I know this has been discussed a hundred times before , but I am going to give it another go. I have one level now at 42" and want to add a shelf on one side above the existing layout. It will be approx 12" in depth. I’ve tried a distance of 16" between levels and it seems a little high for me. I’m a little short on one end. What is the recommended distance betwen two levels. I want to be able to enjoy the second level and also be able to throw the sitches although there will be a minimun amount of these to operate…Thanks in advance for all the great advice that I know is out there and waiting…I am planning on using a 1-2" fascia board on this second level.
Prolly do whats comfortable. The upper shelf might be narrower, the track raised higher for better view, whatever, just takes good planning.
I am planning multi-level shelf layouts that can interconnect from level to level. Fascia board is 6 inches to layout height max. For closer working reach either some kind of step chair or board or built in standing shelf to reach better, view better.
There’s no such thing as a
if you want a 24 inch separation then your top level will become 66 inches; if you can live with 18 inches then your top level becomes 60 inches; if you wan’t a 60 inch separation between levels then your top level will be 6 inches in the attic.
If your top shelf heighth of 58 inches - 42 inches plus 16 inches - is too high then you are going to have to shave the separation until the heighth becomes comfortable; keep in mind, however, that you are not going to be able to shave too awfully much without coming to griefs with cramming, particularly if you are working with HO-Scale.
I would not go with much less than the 16" you’ve already suggested. You have to also take into consideration the size of the motor you will use to operate your turn-outs. Tortoises extend about 4" (or so) below the underside of the deck. That leaves you with 12" (or less) of clearance.
I am building a double-level layout with 16" between decks, and I am using low-profile motors (Atlas deluxe under-table motors for N-scale code 55 track) so I don’t lose a lot of clearance by using Tortoises.
If you find 58" is a bit on the high side, you can always get a stool to stand on. Or, do as some have done, build a raised platform/floor. Or, if your lower level isn’t too far along, you could lower it.
You’ll find that you’ll probably need a larger facia board. One to 2" won’t be enough – 4" is probably closer to what will both look right and cover the edge of the structure supporting the upper deck.
I assume you’re building a traditional double decked layout and not a mushroom. The reason I ask is because the deck heights you can get away with are different.
Basically, the preferred height for a lower deck are between your waist and the bottom of your brestbone. Make it too low and you can’t easily get under the benchwork for maintenance.
The preferred height for an upper deck is between your armpits and the bottom of your nose.
The minimum separation between decks is somewhat dependent on scale, but for HO scale, I’ve found a 12" separation is workable as long as the decks are 24" or less in width. The goal is simply that I can see the track on the lower deck – I don’t need to be able to see the backdrop.
If the upper deck has switching areas on it, you should aim for closer to your armpit than the end of your nose – once you get chin height and above it gets hard to see turnout positions.
Notice heights are all expressed in relative ergonomic terms, not in absolute terms. That’s because there is no perfect height for everyone – we all come in different heights, so too must the layout decks be tailored to target a specific individual – if optimum is the goal, that is.
Naturally, for clubs, this is a problem and will be a compromise. A club would do well to identify an “average Joe” member and use him as the guide to set deck heights. For home layouts, the owner’s measurements rule, for obvious reasons. [swg]
Also keep in mind that upper deck does not have a thickness of zero. I’ve found 2" thick for very short runs to be possible, 4" thick is more typical, and 6" thick is plenty ample for most situations. Add the deck thickness to your deck separation to get the zero level on the upper deck.
It depends a little on how wide the lower level is - is it a shelf layout like the upper, or it it wider?? If it’s two shelfs one above the other, if the top one is 12" wide you could probably get by with a 12" separation between levels. However as has been pointed out if you’re using under the table switch machines for turnouts or signals, or using say florescent lighting under the upper level to light the lower level with, you’ll need a fascia board of at least a 2-3 inches in front of the upper deck, so 14"-16" would probably work better.
I’m in the early stages of a layout with an upper level of 12" wide shelfs, and 16" wide shelfs on the lower (which will widen out in two places to allow for a “dogbone” continous run mainline). I’m using John Sterling shelf components so I could do sort of a ‘trial and error’ to see what works and what didn’t. At 6’ tall I thought 44" lower deck / 60" upper deck would be about right, but when I tried it out I found I had a hard time seeing the upper level when I was close to it because now I wear bifocals and to see the trains in focus I have to be looking out the bottom of the glasses!! I adjusted it down to about 40" lower / 56" upper and that seems to work OK.
Generally, the conscensus on two deck layouts seems to be “the upper level is too high and the lower one is too low”. [swg] Guess it’s just a matter of finding a liveable compromise.
My second level is 6 inches DOWN. It’s a subway along the front edge.
On my n-scale double deck, the lower level is at 43", and the upper level is at 57". I’m about 6’2".
The upper level has a 4" fascia attached to it covering the lights. So when standing up next to the layout, you can see about the front 7" of the lower (the track and turnouts). Stand back a little bit or sit down and you got a great view. I would’ve like to lowered the lower level a few inches (or raise the upper a bit), but I can live with it.
That’s why I’m such a big fan of the mushroom configuration. The opposing double deck arrangement allows both decks to be near optimum viewing height, thanks to the raised floor on the upper deck side.
Here’s a cutaway diagram from my web site of my layout’s mushroom design:
(Click to enlarge)
To read more about my mushroom layout design, you can click here.
Thank you one and all. The comments and suggestions are appreciated as always. My lower deck is around 30-33" in depth so a 12" upper deck won’t be a problem as far as lighting goes. I have just moved the fixtures a little further away from the wall towards the center of the room itself. I am stingly loking now at the upper deck being between 14 and 15" above the maind deck. These decks by the way will never connnect and will be wired and operated as two seperate layouts if you will. It will be primarily a mini switching run with lots of scenrery and structures…a 16’ foot diorama that has some action on it…Any other comments are always welcome.
You have piqued my interest; how, if I may ask, are you planning on reaching to the back of that 30 - 33 inch depth on your lower level without creasing your forehead? About the third time you do it that little light bulb is going to glow and you will say to yourself, “Self; why didn’t I build my lower deck at 36 inches with a 24 inch depth? That 16 inch shelf-to-shelf separation would have worked and I would not need to wear a bicycle safety helmet every time I need to work on my layout!”
I have settled on a 15" seperation between levela and now I am looking for some good plans for a 1’ x 16’ track plan.Thanks again for all your comments