Horrible discovery about the cost of the hobby!

[doctorwayne]

The comment about the practice of running trains around the walls is especially interesting, however, as it is not the most efficient use of all that space. It actually wastes the majority of it.

Which style of layout is best for a room is a function of both room size and room shape. You could put a 4'x8' layout in the centre of a 9'x13' room, leaving a 30" aisle around its perimeter, or build an around-the-room style layout 30" wide. Both offer adequate aisle width and easy "reachability" of all areas of the layout. However, the around-the-room layout offers 85 square feet of railroading, as opposed to the 32 square feet of the island-style 4'x8'. As an added bonus, you'll get wider radius curves and a longer mainline run, too.
My own layout room is approximately 560 square feet but, as you can see below, is a very odd shape:
[album]375[/album]

Aisles consume about 195 sq.ft., leaving only 365 sq.ft. for the actual layout. By double-decking the areas in grey, though, I can gain an extra 150 sq.ft. of layout, resulting in approximately 500 sq.ft. of layout in a 560 sq.ft. room, and still with adequate aisle widths.

I would imagine that the most efficient use of space is the "mushroom" multi-level layout, although the complexity of construction and wiring is something I would not attempt myself, nor would it suit my kind of modeling.

Yeah, the "mushroom" design does offer some advantages, but, in addition to the complexity, it seems that it would also be more expensive to build, even when compared to a double-decked layout.

I am considering changing my layout concept to a multi-lobular layout in the center of the room with no point being any farther than arm's reach except the mountains, perhaps. this would allow a much more efficient use of space for me, with the scenery effectively dividing the layout into "views" and trains to easily travel into hidden staging areas without the need to be so sneaky disguising the entrances. It also means I would only have to model one really good central mountain group, instead of an entire range of them!

This sounds like it might be a good option to deal with the problems which you list below. My only concern would be with minimum radius, although if the room is spacious enough, they could be fairly generous, yet still leave the majority of the layout within arm;s reach. Definitely do-able in N scale, I would think.

It would also solve the eternal problem of doors, windows and closets, since my layout space has an outside patio door, an inside standard door, a pocket door and a large folding walk-in closet door, plus a window. Working around all of that along the walls, and necessarily limiting my width to arm's reach as well, has become something of a planning nightmare, while the alternate concept seems much more workable.

Comments and first-hand knowledge more than welcome.

Yeah, windows and doors are a big concern for any layout. While there's nothing like natural light, it's not very reliable (around here, it seems to disappear for most of the winter) I purposely had my basement constructed with a window only in the laundry room, and then only at my wife's insistence. This not only lets me control the lighting, but it also prevents prying eyes from seeing if there's anything to steal or vandalise. Access into any layout room makes one door (or a stairway or access hatch) a necessary evil, but it's best to minimise any such other distractions, if possible. My layout room door was installed so that it swings out (not into the room), and a simple lift-out makes access easy. With no windows, the backdrop can be continuous and permanent.

Wayne