Marty, Get real column

One thing you left out of an otherwise great column, Marty, I turned 80 last November and have since come to realize that I have to acknowledge the dwindling time and energy ahead of me. I am in the middle of a layout that in all probability I will never finish! A sobering fact to face. I still enjoy what I am doing as I jump between trackwork, electrical, and scenery, and in the long view, that is what counts.

I am also helping on a project group that is building Central Vermont in Northern California, which for me is a long learning curve in both Geology and Geography. Fascinating and most enjoyable. Regards, John Colley, Sonoma, CA

Welcome back Marty

It's good to see your byline again. Missed your commentary. It's funny how as we grow older, our focus changes. Some things that were very important become relatively insignificant! I love in an area that is pretty much a model railroading blackout. The last full service model railroad focused hobby shop, 75 miles from my house, closed more than 15 years ago. A couple of others, that I have patronized, attempted to open, but closed in less than two years. I now find my itemd, like my magazine, on the internet. I do my model railroading alone since my brother died, so I have long refocused on small, limited concept layouts. I enjoy what used to be called period layouts, from the 1880 to 1900 era, because of small equipment and scratch detailing. Operations are a lot more laid back and achievable for one petson. I think over the years, a lot of us have refocused what we want from modeling.

Marty good to see you back. I

Marty good to see you back. I enjoyed the layout you were building. The area modeled was not one I would have picked but that just means we like different things. I think the guys in my club would be great to have over for operating sessions so I would not need to worry about enjoying their visits and doing ops. We will be doing that on the club layout as things continue to advance.

Now I sure can understand that you may not be so caught up in ops that you can think of nothing else. I am the same way. I like building things. I build things in all shapes and sizes from large and small kits to actual buildings that are 12 inches to the foot scale.

But sometimes like today I just want to run a train over the layouts main line and switch it into the yard when done. So I coupled up a train of around a hundred cars and headed out on the layout with it. I sat on a stool with the throttle hanging in the holder while this train ran for a couple of hours and I drank ice tea. It was very relaxing.

So here is one of the few spots where one can see a hundred car train (both ends) and yes this is a run by photo not a stop and shoot.

So by all means Marty build another great layout to share with the rest of us via the web and your friends that come over to visit. Regardless of how you decide it should be done I am confident that the rest of us will enjoy your work.

Nice Column

Enjoyed reading your column and “get where you are coming from.”   

Learned early that a large layout does not necessairly mean an enjoyable layout.   Just moved into a new house and while I could have had a large model railroad space built, decided against it.  I find a small to moderate sized layout is the perfect size for me.  

By the way, I am convinced there is a some type of space-time phenomena that makes trees slowly disappear on layouts almost as fast as they are installed!

Joe

Very valid points

I think it is a very valid point that the basement does not need to be filled with benchwork.  Also we are not all set up to host a large group of operators.  Your points fit in very well with Joe's TOMA approach.  Sometimes NOT having the signature scene of a particular road is a benefit and a simple branch line will suffice.

Robert

Ain’t that the truth . .

As with all hobbies they are or can be time consuming. We all tend to bite off more than we can chew.. Years ago a friend and I indulge in a HO layout. He was still working and I was just enjoying life. I did most of the table and track work, and he did many structures for our layout.  What fun it was.

But I needed to get back to work, for my money was running out. The company I worked for moved and I moved with it. I finally retired, and after several years I’ve dedicated myself to build a new layout. I’ve turned to N scale so that i’d have the “acreage”. It is a challenge at times, but i’m loving it.

Central Vermont in Northern California

Hi John, 

One thing I seriously considered with this new layout was doing something completely different - a new era, locale, or prototype inspiration. In the end I coupled the practical issues of time/already completed models and decided that for now, another CV layout - emphasizing a different section of the railroad - made the most sense. 

I'm well aware of the Northern California CV layout project - and have been helping them with research whenever I can. I only hope to be able to see the thing one of these days!

Take care, and thanks for the kind words, 

Marty

Rather than answering each post

I'll simply say "Thanks" to all of you. 

