Basically I’m building a 12’ x 12’ N scale layout with a second level for hidden staging. The idea is to have it be an G shape and on either end have a 2% grade down to the second level, which will be non-scenic, just storage tracks (I can make trains up on upper level, even in the yard perhaps) and then run them down to staging/storage. I am planning on the top surface of the staging level being 4" below the top surface of the main layout. The crazy idea comes in the construction.
The plan is to use flat shelving for the bottom level, and attach the track directly to the shelving (most likely plywood). WS incline sets will be used to achieve the seperation desired. Where access is needed on the bottom level, (to throw switches in staging yard, and in emergency situations remove a derailment) I was planning on 3" blocks (either wood or foam), which will support 1" foam, that 1" foam surface being the subroadbed for the top layer. Would the 1" foam be rigid enough with the blocks every 12" - 16" or so to support the upper layer? All scenary on the upper level would be foam based so as light as can be.
I’m fairly confident that a 3" gap from bottom of upper layer to top of upper level is enough clearence, unless I missed something? I know it’s tight for my hand, but since I’m not actually fiddling with the rolling stock in that space, just removing it if it derails, it is enough. Suggestions? Will this idea work?
Edited for more info: If it matters it runs along 3 sides of the room, and the area that would have the staging yard directly underneath is only 18" deep, the staging tracks would be on the front portion of that. Maybe only four or five deep.
It will work but you will hate yourself in the morning. Minimum clearance staging areas sound great but the first time you have a problem, its a BIG problem. Plus any wires, switch linkages, scenery, etc on the 1" upper level that protrudes through the bottom of the foam will create an obstruction to the trains below. Any sagging you do get will create clearance or access problems.
Rule of thumb is that you have to be able to reach over a track of cars and pick up a car and remove it. Otherwise if you have a boo-boo on the back track you have to stop everything and clear out ALL the tracks in front of it to reach the back track.
If this is the ONLY way you can structure layout, if its choice between this and not having a layout, then go for it and build the lower level with the precision and quality control of a NASA project. If there is any other way to build the layout, explore those options before you decide.
I’d have to second that. Three inches is tight by the time you add rolling stock and rail height. Add wires and such from the upper level and I think you might be in trouble.
The basic concept is OK though.
I’d probably go with at least 4", maybe 5" as a minimum, and then I’d glue some 1/4" luan to the bottom of the foam. It’ll add a lot of stability without a lot of cost and the thickness is minimal. I’d also support it on 12" centers to be safe. With thicker foam on top you could probably go more, but by the time you find out if it’ll work or not with say a 16" center, it’ll be too late to do much about it.
BTW, just so you know I’m there with ya, my own layout has large sections that are 1/4" Luan with foam over the top, all supported on 12" centers. It’s been up for about a year and a half in a climate controlled room and it’s holding up great with no sagging or warpage at all.
I’ve built plenty of layouts but never a multiple level one, hence the questions. All switches will be used with ground throws so no linkages to worry about, the terrain directly above the staging yard will be along the coast of a river, so no gullies or anything scenic wise that would go more than that 1" deep. wiring for feeders and such could be dropped down behind the staging tracks if needed, would that create a problem I’m not thinking about? My biggest concern at the moment is the structural integrity of the 1" foam being supported by only blocks. The hidden parts of the grade and the staging tracks themselves are perfectly straight, with 19" radius curves on the flat after the grades leading into the staging yard. If I put rerailing tracks immediately after the curves, are derailments in the staging yard very likely? (planning on using #6 or #7 atlas code 55 switches whichever they make I’ve forgotten at the moment) As far as getting o
Here’s a thought (although it might go against the spirit of your forum name!). How about building your 4 track staging yard on a sliding sector plate. you could built it out of plywood mounted on drawer slides. That way you can slide it out to fix any derailment or fiddle with consists. Ian Rice often makes use of such devices in his plans.
It might be OK, but the wood is not only insurance, it also provides a solid mounting point for under table switch machines, wiring harnesses, wiring junction boxes, etc.
That might work, although yeah it does kinda go against the spirit of the forum name, but that doesn’t matter to a model railroad. I don’t have a ton of faith in my carpentry skills so as to pull that off, but it’s definitely worth thinking about.
Will also keep in mind phillip’s idea of adding the wood, although there won’t be anything to mount to it, it might be worth the structural support.
