I’m curious about what deck heights a 3-level layout should have to work.
Are you in HO or N?
In N, if the levels are shallow (not very deep) you can get away with 12 inches seperation + the depth of the lighting and benchwork above. You’re gonna have a hard time pulling off the Rocky Mountains with that height and make it believeable though.
HO, probably more like an 18 inch minimum (maybe 20-24) + the depth of the lighting and benchwork above.
Sorry, I forgot to tell that I’m in HO scale. The decks are no deeper then 24 inch.
electro, deck heights will depend on several factors:
-
How tall is the layout owner? For clubs, what’s the typical range of heights among the members, and if you were to pick a member who you would say is “average”, how tall us he?
-
What’s the average deck width? Narrower decks can be closer together.
-
What’s the average deck separation? You can get more decks in your space if you put them closer together.
-
The farther apart you make the decks, the harder it will be to get the trains between the levels. Long multi-turn helix’s are just awful, swallowing a train for really long periods of time. Avoid using a helix if you can, but if you need a helix, don’t make it have very many tiers – 2-3 tiers is ideal.
With three decks, at the very least, two of the three decks will not be at an optimum height, which will mean you will need to compromise operation (think NO switching). You run the risk that all 3 decks will not be an an optimum height in order to cram them all in.
Personally, I wouldn’t build such a layout because the double-decker I have now (800 square feet) is already plenty of work to build and maintain and still have a life outside the hobby. Still more layout would be too much of a burden for just one guy like me.
But if I were building a tripple decker, I’d consider the lower deck to be no lower than the bottom of my buttocks, and the upper deck to be no higher than my chin. I consider optimum deck height to be the bottom of my *** bone. Each person will need to measure this out for themselves to see what the actual heights turn out to be.
I’m 6’-3", so buttock-bottom height is about 32", brestbone height is about 53", and chin height is about 62".
Mine are set at 60", 40" and 24". Lowest level is usually worked sitting on a roll around short stoll. Pictures on link below.
Ops sessions with up to 20 operators and it works just fine.
I found one picture with 3 levels. Is the deck height 60", 40" and 24" in this picture?
So Larry, some questions:
-
What’s your average deck width, and are all your decks basically the same width or does your deck width vary?
-
Is your entire layout tripple decked, or is the third deck primarily staging? To me decks with only staging don’t qualify as real decks because operators don’t spend a lot of time actually “running trains” on those decks.
-
Do you have step stools for operators to use when doing switching on the upper deck? Or are you blessed with 20 operators all over 6 feet tall so they can see a 60" deck well enough to do switching on it? [swg]
This is my plan so far…
Level 1: Royal Gorge Route
Level 2: Utah Area
Level 3: Moffat Road
Backdrop:
Level 0: Hidden Staging (Denver and Salt Lake City)
As you can see I have three levels. Denver and Salt Lake City is hidden staging. The journey begins in Denver. We can take the Moffat Road or the Royal Gorge Route to Dotsero. From Dotsero we travel the Utah Area to Salt Lake City. There are two helixes, one at each end.
Moffat Road:
We start on level 3, Denver is hidden staging - Big Ten Curves - all tunnels in the tunnel district - Moffat tunnel - Winter Park - Frazer Canyon - Byers Canyon - Gore Canyon (upper and lower) - Bond - To helix and level 2 - Dotsero - Glenwood Canyon - Glenwood Springs - Grand Junction - Green River - Helper - Soldier Summit - Provo, and to Salt Lake City hidden staging.
Royal Gorge Route:
We start on level 1, Denver is hidden staging - Castle Gate - Pueblo - Canon City - Hanging Bridge - Leadville - Salida - Tennessee Pass - Minturn - To helix and level 2 - Dotsero - Glenwood Canyon - Glenwood Springs - Grand Junction - Green River - Helper - Soldier Summit - Provo, and to Salt Lake City hidden staging.
Maybe I can take away one helix, that’s the next thing I will work on.
Here are some pictures showing my layout space. Done in SketchUp 5 on Mac OS X. A very easy to use 3D app.
