Help on illuminating double-deck layout

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
21

Building double deck layouts are usually pretty complex affairs with lots of inter-related steps. It is doable to make provisions for your lighting and work out details later.

I would definitely have at least have some idea of how to light the bottom deck before building the upper deck bench work. Things like baffling, deck thickness, wiring the lights and placement will need to be worked out somewhat in advance to avoid lots of annoying do overs…

Of course, there are things you won’t be able to anticipate no matter how well you plan…I re-did lots of stuff in the process of building my current layout…

Guy

22

@lifeontheranch

As always that’s some top notch workmanship there.

You said that the lower deck has not been constructed yet. Is the upper deck going to be the main place where things are happening, because 32" is very low unless one is sitting in a chair?

How often do you need to replace the CFLs because when all is added up over the years, it might be worth while just going LED right away? Why wait. :slight_smile:

Those cracked ice drop ceiling acrylic diffusers…do they make a textured light effect or is the light uniform across the surface below?

@trainnut1250

I sort of have an idea the kind of lighting I’d like to put, and there are some great choices now with chip panels instead of LED strips.

It seems to me that problem might be my own height (6’3"). It doesn’t make it easy to find a nice spot for the upper and lower deck height, separation and depth where I can actually see the back edge of the lower deck without obstruction from the fascia above.

Right now I’ve set my test benchwork at 43" lower and 59" upper. Having 24" depth on the lower level, 16" on the upper, I get some fairly harsh shadows from the light below the upper deck benchwork towards the front of the lower level. And this is with 3 rows of 3528 LED strips.

I can’t really go any higher on the upper deck as my spouse will need a step-stool to operate trains beyond 60" height, and I have no heart to do that to her. :slight_smile:

Dropping the lower deck below 43" makes me feel I’m in a helicopter, watching over the trains there.

If the upper deck was deeper than the lower deck, then I wouldn’t be able to see much on the lower deck. My spouse and anyone else shorter than me also couldn’t operate the upper deck due to their short reach.

I don’t know if there’s some happy in-between somewhere, aside from not going double deck, which is not a happy choice to me anyway

23

Yes, the upper deck is the focal point of the railroad. The lower deck is staging, an interchange, and also to facilitate continuous run when desired. It will have a few small lineside industries to switch but mostly for staging.

Simplified lower deck track plan:

32" is the height of a typical dining room table. Not a great train viewing height but very reasonable for operating. Double deck arrangements are always a compromise. I compromised entirely on the lower deck to keep the upper deck at an ideal height. I am using #10 switches exclusively on the lower deck to help improve the view from the helicopter.

Knock on wood, I have only replaced a single CFL bulb out of the ~150 on the layout in 4 years. That one bulb only lasted maybe a few hours. Obviously, an isolated manufacturing quality control issue. Given the limited amount of on-time they see I don’t expect to replace any for a very long time. The $ breakeven for LED bulbs would be way out in the future. Not a good investment.

The diffusers, well, they diffuse. They do a nice job of converting the lamp point sources into even diffuse light across the layout. So much so I plan on using them

24

I’ve had horrible luck with CFL bulbs, the only one that ever truly lasted were in the basement of my old house which were bare bulbs hanging from the ceiling. In this house, I replaced every bulb in the house with LEDs, they are definitely cheap enough now. Not a one has failed, even in enclosed fixtures - and the light over the sink in the kitchen sometimes is left on for 24 hours if I’m not around to turn it off (read: other people in the house never turn it off). I had one at the bottom of the basement stairs that I put a CFL in - twice in 3 months. I’ve since replaced it with an LED - 3 years and still good. My electric bill includes charts comparing year over year usage and since going all LED there is a noticeable drop.

But in the apartmetn I was in prior to moving here, I had replaced everything with CFLs - and was replacing them about as often as incandescents needed replacing. No savings there. That was over 8 years ago, maybe the CFLs are better, but so are the LEDs and there’s no comparison.

–Randy

25

I have heard others say the same but my experience has been quite the opposite. We have CFLs in many locations throughout our house. Some have been in place for a very long time. The CFLs in the garage are many years old and they get a lot of on-time.

I have noticed CFLs are not a good choice for enclosed fixtures. We have LED in our enclosed fixtures.

CFLs were at their height of popularity when I installed layout lighting. LEDs at that time were ridiculously expensive. I bought all my bulbs at the same time along with two dozen extra for replacements so as to avoid replacing with dissimilar bulbs. Considering I still have 23 spares it looks like I’ll be using CFLs for quite some time. If I were installing fresh today then LED bulbs are the obvious choice.

