i am working on a track plan for a 14x16 room. i am trying to decide if it should be multi deck or single level. what are the pros and cons here? Any insights are appreciated.
OeBB:
I have a 12x17 room, plus a staging area. All on one level.
My reasoning was that for operations, (switching) you can only uncouple cars and leave them on a flat track.
This means that a slope from one deck to another can only be used as a transit area. The same but even more so for a helix.
A double decked layout will provide about one and a half the space to switch in, but remember that a train crew on one deck will be in the way for the crew on the other deck unles your isles are about 4’ wide.
A single deck is also much simpler construction.
Have fun no matter which you choose.
Dave
A second level would give you more operating potential. I do think the room is too small to use a helix because it would take up too much space. However, you could use a nolix. That is a spiral attached to the walls, so the train would go around the room once or twice before getting to the upper level. It could be worked into the scenery nicely. The draw back is that it would have to cross the doorway and sometimes that creates problems of it’s own.
On another point, if this is your first layout, I would not recommend it because you need more experience. I really think you should have a couple of layouts under your belt before you attempt to build a two level layout.
Five main points occur to me.
First, multi-level layouts seem to work best (in my experience as a visitor) on layouts large enough so that the transition in height from deck to deck can either be gradual throughout the bulk of the layout (a constant grade except for flat towns), or if the transition is concentrated in a helix, that the helix does not become a dominating part of the room or the layout itself. I think a 14 x 16 room is a bit small for double level in HO on both grounds, but perhaps is well suited to one in N or smaller.
Second, speaking as a tall man (6’8") I find the lower levels of multi deck layouts to be awkward and uncomfortable to view, and almost excruciating to operate (bifocal glasses don’t help either!). If I owned one, I imagine I would find the lower level very difficult to maintain and service. Having said that, the upper levels of double deck layouts I enjoy hugely because to me they are at just the right height, and my own single deck layout is at a height many would consider for the upper deck of a multi deck layout. Conversely my shorter friends get frustrated with the upper levels unless viewing platforms (also known as “trip over them and smash into the layout” platforms) are provided, and I suspect my short friends would find it hard to lay track on and scenic the upper deck. I don’t know if there is such a thing as just the right height for a modeler who wants double deck.
Third, the longer runs and greater operational opportunities (more towns, more switching, more junctions and interchanges) of a multi deck layout do come at the cost of the lower level tending to look cramped and often, dark. You do not see many great model photos taken on the lower level of a multi deck layout because the sky is hovering nearby and looks like plywood. So the lack of visual realism is compensated by the chance to have greater operational realism – whi
How much time you got, large layouts take a long time to build and take longer to maintain. If you want the option, you can build what will become the upper layout detatched and if you plan for a lower, you can raise it and attach to walls and build the lower, chances are you never will!
LION builded a TRIPLE DECK layout around two edges of the room. There are two blobs that extend out into the room where the transitions are. On one you do not notice the helix because it is as long as the room and 6’ wide, it kindo of hides in plain sight.
The other is a more conventional helix, but since the LION models a SUBWAY the helix is of course under ground and out of sight. Besides it is only 1 1/2 turns.
See, the inside of the helix is part of the layout.
ROAR
If you want a double deck layout you don’t have to have a helix. You could always build an elevator.
Or, you can hide your helix in plain sight. Google Ali-Shan Forestry Railway photos, then look for the track plan of the Tzu-Li-Shan spiral. The prototype runs about two [Edit - three] kilometers of track to cover a few hundred meters as the crow flies, wrapped 'round and 'round a spur of the mountain, on a continuous 4% grade, three turns plus a figure eight on top.
Granted the railway is in Taiwan. The original steam came from Lima, Ohio - 18 and 28 ton Shays.
Did I mention that the track gauge is 2’6"? I intend to selectively compress this if I ever build out my narrow(er) gauge logger to its proposed second level.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with a 762mm gauge logging railway)
My current 10’ by 19’ layout is double decked with a helix at each end (connecting the tracks of the prototype short line to those of a class 1 railroad actually created a loop of track around much of the county). I find that the two layout decks offer a lot more operating space and options as well as the time it takes to run trains from point A to B. I set the upper deck at “armpit hieght” so that I could easily reach across the upper deck while I set the lower deck at a height comfortable to operate while sitting in a rolling desk chair. The only problem I’ve had is that the upper deck is a little high for kids to operate the layout (I have to put them on a step stool). While I admit that it takes trains significant amounts of time to negotiate the helix structures, I use this time to simulate trains traveling through the prototype areas not modeled on my layout which makes the travel time between the areas I have modeled seem more realistic.
The only person who can really answer your question, is you. How much experience do you have with construction; or, how mechanically adept are you? How much experience do you have in modelling? Do you think you understand what is needed to build a multi level layout?
Maybe a good way to get started would be to build a 4X8 layout that can be split down the middle like Model Railroader Magazine’s Rice harbor Short Line RR, starting in the January 2014 issue and there is a complete sequence of videos right here at the Model Railroader website. This layout is essentially a 4X8 that has the ability to be split sort down the middle and made into an L shaped railroad that could be used as a portion of a larger layout, should this desire ever occure. It might be the main town for an around the walls multi-deck layout; or, made into only a small portion of an expanded layout.
While someone earlier stated that because the multi-deck layout will have a grade to it, it would be difficult to perform switching duties, the grade can be made flat where switching duties need to be carried out and I think a 14 X 16 foot room would accomodate these flat areas; or, forms of applying the brakes on cars can certainly be made.
