I am in the early stages of planning an HO layout depicting the Santa Fe Missouri division from Kansas City to Ft. Madison Iowa circa 1965. I have an unfinished basement space of about 45 feet by 25 feet, narrower on one half by about 5 feet. As is typical with basement space I have to leave some room for storage and such, but most of the space is available. I am trying to decide if it would be better to do an around-the walls design with a helix at both ends, to double the track length potential, or if it would be better to design a single level layout that includes some peninsulas out into the middle of the room with backdrops dividing them to provide scenic contrast from one side to the other. The operating concept is point-to-point with Argentine Yards and KC Union Station on one end, and the smaller Ft. Madison yards on the other end, but I do want to have the option of continuious running as well. Thoughts, railroaders?
This thread was running a short while ago:
http://cs.trains.com/forums/1486998/ShowPost.aspx
It asked for opinions on the “ideal” layout size that people would like to build. There were some good thoughts there, which might be a good starting point. But, your question is a bit different.
I’ve been workin’ on the railroad in my family room for a bit over 3 years now. Even though my wife thinks I spend way too much time on the trains, I’d describe my time spent on the hobby as “moderate.” In those 3 years, I’ve done track and scenery for 50 square feet of railroad, plus engines and rolling stock.
Now, to be fair, I’ll admit that I’m more of a detail freak than most. I like a lot of my buildings, particularly those in the foreground, to have interior detail. Although I buy most of my vehicles, I do put together a time-consuming Jordan kit every now and then, too, and I do some custom decal work.
But, my point is, how much railroad can you really build? How much time do you have? How much budget? 45 by 25 is a lot of space. I would go with peninsulas and view-blocks, personally, and I’m not sure the view-blocks would even be needed if you planned your scenery appropriately. Of course, maybe you don’t care about scenery that much, and your primary goal is a long mainline run, but even then, with that big a room you can have a very long run on a single layer.
So, here’s my suggestion: Build an around-the-walls layout, with a number of peninsulas. Start with one view block, just to see how it works. On one wall, build a single helix up (or maybe down, even) to a significant shelf of staging. Then, if you hate the helix and the second level, you haven’t invested too much in it. If you like it, and it works well, and you’re still hungry to build more after comp
[quote user=“MisterBeasley”]
This thread was running a short while ago:
http://cs.trains.com/forums/1486998/ShowPost.aspx
It asked for opinions on the “ideal” layout size that people would like to build. There were some good thoughts there, which might be a good starting point. But, your question is a bit different.
I’ve been workin’ on the railroad in my family room for a bit over 3 years now. Even though my wife thinks I spend way too much time on the trains, I’d describe my time spent on the hobby as “moderate.” In those 3 years, I’ve done track and scenery for 50 square feet of railroad, plus engines and rolling stock.
Now, to be fair, I’ll admit that I’m more of a detail freak than most. I like a lot of my buildings, particularly those in the foreground, to have interior detail. Although I buy most of my vehicles, I do put together a time-consuming Jordan kit every now and then, too, and I do some custom decal work.
But, my point is, how much railroad can you really build? How much time do you have? How much budget? 45 by 25 is a lot of space. I would go with peninsulas and view-blocks, personally, and I’m not sure the view-blocks would even be needed if you planned your scenery appropriately. Of course, maybe you don’t care about scenery that much, and your primary goal is a long mainline run, but even then, with that big a room you can have a very long run on a single layer.
So, here’s my suggestion: Build an around-the-walls layout, with a number of peninsulas. Start with one view block, just to see how it works. On one wall, build a single helix up (or maybe down, even) to a significant shelf of staging. Then, if you hate the helix and the second level, you haven’t invested too much in it. If you like it, and it works well, and you’re still hu
Great suggestions! I will have increasingly more time to devote to this large layout. I am in my mid 40s and this is my retirement home so as the kids head off to college the time devoted to the layout will increase. I bought the house with the idea that this would be the layout room. I like what Jim Hediger has done with the Ohio Southern and double decking, but I also like the vast expanses of layout scenery that can be found with a peninsula. I will probably combine both.
You might want to look up Joe Fugate’s mushroom article in MR, or his work on these forums. The mushroom gives the advantage of having multiple levels, railroad stacked over railroad, with raised aisleways that put the modeling at a consistent, workable height.
The usual problem with multiple decks is that the upper deck is too high to operate (never mind build) and/or the lower deck is too close to the floor. Unless the upper deck is narrow, reaching into the lower deck is almost guaranteed to be a head-thumping experience.
That said, I expect to have an upper deck in my future - on a narrow shelf, with minimal switching, above a not-much-wider lower level scene, both hung from a wall on shelf brackets.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
So I’m an oddball, what else is new? I plan a 40’ by 15’ around the walls layout also. Here is where I differ. I think that kind of space gives one an excellent chance to replicate the prototype in full scale. No condensed buildings, #6 or 8 turnouts for sidings, #12 minimum on the mainline. in other words take a plan that could be built in a 20’ length and expand it instead of contracting it. Now here comes the interesting part for you and me. have the railroad rise about 5" in that lap around the room. Now you have two choices. Initially you can put a reverse loop on either end with staging tracks which is what I will do and run trains. then if you ever get the itch to expand to a second level you can remove the upper revesing loop and replace it with a helix. I plan to add the second level and test it and add the helix last so I can still run trains before cutting in the new portion. Oh and that upper level return loop just gets moved higher in the scheme of things.