The Old Dog would suggest building some foot stools. Sit on them when working the lowest level, stand on them when working the highest level.
Have fun
The Old Dog would consider that to be a benefit, not a problem. Many layouts have the problem of having the engine arriving at station B before the caboose leaves station A. A helix can provide the needed distance between stations.
Have fun
You can always add more distance between towns by adding more hidden trackage, but that has its own problems.
-
If you are modeling the prototype, there may not be a good rationale for having hidden trackage between town A and town B.
-
Hidden trackage is just that – HIDDEN. Most model railroaders like the hobby because they like watching trains run. Having lots of hidden trackage between towns is taking things in exactly the wrong direction.
A helix is the ultimate compact construct for jamming a lot of hidden trackage into a given space – and it can get ridiculous in a hurry.
On the LDSIG list, for instance, is a layout design where someone wanted to have part of the layout downstairs and part of the layout upstairs, with a helix that elevates the trains between floors. Sounds like a great idea – until you do the math. An N scale train traveling at a scale 40 mph would take over 30 MINUTES to traverse such a helix.
In theory, yes, adding more distance between towns sounds like a great idea.
Using hidden trackage as a general design philosophy to lengthen runs is generally a bad idea, in my experience.
It makes for really booring layouts that try an operator’s patience and leads to more accidents because the opera
My last layout was a triple decker. Since I didn’t use a helix to get between levels, my decks weren’t set at a constant height.
My lower level started at 36" and climbed to 44".
My second level started at 44" and climbed to 52".
My third level started at 52" and climbed to 58".
The average seperation between decks was 8", with the least amount of seperation being a short stretch of 3", and the most being 11". I found that I could live with 8"-10" of seperation, especially for what the layout gave me: a 3.25 scale mile long mainline in basically a 7’x25’ room. I did find that I preferred working and viewing the middle deck. The lower deck was mostly a big yard, and was 36" for most of it’s elngth. It was worked by a office chair with casters. The upper deck was again mostly even at 54", and was worked standing, with step stools handy if necessary.
I’m designing my next layout now to fit into my new basement, and I’ve got 14x26 available. I’m not sure that I’ll triple deck my next layout: while it will give me almost five scale miles of run (and mainline run is important to me), I really didn’t like the top level: while fun to view and to show off, the fact that it was nose high to me actually reduced my overall enjoyment level of the layout. I feel that 48"-50" is optimum viewing/operating height (and I’m 6’2").
I’m working about a 15 inch difference for my shelf modulars, no deeper than 18 inches. That difference may vary as my ideas work it, but it may work out, but some buildings may be too tall for it.
…duh…multipost, howd I do dat? fixed…
Pardon me there, Electrolove, but I think you’ve got rocks in your head - either that or you’ve spent too much time out in those fierce Scandahoovian winters.
I would think twice before ever even contemplating the building of a double deck layout - I would consult the yellow pages for a good psychiatrist if I ever once looked at a potential layout area and said “hmmmmmmmm!!!Could I get three decks in here???”
(John Armstrong tackled multi-level layouts frequently; Robert Schleicher has several in his [large] book on track plans drawing from layouts theorized in Model Railroading magazine. Multi-level layouts appear to work better in N-Scale than in HO: probably the only 0-Scale multi-level pike I have ever seen was in an RMC in the early to mid-sixties and it was an operation oriented around the walls pike with very little scenery and was essentially an Appalachian (steam powered) coal hauler with a requirement to swap engines every X number of miles. He had at least five turntables (and roundhouses) on this layout - and, if I recall, went around the room four times. It was something typical of 1930’s era modelling where the purpose of a layout was to show off your equipment and hence, your machinist skills!!! It did that perfectly and I was genuinely impressed with the quality of his motive-power.
To the best of my knowledge I have only seen one double deck layout that really worked; a multi-level structure doesn’t really engender much potential for my concept of scenery construction (don’t ask me what in the h**l I mean by that); generally multi-level layout don’t work for me. I can only recall having seen one tri-level layout - EVER; that one did work, hewever. It wasn’t actually a “mushroom” per se but the upper level (read: top deck) was wider (24-27 inches)than the one below it (18-21 inches) and required a stool to stand on; the lowest level (read: bottom deck) (about 12 inches deep) was used almost exclusively fo
Do you have any pictures of your last layout, or maybe a trackplan that you want to show?
