How do you figure that ? [%-)] Just because you have two (or three) times the track doesn’t mean you’ll run more trains or have more people to run them.
However, the part about staggering the towns (as well as yards) is valid.
Not necessarily. If planned properly, you can still keep your inter-deck grades to 2% or less (like I have with the no-lix in my 2-deck layout). Mind you, it does mean that I have to circle the room more than once; but I succeeded in keeping the grade to 2%.
No downside to multiple level that I know of. Photos of mine in the link below
I’m not a fan of multiple decks. To me it is difficult to separate the decks in viewing, and it largely destroys the effort to create an ‘illusion’. That’s strictly my personal opinion, and I know I’m in the minority. But for me, the added trackage/run length and so forth are not worth the visual compromise.
Those are nice pics Clinch, will you be scenicking ?
[quote]
Originally posted by fwright
Train elevators get pretty impractical over 4ft long (6-7 cars plus loco in HO); hence, the use of helix and nolix./quote]
'Taint necessarily so. That John Armstrong ‘dehydrated canal lock’ was designed 16 feet long, to handle two O scale trains, each of seventeen hoppers and a caboose with a Y6 on the front end. It’s pictured on the inside front cover of my 1978 edition of ‘John Armstrong on Creative Layout Design.’ Detailed description of the entire layout it was part of starts on page 52.
The problem someone mentioned about aisle congestion refers to the fact that you have to be careful how you plan your multi-level layout. If you have say a major grain elevator complex on the lower level, and a big factory on the upper level directly above it, you could find two ‘engineers’ trying to share the same aisle space while their respective trains serve those businesses. You usually want to try to plan it so if you have a passenger terminal, engine service facility, industry etc. on one level that is going to generate a lot of traffic, that the track on the other level is pretty much just ‘run through’ scenery.
kc:
I couldn’t agree more. That’s the beauty of a mushroom configuration. The layout fits into the space a lot like a traditional double deck design, but it looks like a single deck design!
Put simply, with a mushroom benchwork configuration, you face the two decks in opposite directions and you view the upper deck on a raised floor. Both decks then, can be near optimum viewing height, like so:
(click image to enlarge)
However, you need sufficient ceiling clearance to build a mushroom so there’s enough headroom on the raised floor side. My basement has a 7’-7" ceiling, and I was able to get sufficient clearance above my head for the raised floor.
The thing I really like is I’ve not given up visually unclutered panoramic views of the layout, as this view from the door to my layout room illustrates:
For a much larger image, click here
Just by looking as this picture, you would never know my layout is double decked, now would you? Yet it is – this is the upper deck part of my mushroom design! I love the mushroom benchwork configuration. [swg]
Now stop that Joe! You’re going to make me redesign my layout,…again!
Hey, I am curious about something. Is there a way you can think of that makes it so you don’t have to suspend this design from the ceiling?
I absolutely agree, even to the extent of not thinking of a mushroom design as “multi deck” so much as “multilevel”…
My expereience is that model locomotives can pull modest trains up very unrealistically steep grades, e.g., 7%. On my simple double deck layout I have mostly staging on the lower level with several “windows” of modest grade visible en route to the lower level, and the longer really steep grades are hidden. Seems to work, but I do have to hide the steep portion from view.
You might be able to get away with that in the larger scales, but N scale steam, for example, doesn’t do steep grades well.
All it takes to double or triple deck is a little imagination and lots of time engineering the benchwork. The result is much enhanced running distance, more scenic opportunities and variety. The double deck concept allows for not having to create a spagetti bowl of track and shallower ‘shelves’ making access much easier. The third deck is usually a staging area in the ‘basement’
It could be said that those that do not like multi-deck layouts are more into watching the train run through the scenery than into heavy-duty OPs (switching cars).
And I can understand this. They may like to just watch the train go through the scenery again and again as in Rail-fanning. The multi-deck would take a lot out of this design as the layers would be somewhat distracting.
But when doing OPs I usually am not looking around at the overall scenery as I need to concentrate on the immediate area as the switching needs to get done as the next mainline train is due any second and the mainline must be clear!
So I usually am only looking at the local industries and really do not pay much attention to the scenery, unless it is in my way!
And this is the way it seems with my crew when they come over to operate every other Thursday night. I usually ask them the next time I see them if they saw the new section of scenery or this detail or that detail scene I put in. And I know they were working right next to the scene as it was part of a switching area.
