Except on our layouts that is. But even there land is a precious commodity. While it is likely true that many Model Railroaders secretly salivate at the thought of depicting every inch of their favorite railroads, the reality is that few of them possess the requisite resources to fully realize their imperial aspirations. And though it might be possible to represent a very small short line or specialized transport system in its entirety from end-to-end in one of the smaller scales, even those would prove to be the exception rather than the rule as even in N or Z scales, railroads represent very large propositions.
Of course not every modeler is particularly bothered by this. Some modelers don’t have any particular desire to model a large swath of their chosen road. Or else if they do, are perfectly content to pick and choose and otherwise selectively compress their lofty visions down to a manageable reality. Sometimes modelers would like to include more but are constrained by the realities that exist in their lifestyles, budgets or environs-- or any combination of all three. Not content to “make do” with the status quo or to leave “well enough alone”, some modelers press forward in their quest to find new horizons and new vistas to conquer-- and challenge the deeply-held and accepted notions of Model Railroading-- namely that of the single deck.
“If one deck is good”, the thinking goes, “two decks must surely be better!”
Though of course as with many things in life, there are trade-offs-- pros and cons to consider. For every up there is a down, for every left there is a right, for every progress there is a congress and, well-- you get the picture.
Where is it written that railroads must be confined to a single surface? (Don’t answer that!) And more importantly, what can be gained
I’ll post early and then get out of the way, because my own brand of double-decking isn’t traditional. I’ve got subways, but also a “normal” layout above them. The subway level is only 3 inches below the surface.
With plenty of liftoff sections for access, putting this second layer below the layout worked out pretty well. Actually, it was the first layer, and the rest was built later after the subways were completed.
In my train room, a standard double deck wouldn’t work. It’s upstairs, and the room has a 45 degree angled roofline. It’s also the “family room,” so permanent attachment of a layout to the walls probably wouldn’t have been greeted with enthusiasm by the rest of the family.
I feel that double decks would be for the purposes of getting in more pure modelling. They should be for those who are determined to get all the key elements and human artefacts into a given stretch of a prototype’s lines.
This is not to say that those who are freelancing would not appreciate the advantages of a second or third deck…it would be a personal choice where either more range is desired for fan-type appreciation or because one deck doesn’t have enough room for all the critical givens and enough of the druthers.
I have experience to date only with grades and a folded loop. That works well, although I overdid it on the grades. I’m learning. The thought of building a second deck leaves me cold. I would rather have a plywood pacific in a parking lot than to ave to construct a second deck and the ramp or helix to join them.
Besides, the real world don’t come in decks. I stop all the compromising, selective compression, selective expansion, and fancifizing (?) at adding another deck.
Nope. Room is too narrow so aisle would be too narrow. I would end up with 1/4-1/3 the main line in a helix.
**
**
Have operated on several in a half dozen states in 3 different scales. Some were OK, some less OK. Major challenges on the not OK ones were not enough deck spacing, critical areas buried deep in benchwork, people working on upper level blocking view and access to lower level, most of the railroad is at suboptimal height and poor lighting. Operationally you have to either put in a huge helix or make a major portion of the visible layout a constant up grade. Either option can present problems when you try to overlay it on a prototypical territory. Major benefits were longer runs, less omission of critical operational elements.
Given the choice of a single level or a multiple level design, for my personal layout I would choose the single level in most cases.
Many people choose a multideck layout to “get a longer run” then double the length of the train, which essentially negates the effect of the longer run. The multi-deck layouts I have enjoyed the most have lengthened the run but kept the train sizes toward the smaller end of the “big train” spectrum.
Actually, I hope you won’t get out of the way at all! I love what you’ve done-- that’s really cool and clever. I could only hope to scratch the surface on the topic of double-decking and was very much hoping that folks like yourself would come along and fill-in some blanks.
I mentioned in my post that additional decks can be used to showcase other interests and whatnot-- and I think you have illustrated a perfect textbook example.
Please, feel free to come back and tell us more about your subway, and post more pictures of it. That’s really cool.
