how to keep it from being spoiled by non-model stuff intruding in the view.

Chris

"backstage" is a real

"backstage" is a real problem. But something I've observed in some photographs can come into play here. If the foreground stuff is interesting enough and draws in the eye of the viewer then their brain (and visual processing) will linger longer on the points of interest before wandering off to see what else there is to look at.

This applies to crews walking along with their trains not really noticing that the world comes to an abrupt end a short distance in front of and behind their train - they're busy looking at the train itsefl.

In the picture Marty posted showing the New England Vista the overall effect keeps the mind from dwelling on all those pesky aisles.

Use the scenery to direct the viewers eyes to the points of interest. But, this only works to a certain extent, having a huge cluttered mess right beyond the layout can be pretty hard to not notice!

FWIW

Charlie

The trend nowadays is to

The trend nowadays is to model all the mundane stuff as well as the cool stuff - and to Minimize selective compression as much as possible because it just produces mickey mouse railroads.

I'm quite opposed to this trend of course, because flat model railroads are...well, Flat!!

mmm---some areas are 'flat'

 And that is where I differ with some people. For example, what is a 'vista'? To me a 'vista' can be looking down a track off to a very distant horizon---Mindheim's 'Monon' layout plays with that idea; 'Vista' a lot---or a close in sort of deal that takes in a 'flat' railyard. Even then, the phrases we use pretty much can determine how we see a layout to be---if a layout is not inspiring it may just well be that the fellow went by the book--ie; did everything right but took the life of the layout out of it---or we maybe having an 'off' day ourselves. I know that a 'vista' on my layout--when I finish with the thing---will be of the 'wide open spaces' out in the plains but---it also does have visual compression.  Even vistas have compression--you cannot avoid it. 

So maybe we could look a little closer at our vistas and enjoy up close/far away as a yin/yang pairing?

Piecing this all together; a few thoughts

So is this right:  We don't really have the two schools:  Big Vista, and Narrow Shelf.  We also have Vignette and East-West Vista and Over the Peninsula North Vista and Scenery Vignette (don't look right, left, or up) and Industrial Steel Complex to the ceiling ...

Sort of sounds like "It's my railroad and my vision and it's what I want to see."

I'm in the throes of figuring out what I want and can do in a 12.46' x 10.46' bedroom, so I haven't, until this thread, really deeply considered the question, "What is it going to look like?"  I've got the proto-freelance decision made, which gives a variety of features and particular locations to represent, but with my space I've spent more time thinking about effective transitions relative to track plan.   

I keep coming back to an amazing observation I made  years ago.

Whit Towers' "Alturus and Lone Pine" used to be a favorite in magazines years ago, and I had looked at one of the photos of his layout many times, always looking at the track, trains, and details.  Then one day I concentrated on the city behind.  The buildings were painted on the backdrop with probably 1/2 inch wide brush strokes, including windows.  Your brain sort of saw it as an out-of-focus background, but you got the correct impression, the "vista".

Cityscapes vs Nature

Most folks associate scenic vistas with nature, but I preferred a cityscape with such things as model skyscrapers, backdrop skyscrapers, a large station and a busy waterfront. I place a lot of importance in the height of the layout. Build the track level too high and you lose the impact of a vista unless you're Yao Ming. I did it in a 13" X 19" foot pod with liftout sections for city blocks.


 

I think I see what marty is

I think I see what marty is talking about on even just the club layout; in taht instance we have an island down the middle of a standard C layout., making it a E layout.  That island is 6-8 feet wide and 20 feet long; the backdrop does not go throughthe canyon area, so everthing to the east of the end of the backdrop is essentially an 8 foot deep scene - and that allows the hills behind the scene, on the outeregde part of the layout behind that, to show up as well.

On this outer edge wall there is a photo backdrop with blue sky.  If you take a picture over this Island, you get a picture that has a photographic depth of no less then 8 feet between you and the outermost horizon.  Due to the design of the layout, you can only see the Narrow guage from this one side of the layout, though as soon as the layout hits the canyon there are two bridges on the narrow guage and two at a lower level on the standard guage .

http://www.sasme.org/html/photos_5.html

The Island is to the lower left in this picture; it isn't the best shot of this area, of course, because the focus is on the rebuilding project. 

Some notesa botu the rebuild project; we put the L-girders on one pair of 2x8 or so Engineered I-beams.  So under the layout there is precisely six 4x4 legs holding it up over the whole 15-20 feet or so.