I'm glad to be able to contribute to MRH again, and appreciate the welcome back comments and emails. 

I'll say the new layout is not small (you can find the track plan - at least at it currently sits - on my blog), but it is very simple. 

I contracted with my good friend (and fellow MRH contributor) Lance Mindheim to design the layout. It was an eye-opening experience - and involved me carefully considering what I really wanted out of the layout and the reality of being able to achieve those ideas. 

A more detailed and in-depth look at the design process may show up in a future GR column, but frankly I am not sure it would be of interest to many readers.  

Regards, 

Marty 

Don't Knock Analysis Paralysis

Analysis Paralysis…  That term gets tossed around like it’s a bad thing.  A really bad thing.  And we all know the advice… “Just do something… anything.  That’s better than doing nothing.”  I say horse hockey.  Think of the plethora of modelers who didn’t do a very good job of analyzing their interests and capabilities – and the next thing we know their project gets the axe.  In Marty's case it would seem his ill-fated upper deck was the early indication more analysis paralysis during the design phase was necessary.

Starting with a very small layout (or layouts) in order to craft your end-goal is infinitely better advice than “Just do something… anything”.  The latter often leads to a prolific (that is to say, expensive), sour-tasting lesson.

Starting small

Yes, and that's why we're a proponent of TOMA (The One Module Approach) -- it can allow you to have your cake and eat it too -- you can start small, but it's something that can grow.

There's also the concept of a "chainsaw" layout -- building something small with the idea that you can use it as a learning platform and then take all your mistakes (now that you know better) and throw them away at the end.

I think the "chainsaw layout" is where the "just do anything" crowd are actually coming from -- if you wait until you can imagine perfection (especially when you have no "on the job" experience yet), you may be in for a LONG wait.

Instead, get started on the learning path by actually doing something so you get that much-needed experience -- and call it a chainsaw project up front.

Your Analysis/Paralysis

Your Analysis/Paralysis comment sent me back to the column to see where I'd used those words - I don't see it so I'm a little confused by where you were going with your comment!

In fairness, anyone who knows me will tell you I probably fall a little more on the "learn by doing" side of the coin. And yes, one of the things I took away from the last layout was to be a little more dilligent about planning things and then learn to live with those things rather than constantly searching for the elusive "perfect" trackplan, operating scheme, or whatever.  

What you're talking about (I think) when you say I needed more Analysis/Paralysis is either sequentially expanding/building a layout, or spending more time designing before starting construction. I don't think of either of those as "Analysis-Paralysis."

In my mind Analysis-Paralysis is what happens to some model railroaders I know who spend endless months/years engaged in dithering and stressing over minutia and never actually get around to ever doing anything. "Thinking about planning to start planning" is perhaps an apt description. 

I didn't go into the whys of the multi-deck version of the layout in detail, but essentially I thought it would be an interesting exercise to try and build one since I'd never tried it and all the other kids were doing it. Frankly everything about it, the track plan, decks heights, etc... were fine - not perfect but no additional analysis paralysis was going to do anything to show me if (1) I could build the thing and (2) if I'd truly like it.

In the end I simply didn't like how the thing looked in the space. It was missing the mark, so I adjusted fire. No big loss in anything other than a few months of time and some lumber. 

As always, thanks for the thoughts!

Regards, 

Marty

PS I know it's not one of the "requirements" of the forum, but as a rule I really prefer to know whom I'm communicating with by a name other than a forum ID. 

"Chainsaw" ... nah

Joe, 

Though I'm thinking of the new railroad as a "chainsaw" layout one of the first parameters I identified was the layout's lifespan and the timeline for completion.

Everything about the new layout is planned around realistic considerations for my life at this point. That's why it's a branchline and not a multi-track mainline. At the same time, I want the finished layout to look appropriate in the space and not a constant mess.

I won't go into all the details but after a lot of thought I came up with a an estimate of two years to complete the "infrastructure" (benchwork/track/wiring), with several more years to complete structures and details. Meaning the layout will be complete at about the 4-6 year mark. 

