Multi-deck layout in a spare bedroom: factors to consider

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

A little background, I’m a long-time armchair modeler and I finally narrowed down a modeling subject and a 12x12 spare bedroom. I will either be modeling an early 20th century weeds-between-the-rails branchline in HO (2-8-2 max engine size and 40’ boxcars) or an urban switching layout in N scale. I don’t anticipate having more than one operator at a time.

With that in mind, what are the factors to consider when deciding to build a double deck versus a single level layout? My two biggest fears are having the lower level be cramped (not enough space between upper level) and running into a nightmare to build the benchwork.

Do I have enough room to accomplish a double deck layout? Is the extra space worth the construction headache? I’m thinking a no-lix is preferable to a helix given the space available.

Any advice is appreciated!

2

I am getting ready to build a new layout myself albeit in a smaller room. My room is 9.5 feet by 10 feet. I have thought about a multi deck plan but there is not enough room for a helix and main line runs at a modest 2% grade need 16 feet to go up 4 inches. At least that is what I perceive from the woodland scenics inclines information.

You may wish to find a copy of Tony Koester’s book on building multi-deck layouts. A local library may have a copy and of course our host here at MRR would be happy to sell you a copy for your very own I bet if you wanted to go that way. I found the book to very informative on the subject. So informative in fact I decide not to do a multi deck railroad.

I model in N-scale. Have fun!

3

In a space 12x12, you don’t really have the space for a helix in HO and N may be iffy. Thing is a helix requires a wider radius curve to really work well. Otherwise the combination of sharp curves and the grade will severely limit your trains. Think 36" r in HO, 20" r in N as minimums.

For a no-lix, it’s all about rise over run. Around the room is 48’, realistically more like 42’ to 44’. So 44’ is 528". If you go with a 3% grade (which really is steep), that gives you about 16" of rise once your train goes around the room once. That gives you 4" of benchwork to support the upper deck and 12" of clearance over the rail in the lower deck. That’s probably the bare minimum, so you could continue the rise onward before you break out into the second deck level.

In HO, those are probably close to bare minimums for clearances. For N, it’s more generous. I think you’ve got barely enough room, but if you are careful with design and construction it could work for either your HO or N plans.

4

Helix would be “out” and as mentioned, the no-lix will require a significant run to gain the rise . It can work, but you would have to get quite creative to have the no-lix track work into the trackplan and scenery. If hiding behind backdrops, they all would need to be removable for access.

5

The helix will only be out if you have to run full-length Powder River unit trains. If, like me, you make a conscious decision to run short trains with LOTS of motive power you can put a helix in one corner and have it as small as 460mm radius (and 3.5% grade.) Think logging or precious metal mining on either the upper or lower level, with more conventional railroading on the opposite level. Helix can rise one inch in 90 degrees of turn, as many turns as necessary.

A twice-around 2.5% continuous grade will give you a railhead to railhead distance of about two feet (levels at 36 inches and 60 inches.) 2.5% is steep, but, again, lots of motive power. The prototype assigns helpers as necessary.

No one has mentioned a train elevator. It can be as long as your longest tangent, have a footprint six inches wide (if built with steel stud material) and can be as tall as you’d like it. A little inventiveness can put safety tracks into place when the car is at the other level. (John Armstrong preferred solid gates.)

As a last resort, you might consider building two levels without connecting track and connecting them with cassettes operated like car floats. Once again, your train can only be as long as the cassette it goes into.

I have, or have had, all four. The easiest is the long, sustained grade. The cassette transfer is the biggest pain in the rudder post. The elevator will require greater precision and more maintenance. With a tall helix, there’s a certain amount of, “Where did the train go,” as it spirals 'round and 'round. All of them will work. None will be perfect.

If you absolutely, positively have to have full-length Pullmans, double stacks, humonguboxes and a Schnabel car, none of the above will work. You need to keep those on a single level.

Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - short cars, steep grades)

6

The eras I’m looking at run from the 1920s to mid-1950s, so probably no cars over 40’ in length. The prototype for the branchline option only ran shorty passenger cars.

7

Some comments:

12 X 12 is pretty small for a double deck design. Climbing to the second deck will be problematic. A helix is pretty big in that space and a nolix will have to travel around the room more than once or use a steep grade. The construction of a double deck design will be pretty technical and in such a small space, may not be worth the hassle.

I would opt for a single deck design. I would try to get the most out of the space by using an around the walls design with a small peninsula. This will be much easier to build. You will be running trains quicker with less hassle.

