One of the key goals of a multi-deck layout is to minimize the thickness of the upper levels. To that end I’m considering having the bottom of my fascia parallel to the grade of the track.
My lower level is a continuous climb to avoid having a helix. The lowest point of the lower level is 38" and the higest is 48", but the level above climbs in the same direction at the same rate. If the bottom of the fascia is level, the end of each deck gets pretty close to the bottom of the level above it. I have much more visable layout by following the grade of the track with the benchwork and fascia.
The considerations that come to mind:
Do we need to see the track separating from the fascia to enhance the impact of the fact that we are climbing a grade?
OTOH, would matching the slope of the fascia to the slope of the track tend to hide the fact that our grades are too step compared to the prototype?
Would this create any unforeseen construction difficulties?
Would it just look funny?
Anybody done this? Have an opinion? Got/seen any pictures?
On the very right after the bridge over the door, I made a long deck girder bridge with no supports to the layout. It is supported to the wall behind it.
The rest of the track / roadbed that is hanging in space will have some type of retaing wall flat attached to the front of it to act as a facia as it climbs up. The bottom edge will be parallel to the track.
I think it would impart an odd visual artefact if you were to have the bottom edge of the top fascia following the contours of the lower grade or contours. It’s strictly a personal choice, of course, but my preference would be to have all fascia bottom edges flush and paralell with the floor. For me, it would show the actual track grade better.
Perhaps you could stair step the fascia every two or three feet or so. This would keep the bottom of the fascia parallel with the ground and would give you the clearance you desire at the top of the grade.
I believe a stair step - especially with hard right angles - would create a jarring appearance. From viewing our modules with valleys and rivers that drop below normal bottom of the fascia, sloped “steps” at perhaps 30-45 degree angles don’t seem as jarring to the eye.
Something not mentioned - I assume the lower decks will have lighting mounted to the underside of the upper decks. This means the fascia is also acting as a valence for the lighting. I suspect the valence requirements are going to drive the fascia design more than any other consideration. The viewing angles, types and sizes of lights used, light location, etc., are going to determine whether or not a sloped fascia is going to work, and how low it must go, and where it can be stepped.
I have seen drawings and photos of multi-deck around-the-walls layouts where the corners were used as a natural step-up location for the fascia. Starting the fascia coming out of the corner “on top” of the fascia going into the corner looks pretty natural. A real stair step looks pretty normal in this situation.
As an example that is both similar and different, on our HOn3 modules, the requirements for black curtains that hang from velcro strips at the bottom 3/4" of the fascia drive fascia design. The requirement for curtains to overlap module ends means the fascia bottom edge has to be pretty even from one module to the next at the module interface. The curtain requirement also means straight slopes for “steps” where the fascia drops or rises. This is because none of us are good enough to accurately describe and lay out a curved top line f
I agree on the rightangles Fred. I would round the lower facia to meet the next higher section. At a 2 degree incline the rounded step would be about 3/4 inch at three feet and 1 inch at four feet, so the step would not be huge. I have not done this and it maybe wouldn’t look good. Just offering suggestions for the OP to consider.
My layout is a no-lix that is only about helf technically double-decked. The lower deck was originally intended more as staging than as layout, but ended up scenic. There are two places, in corners as it happens, that hide the transition across one end of the layout from single- to double-deck.
I do use what is basically a stairstep system, but mine are very widely separated. Too close together would be visually jarring.
IMO, if you don’t have a good strong horizontal leveling point, it confuses the eye and the brain about the grade. If you want to disguise it, maybe have the fascia follow the grade, but you lose the very important visual cuing of the impact of a climbing grade on the layout itself. For some railroads, that sense of climbing a garde is essential to an accurate depiction and you don’t want to water that down.
Anyway, there really can’t be a hard and fast rule on this. I can think of exceptions in both directions. But my main loyalty is to keeping the fasica edge level. Here’s some pics.
Narrowgauge on the no-lix starts from Durango, goes around curve in back corner as it climbs throuugh terrain. Standard gauge takes the lower route around the same direction, curving to the right and out of the pic.
Here’s what lies between in less finished form, with the liftout pulled out to show staging behind and underneath it all. This is one way to disguise a no-lix transition.
NG track on top level after passing through town and starting to climb again. SG curving down to lower level. When both are other of the pic to the right, they will be separated into the two decks.
It looks like the concensous supports my concern that the level fascia is required to support the illusion that the track is actually climbing somewhere.