The new lower level will incorporate almost all of the things mentioned in the “But wait…there’s more” section of the OP. It will be primarily open staging along the length of a 19’ wall, but will also be a doubletrack display loop. the staging yard will have a cassette system to swap out rolling stock and represent points off line. I think I can also squeeze in a coal mine operation with two tipples and a small branchline with say a 45 tonner to drag hoppers between the two. This will be on a 15’ wall and part of the other 19’ wall that doesn’t have the helix. The other 15’ wall has the door, and will also have my workbench, which will have a spur track leading to a 1:1 work area.
The helix must fit in a partial alcove that measures 54" and is set back about 24" from the main wall.
After some testing, I’m in the 24" radius and 3.6" rise area with a deck spacing around 18".
My calculations indicate about a 2.25% grade.
I’m using the method that uses straight cut trapezoids to produce an octagonal helix. I bought a buiscut joiner at a local pawn shop to keep the 3/8 plywood the same level.
One issue I won’t be able to avoid, is crowding of operating areas. i will just have to live with that. I’m mostly a solo op, but occasionally have one or two friends over. This may change as my operational scheme comes around, though.
The initial reason for the change was simply- staging.
I had nowhere to send my trains that were supposed to continue on…
Vista with tall structures - this is one of the main visual assets of my steel mill-based layout, with the blast furnace towering into the open “sky”. Having another deck 3" above the top of it would spoil the effect, and be nearly impossible for me to digitally paint out of any photos.
Live coal loads - one of my favorite operations is to run a fully-loaded train from staging to the rotary dumper, where the individual hoppers can be flipped and emptied. My previous layout allowed me to do this with just two Athearn 6-axle locos because there were no grades. Trying to pull that string of loaded coal cars up a helix or a nolix would require at least 3 – possibly even 4 or more – engines.
My operators and I were getting plenty of enjoyment with the old single layer, I don’t see any urgent need for additional towns and station stops on the new one just yet.
Thanks for your comments and your point-of-view. I myself am interested in double-decking so I can model more of the salient features of my chosen “prototype”, which as you know is the semi-fictional “South Pennsylvania Railroad” and the very real but now defunct “Montour Railroad”. I haven’t yet chosen every single feature to include, but I know that I want to model a significant portion of the Montour, enough to include a good sense of it and its operations. And I want to model the interchange at Connellsville PA, which I have a perfect leg branching off of the main layout to do it with. And I want to model the interchange at Shippensburg PA also, and again I have a good spot on the backside of one of the decks that will otherwise be unused and its in about the right geographical location so it just works out.
I am very hopeful-- all my toes and fingers crossed-- that I will have the main aspect of the first deck done this weekend so I can start laying track on the newest expanse of the layout. I haven’t yet determined whether its going to be “temporary” or permanent, but it will be “fun” in either instance! [:D] I am saving up to purchase the tiles to finish up the basement floor, where I tore out the mechanical room and closet. I also have some other finishing work to do on the ceiling but I think I can do that over the layout, or else with minimal disruption.
I hit upon an idea the other day for affixing my 2x3 uprights-- to support the upper deck-- using my lower deck infrastructure. Which, if it works, will allow me to utilize my “temporary” layout decking as the permanent layout decking, and just add the remainder of the top deck. I am hoping that works out the way I envision as it will save me a bucket-load of time. But I have to get the room–
In my own case I plan to do both. I really wanted to eliminate the helix, not operationally but visually-- to hide it somewhere-- but it turns out I can’t do that. I technically could but I decided I didn’t want to block off the crawl space under the family room and the sump-pump semi-permanently. So in the end I located it toward one end of the layout-- 35 ft wide by 20 ft on the one end and 12-to-14-ish ft on the other-- which will be all, or mostly, double-decked. Plus I have a very long branch line that runs around the exterior walls that adds about another 70 ft or so. I haven’t computed the whole run with both decks and the branch yet though-- I’m guessing its in the 350-400-ish linear ft range.
