3railguy ---> f-o-c-u-s...
Fifedog, you forgot the party girl comming out the middle!
Howzabout an inverted "wedding cake"...? Picture yourself standing on a ridge, looking down in a valley, where several lines serve the area (Pittsburgh comes to mind, where NS,CSX,and the UNION RR intertwine around PORT PERRY).
Your G scale trains could thread around the outside edge, even double track.
Your O gauge trains could figure 8 on a level approx 6 inches below the G.
Your HO trains could thread below everything another 6 inches down.
You could set your layout edge height at 4 foot off the floor.
As others have posted, combining scales is a popular method of forcing perspective if done right. The key is to keep large trains in the foreground and small trains in the background. You also want the smaller scales at higher elevations than the larger scales. Otherwise, it forces the perspective to a point it hurts the eyes. This is easy with simple loops but once you add complexity to the plan, things get complicated. Tunnels and hidden track are good methods of making the plan effective.
Secondly, you want the different gauges of track to look similar for good effect. Otherwise things look hodge podge. I would replace the black base steel EZ track with the grey base nickle silver EZ Track because it looks similar to Fastrack. Plus nickle silver track is much more reliable than steel because it doesn't tarnish or get dirty as easily as steel. The added cost is well worth it if you're building something permanent in both looks and performance. Nickle silver EZ track isn't all that expensive. I don't know of any G scale track that resembles Fastrack or EZ track. I would add light grey ballast to the G scale track so it resembles Fastrack somewhat.
The same applies to structures. You want the large scale buildings in the foreground and the small scale in the background as you go uphill. As crazy as it may sound, trees are the opposite. You want small trees in the foreground and large trees in the background for the right effect.
Considering all the above, if done right, your layout will look twice as large as it really is. An excellent book is Kalmbach's "Creative Track Planning" by John Armstrong. He was a real wizzard when it came to arranging track for interesting operation and convincing effects.
There is a train club in Shade, OH that has all of the popular scales represented in what you call a wedding cake. It's not much better than what you where talking about. I didn't take measurements, but it's close to 8'x8' at the base. There is a balance to be struck between easy and not boring. A wedding cake is going to be a bunch of circle shaped loops. You are going to have to at least make some tunnels so the trains dissapear/reappear. From looking at the design I saw in Shade, a simple bench was made to hold the bottom level, with no plywood put down, just open framing. Then they layed the circle of track down on plywood, tracing around the track, and cut it out with a jigsaw. they cut the plywood just a little wider than the track to give them room to fasten plaster cloth to. Then they moved the "ring" over to the benchwork and held it in place with plywood boards and connected them to the open framing. They continued upward, making smaller circles and mounting them higher and higher off of the layout. When they where happy with the trackwork, they started plaster clothing everything, then put the track back on. They also built some mountains and tunnels in there as well, plus made a few flat open spots for scenery. Painted it all up, added trees, cars, etc, and wired it up. Looked good as a display unit. Must have been 7 feet tall. There is a big size difference between G and N gauge. The highlight of the layout was the scenicking, not the trains path.
Wes
Well, from your description, it looks as if you can do what you wish using two-or-more-tiers - with all that involves construction-wise and according to your personal preference: perhaps G-gauge on level one 8 x 8; Lionel fastrack loop and isolated siding on a 'table' high enough for you to see the G-gauge but low enough for you to reach - maybe fit HO track around the perimeter - or on a third level.... A forced perspective setup would have G-gauge in the 'front', then O-gauge (Lionel), finally HO in the back...from your viewer's perspective.
Doug Murphy 'We few, we happy few, we band of brothers...' Henry V.
Clark Dunham's CitiCorp layout used O, S, and HO in a forced perspective mode.
This may not be the most appropriate forum for my question. If not I’ll move it accordingly:
I’m new top the hobby and have a few multi scale sets. I’m looking for the most economical way (smallest footprint and cost) to get my sets off the basement floor and up to a level that’s more enjoyable, comfortable and will keep the trains and track from being trampled. My goal is to be able to set up and run all the trains from a single table (hopefully no more than 8’ x 8’). With the various scales/gauges, I know scaling will be impractical. I’m just looking for something purely functional at this point.
Currently, I have:
I’ve seen multi-tiered layouts (like a wedding cake) and I’m curious if to see if this would be a prudent way to go. Again, I’m looking for something functional at this point.
Thanks in advance.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Get the Classic Toy Trains newsletter delivered to your inbox twice a month