26

Trainz,

There you have it…the classic double deck conundrum. How do you accommodate viewers of different heights? The simple answer is that you don’t. No matter where

27

As has been stated before in these threads, modulating deck widths on upper and lower decks improves visibility and access, reduces construction complexity and cost, and eases lighting issues in many locations.

The broken record continues: building benchwork after a track plan is finalized is almost always much more efficient than building benchwork first.

And I’m out … best of luck with your layout.

Byron

28

Ditto.

Early on I made a scale drawing.

It was this drawing that caused me to reduce the lower deck depth to 1’. Given the role my lower deck plays in the railroad it works for me.

If you are trying to put twice as much railroad in the same space then the conventional arrangement has both decks the same depth or the upper deck shallower than the lower. Same depth decks are easier to uniformly light but visibility of the bottom deck suffers. Shallower upper deck increases visibility of both decks but is very difficult to light evenly. If you have sufficient ceiling height a mushroom design solves both problems but requires more engineering and detailed planning.

No matter how you shuffle it, double deck railroads have their drawbacks. It is a personal choice where to compromise but compromise you will. :slight_smile:

29

ANd the compromise of how much less railroad I can have if I just do a single deck is the one that is just too great to make, so double deck it is.

I mocked up some deck heights using spare pieces of foam and some boxes.

Even my last layout, which was all rectangular sections for portability I didn’t add in the benchwork lines to the plan until I was done with the track plan. The only time I’ve ever done benchwork first was back in the plain island layouts. On all but the last N scale layout I built, I didn’t really have a track plan, I could have a 4x8 so I had a 4x8 table and came up with soemthign as I laid track. The N scale one I did build the benchwor first because ocne again it was going to be a plain island layout, but then I came up with a plan before I put any track down. Building around the room, I can’t imagine building benchwork before I have a plan.

–Randy

30

Hi cuyama,

Thanks for chiming in.

I am almost finished with my plan and I also like to be efficient and think few steps ahead. Lighting being an important part as it was said number of times above, it should be considered somewhere after the plan is done and before benchwork is made.

What is considered under “modulating” deck widths? How does it work if the upper deck is deeper than the lower for people who are taller?

31

That is a no-brainer.

I would add it is also wise to give at least some thought to possible future changes as well. What if after it is built you don’t like how a particular track section operates? Will the dedicated shape of the benchwork restrict your options to rearrange? Will you have to perform benchwork surgery just to change the track arrangement? Modifying benchwork on a completed double deck railroad is not a task for the faint of heart.

Yet another compromise. You may notice that while my upper deck benchwork supports the track plan shape in general, it does so with a minimum amount of benchwork depth undulation. This is by design so it presents the least restriction should I decide to change track arrangement.

32

Modulating deck widths = varying deck widths. Wider for yards and “towns”, narrower where the track is just running through.

Where aisles are narrow, as many of your sketches showed, often that’s a challenge. Support for the upper deck is always easier (and thinner) if the upper deck is narrow. Sometimes a wide area of upper deck can’t be avoided, but surprisingly often it can, just by judicious siting of layout elements.

33

One would think so, wouldn’t one? [:)]

Yet many folks don’t heed that suggestion.

34

One difference between your layout and many (most?) other multi-deck layouts is that your lower deck is a mostly suporting role, the real focus is on the upper deck. In many cases, siting larger elements on the lower deck is an easier choice (but as we both know, your solution was specific to your situation and the prototype).

Byron

35

Disclosure: I took advantage of Byron’s plan review service before beginning construction. Money well spent.

True. However, in the beginning and prior to contacting you, I was in the same frame of mind as is TrainzLuvr now. I envisioned two fully functional decks. Then the ‘compromise’ realities began to hit home. As I attempted to design around them (including as TrainzLuvr mentions non-railroad aspects such as view, access, lighting, aisle width, structural, aesthetics, etc.) it became obvious the whole railroad was going to end up being one giant less-than-ideal compromise. Trying to do everything meant not doing anything well. That is when I shifted gears and decided to build essentially a single deck layout with a supporting role lower deck. That is the plan you received from me.

Like I was in the beginning, it is possible TrainzLuvr and others may not be giving proper consideration to the effect quantity has on quality. More is not necessarily better especially if the compromises start compounding. YMMV. By using the supporting role lower deck idea I sacrificed a few LDEs to increase my enjoyment of the overall layout. The same idea may work for others. At least worth considering if one is still in the planning stages.

36

@lifeontheranch

I understand what you are saying, and I believe that our “compromise” realities are artificial, and I’ll tell you why.