I am building a very complex double deck design with a helix (check the link in my signature). The construction of this layout has surprised me in that it has been much more difficult than I had originally anticipated. Tasks must be completed in a certain order and there are lots of complexities that arise from the double deck design that slow the project down and make it begin to feel like work at times. I suspect that there may be a trend back to single deck designs in the coming years, especially for layouts that are not operations based designs.

The reason I chose a double deck design for my (13 X 22) space was to get a long mainline run to support operations. If that isn’t your goal, I don’t recommend doubl

8

Not at all. I appreciate your insights as well as all of the responses. I am looking for constructive criticism and advice from those that have already been there. I want to learn from other people’s experiences, which is why I asked the question. I see there are varying opinions on the idea, which is good because I want to explore all aspects of the the issues which is also why I provided the background of what I am hoping to achieve.

Double deck does seem to be in vogue right now, as a lot of the MRP and layout design contest designs feature it. For example the “C&O Loup Creek Branch” HO design is a double deck in a 9’x11’ bedroom. Taking a second look at the design, after reading the comments above, it seems like not much is gained by the second level and the helix takes up a lot of space.

9

Phase 1 of my layout is a 5x12 foot table in HO scale. It took me 5 years to build. I’m very scenery oriented. This time also included some work installing decoders, and some work on rolling stock kits. But, in general, I look back and see that I spent, on average, 1 month for every square foot of layout. And, my wife tells me, I spend a lot of time on trains.

If you build a simple around-the-walls layout in your 12x12 room, 2 1/2 feet wide, you will end up with something like 97 square feet of layout. At my rate, it would take me 8 years to build that. Your results may be different, but that’s only a single level.

When I started my layout 8 or 9 years ago, it seemed like I had forever. Now, I’m contemplating retirement, and with it a down-costing move to somewhere else.

Before you start on a complicated double-deck layout, ask yourself if you can finish it.

10

(short ) Answer Part 1: Yes, it is doable. See caveat(s) to follow.

(longer) Answer Part 2: You must thoroughly plan before building.

Information Station PDF-download(s) are highly suggested:

Guide to helix and staging design (Vol. 1) – (one article) “Silver Gate Northern” is a 3-level dogbone layout connected by a 2-track helix in an apx. 10’x10’ walk-in room – Here, it is possible dedicate one helix track “to up,” and the other helix track “to down,” due to the dogbone design, instead of a 1-track needing a reverse loop to turn trains. The other PDF-articles teach what to consider in helix construction. Do note how staging spurs can be incorporated into helix plan design.

Guide to helix and staging design (Vol. 2) – (one article) “Union Terminal Railway” uses a 1-track helix – Note this is an industrial switching layout in a 4’x8’ space. It can be argued that a single-track helix is suited to a switching layout with point-to-point designs, and with or without a reverse loop, or turntable, to turn engines.

Only painstaking research can determine what is truly doable, let alone desirable, in the allotted layout space. And, you really do need a “what see” with a resource like “Helix Volume 1” above – To show you what you are in for to have a layout helix

11

A helix would be a real space eater in a 12’ x 12’ room, if it has curves of a reasonable radius for a Mikado. Also, the tighter the curves in your helix, the steeper the climb. It would be possible to build a lower shelf and an upper shelf about 20 - 24" apart, connected by a two-lap no-lix that circles the room. Your trains would be hard to access and/or difficult to hide as they run the grade, and you might go to sleep waiting for a train to reappear on the other level. It would be possible. Desirable is another question.

12

I’m presently in construction of an HO 10x18’ layout around the wall of a basement room which has a 11 track staging yard below and will circle around the room above it to a yard with some single track in between. I am contemplating a single loop to gain altitude in one area and probably a fairly steep grade between 2.5 and 3% on the other side to drop back down to the staging yard. It’s probably a little ambitous for the limited space but it should work. The loop of track will be a space eater but only in one corner - at this point contemplating a 30" radius for that loop. Jim Lehman suggests 36" but I’m hoping 30 or maybe 32" max will do the job since it is only a once around loop to gain altitude, not multiple loops. I’m trying to stick with a minimum of 32, or possibly 30 inches. When you see “modern” long freight cars on a 32" curve, those look like tight curves! (auto racks and 89’ TOFC flat cars).

13

I would go with “A twice-around 2.5% continuous grade will give you a railhead to railhead distance of about two feet (levels at 36 inches and 60 inches.) 2.5% is steep, but, again, lots of motive power. The prototype assigns helpers as necessary.” as Chuck suggests.

I have an HO layout in a 9x25 room and am using a no-lix to get to my upper level. It works well. Going twice around the room will be challenging because of crossing a doorway, at least three times.

The downside that I see in a double level layout for you is the era which you want to model. Mostly steam. Scale steam engines are not as strong in the pulling department as diesels are. I run a steam loco or two, but run mostly first generation diesels and 40 foot cars plus caboose.

14

Jim,

Yeah, 36" on a HO helix is just a suggestion. People do go sharper, but you have to be willing to accept the limitations that quickly accumulate when the radious goes down and the grade rises higher.

In your case, I think you’ll be fine. A once around loop is likely shorter than the trains you’ll run with that modern rolling stock and MU-ed diesels. Only part of the train will be on the grade at once in all likelihood, so that gains you considerable advanatge right there.

I have a short helix, only about 1.5 loops, that leads to my hidden staging for the narrowgauge east to Chama from Durango. At 24" r and 2.5% grade, it doesn’t sound all that bad. However, it severaly limits train length when running steam, as Elmer just noted. But diesels are more capable, so that’s one reason for my fixation with narrowgauge diesels. In either case, it’s long enough around that the trains gets on the helix and faces a pretty good struggle before it gets clear.

15

Gidday, I’m not sure when it actually became heresy, but once upon a time it was quite acceptable to run a second circuit through the “same scene” with a smaller amount of vertical separation. I know that both the Model Railroader and RMC had talented model railroad photographers who may have helped disguise it, but it still looked OK to me, besides when operating a train I’m concentrating on the train, and it’s immediate surrounds.
[2c]

Cheers, the Bear.

16

I’ve got a similar sized room currently not used for Model Railroading, if I were so inclined to do a multi-deck I have the advantage of an large closet that could a accomidate a helix with 48 radius curves, i’ve also toyed with the idea of stacked helixes, one down to stagging the second stacked above for the second deck, to gain the necessary clearances to pull this off, a modest grade would have to be introduced along 2 walls, call it a partial Nolix if you will, I should really commit this idea to paper!!

Dave

17

That reminds me of one of the most famous scenes on the third Gorre & Daphetid layout, Frenchman’s Gulch, where John Allen stacked 4 levels of tracks in one scene. As I recall it worked out well, of course John was a master of illusion. I had forgotten that that layout was essentially a multi-deck layout with scenery covering the space between decks.

I like the combination no-lix and helix idea. I’ve done some reading on other forums and have ordered TKoester’s book. It sounds like multi-deck could be made to work in my space, but probably would not be ideal. I do have closet space that could help with a helix–I had forgotten about that–and I could always restrict the upper deck to Ten Wheelers and smaller equipment, which would actually fit my prototype prior to the 1940s.

Now that I know what I’m up against, I’m going to

18

I like the idea that you are hoping to get it all on one level. Tony Koester said he discussed multi-level layouts with Bill Darnaby and the conversation went something like this:

Tony: Bill, I just don’t like multilevel layouts.

Bill: Neither do I.

Tony: But you have a multilevel layout.

Bill: Right. I don’t like multilevel layouts but I like what they allow me to do. It’s the only way I can get a really long run in my space.

So Tony built a multilevel layout. The long run was more important to him than the compromises inherent in a multilevel layout.

But I suspect both of them would have a single level if it were practical. The multilevel approach requires much more careful planning and much more complicated benchwork, and it restricts your view. Deep scenes are difficult to produce convincingly, and vertical scenery can be a prioblem. There is very little “sky”, so there can be a bit of a claustrophobic feel to it. So build it single-level if you can, or multilevel if you must.

The layout I am planning as a retirement project will cover a section of a real railroad. I’ll build it on a single level, and I expect that to take me 10 years. Longer to complete all the details. By then I’ll be nearly 80 years old. IF I feel like it, I can build a second (upper) level after that, but I suspect I won’t be inclined to add to it when that time comes.

19

Da Bear brings up an interesting possibility - a 2 level no-lix where the lower level actually has 2 levels of track, the second higher level sometimes hidden behinf scenery, sometimes the lower level would be the one to be hidden. That gives you twice around the room to gain the 2 foot (or slightly more) seperation with less than 2.5% grades. Or even vary the grade - have part of the climb use an easily-handles 1% or so, have some flat spaces (much easier to park cars at industries when the sidings are level!), and have a helper district where you do have the 2.5% grade and have to add an additional locomotive to lift the train up.

As the upper and lower of the first two levels wander front to back, that also adds distance, which reduces the grade requirement.

Now, if you are modeling a flatland railroad, with few grades of any significance, well, justifying the two levels of track with the scenery is going to be very difficult.

–Randy