As it happens the helix is located along the way toward the upper deck anyway-- meaning I can begin my climb visually for a bit, so as to get the scenicked “mountainous” aspect, enter the helix through a tunnel portal, loop around a few times, and come out of a portal on the other side-- totally out of the visual range of the first portal so the height difference will be unnoticeable, and then continue the climb leisurely from there to the top deck. It’s so leisurely I am going to model a small “whistle stop” of some sort there to give it some interest without overly increasing the gradient.
My layout is actually triple decked. Traditional double deck with a hidden lower deck for staging. Reason for the double deck was mainline run in a small space (13’ x 22’).
There are several great double deck layouts in my area. Of note would be Jack Burgess’ Yosemite Valley, Dave Adam’s Durlin Branch and Jim Vail’s Glenwood and Black Creek anong others…These railroads manage to solve most of the issues associated with double decks and at the same time highlight the limitations in that they are excellent layouts that still have certain drawbacks introduced by the double deck design. (these are all killer layouts…we all should be so lucky to have these “drawbacks”).
The mentioned layouts all support operations and that was my main draw to double deck design.
Well yes if you are looking for more mainline run and more scenes in the same space. No, if you are looking for ease of construction and grand scenic vistas. A double deck is really an economic decision in that I can’t afford the space necessary to get the same mainline run on a single deck layout. If I had the space, single deck wins hands down.
I would say based on my experience so far, the biggest disadvantage is complexity of construction, followed by all the classic items that hav
Currently I’m in an Apartment and my plans are to build modules to be run with the local club. so obviously, right now, no multiple decks. In the far flung future, when I have a reasonable amount of space to work on my own layout again. I very likely will choose to have multiple decks. My vision is a What-if/Freelance Scenario for a 3rd modern Chicago to West Coast railroad and I’ve always thought I would have a lower level be the Midwest/Great Plains and the upper deck be Mountains/West Coast. The other option which isn’t explicitly mentioned, but is similar to the Nolix is the Mushroom style that MR did an article on some number of years ago. In that design, the deck have opposite facing fronts and the floor rises with them. So there is never more than one deck to look at in any direction, but another deck sits on top of it facing the other way. It’s an interesting design for hilly or mountainous terrain. It requires more space than traditional helix designs, because the railroad is in the middle of the room rather than along the walls. It also has the advantage of a much longer unbroken run. perfect for long trains.
My next layout, to be started later this year/early next year (after finishing the basement) will be around 1000 sq ft. I feel this is big enough to do what I want on one level.
An alternative to a multideck layout for a long mainline, is to run it through the benchwork more than once. This used to be very popular and with judicious arrangement of the towns can be very effective. A good example of this is Frank Ellison’s Delta Lines.
One other possibility for a double deck layout is to have two different layouts. Different scales, different eras, different countries, or whatever. For example you could have a mainline N scale layout on the upper deck with long trains, big yards, etc. and a Fn3 (1:20.3) branch line on the lower.
Would you consider double-decking your layout? If not, why not?
I have been in the planning stages of my model railroad layout for over 30 years. As a teenager, I built two single deck layouts, a 4 x 6 and a 14 x 10; both seemed to suit my purposes well. I have never considered double decking a layout. I prefer a walk-a-long linear track plan, one scene per sight line. I like to look at a scene from a distance, and a double decked layout ruins that picture, for me.
The older I get, the simpler tastes I am developing. For me, less is more. I am tending towards modeling a rural branchline; I won’t need a long mainline run to get that done.
Have you seen someone else’s double-decked layout? Did you like it? Why or why not?
I have seen several double decked layouts and operated on several double decked layouts. All had nice features, but none convinced me that double decked is the way to go. For some reason, I always seem to enjoy the top deck more (I am very tall,6’8")
I gave considerable thought of adding a logging branch above an existing 15 X 25 layout, I decided against it when became a question of how to transition without compromising existing scenery, which is basically flat with few escarpements. As much as as I want that branch, it will have to wait to be included on a new single deck design.