For the past 10 months, I spent almost every free moment of my time reading forums, blog posts and opinions, and watching hundreds of hours of video related to the hobby.

Yet, I realize now that I’m obsessing too much about minute details, the “getting it right” or as you said “doing anything well”. I worry that things will not transpire the way I want them, and as you put it, become a less-than-ideal compromise.

This is really a systemic problem (think entire society) and is caused by the peer pressure of the community. I’ll call it the fear of not being accepted, or the fear of not fitting in.

Watching some videos on YouTube, you can see it in the eyes of some hosts and their body language. They are trying so hard to “do things right”, every tiny detail matters and they are very methodical about it. Yet, all they really want is to run a few trains around, have a beer and relax after a long day at work.

But they can’t, because the trains must operate like the prototype, and stay in staging between the op sessions. Their layout has become a show-room, similar to what some people have in their homes. Glass cabinets filled with porcelain figurines, and 18th century style furniture. Nobody really goes in there to sit and enjoy it, lights are always off. Only guests are being paraded through, on occasion, for the show.

Is this then really a “fun” hobby, they way it is?

Yes, I could pay a professional designer to plan a layout for me and be bona fide. In the process, the layout becomes someone elses interpretation of my ideas, fused with “accepted” norms, rules and standards that the community had put onto itself.

Are people truly enojoying it because all their car-cards are sorted, the rail looks prototypical (hand-laid code

37

It is a big tent hobby with room for all.

What you say may be true of some people but not all. What does apply to all of us is physics. Those rules you cannot bend. Physics dictates compromises must be made in a double deck layout. Societal pressure may color your compromise decisions, if you are that kind of person, but at the end of the day no one can violate spatial geometry.

If one is to run a few trains around, have a beer and relax after a long day at work they can do so enjoyably only if they got the geometry reasonably right. Deck too high - I spill my beer trying to see. Deck too deep - I spill my beer reaching. Deck too dim - I can’t find my beer. Aisle too narrow - my beer hits the fascia. Bad layout geometry wastes beer! [:D]

38

LOL! I’m still trying to figure out how to compress the aisles. Science fiction is abuzz with rooms that are bigger inside than outside. If someone could come up with that, there’s gotta be a way to make it real. After all, everything started with an idea, and some of them were bat shit crazy: at the time, someone thought people would be flying in the air like birds, travel under the sea or into space, crazy…

Joke aside, we take it for granted that the laws of physics equally apply throughout the universe. And all we are going off is based on our local observations and EM waves that came hundreds of thousands of years ago from elsewhere. For all we know, most of the stuff up there is already gone, we just haven’t gotten the updated “image” of it yet. [:D]

I believe eventually we’ll violate the spatial geometry just like we violated everything else. Humans are pesky creatures when it comes down to it. If there’s a will, there’s a way.

39

Wow, that’s completely foreign to my experience. Some people are more serious and purposeful, some less so. But I’ve never met anyone who was doing something with the hobby that they did not find enjoyable. (I’m not talking about a tedious or pesky task, but their overall concept and approach.)

Some are – a lot! After all, they worked hard to make it that way. Why else would they do that with their own time and money? Others enjoy the hobby in different ways – and if someone is having fun, they are doing it right. Heck, one of my clients had me design a Warner-Brothers-cartoon-themed layout; complete with roadrunner/coyote/train tunnel gag (among others).

If a detailed layout reflecting prototype practices is not what you want – then don’t do that! You might find it easier to feel confident about your choices if you had a co

40

Hi cuyama,

I’m not sure why you keep doing this “hit and run” tactic, as if I’m calling you out on something?!

I really have utmost respect for what you do, your experience in the hobby, and look up to your posts for professional advice.

In my last post I put out my personal opinion and said that many would probably disagree with it, although that does not necessarily make it a wrong one. You just might be passing on a judgement too soon. :slight_smile:

Human nature is a tricky thing and people might appear one way but actually are polar opposite deep inside, sometimes without even knowing it themselves. That’s why I said that honest introspection helps, regardless what the subject matter is.

Our behaviour is highly regulated, not just by our genetics, upbringing and beliefs (the within), but even more by our environment and outside influences (the without).

IIRC, Richard Bandler (co-creator of the field of Neuro-Lingusitic Programming) once said that we continously “hypnotize” (actually entranse) each other in our daily interactions, and that most of the time we don’t even notice it happening.

With the advent of advanced media (TV, video, internet) the flickering happening all over it is more than enough to cause it. And being subliminal, the subject would not even know it is happening.

Sorry to go off-topic again. :slight_smile: