Triple level around-the-walls layout

Model Railroader Layouts and layout building
1

Hello all,

I’m a long time reader of the forum, but this is my first post.

I’ve got a room that’s 11’-5" x 13’ that I hope will become my train room. I’d like to build an around-the-walls layout and I’ve been working on a track plan for a number of months. Like so many, I have found that I’m hard pressed to fit in all that I’d like to, so I’m considering multiple levels. I’d like your opinions on whether three levels is do-able, or if it’s going to severely restrict access and viewability of the middle and lower level.

The top two levels would be an HO layout, connected by a helix at one end. The bottom level would be a completely seperate O gauge layout. I’d estimate the top level at about 58" off the floor, the second level at about 40", and the bottom (O gauge) level at about 20". While I realize that 20" is very low by most standards, it would be 1) great to be able to squeeze in the O gauge layout, rather than not have one, and 2) the O gauge layout would be geared toward kids, and thus, 20" is very workable for them.

For reference, I’m 5’ 10", and the maximum depth from the edge of the layout to the wall would be 30".

My chief concern would be viewability of the middle (HO) level, sandwiched between the upper HO level and the lower O gauge level.

I’ve seen a bunch of double deck layouts, but never a triple decker.

Any thoughts?

Thanks,

Randy

2

I’m on my second triple decker. Lower level is 26, middle is at 44 and upper is at 62. Of course you have to factor in the thickness of whatever benchwork you’re using so figure 3 inches and you’re down to about 15" of usable space on level one and two with the upper limited only by your room height. I use 2" foam base and a 3" wood frame to allow switch machines to be hidden. I’m 6’4" and have no issues with level 2 and 3 visibility. I use level 1 as just a mainline run with passing sidings so interaction is a minimum and then normally run the track about 5" from the layout edge so visibility is good looking down on the action. I have two young kids so I’m doing scenery on the upper two levels first as they learn to control their hands which is working out good. They love trains down on “their” level and could care less about scenic shortcomings. Unless you’re seated, 26-28 is about desk height, so switching cars and such on the lower level is a back ache or deep knee bend exercise. All three of my levels on the current layout are connected by helix. A trackplan is available in the link below, screenshots of my CAD design is on page two of the pictures. I’ve since taken over the “Crew Lounge” and moved the helix into that area to thumb my nose at my wife and take over the entire “man cave”. The trackplan of the modifications are a few pictures later.

3

Robby,

Thanks for your post. Wow! What an impressive layout and track plan! I am glad to hear that the triple deck arrangement works well for you.

I figured that putting the O gauge kid-oriented layout on the bottom would be good for them and allow me to have the two upper decks for the HO stuff. The height of the second and third decks would pretty much preclude the kids from reaching it unless assisted by an adult, at least until they are older (and thus, taller) and can handle HO stuff on their own. They’re pretty good with the O gauge stuff we currently have now.

How many loops are in each of your helixes to travel the 18 inch vertical distance between levels?

Randy

4

You would proably enjoy reading Designing and Building Multi-Deck Model Railroads by Tony Koester. I got it for Christmas. $14 at Amazon.

Dennis San Fernando Valley CA.

5

My Santa Fe in Oklahoma (1989) has been triple decker since 1983. You can visit my website in my signature, but the room size is 29ft by 33ft. It is around the wall and peninsula style. Tope deck is connected to middle deck with a helix, middle deck is connected to the bottom deck with a long easy grade. But my room size is larger than yours if I read your dimensions correctly.

Bob

6

Randy,

I have some negative comments for you but I am trying to be constructive about them.

In my opinion I think a helix in your small room will take up too much space. A no-lix would be better, and it would leave you with more layout surface area han a helix would. I also think a no-lix is easier to build because you just mount it on the walls. The big drawback for some people is crossing the doorway, but I have written a paper on what you need to know and do to do it effectively. (Go to my layout link at the bottom in my signature.)

I also think you need more separation between the top and middle levels. 15 inches of height with a depth of 30 inches is going to cramp your work. I would raise the upper level and use step stools for operation and access.

I also think 30 inches is going to be too wide. That is going to give you trouble reaching back in the corners. 24 inches would be better, and the wood sizes will come out more even.

Now having said that, my layout is HO, now in a 9 by 23 foot room. I have a no-lix, and I have crossed two doors with four lift bridges. This same layout started in a 10 by 13 foot room, so I know about the space you have available.

Opinions are just opinions, so I am not telling you not to do it your way, but I think you are asking for trouble.

7

I have a triple decker( at least part of a lower level) and agree with Elmer, a helix might not be best. It really comes down to how you fit it in. I’m 6’4" and my son uses our layout and it is kind of high(he was 8 when built).

  1. You can always run between levels with along the wall tracks, even using some portions of curves and hills.

  2. While 20" seems good now, consider how long you will keep the layout in it’s place and how long the kids will like 20" IMHO, make it flexible or atleast adjustable with some preplanned effort.

  3. 30" can be a problem depending on where you are with the 30" and what else is around in the way of structures, etc. I would recommend you put some tape on the walls and some cardboard and get an idea of how it would work given your height and other plans.

  4. Mixing scales as you want sounds really great. Kids really do better with larger scales. BTW, I’m beginning to think I will too as my eyes age.

  5. As your kids age they will probably want to play with the adults toys/area So be prepared and have some HO rolling stock that they can handle without breakage, like good old Athearn blue box.

Richard

8

Thanks for all the comments.

I realize the small rooms would present a challenge as far as fitting in a helix. While I like the no-lix idea (Elmer, thanks for the write up on that), the prototype area is flat as a pancake, so I feel that a no-lix with mountains and bridges to disguise it would be out of place. (The total elevation change on the prototype is less than 20 feet across 75 miles.)

Although a helix would eat up a lot of room, I’ve measured it out carefully and it could be done. The advantage would be doubling the mainline run, and doubling the amount of railroad I could model. The disadvantage would be the large helix in a small room, and of course any reachability/viewability issues because of the three levels.

The 30" depth I talked about would be a maximum. Corners and other hard to reach areas would be less to ensure access.

While the O gauge lower level could be eliminated, we’ve got a lot of postwar O gauge Lionel stuff that I’d like to be able to run on a layout, plus someday I’d like to add Legacy/command equipment too. A 20" height for the O gauge level is not ideal, but it would be better than nothing.

I’d probably be more likely to eliminate the middle (HO) level, and the helix. If I did that, I’d probably arrange the track plan so that at each end the main would drop quietly out of sight and run beneath the layout, then reappear at the other end. This would allow me continuous running when the need arose, plus out-of-sight staging, without making it a formal “level” of the layout. It would just be hidden-but-accessible trackage–no scenery or switching.

The disadvantage of that is that I lose the chance to model about half of what I’d like to…

Trade offs are everywhere, I guess!

I’m continuing to ponder this on paper, and although slow, working through these ideas and options has helped with progress.

Thanks for the input and ideas.

Randy

9

Beautiful layout pastor!