At that point I hope for the layout to be "complete."

As far as the layout's lifespan I'm figuring on a decision point in approximately 8 years - which is coincidentally the time we plan to retire from working full time. 

At that juncture we'll decide to either stay put (our preference) and the layout will remain or I will remove it and start a new "retirement" project.

joef There's also the

Joe, I get your point, but I truly wonder how many people have the money/time/wife's permission to actually tear out what they did and start all over again.

In my own case, one end of the layout, I think, looks way better than the other, as I started on one end and learned as I went (though the entire process was really about a 2-year timeframe).

Frankly, I've never understood how the people who build a layout over time then immediately destroy it and start over get the time and money to do so. Most can't be married (or happily so, anyway). Simply put, my wife would cut off part of my anatomy that I'd like to keep if I told her I was scrapping my layout and starting all over again. Too much research, time, money, cursing went into the finished product to do that.

But then again, the initial build wasn't the part I enjoyed; it's the tweaking with (and adding detail to) what I have, that I enjoy.

Answering Marty

My post wasn’t a response to your article per se, rather I was opinionating after seeing yet another interest-garnering layout face-down in the dumpster.  I perhaps should have started a separate thread, and I apologize for the resulting confusion, but to me the connection seemed reasonable.

Regardless of whatever the true meaning of “analysis paralysis” might be, the context I chose was to impart that analysis deserves due diligence, even at the expense of [temporary] paralysis.  No one gets it perfect, and as you say minutia should be dealt with later, but with all due respect to those who didn’t get it right – a lot of time and treasure have been chased after inadequate analysis.  Or put another way (again using my context)… not enough paralysis.

Bill

Bill, Thanks for clarifying

Bill, Thanks for clarifying that. 

Perhaps the article didn't make it clear enough but I should point out the reason the layout ended up in the dumpster was simply because we moved! 

Marty

A few comments

First of all I want to thank Marty for taking the time to write the article. 

People like Marty and many of the other contributers to MRH are such a vital part of the hobby. 

Marty you have a great layout, and I really enjoyed your video on TMTV. 

With that said, Marty gave us a look at his layout and what works for him, nowhere did he state that its his way or the high way. I think today we are living in such a tribal society we have to make and opinion and then try to convert everybody to our side.  No one layout is perfect for everybody, and in the end we should do what works best for us... What does that mean, learn from all the articles, learn from all the videos, learn from all the magazines, and learn from the forums.. Then build what you want, our job is not to convince others to do what we want them to do, its to help them do what they want to do.   In the end our goal should all be the same, lets make the hobby the best we can for everybody. 

Frankly, I've never

Lee,

That's quite the leap of logic there. To equate tearing up a layout with a presumption of being unhappily married. I need to show that to my bride of almost 25 years! 

More to the point I still read the classic "wife won't let me" comments from various modelers. I've known my share of golf widows/fishing widows and yes, model railroad widows. (come to think of it, I mostly know the golfers/fishermen and model railroaders - and typically don't know the widows so well.) I could tell some stories of photo shoots for articles - most typically when I was on the CTT staff, of some truly ugly scenes that I witnessed between hobbyists and their spouses!

Chainsaw layouts and layout rip-and-replace

Yes, that is quite a leap. I would never equate hobby satisfaction to marriage happiness ...

When I'm thinking "chainsaw" layout, I'm thinking a test bed that's just large enough to test concepts and learn on -- and I'm also thinking a few years project at most. I'm certainly not thinking a decade plus basement filling "chainsaw".

Your comments also could be seen as applying to me as I rip out Siskiyou Line 1 and start over with Siskiyou Line 2. Frankly, at 26 years old, SL1 was getting long in the tooth and as time wore on, I found more nagging issues with it. Also, since my wife and I want to relocate out of suburbia, the layout obviously won't make the move.

The way I looked at it, I had 26 years of fun and enjoyment out of the layout, I felt it had accomplished what it was designed to do. The idea of starting over fresh and applying 26 years of learning to a new layout using the same exact era and theme excited me far more than continuing to work on a dumpster fodder layout that had done its job.