35 or so years ago, back in my HO days, I had a layout that crawled up the wall of a spare bedroom making 4 loops around the room before terminating in a massive reverse loop 9 feet off the floor and suspended from the ceiling by metal rods, Tru-Scale roadbed and code 70 handlaid were the norm for me back in the day, however I never got beyond basic scenery for the second deck before becoming fed up with the complexity of the design.
Along the line of Paul’s idea, in my previous house, I had an L shaped space along 2 bedroom walls. I started a 2 level shelf layout. The upper level was the HOn3 line. The lower level was to be standard gauge with the narrow gauge transfer facility on that level. Movement between the 2 levels would be via cassettes. The lower level idea died because of elevation insincerity that just bothered me. My narrow gauge line (upper level) had a harbor scene. It was hard to justify the transfer facility being lower than the harbor scene. This sort of elevation mismatch bothers me somewhat in the multi-level layouts I have seen - much more than running through the same scene twice bothers me on a non-linear layout.
In my present house, the layout room must also be used as a home office and model construction space. This forces the lowest track level of the layout up to close to 60" (my mockups show that seated at a work station or bench I want at least 55" before the bottom of a shelf intrudes), eliminating any possibility of mulitple decks.
60" height does limit your abilities to add a second deck, but I would argue that one of the biggest problems with double deck layouts is the height of the lower deck. Generally speaking the lower the layout, the less realistic and the more obvious our compromises are. This is getting into a different philosophical discussion, but I’d argue that if the lower deck started at around 50" or higher, then the relative lack of height wouldn’t be missed. You’d be looking at scenes straight on which would improve the view. Of course again that still has the problem of the upper deck being too high. Which is where concepts like the mushroom come in. Similar to the mushroom is something like the La Mesa club’s layout at the San Diego model railroad museum. They’re recreating Tehachapi, so very mountainous. Their layout could be said to have 3 decks over 2ish stories. There are few houses that could accommodate such a thing.
In my case, it’s kind of complicated. When I planned out the Yuba River Sub, I envisioned a railroad running through the California Sierra between elevations of 3,000 to 6,000 feet. Of course I knew that I would have to ‘fudge’ considerably on the elevation changes, since I had only 24x24’ of space in my “California basement”–otherwise known as a garage.
First of all, I was modeling country that had never seen a railroad (but I didn’t let THAT little detail stop me at all, LOL!). But it was country that I was familiar with and I knew that my fictional trans-Sierra line would incorporate some of the natural elements of that particular country–the San Juan Ridge, the Malakoff Hydraulic Mine Diggings, the Sierra Buttes, and Yuba Pass–all features of the Northern Mine country that have quite different elevations for their settings.
I thought about double, or even triple-decking, with helixes to connect the various scenes, but then it dawned on me that since I was modeling VERY mountainous territory, I needed to represent these mountains, and decking just wouldn’t do it, especially if some of the aspects like the Buttes and Yuba Summit actually needed to be almost floor to ceiling for the maximum scenic impact (yes, I freely admit to having been bitten by the John Allen bug when I was a young man [:-^]).
So, like Crandell, I ran the track back and forth on connected elevations. However, I’ve tried to use the scenery so that whatever level the train is running, the eye is attracted to THAT scene, and not the track level either above or below it. I’ve done that with a series of cuts, tunnels and bridges that pretty largely disguises any parallel elvations in trackage. It seems to work okay for me–it’s certainly not a total ‘cure’ for the problem of back-and-forth elevation gaining, but it do
I think I agree with that. Double-Decks are certainly a bargain struck out of “necessity” – assuming any model railroad desire could truly be characterized as such. I doubt anybody would go out of their way to choose it under other circumstances where space was not an issue. Though one reason why someone might still want to might be in order to concentrate the railroad around themselves if they plan on being a solitary operator, or just want the layout tucked out-of-the-way for some reason.
But even then, I don’t think most people would choose to double-deck if they had plenty of space. Layouts look visually much more pleasing when presented as a sweeping vista to the viewer, as you suggested. And you won’t bang your head as often… [:D]
I’m intrigued by your upper deck design. Do you have additional photos that show its innards / construction details?