In the end, it is your abilities that determine what you can do, it is not up to the people on this forum to decide.
We have a triple decker with the lowest really being staging. Our first layouts were single level. Now that we have the multi-level it would be hard to go back to a single level. I would experiment with the type of locos and cars you plan to use along with the longest train length you’ll run. The purpose being to see what kind of grade % you can live with. Most say 2 to 3 is good, but I’ve seen 10%(max in middle not average) work with short trains and good transitions. In this case it was only 10% for about 5’ in the middle. Curves effectively add to the difficulty of pulling a train up an incline. The reason all of this is important for your decision is that you need so much running distance to gain so much rise, ie the old rise over run deal. Whether you have the run in the form of a helix or around the walls, hidden or not is a personal preference based on your layout objectives while recognizing that you have to have enough run to get to the rise you want between levels. Don’t forget to account for subroadbed, track,etc when calculating clearance and rise requirements.
In one case we have about a foot seperation, and about 25’ of run for an average of about 4% grade. This works ok for the trains we run. Keep in mind this is an average. Be sure and consider that most steamers don’t pull as well as diesels in the plastic loco world.
Richard
I’ve never seen anything close to that gradient work.
The two deck layout in the September MR doesn’t have any grade except in hidden track areas. That layout is 15’ x 21’. It would be worthwhile looking at that layout to see if it could be shortened to 16’. If nothing else it would give an idea if two decks in 14 x 16 is feasible.
Bill
One idea, presented to me by Sheldon (Atlantic Central) is to design the main level high (his is 48") and put a narrow ‘running through the countryside’ level below it. Stand tall and operate, or relax in the La-Z-Boy with a cool one and railfan…
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - no two stations at the same level)
My suggestion - Build a single deck. The time and effort you will put in on a double deck in the space will IMHO be more headache than it is worth.
Here is my reasoning (this is pretty long, sorry about that): I believe that there is a minimum size limit into which one can reasonably fit a double deck into a space (key word is reasonable) Double decks have a math problem that is hard to ignore: A reasonable grade (defined as 2%) requires 100" to rise two inches or put another way it requires 600" (50 feet) to rise a foot (not counting transitions). To rise, say two feet, will require 100 feet of run.
How does this affect the choices:
Nolix: For a nolix to work the room has to be big or you will have to either hide a track or have two tracks at different levels going through the scene.
In the OPs room - once around the room is 14+14+16+16 = 60 feet, if you ran without curves. A more reliable (but still probably too big) estimate would be around 50 feet. That is with a constant grade of 2%. If you flatten it out for switching or other purposes, it gets even longer. To rise more than a foot you will go through the scene more than once. To rise two feet with switching, you will go around the walls at least twice.
Hidden track begins to add more complexity, dealing with two tracks in a scene at different levels causes problems when it comes to scenery. Both add complexity and compromises to th
I once was strongly figuring on two layouts, one on top of the other, like a double deck except no connection between the two.
I still sometimes think of the idea. What do you guys think?
The poster should tell us what kind of trains he wants to run. That space is great for a logging themed railroad (like mine) with a helix or nolix … steep grades become an important and realsitic feature. However, if he wants to run long modern trains or old time conventional small steam locos he is going to want to stay with one level
Marty
I have designed layouts like this several times for clients. They like them. Sometimes interchange on one deck is simulated on the other, in other cases staging on each deck serves as the logical link, other times, the two decks are totally unrelated. Works fine.
I wrote about the concept in Layout Design Journal #28 (Spring 2003) published by the Layout Design SIG.
LION saysa: If two decks are good, three decks are better.
LION builded the three decks along two walls. They are flat, no grade on these decks.
The EAST BLOB raises the track from the lower level to the middle level. As designed, the lower level was supposed to be staging, the next deck directly above it is only 12" up. When this was changed into a subway tunnel it got an up grade at the north end to help it up to the East Blob Lower Level which was about 4" above the base level. It makes that tansition in about 10 feet of space. Math majors may figure percentages if they like. They will be wrong BTW.
A 5’ diameter 1 1/2 turn helix brings the train up to about the 10" level (East Blob Upper Level) and the Prospect Park station. From there the train must go up another 3" or so on a curve about 7’ in diameter. It is now on the middle level along the wall. It gets to run about 50 at then level, and then noses into the middle level of the WEST BLOB.
From the smith 9th Street Station the two express (or inner) tracks head down to Lenox Avenue and thence through the majyck of imagination to the Nevins Street Station in Brooklyn. from there they will once again be on the Lower Level of the “Back 40”
From Smith 9th Street the two local tracks (the outer tracks) go up above Lenox avenue to a location that I call 8th Street and then up some more to the 42nd Street Stationsomewhat above and inside of the Smith 9th Street Station, directly below this is the SECRET COINNECTION between Lenox and Nevins. From 42nd Street the train continues upward through a 5’ diameter rice to the Coney Island station. (Both the 42nd St station and the Coney Island station are on marked up grades) and then debaunches onto the upper level. This level finds the trains running in the 76th Street Tunnel, and turning a corner under Empire Boulevard finds itself emerging from the tunnel at the Botanic Garden station. From there is runs in an open cut (below stree
You don’t have to have a huge space and conform to conservative standards to have a cool double deck layout. I was convinced of this by Byron Henderson’s article “Coal Hauler in a Spare Bedroom” in the 2013 issue of Model Railroad Planning. This awesome plan fits in LESS space than the OP has available. Take a look at this article before you decide.