One more thing I thought of which can be a problem with this. A fascia cut to the grade can also have strange effects on backdrops. There’s ways to deal with that, but it’s one more case where you can create more work for yourself than going to the trouble to figure out things in the first place.
This is not to say that you just can’t do it that way if circumstances require. I think short connecting sections between levels could work, but I would tend to place them where they call as little attention to themselves as possible.
I’m an architect. When designing/building things like steps, wall, planters, etc that for instance have a “shadow line” along the base (a relief area that gives a “floating” appearance) (equivalent to what your fascia bottom is), from a visual perspective its always best to keep the top of wall, fence, whatever, level (step as little as possible or in use frequent small step elevation changes) and let the bottom shadow line follow the grade. Just take a look around your nieghbor hood for people who for instance put a tree well or stone wall around a tree or something. The ones where the top of the wall are following the grade look like they’re going to slide down the slope.
On a model railroad you probably want the top of the fascia to follow the terrain and keep the facsia bottom level. However with your particular situation I don’t see anything wrong with sloping/angling the bottom of the fascia to match the grade of the track on the level below it. It would the same as following the grade with a shadow line. The key is making it not look chintzy. Scale - dimension - size - “weight” have a lot to do with that.
This is certainly an interesting topic, especially since I will be facing the same situation (eventually)
Here’s my thoughts though: I don’t think I’d have a problem with the top edge of the facia cut to the grade of the track provided the bottom edge isn’t too low as to be out of the line of sight of operators. The lower edge of the valence could easily match the grade if the top edge isn’t too far out of sight either. In those cases, the bottom and top edges show level so there is a reference point for the grade. The filler in between (ie edge of the second deck) can be kept narrow and even to allow for closer deck spacing or ease of access.
Remeber the valence and fascia don’t have to go to the floor or ceiling, even if they are only 12" tall they do the job of focusing the view.
I think a lot would depend on the length of you run. Tony Koester’s new layout is a continuous grade, and his facia is an equal width all the way around. If you put a level on the bottom edge, it’s obviously not level, but - being parallel to the deck below it, you don’t pick up on the fact it’s not level to the ROOM.
Mock-ups are always your best friend. Scrap cardboard can be cut into strips and tacked in place to get a feel for what looks best to the eye.
Personally, I find that any time the bottom edge of a facia deviates from being straight, it draws the eye to it. A level bottom edge that keeps stepping up as it goes would be way more detracting (attracting ?) than if it was straight and following the grade. Your eye is looking at the layout - not how the layout relates to the physics of the room.
I think this works for Tony because he’s got realistic, Midwest grades. Many are imperceptible in person and his layout reflects that.
If you’re talking 3%, as many modelers do – mine are 4% in some cases, because that’s how the prototype was – it because rather more obvious.
And I think that accounts for your discomfort with grade visibly being obvious and distracting. That’s pretty much a good way to sum up things like that – it’s disquieting, which means it’s distracting.
On the other hand, it can be made to work. If the features that help make it work, as in Tony’s case, then it will be OK. If not, then it does become a rather obvious distraction, so planning this is very important if you do need to do it. Arto has some good points on how to do that.
Carl, if your layout is similar to Elmer’s, allowing the bottom of the fascia to follow the grade may be the only way to keep the lower levels uniformly visible. As Fred points out, though, the amount which the lower edge needs to drop will likely be governed by any lighting installed beneath the upper levels and the requirement for the fascia to also act as a valence.
My partial second level is as yet un-built, but the exposed 45’ long semi-nolix leading to it is in place, and the fascia’s lower edge is in-line with the lower edge of the fascia of the lower level of the layout. At the bottom of the grade, centre, it’s already fairly high, as the benchwork support was all built to the same low height to accommodate multi-level staging, with most of the layout’s visible track and scenery on risers:
Where the second level will begin, the fascia is just over 31" high. although it will be cut down a bit once the benchwork is in place. Since the second level won’t have any major grades, the fascia will have a straight and level bottom, and a depth of 6"-8" to hide the undermounted fluorescent fixtures:
While a rising fascia with parallel top and bottom edges can minimise the appearance of grades (either a good or bad thing depending on the grade and your opinion of it), anyone running a train on it will be well aware of the grade and its effect on the train. Mine, because it’s fairly steep at 2.5% (3.3% when the grade is considered) and the track close to the edge, an operator is acutely aware of the grade and likely oblivious to the depth of the fascia and whether its bottom edge is level or follows the grade. [swg] [(-D] Most of the track is less than 2" from the edge and at