Santa Fe in Missouri;
I recently had the urge to design a multi-level layout; I contacted a SIG called Double Deck Anonymous and they sent a couple of guys over to help me kill a couple of twelve-packs of Fosters until the urge passed. My suggestion is that you do likewise!
I would really think about what Mr. Beasley said. Life - at least for me - continues to surprise despite my best long term planning efforts. Predicting the next 20-30 years is an art I have had no success at. After all, here I am in my mid-50s with kids still in middle and high school, and retirement savings depleted for various good reasons. 20 years ago, I had it all planned to be in your anticipated situation instead of mine. But no regrets.
So I recommend 2 possibilities. Build small layouts, and start over when the mood strikes or the situation causes. Or work a truly progressive plan to a large layout - a layout designed to be successfully and satisfyingly stopped at several points short of “completion”.
just my thoughts
Fred W
I suppose, in the interest of full disclosure, I should reveal that my own layout is actually a double-decker, of sorts. Beneath the layout you see is a subway system you don’t see, except at a few points along the edges:
This is another option, if you plan on modelling an urban center with mass transit as part of your layout.
Consider something most of us cannot do…
Look for Model Railroader articles that have an adjoining lounge area (couch - two chairs - coffee/end tables) that can double as a Model Railroading Library. Perhaps you could build, or install, a professional-looking window that permits you to see the trains running in the train room unattended using DCC programming.
In my case, the CR&T’s usable space is apx. 9’x9’. It must be N Scale with multi-level and 36"x36" helix in one layout corner, to get in everything desired into the layout. The multi-level plus helix really multiplies the planning process roadblocks.
A 9’x9’ N Scale layout translates to an HO Scale layout of 18’x18’. You really don’t need the complications of a multi-level layout to do what you can do with your basement space.
If you want to do a multi-level layout, take a look at Joe Fugate’s, “Siskiyou Line,” which employs the “mushroom layout design.” My hunch is that you won’t need a helix to gain elevation, and you could use a nolix instead for a mushroom plan dessign.
http://siskiyou-railfan.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.20
Have you considered the “Mushroom”?
Hi!
How fortunate you are to have such a large space! “Twer I were you”, I would finish off the layout to be area first, which will give you a relatively dust free and better place to work/play.
Being such a large space, I would be prone to a single level layout - if for nothing else than simplicity and “ease of use”.
But I think you really have to ask yourself, “do I have what it takes to handle this major undertaking?” In example, is your previous layout experience and skills up to the task? Do you have the finances, time, and enthusiasm (probably the most important factor) to go through with this? If the answers to the above are extremely positive, then I would say go for whatever size and number of levels you desire. But if your answers are “middle of the road”, I would strongly suggest a single level and perhaps even a smaller layout design.
Oh, almost forgot… Once built, maintenance will be a continuous project, and the larger and more complicated the layout, the more time/energy needed for maintenance.
Trust me, “been there, done that”!
Mobilman44
what is a mushroom plan?[#dots]
Pictures work best, here is a link to Joe Fugate’s Siskiyou Lines, a double deck “mushroom” layout.
Notice that the two decks in the middle of the cutaway are vied from opposite sides. that is the essence of a “mushroom” double deck.
Building a layout is always a juggling of time/space/money. In this case, I suggest that the design should also consider function. If your desire is to create highly-detailed, well-sceniced museum piece, then you will be much more effective with a single level.
Another thought for you to ponder:
After 10 years of working on a double deck 8’ X 19’ HO layout, I’ve found that the everyday tasks of model railroading like tracklaying and scenery take quite a bit longer on the second level just due to reach and logistics problems of having everything where you need to get at it.
Instead of figuring twice as much time for a double decker you are much better off figuring 2.5 times the time comittment. This also applies to ongoing maintenance once the layout has been completed.
Given the space you have available, we’re talking about a lot time that will be needed.
Just food for thought.
Scott
Especially for anyone who is serious about building a layout which will require a large investment of effort and money, I recommend that they join the NMRA-sponsored Layout Deseign Special Interest Group (LDSIG). LDSIG periodically produces a magazine on layout design, and past issues (still available) contain many treatises on double-decker advantages and disadvantages as well as double-decker design/construction challenges and decisions. That source will provide more extensive and “expert” information than is possible with this forum.
Mark
One thing I haven’t seen mention of here is that adding a helix and a second deck will not really double your layout space. A helix takes up a fair amount of real estate. A single deck design would use that space otherwise. A double deck design loses that amout of space on both decks. You still gain real estate in the grand scheme of things, but it’s not double.
That being said, my own layout is a double decker with a helix, and then staging under the lower deck accessed by a grade, noot a helix.
For your purposes, a multitrack helix might work well if you really want to decks and a continuous run capability. A helix on each end isn’t necessary if the main traverses each level and then moves back to the one helix to go from deck to deck.
The upper-deck space at the top of the helix is visible and useable for modeling scenes. One just loses visible space the helix occupies over the lower deck. Also, sometimes it is possible to have a “hernia” on part of one of the helix loops which can be visible and scenicked.
Instead of considering a “mushroom” layout you need to consider a “pepperoni” layout!
Now how many of you turkeys have been sitting around for the past couple of days wondering when I would get that in?