I think the drawer idea would be the best. At the same time, adding the Luan as a laminate under the foam should be a necessity. It would only add 1/4 inch thickness and would provide consideralbe stiffness plus be a good mounting surface as explained before.
Build the drawer first and get it attached to the lower level benchwork, and some sort of lock installed. Then add the track approaches up to the drawer. Bang the drawer around some and modify / reinforce / shim it where needed. Then lay the track from the approach at one end all the way through the drawer to the approach at the other end. Once everything is dry, cut the gaps in the tracks at each end. I would also cut them at an angle so the rear tracks don’t catch on the front tracks when pulling the drawer out. something like this;
approach / drawer \ approach.
When the drawer is pulled out, you will also be able to work on the bottom of the level above it more easily.
I think you should try it before you decide. You don’t need to build the hole layout, just put up a pice of foam and support under it as you have planned. You will easily find out if it is good enough. I don’t think it’s crazy at all.
I do agree that 3" might be a little tight for handling trains so may be you will find some other solution. One way to solve it is to have the upper level designed with liftout parts.
Yeah I plan on trying it once I get home from work today. Just putting some foam on blocks on top of plywood at the various heights. But wanted to solicit opinions from those more experienced so I know what I’m getting into if I go for it. Especially the structural integrity of the 1" foam (which, I would use 2" for the top layer, but that would leave only 2" clearance below, and that’s no good.)
I could make the top layer removeable easily, just…not glue it down (but attach the fascia to keep it in place) and put some extra slack in the wiring.
Anyone reading this have any thoughts on if I made it a 3% grade would I still be able to pull 6’ long trains up it?
I’m a steam guy, but I’d think you’d probably be at least double heading a consist of that length on a grade like that…maybe triple, depending on the loco’s.
Well quick report from testing, with a 3" gap between the levels I can reach over 4 tracks and still re-rail a car provided there’s none on the tracks in front of it. I can remove a car over the top of one occupied track. I tested this by stacking up three blocks of one inch foam, setting another piece on top and putting sections of Kato unitrack underneath, which should be adequate since I’m not planning on bothering with any roadbed on this level, just using latex caulk to lay track directly on shelf, both for height and cost reasons, unless there’s a reason for it I’m not thinking of? These are acceptable sacrifices in my world, as long as I can keep the top layer from sagging. Sadly, no matter how much testing I do, it won’t tell me the longterm effects of this, so if I do this I’ll have to just be very meticulous and over do the support, and I think even then I’ll make sure the top layer is easily removeable/liftable.
The wires are still a valid concern, here’s what I’m hoping to do to address that. First, all switches will be ground throws, so no wires required. There are no reverse loops on the plan, and I don’t care about a functional signal system. Therefore the only wires I should have to deal with are the track bus and feeders. My idea is to run the track bus for both levels underneath the bottom shelf, and simply run the feeders for the top layer up through the bottom, but behind the hidden trackage.
Even if I do still end up going this route I’m laying and making sure the staging level works perfectly and is as bulletproof as I can make it before adding on the above level. My biggest apprehension is still the foam possibly sagging. I’ve used 2" foam with 18" supports before on a single level layout and had no noticeable sagging, but not sure if I can expect the same results from 1" foam (even with supports much more frequent, I’m still thinking solid support wherever possible behind the staging is the way to
A much worse problem than needing to re-rail the occaisional errant box car or reefer is track maintenance! With only 3" of overhead clearance attempting to repair a bad rail joint will be torture. Trying to fix a turnout will be insanity.
Two things can be done to help.
Build the lower level ‘staging’ area so that the plywood its on can be slid ouit from underneath and taken to the work bench in case track work (or resoldering a feeder wire) becomes necessary.
Keep ALL turnouts adjacent to an aisle where they are more readily accessible. A turnout more than an inch or two away from full visibility and access with a 3" overhead is a definitely the one your be having trouble with.
Also be sure to plan carefully how you will install things like feeder wires or switch machines to tracks on the layer above the yard. If the yard is removable this will be much easier.
To keep feeder wires from drooping down into contact with the trains in the hidden yard you might consider using hot-glue to tack them in place (just don’t use too much or you’ll melt the foam).
If you’ll be having friends over to run trains also bear in mind that poor visibility in the underneath area will be problematic.
They’ll have trouble figuring out where they train you assigned them is located and get the switches lined for it.