Usually they say no! Now one could say that it must not have been very noticeable, maybe not, but then when they actually look for it then next time they come in they state that they can’t figure out why they missed it last OPs session.
Maybe they were too busy getting the switching done!
Same goes for the multi-decks. I usually don’t see them as I am only looking at a given area and concentrating only on that area, not gawking around all over the place.
Just one persons view
BOB H – Clarion, PA
I’ve visited a few multi-level layouts on house tours and I’ve always wondered about access for maintenance, cleaning up derailments and cleaning track. It seems to me that the lower level staging that many multi-levels feature would need a dwarf or a contortionist to work on them. The idea of having more mainline to operate is great but I’d say don’t forget to provide access holes or spaces.
I personally like Mutli level layouts. And now I like the idea of the Elevator by RO-RO and looking into finances to buy it. I just dont want to sit and build something that I have no true idea how to do. Now I would have donw a Nolix but the second layer was an after thought and most of the lower level is semi finished lets just say too much to rip up. I have plans on how I am gonna do the upper level and see how it works out then again I am only going 2 feet above the exisiting layout. Also going to light up the bottom portion with rope lights.
I see just a con for the layout more room. And I got many buildings.
I am currently building my second two level layout, 24x7 1/2, dogbone walkin. Track heights are 36 and 48 inches (minimum). The issue of perspective with the tracks this close to each other was solved when I sat in the work bench roll around desk chair with the height adjusted to the lowest and the highest settings. Eye level for me was four inches above each set rail height. I agree that most of my operating time is spent consentrating on the immediate area and not the overall, photo-op, view. I utilize rebuilt kitchen cabinets on swivel wheels for under layout storage. By working on the necessary areas of the lower level first and by using a rolling cart and knee pads, I have found the work on the lower level to be manageable. All construction items are in large moving boxes on dollys. Bench work framing was built as a unit with the middle of each dog bone accessible. Much of the lower level track is set forward of the upper edge just enough to give a separate view without effort. Approximately half of the lower level is hidden but accessible due to the roll around storage. The size makes everything accessible due to the design. All bench work framing was built with glued, screwed connections in a unit. This has allowed thinner dimensions than you normally see in areas where scenicing was a priority. Larger dimensional lumber sizes were used where I would be crawling on top of the upper level. I have avoided the dreaded duck-unders by using one hinged bridge connection to a side yard/staging area over my workbench. (This is a single car garage that shares space with the air handler, water heater and storage.) Much planning was done. Lines drawn on the floor and ‘pretend’ right of way with cutouts were used to refine the space before anything was built. I like watching the trains run and I like operating. The two levels allow me to operate to suit my mood. Two decks allow this railroad to be more than twice as big as a single deck would have been. I use a hidden 4% grade that is no problem
Could you use the train elevator and if your train is longer that the elevator use a switcher to stick it on the elevator and then drive off? The switcher would stick them on the elevator for the engine to received on the side.
Yeah, you could. You could even make a two track elevator and split your trains I suppose.
I am totaly convinced that this is a great way to add operating length to a MR. I built a double deck RR in 1986 in N scale and a huge double deck HO RR in 1988 both worked very well. at a minimum you require 14 inches between decks. stager operating areas or you’ll be bumping into each other all the time. Helix’s are by their nature space eaters! Check out the Great Model Railroad 2006 my Railroad the AC&E RR is inside and shows the track plan & elevations of the two Helix’s on my layout. The uniqueness of my layout is that the first helix was built to expose as much of the trackage as possible and everywhere the RR ducks into a tunnel is where I raised the grade. for much of the climb you are led to believe that you are on a flat area. In reality one whole room or section of the RR is a semi exposed helix but fully scenicked and has switching areas also along its line.
The other helix is also treated senically as I exposed the upper or 1st turn of the helix and formed a river along the inside of the curves, and the bottom ducks out of sight into a tunnel and the the river dives out of sight. There is over a hunderd feet of track in this helix 26" curves and four levels 2.5 of which are out of view. One more piece of advice add a straight section of track at least 10-14" on opposing sides of the helix, this relieves the tension and helps keep the cars from being pulled to the inside of the curve and avoids a nasty derail. I believe in this as a way to gain a tremendous amount of precious real estate which we as Modelers are always devising ways to gain. Try it!
What Bob says makes a lot of sense as I pause to consider it.
I’m in the “don’t like 'em” category myself. My layout is also highly passenger-operations oriented, which for me means heavy operations centered around my main station, with much