A hobby is all about fun, right? Sometimes, a fresh start rekindles your hobby interest rather than quenching it, which is certainly true in my case -- and it sounds like the same is true for Marty.

joef Frankly, I've never

Joe, you and Marty must know some very permissive women married to such people in the hobby, then. i sure don't.

Most of the wives married to people I know in the hobby would not at all deal well with their husbands coming in a week after completing a layout, saying, "I'm bored. I'm going to tear it all apart, throw it in the dumpster, and start all over again." Doubly so, if they've done that before. Triply so, if they aren't very well off financially.

My wife would kill me outright if I did that. I have no doubt of that.

I'm not talking about someone having to move. Few wives would have a problem with that, especially if said layout wasn't built to be moved. I'm talking about the people who'll build a layout, then soon afterward it's all in the dumpster and the guy is going at it again from scratch. I've known a few guys who did that over the years. None of them were married.

We live in far too much of a disposable society as it is, and I'm more than a little turned off by the idea of, "Not exactly what you wanted? Break out the saws and start from the beginning!" in regards to this hobby. No layout is ever going to be exactly what you had in mind. I'm sure even John Allen, every now and then, would look over the now-fabled G&D layout and think, "Yeah, but I was hoping for something better than this..."

That's not it at all

That's not it at all.

You're talking about someone who is fickle and shows little consideration for their life partner -- and of course they should get their ears boxed but good if they treat any major investment rashly without thorough dialog with their life mate first.

That's not what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about a carefully considered, discussed and agreed upon way forward with your life partner. My wife is included in all my major layout plan discussions. Her opinion matters and I won't make any major decisions without her agreeing.

When it comes to a "chainsaw" layout, you go into the project knowing it's a test bed learning project with mistakes and major screw ups quite likely. But that's okay, it's planned to be something you ultimately chalk up to experience and throw in the dumpster. Again, it's carefully planned, not some split-second wild hair.

I must hang with the wrong social circles...

Joe, I get your point but you seem to know men who are in better positions within their marriages than I do.

I don't know anyone in the hobby (or any other hobby) who's in a position where anything is open to testing, other than on something very cheap, that they'd be willing to tell the wife about.

Wive's and our hobby

Makes me appreciate how lucky I am

 Lee, 

That's pretty depressing and makes me appreciate how lucky I am. 

To get this back somewhat to the subject of the column - I wrote that we went back and forth about moving for close to a year. Although she really wanted to move, most of that year was because Christine didn't want to make me disassemble the layout. Not because of the cost of the material in dollars, but because she knew I'd poured a lot of creative energy into it. For my part, after close to a decade (yes, it's been about that long since I tore off the upper level!), I had come to the realization that simpler is better for our current life/work situation.

Everything about moving into the new house has been a joint decision - and encompasses many more considerations beyond the trains.  

Now to take us off the topic of the column again.....

Craig wrote:

I won't get into the approach we use to our manage our household finances, except to say we're quite open and honest with each other about money and where it's spent. It's also our money and not my money or her money. We used to establish and track the budget several times a month - we don't need to be quite so obsessive about it anymore but we still devote an hour after dinner every couple of months to review in some detail where the money has gone, and come up with a plan for where we'd like it to go in the future. And yes, "model railroading" is a line item in the budget just like any other. 

Longer ago than I care to remember, Joe and I both shared how we approached affording the time, money etc... to build a layout on some such list or another (it may have been the LDSIG email list). As I recall, Joe and I independently mentioned for our hobby finances we used an approach similar to Craig's. 

I have my hobby/fun money, she has hers. Larger expenses - such as that fancy new sewing machine or a DCC system - represent a "major" household purchase and certainly require a discussion and formulating a plan. 

I think where some model railroaders run into trouble is with the "sneak another locomotive into the house" syndrome where they feel the need to hide how much they're spending on this stuff from their partner. I guess some engage in such antics - I've never had the need to!

Well said Marty. Having one

Well said Marty. Having one spouse lord it over the other is never a good thing, working as a team is much better.