If you don’t keep the turnouts along the benchwork edge they’ll also have trouble being able to see when a train has cleared the fouling point of a turnout. Leaving a caboose obstructing a turnout is a good recipe for scattering derailed cars all throughout your subterranean space.
Like Dave H. mentioned, if there’s another way to build the layout take a good look at it. If you can add even another inch of headroom, take another look at that. But if its they only way you can do it then go ahead.
I’m sure it can be built but it sounds like a maintainence nightmare to me. Remember Murphy. The train is NEVER going to derail on the closest most easily accessable track. MR had an article some years back about a guy who put his close clearance staging on a drawer arrangement. Pretty slick. The idea was (I think) that instead of trying to get at it by fumbling around inside of a close space, simply pull the drawer and have ready access to it. This particular one, again, I think, was something like 8 feet long and 24 inches or so deep (HO scale track). You can buy full extension drawer glides at most building supplies or mail order from cabinet-maker supply shops.
Build what you want but if I were you I’d rethink the access thing.
Thanks for the comments guys, I am listening and still mulling this thing over. I really like the idea of only having trains pass through once and this seems like the simplest easiest way to do it, but like getting ideas from others, and when you guys point out potential problem areas it makes me think of how to address them and make sure they’re ones I have a solution for. I did consider bringing the main part of the layout up about 4" and having the staging and return portion of the layout below the horizon so to speak, but couldn’t think of a good way to blend the end of the scenery to the wall/backdrop with a gap back there (that would be 8" -10" for 3 or 4 tracks).
As far as maintence, cleaning tracks and such, the solution I had come up with was to invest in a good track cleaning car. Repairing turnouts is something I hadn’t thought of, with them being hand controlled though, and testing and triple checking before “covering” them, is this really a concern? In N scale I’ve used both Kato and Atlas Code 80 switches and never had to repair one after initial install, is my planned use of Atlas code 55 something that would frequently require repair?
As far as keeping them close to the edge of the layout getting sidetracked for a minute here Charlie but didn’t realise the famous and oft-admired by me BC &SJ was just down the road in Hillsboro!), I had thought of that and taken it into account. Mostly will be operating solo, especially anything that actually requires staging since none of my group of friends and acquaintences is into that kind of thing.
Other thing I saw mentioned was resoldering feeder wires, and again I might have to plead ignorance to the medium. My typical way of using feeder wires is to solder the wire to the rail joiner and then use that every section of flex. I’ve had HO layouts run like this for 10+ years without any of the connections failing (N scale my longest lasting layo
Thanks for starting the thread, Occam. I have the same crazy idea for the layout I’m about to build, but in HO scale and using plywood instead of foam. In my case, the clearance between decks will be 7", which leaves ~4" over the trains for re-railing. Like you, this approach is pretty much the only way for me to have decent staging for the kind of layout I want to run in the space available. For maintenance, I was going to use the detach-and-remove method mentioned above. Keep posting updates, and I’ll do likewise.
Yes, Occam, thanks for starting this. My about-to-build layout will have hidden staging too - some below, some behind scenery - and tight fits in all cases, so following this thread and all the developments and advice will be great! I had never thought about the drawer idea for the staging (even though I’ve seen the cassette system in use on a modular layout!) so will see if the ‘underneath’ staging can be near a front edge for accessibility.
Glad others are having similar issues, I’m still wrestling with other options and ideas trying to make the area I have fit with what I want from a layout. Keeps bringing to mind something about a square peg in a round hole.
It might not be as uncommon as you think. My own layout that I’ve been building on will have he staging yard covered by a lower clearence. I’ve got the staging yard in now and I’m tuning the turnouts, but soon I’ll be laying the next level on, so this is all very much something near and dear to me too. My last layout was a similar situation too.
As I was looking through some layout books, I came back across Pelle Soeberg’s (spelling?) Daneville UP layout, it also has hidden staging under a town area and judging from pictures, it isn’t very accessible at all (to the point of having a fascia in front of the majority of it), and to judge from the scale of the photos is only about 6" gap in HO. Maybe this type of thing really ISN’T as uncommon as I thought. Doesn’t make it a good idea or even a great one, but it does add some food for thought and makes me a bit optimistic. If in my scenario I went with 1/4" for the top instead of foam, that would give an extra 3/4" for just a bit more clearance.