Doing more with less

[rrinker]

The more I try to develop a track plan for the rest of my layout, the more certain compromises keep getting in the way of doing the originally planned double deck thing. Mostly due to height requirements and thus separation between the decks. I'm starting to think that a single deck arrangement would be a lot better, but there are other issues that need to be worked out in order to accommodate both what I want to model and what my father in law wants to model. These however, might be easier to work out than the physical requirements of the double deck layout.
Basically, i want to model a portion of the Reading Railroad, somewhat faithfully. I do not need to exactly duplicate the prototype track arrangement, and in fact if I continue with the East Penn Branch theme I will need to add far more industries than actually exist(ed) on this line. Nothing but through trains makes for some pretty boring operation. My father in law favors more generic Eastern roads, set up for a lot of passenger operation. Thing like PRR, CNJ, and New Haven.
The space available remains the same. Without need to access an upper deck, the bench work can easily bulge out in spots to 4' or more wide and still maintain 3+' aisle ways.
Mostly just talking out loud here, but any comments would be appreciated.

--Randy

[NZRMac]

Randy I had trouble with my layout too, it doubled back on itself and ended up 3" above the other track, not quite enough for satisfactory clearance. Now that I've added a 8' extension that problem has gone, 4.5" clearance. (but I can't get the car in the garage)

Do you really need to model for your father in law?
I guess if he's got some input, financial, psychical then you have to.

Sometimes making it simpler can be more rewarding.

Just a thought, Ken.

[Leon Silverman]

Randy:
If you can have a 3'+ isleway with a 4 foot wide layout, you might consider a temporary bulge to 5 feet (actually about 62") and built a helix to get to your second level. A four foot wide layout might present a problem reaching the back since the average reach is about 30". You would need access holes either way.
Additionally consider this compromise regarding your interest in the Reading and your father's suggestion of the PRR. If you model the Penn-Reading Seashore Lines, all you have to add are pinelands, marshes and inlets.

[cwclark]

I feel your pain Randy!...sometimes it is really hard to visualize what you want and what really happens......I planned and planned my layout for months ..thought i had it down pat and one slip of the measuring tape cost me an alteration of an entire section of the layout...I revised the plan, but it's going to take a lot more work to accomplish my goal now because i'm going to have to remove some cabinets and shelves that i wanted to keep...but your a pretty smart guy and you'll pull it off...the main thing is that you keep it fun ...a hobby isn't a hobby if it becomes a stress point in your life....Chuck

[rrinker]

Thanks for the responses so far. I'll respond to all so far in one message.

First, I have been working at the plan for some time and have plenty of room for a helix to connect the upper and lower levels, if I continue to go that route. Quite a complicated mess actually, connecting both levels, plus having access to the small(er) layout we already are building, plus staging for the west end of the Reading portion (under the existing layout). My attempt there was to do all the complex stuff and leave off with a pair of tracks that my father in law could connect into with whatever he wanted, while I continued designing the lower level Reading section.
And yes, I DO have to keep both our desires under consideration for this layout. My in-laws share this house with us. We all get along great, plus the house is plenty big that we aren't in each other's way all the time. If it were just my wife and I, I don't think I'd WANT a house this big, not without help taking care of it all. Plus, he has almost all the trains. He's been collecting for years with no place to run anything. And his collection naturally includes a far greater variety than mine - a lot of passenger equipment, plus he does not restrict himself to one particular era, and instead does anything late 40's up to the formation of Penn Central. Me, I'm stuck in the middle 50's so everything I've purchased so far fits that era. I originally picked 1956 as my cut off so I could model just the old Temple hill track and not the Blandon Low-Grade line - less complex in fitting in the track plan plus the opportunity for helpers, as if anyone would come out with an affordable (not brass) Reading articulated as used for such helper service...
That isn't the first time I heard about doing the PRSL, however that would really limit both of us at this point. I'm kind of leaning towards further North than the East Penn, that would allow PRR trackage along a similar alignment, and even CNJ interchange - although there was not that kind of passenger operation there that he wants, he is not as stuck in specific prototype operation as I am so the PRR line could be double tracked AND support heavy passenger operations.
I have some interesting ideas in my head, after work today I will try to sketch some of them in a bit more detail in 3rd PlanIt and see how it would work out.

--Randy

[rrinker]

Oh yes, the idea of foregoing the double-deck plan has other appeal as well - simplified bench work and greatly reduced cost - cost I can channel back in towards buying the track and supplies sooner, and/or adding to my roster. By going single deck, I eliminate 50% of the bench work (partially gained back by making the single deck wider), eliminate the need for under-cabinet lighting fixtures to light the lower level (which run nearly double the cost of the electronic ballast shop lights I used s far to light up the layout) and I won't have to figure out some sort of support system for the upper deck. Height compromises for the double deck (I'm 6', he's 5'6", so planned deck heights were going to be 36" for the lower, operated seated using rolling chairs, and 54" for the upper as a maximum comfortable height for him). I was giving him the upper deck because one of the things he wants to include on the layout is a Lionel Hell Gate bridge (actually the MTH repro - and he bought it before all this lawsuit stuff went down or I woulda never let him buy it [:)]). It' actually fairly close to scale for an HO bridge, even though Lionel originally produced it not for O but for STANDARD GAUGE! It would never work on the lower level of a double-decked layout. Hmm, maybe the PRR copied it to cross the Schuylkill somewhere.... RIIIIIIIGHT! Well, I will just have to accept some 'inaccuracies' in my plan, is all.

[ndbprr]

Why not try to model an interchange with a Reading branch. More off line traffic and variety while sticking to a Reading theme.

[jwar]

Hi Randy.

I had the same problem wanting to model two different roads, Western Pacific and Southern Pacific. I opted for a helix in the corner of the room, Off both sides is a great opertunity to model bridges. Being double tracked on can run a consist from the lower level to the top one without using reversers or throwing a switch. Or keep both lines independent of each other except for interchanging.

Your bench height sounds like you have enough ceiling height to use a swing up if you have a door way problem.

I used metal shelving ( By Rubbermaid ) which are a double channel which are very easy to install and very strong for the upper deck. I also went from shelf type to a mountain and back to a shelf which looks better then it sounds. This saved room under the shelf for a yard and town.

I dont have a pardner to help and it sounds like both your dad and yourself can make a heck of a layout. Go for it sounds like fun.

My layout is only 11 x 15 and is like cramming a ten pounds in a five pound bag. If you wi***o e mail your address and I will send you a few pics. Take care...John