Im leaning toward a double deck layout but is this a good idea for such a small layout? I want to have long trains and this seems like the only way with the space. Also the lower portion would be kind of like a staging yard and the upper portion would be the scenery. Could i have a helix with such a small layout? Please any advice would be appreciated!
-Kade
Yes, it’s doable. You can have a 5 x 9 layout with double decked, but only the top level would be a layout the lower level would be all helix with a 3 x 5 area left over. You would be spending a lot of extra money to make short staging.
If you want long trains on a 5 x 9 layout–go N scale.
Would it not suffice to merely have a folded loop and keep one part of the loop elevated by several inches? You don’t really need the whole deck…or what do you have in mind? It will be one heck of a grade unless, as Mouse suggests, you use a big chunk of space for a helix…which hardly seems to be worth the trouble if you ask me. I would just elevate some track and use several feet to get there on a separate ramp or something.
Well, 42 years ago I had a 5x10-foot “deck-and-a-half” layout in HO scale. It was a “donut design” with a 2x6-foot operating pit. At base level there was a level, oval mainline with staging. There was also a point-to-point branch, interchanging with the mainline and ending on a second deck deck after making 1.5 circles of 3-4% grade. About 40% of the layout was double-decked. It was a very rewarding layout. I based the layout’s plan on John Armstrong’s Foothill and Excelsior Railroad from a 1950s article in MR: “Variety in 5x10,” or something like that. I modified the plan to have a partial second deck to give more space for scenery on the lower deck and for the branch’s terminal which was on the upper deck. A John Armstrong HO/HOn3 double-deck layout plan gave inspiration for the second deck.
Mark
An idea too few people use, I guess because it’s unconventional, is to have multiple decks but to not physically connect them. The two decks may still be logically linked through the judicious use of staging and an operations plan. I’ve designed a few layouts like this and the one that has been built so far is working very well.
This idea allows the two decks to be at heights to suit the operators and eliminates long stretches of hidden track. Essentially, staging on each deck represents the other deck. For example, let’s say the lower deck is a mainline and we also want a good sized branch. Trains leaving the mainline for the branch on the lower deck drive into a secluded staging track. On the upper deck, a similar consist can come out of another set of staging tracks (representing the mainline connection) to do its work.
These two trains can run in sequence or at different times, depending on how willingly everyone suspends their disbelief. Especially in a physically small space like a 5X9 this might be better than a lot of hidden tight-radius track.
The design that has been built takes the concept one step further and uses different eras on the two decks. A branchline train leaves the mainline on the lower deck in the '60s behind a diesel and emerges on the upper branchline deck in 1949 behind steam. That might be too much mind-bending for some, but the person for whom it was designed loves it.
I’ve written a couple of articles about the overall concept in the Layout Design SIG’s Layout Design Journal. I explained the idea in LDJ-28 (Spring 2003) and showed an example of its use on one of my own designs in LDJ-35 (December 2006). The idea is also incorporated in an upcoming article in the commercial press in 2008.
Byron
Model RR Blog
It is doable as Mouse has already stated…But again, is it worth the effort for the relatively small space gained.
My space is about 16’ x 16’ with a pike constructed of a double deck, around the walls with a peninsula. I struggled with connecting the two levels with either an around the walls helix or a conventional “space gobbling” helix.
The around the walls idea had too many drawbacks for scenicing, as it would be in EVERY scene and I didn’t want to hide it to the point of not having accessibility. So, I did eventually do a helix at the very end of the peninsula. In doing so I lost about 12’ (two 6’ scenes, one on either side of a peninsula) of modeled area.
I am fortunate to have space off pike (actually out of the Trainroom) for staging, so all I have lost with the addition of the helix are those two scenes…However, as Byron has pointed out, two levels not physically connected may have been a better choice, even with the space I do have.
What would I do if I were to do it over…Not sure on that one? But with the limited space you have, I think I would do the two levels, get as much space to model as possible and NOT worry about connecting the two.
What you could get is what amounts to a large cube with window box type scenes on both levels and on a couple of the grade points. You would have steep grades and tight curves so long trains would be difficult, though with double headed engines it could be done. I did a variation on that once, got nice scenes, no opperation.
If it is long trains that drives you, a shelf layout or N gauge is a better answer, as Spacemouse suggests.
If wonderful little scenes, in a logging setting maybe, is your passion you could do something real cool.
“doable” I think the correct word should be possible right?
To have working, connected tracks on two levels, consider a train elevator. On a 5x9 with 18" curves, it could be up to 7 feet long.
As for the monster helix, it could be used for more than two levels. Imagine the Chicago, Corkscrew and Pacific; Chicago at mid-level, Corkscrew (Colorado) at the top and the port of Long Beach at the bottom. (“Longest train in town, if I can figure out where it is…”)
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with long grades and a planned train elevator)