Hello, Could some of y’all explain the pros and cons of such a layout? i believe that it might work for me, but i would like some advice first. By the way, I am doing HO scale.
Thanks, stephen
I started construction on my double decker last summer. Three levels if you count the top staging level.
PROS:
– Longer mainline run; in my case, twice as much track & layout in the same space
– Each level provides a great place to install lighting for the level below
CONS:
–Need some way to get between the two or more levels, such as a helix. Lots of hidden track in the helix and the helix itself has a large footprint.
– Visibility; for example when I am standing up, I can oly see about the bottom half of the backdrop on the lower level
– Height; if you go by the theory that there is a perfect height for a model railroad, then with a multi-deck layout at best only one level will be at that height.
Just some quick thoughts off the top of my head. In my case, the longer mainline run was the deciding factor and the main driver in why I chose the multi deck option. So far the cons have not been an issue. Jamie
Perhaps the primary fact to be pointed out with regard to double-decked layouts is that, unless the layout’s dimensions are relatively small, the effort and time required to complete such a design is about equal (sometimes greater) then building two full layouts. The sad fact is that unless the hobbyist is unusually industrious, such double-decked layouts often don’t get beyond the track-on-plywood stage, which in my book does not classify them as model railroads, even in the broadest sense.
Far too many modelers, particularly those who have been in the hobby a relatively short time, design layouts far more extensive than what they are actually capable of building, be it of the double-deck design, or simply of the basement-filling sort. Those faced with such an all but insurmountable workload and limited talents more often than not eventually reach a point of frustration where they just throw up their hands and end up walking away from the hobby.
Other cons specifically associated with double-decked layouts are the problem of lighting, the operator’s visibility, securely/sufficiently supporting the upper level, narrow scene depth and the wasted modeling space necessarily devoted to getting trains successfully from one level to the next (those space-eating helixes).
The pros side certainly includes doubling of the mainline’s run and that of potential industry sites to be serviced by the railroad (more realism). But whether the additional effort and time required to complete such a venture is reasonable can only be answered after the hobbyist fully evaluates his actual available time and talents. Sad to say, I’ve seen far more failures than successes among my fellow hobbyists over the years when it comes to building large/complex layouts.
CNJ831
Essentially the issue would be for me how much time, financial resources and physical abilities do you have available for this? Material cost for all the lumber would be a major issue with the layout that I’m helping build. We only went for one level for the simple reason that the child we are doing this for is not in a position to be standing up all the time and with a second level he would have problems with that.
Adding any more than another level would create wiring headaches–we’re having enough fun with wiring one level never mind two. And if you’re not an electrical genius you are NOT going to love wiring two levels.
The helix will swallow a lot of floor space as well as add more of a design/installation challenge to your layout–how are you going to access train if train decides to go off the track—and you sealed it. Don’t laugh–some one that I knew did that and he’s out of modelling because of that. Gets really frustrating when you have to tear things apart because it was all covered. I did warn the guy but—
Do you have the carpentry skills needed to pull it off? How about–again–the financial resources?Do you have enough electrical skills to pull off a 2 level layout? Do a check list of those skills–
And if you find yourself still thinking that you can do it then go ahead and have fun!!
On my latest layout I have 4 levels in spots.
The biggest problem (other then getting between decks) is the visibility problem.
I have just recently added more space to the basement and in the rebuilding process I have begin to use engineered thin edge benchwork
The typical section of benchwork is open grid design and the front edge is usually 3" to 4" tall (which really limits the viewing of the lower level).
With my new design I only have an 1" tall front edge on the deck. While this does not seem like much reduction it works extreamily well.
Basically I just make the supports wedge shaped and built the deck with a 1x4 back board. I have effectively eliminated the front 1x4 that most owners end up having when they build a open grid box assembly.
The new thin edge benchwork is attached to the wall of the room just as the old full box open grid benchwork was done previously. I just eliminated the extra weight and increased the site distance using the wedge design.
Some would say that this is similar to using the bookshelf brackets (which it is very similar) but I do not have any brackets extending into the lower level. To some this is no big deal but to me with having 4 levels the backdrop work gets way too involved cutting and fitting pieces to cover up the wall brackets and the height/clearance problems caused by the deck supports is eliminated.
BOB H - Clarion, PA
CNJ831 gave an excellent analysis of multi deck layouts. I’ll add that the “biting off more than you can chew” factor certainly applies to my layout and was something I considered during the planning stage. Although I have the benchwork in place for all three levels, my current approach is that I am building a single level layout on the lower deck. While the track plan has been designed to include all three levels, the lower level can function as a standalone layout with a temporary return loop built where the space has been reserved for the helix. This way, I can finish the track on the lower level then start the next level up, or start doing scenery on the lower level and defer the rest of the layout for however long I desire. It also helps that the benchwork that supports the upper levels was just a minimal addition to what I would have built for a single deck layout (one more 12" bracket arm at the top of each wall bracket). Jamie
Every double deck layout that I have seen has the same problem. Either the top level is too high or the lower level is too low. These were all HO scale.
I have never visited an N scale double deck layout, but I imagine that N scale might be able to minimize this handicap.
Now that the Boo Birds have spoken, I will offer my Santa Fe in Oklahoma in 1989 as an example of a three deck railroad, in a space 28ft by 33ft. The top deck is all Oklahoma City and suburbs north to Guthrie. It includes staging from Texas, Flynn Yard, Nowers Yard, Edmond and Britton, along with Guthrie. This provides a lot of switching. Staging from Texas is open and incorporated into Flynn yard.
At Guthrie, the layout continues in two directions: One is a hidden main line leading into Arkansas City staging. Yes, the top deck has shorter length runs, but gets a lot of interference getting through Okla City. The other main at Guthrie goes into a helix working down grade and is the Enid District, which was a major grain route. It works down and incorporates Crescent, Lovell, Marshall, Douglas, Fairmont. A BN (SLSF) line from Tulsa to Avard comes out of staging and shares track off and on with ATSF into Enid. Enid is a large yard, grain elevators, Champlin refinery and other industry. From Enid the tracks (ATSF, BN) go down to the lowest deck which has Cherokee and Kiowa modeled, along with Waynoka staging.
The layout is pretty much finished and sceniced, though I did have to make a maintenance change this last month which meant some scenery was displaced and will be rebuilt. The layout is DCC and this version was started in 1986. I have been in this hobby since high school, 1954, and still do pretty good at maintaining, though eye sight isn’t as good.
Photos are available on my website, even though they are a bit dated now, along with text on the layout. I also maintain and operate a garden railroad in the backyard, also Santa Fe.
I do get a little upset with self proclaimed experts who think because they have been in the hobby for 1000 years, they are experts in everything. I will match years with about any of
Actually layout height is relative to the viewer, so every layout–single or multi deck–has a height issue unless all of the operators and visitors are the same height. Tony Koester describes this in his article in 2007 Model Railroad Planning. He gives examples of areas where he can comfortably operate the layout but other shorter operators need to stand on foot stools to switch cars. Jamie
The way you are talking about Multi-deck Layouts you would swear they jumped up and beat you! I am currently building a two level layout w/lower staging level. I have Two(2) Helixs. The largest helix can hold 3 people inside. access is from underneath. Second helix is a little tighter but will live with. Wireing is no different than a single deck layout. For lighting I have a single 4’ florescent fixture every 8’ under second level to light lower level, ceiling florescents light upper. The layout is desigened for optimal viewing for me 58" when standing and lower operators 29" will sit in rolling chairs when working a town or industry. They now have many books on multideck layouts. Also, I see you can download info on helixs from MR now. I personally do not see the big deal. I never could stand the “Spagetti Bowl” layout. With a multi-deck layou your runs are longer and you never have to go through the same scene 2,3,4,5,6 times. Yes, I will admit it will take alot longer to finish, but in the “long run” I personally prefer.
I would agree that as you build levels lay your lower first and pu a balloon loop so you can start running trains to keep your interest. I would find myself going gung-ho on building, then take a day or two to just run trains or lay track. Its your layout and you do what you want! Enjoy yourself, this is a Hobby!!
Bob, while I think that it’s great that you’ve essentially completed such large and complex layout, I can easily point to dozens of other wouldbe model railroaders who have attempted such Herculean feats and totally failed, or at least never got beyond a bare-bones arrangement. Many left the hobby following the experience because they realized that their ideas put then in over their heads and were hopelessly discouraged.
I would also note that, by your own admission, you’ve been working on the same layout for nearly a quarter century. Now consider just how many causual modelers and newbies, both groups often with grandiose ideas for layouts, frequent this site, yet who can’t maintain interest in a given layout design longer than a year or two before moving on to another concept. Many will likely never bring any layout to completion as long as they are in the hobby. You’re not advising a bunch of John Allens or George Sellios’ here. M
So John, you’re saying that there aren’t any big single-deck spaghetti bowls that were never completed? Sheesh. Is it only the “experts” who agree with you who have valid viewpoints? Seems to me the folks commenting here who have actually built multi-decks should certainly be considered “experts” on this topic.
There are many examples of successfully completed multi-deck layouts – and more are added every year. The multi-deck concept is realitively new in model railroading (perhaps that’s why some dislike it), so it’s reasonable that some of the best examples are being completed now, rather than in some hoary “golden age”.
The issue of choosing a reasonable project scope for oneself is the same, whether single- or multi-deck. I’ve seen plenty of impractical overly grandiose single-deck ideas in this forum as well.
For those considering multi-deck, it’s woth noting that a helix is not the only option. An around-the-room climbing ramp works well. In addition, it’s quite possible to have multiple decks that are not physically connected, but rather are linked by operations and staging. I wrote about one such design in Model Railroad Planning 2008. Some have even used train elevators, though that is a pretty demanding project.
In terms of deck height, the “mushroom” scheme is an interesting alternative, though it is often over-applied by newbies. For some added construction complexity and a loss of some footprint efficiency, the mushroom approach can be used well with some layout concepts and schematics. The mushroom was invented by Richard Benjamin, popularized by John Armstrong, and brought to fruition by Jerry Bellina, Joe Fugate, Otis McGee (an Armstrong design), et al.
Yes, too many newcomers bite off more than they can chew with their plans. But it seems to me that it happens equally with single- and multi-deck designs.
There have been quite a few multi-level and multi-deck layouts built, so I can’t understand CNJ’s negativity about the concept. As for heights, I recall (from a long time ago!) being told that the ideal would be one level set up at a comfortable seated height and the upper level comfortable at standing height.
My own layout is not double deck (yet…) but does incorporate multiple levels of track piled up sandwich fashion, only the uppermost visible at any given point (except for windows in the fascia to facilitate parking trains in staging.) The ultimate has five levels:
-
The end-of-the-railroad colliery.
-
The loop of track that’s part of the station on the other side of the peninsula.
-
Unit train staging (lower floor of a train elevator connecting to 1.)
-
Junction in hidden thoroughfare tracks.
-
Staging yards for catenary freights, including a cassette dock.
Sometime in the indefinite future, I may put one or both of the narrow gauge feeders on upper level shelves above the presently-under-construction layout. If I do, they will reach the upper levels by train elevator and the track plans will be very simple - just like those of the prototypes.
Another factor is that I intend this to be my ‘last in this lifetime’ layout, I am in no hurry to ‘finish’ it and, unlike CNJ, I consider anything that can support operations to be a model railroad. But then again, I’m not an elitist. I’m just a rather experienced model railroader.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on multiple levels of track)
The foremost consideration is that “Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” So,do some mockups out of cardboard and see what works for you. I am in the process of building a three level layout, starting with a live staging yard at 30" helixing up to the first working level at 43 1/2" and going up from there. Short visitors will have to use stepstools, or just enjoy working the first two levels, plenty of operations there to keep them happy. Tall visitors…no worries, Mate, except it is difficult for them to work the lowest level unless seated. Is that a problem? John Colley, Port Townsend, WA
My layout is a 5x12 foot table in HO. At first glance, it appears to be single level, but 3 inches below the surface is a second layer of subway trains. The subway tracks form a simple loop with a single passing siding, plus a short stub-end siding and a couple of lines up to join the surface.
I had to complete the subway level before starting on the surface, because parts of the surface layout are not removeable, and the subways are fully scenicked.
I have one more small area, about a square foot or two, on the surface where the scenery isn’t complete. Other than that, I have a high detail level almost everywhere, including multiple structures (mostly from kits) with scratchbuilt interiors.
