What is your opinions on the pros/cons of multi deck layouts?
And the pros/cons of single deck layouts?
My problem with multi-deck is psychological. I’m supposed to be pretending I’m looking at a little world. When there’s another little world floating above the former, I think it might be irritating.
Another problem could be working on the different layers–lack of headroom, in the widest sense.
But a VERY big plus would be the extra railroading.
My compromise would be to only have the “other” layers be for staging yards and other off-stage trackage. They then aren’t pretending to be part of the model world.
It should be obvious that I am not speaking from experience about the multi-level concept. Others who ARE will likely have things to say. But them saying THEY don’t have a psychological problem with layered worlds does not mean that I won’t.
Ed
Ed that’s a VERY valid point stacking does result in less realism while on the other hand you get practically twice the railroad in the same space. Also I think this is much more obvious with layouts featuring three or more decks. I’m just trying to get opinions from those who have experienced each type of layout.
Also one way to get the best of both worlds is to set the second “deck” higher up on a sceniced mountain therefore allowing you to double your mainline while maintaining realism.
I live in a three dimensional world. That’s enough for me.
My model railroad has to be the same.
Adding a second level to my life or My model railroad would be a bit more than I can chew.
True sincerity
Track Fiddler
My current build layout has two levels, 18" apart. The upper level is a little too high (52") for comfort, and the lower level is a little too low (34").
Two levels double the area, but I’m not entirely sure it is worth it. I’m very satisfied how things are turning out, but check back in a few years for an update.
Robert
Here’s a great case for double decking a layout.
I would never build a double deck layout for myself.
.
Every double decked layout I have ever seen has had the lower deck suffer from serious neglect.
.
However… if you REALLY need to have distance between your cities, or just a long mainline run… a double decker might be the only way to get what you want in the space that you have.
.
-Kevin
.
Like the club I’m in the process of joining they have a double deck area and a single deck area and a total 1000 ft of mainline. I think that again a great compromise would be running the mainline higher up on the scenery therfore giving more run while maintaining a single deck type layout.
I thought about this as I was building my layout. Now I wish I would have done something different for the staging part. I share Ed’s thoughts. I build, and take apart, the trains I run right up front, on the main line.
I still can change things, just haven’t figured it all out, to blend it in with I have.
Mike.
I could imagine an under level from the main layout for staging and storage for your running stock and locomotives so they don’t collect dust.
A place where your train left industry and left the scene for a while and then came back. (maybe empty)
That would be cool
Here’s a great example of multiple mainlines stacked in a scene.
.
Here’s one more example of my stacked idea. I think I might do this on my railroad.
Do you have that much room?
That’s not exactly double decked.
I’m currently working on designing a double-deck railroad for my ‘train shed’,…
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/264616.aspx?page=3
I found another interesting trackplan that I wanted to spend time investigating prior to making a decision as to which one to build. I started a new subject thread on that other plan so as to not confuse matters by mixing the 2 up.
Interesting Plan, Tupper Lake & Faust Junction
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/3004238/reply.aspx
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/3006861/reply.aspx
(Sorry I don’t know what I am doing wrong on this forum, BUT I am having trouble posting links to other discussions…the software here is different than any other 8 train and boating sites I participate in ): )
This plan, IMO, is an example of the old “nothing but track bowl of spaghetti” layout that multi-deck layouts were invented to fix. By going to a second deck you get the mainline run of a plan like this but still have the opportunity to maintain scenic integrity by not having trains run through the same scene more than once.
It all depends on what you want. If you want more layout are and running, multi-deck will go a long way toward achieven that in a give space.
Pro’s: are lots of extra distance running, bigger “world”, operations operations operations.
Con’s: More expensive and complexe to build.
As for psychological factors, thats an individual choice. If you want to give up say, twice the mainline because it’s irritating, of course thats your choice. Lots of things are irritating but absolutely worth it in the big picture - thats life in general!
Thats largely an engineering question. Build bottom levels as much as possible before moving to upper, as much as possible to avoid access issues. Ask lots of questions so you can maximize the benefits and minimize issues.
This topic is timely for me as I have torn down a 10x18’ layout that had two levels on one side - it was a good learning experience and hopefully I
Having operated on a couple different multiple deck layouts, I would say that if you are following the train and paying attention to what you are doing you tend to “not see” the other decks or what’s happening on them.
Now does two decks work for mountain scenery?
In my opinion this layout is very well done even though it is a spaghetti central track plan.
If you’re doing a two-level layout set in Iowa, you’ve got a situation getting from one level to the other.
With mountains, it seems like that’s solved: a bunch of the layout IS the way you get up to the next level. In this case, you might have a section of the layout that is two level, and another section of the layout that is the climb. And would be one-level. Sort of a split-level house idea.
Ed