I’ve got quite a few photos of my old layout, but none of them are posted online (and I really don’t have to time to work on one of those free accounts), so I can’t post them here either. Email me offlist and I’ll send you a few.
While I won’t go as far as to say you have rocks in your head, I think you might be jumping too far out there. Remember, figure $50-$100 per square foot and 50 hours per square foot in labor and you’ll see your project is massive–and I assume you will be doing this by yourself. Just estimating, you are looking at spending $40,000 and at 15 hours per week, 25.66 years.
There are a lot of reasons to think in terms of maybe one level.
There is just too much bull*** in this forum!!!
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by R. T. POTEET
Pardon me there, Electrolove, but I think you’ve got rocks in your head - either that or you’ve spent too much time out in those fierce Scandahoovian winters.
I would think twice before ever even contemplating the building of a double deck layout - I would consult the yellow pages for a good psychiatrist if I ever once looked at a potential layout area and said “hmmmmmmmm!!!Could I get three decks in here???”
(John Armstrong tackled multi-level layouts frequently; Robert Schleicher has several in his [large] book on track plans drawing from layouts theorized in Model Railroading magazine. Multi-level layouts appear to work better in N-Scale than in HO: probably the only 0-Scale multi-level pike I have ever seen was in an RMC in the early to mid-sixties and it was an operation oriented around the walls pike with very little scenery and was essentially an Appalachian (steam powered) coal hauler with a requirement to swap engines every X number of miles. He had at least five turntables (and roundhouses) on this layout - and, if I recall, went around the room four times. It was something typical of 1930’s era modelling where the purpose of a layout was to show off your equipment and hence, your machinist skills!!! It did that perfectly and I was genuinely impressed with the quality of his motive-power.
To the best of my knowledge I have only seen one double deck layout that really worked; a multi-level structure doesn’t really engender much potential for my concept of scenery construction (don’t ask me what in the h**l I mean by that); generally multi-level layout don’t work for me. I can only recall having seen one tri-level layout - EVER; that one did work, hewever. It wasn’t actually a “mushroom” per se but the upper level (read: top deck) was wider (24-27 inches)than the one below it (18-21 inch
is this layout going up against a wall or not?
Electro:
Very ambitious project you have there for one guy – you planning to get any full time help? I’m curious, have you built any other layouts before?
Three levels will severely restrict your scenery options vertically. On my 2 deck mushroom, I’m not modeling the Rocky Mountains, and I still had vertical scenery issues.
If you model the three decks as I suggested with them at roughly, say 34", 53", and 62", that’s a deck separation of 19" between decks 1 and 2, and 9" between decks 2 and 3.
That’s not much space for deep canyons or high mountainsides unless you just run the tops straight up into the bottom of the upper deck.
Helix-1 from deck 1 to deck 2 will need to contain 5 tiers, and helix-2 between deck 2 and 3 will need to contain 3 tiers.
An HO train travelling at a scale 40 mph will be in helix-1 for 3 minutes, and will be in helix-2 for 2 minutes.
That may not seem like much, but consider this: I estimate you will have about 150 feet of mainline per level. A train running non-stop at a scale 40 mph around the level will take about 4 minutes to make the trip.
So the total trip around all 3 decks non-stop will take 17 minutes, roughly a third of which will be inside those helix’s. In terms of track miles, your helix’s act like a 4th deck, with an estimate 150 feet of track inside the helix’s.
If I were building the DRGW in your space, I’d eliminate some towns and get it to fit down into two decks – that’s my advice. If you have a history of sticking to projects that last 10 years or more and cost thousands of dollars to fund, then by all means go for it. But if you have a history of embarking on ambitious projects and never finishing them, then I’d cut back to something you would more likely complete.
I have learned that a more modest layout that you can complete to a decent level is far more satisfying than trying to do too much and then ripping it out because it becomes such