Now for the numbers - this comes out to a surface area of 60 square feet. I’d estimate that the subways below the ground constitute another 12 square feet. This has taken me 4 years. I spend a reasonable amount of time on my layout, which means that it doesn’t seem like enough to me, and it seems like too much to my wife. I have a full-time job, and we go away skiing most weekends in the winter. So, you can get some idea of what it took for this guy to build a layout.
{Note in this thread, the thought process(s) many of us have gone through, to decide using a helix}.
There are essentially (3) ways to gain elevation: [1] the helix; [2] the nolix, or; [3] the nolix combined with track spirals. More important, your operations must justify the helix, let alone, the multi-level layout. Why not incorporate all three layout construction methods if possible?
OPERATIONS: …where will your railroad come from? …where will your railroad go? …with who & how will your railroad interchange with what can be seen by what you model? …does a helix best accomplish your overall operational goals?
Conemaugh Road & Traction, is employing a 2-track Pennsy helix, to stage and come from the Upper Level, to then surround and interchange with the CR&T, which is only located on the Lower Level as a local PCC/passenger & box-motor/diesel freight shortline.
The helix is in a 36"x36" space allowing for up to (4) tracks within the helix. P.S.: N Scale makes this possible in a 9’x9’ usable layout space.
Why consider more than only a 2-track Pennsy helix? …operations!
1st - The CR&T may have a doodlebug (gas electric) run from the lower traction level only to the Upper Level Summit which means a third helix track because the Pennsy will have passenger interchanges on the Upper Level & Lower Level, but completely bypass stopping at the Summit. 2nd - a fourth helix track may be added, limited only to a PRR GG1 electric, meaning a 3-track Pennsy mainline, one track with catanary, still has not been ruled out. The PRR was noted for always being busy, and DCC will help this in perception operations.
Can your helix “double-up vertical real estate” usage? Remember, the tunnel entrances for each helix track do not
Double Deck pros and cons?? I am in the middle of building a double deck layout here is my take on the subject based on my experiences so far.
The biggest advantage of the double deck design is that one can double the amount of mainline run in a given space. This is especially important in point to point track designs where the line doesn’t pass through a scene more than once. On my layout, I have a 13’ x 22’ space with a mainline run of 180’. Single deck around the room would have been roughly 60’ of mainline run. Why a long mainline run? Operations. My layout is designed to host Ops sessions and thus I wanted as much railroad as I could fit into the space. Other advantages include more individual scenes to model.
The biggest disadvantage (in my book) is the cutting off of the scene by the upper deck. No stunning vistas on the lower deck. My last layout had a five foot deep canyon in it. This would be much harder to achieve on my current layout using the double deck design. Other drawbacks include much more complex plann
I have a rather small basement and high on my list of druthers was a long mainline run. So a double deck was definately in my future. I didn’t want a helix, so what to do? We opted for a “mountain district” with a total of 60’ of curves and 2.8% grades situated on a peninsula between the 2 decks. The deck heights start at 40" and go into upper staging at 68". The layout area of the basement is 27’ by 24’. There is 330’ of mainline end to end. I have an upper and lower level 4 track staging area at each end of the layout. I also have an optional continuous connection on the upper deck for breaking in trains. I believe there are real advantages to having a double deck railroad. There are also drawbacks such as height not really being optimal and then having to make aisles a little wider. Access to a double deck layout is very important also. Make sure you plan ahead! It’s all a matter of choosing CAREFULLY on your list of “druthers”.
Good luck, Mikie
This is being linked to the other “Double Deck” thread now running for easier cross-referencing at “Layouts & layout building”…
As for mutiple levels on smaller layouts, here is a link to one of my favorite N-scale layouts that is currently under construction:
Tim Horton’s Dawson Creek Subdivision
http://www.bcrdawsonsub.ca/
This is a smaller layout (approx. 13’ x 11’) and incorporates two levels connected via a helix. You can find a lot of info behind the layout concept and design on the above website, plus the layout was featured in the recent 2008 Model Railroad Planning. I think this is a teriffic example of a smaller multi-level layout that takes advantage of the helix to imply distance and separation between scenes. There are also many bedroom size layouts in past editions of MRP that feature multi-level designs (remember the helix in a closet?). Can you tell I am a big fan of multiple deck layouts? [:D] Jamie