Basically I'm building a 12' x 12' N scale layout with a second level for hidden staging. The idea is to have it be an G shape and on either end have a 2% grade down to the second level, which will be non-scenic, just storage tracks (I can make trains up on upper level, even in the yard perhaps) and then run them down to staging/storage. I am planning on the top surface of the staging level being 4" below the top surface of the main layout. The crazy idea comes in the construction.
The plan is to use flat shelving for the bottom level, and attach the track directly to the shelving (most likely plywood). WS incline sets will be used to achieve the seperation desired. Where access is needed on the bottom level, (to throw switches in staging yard, and in emergency situations remove a derailment) I was planning on 3" blocks (either wood or foam), which will support 1" foam, that 1" foam surface being the subroadbed for the top layer. Would the 1" foam be rigid enough with the blocks every 12" - 16" or so to support the upper layer? All scenary on the upper level would be foam based so as light as can be.
I'm fairly confident that a 3" gap from bottom of upper layer to top of upper level is enough clearence, unless I missed something? I know it's tight for my hand, but since I'm not actually fiddling with the rolling stock in that space, just removing it if it derails, it is enough. Suggestions? Will this idea work?
Edited for more info: If it matters it runs along 3 sides of the room, and the area that would have the staging yard directly underneath is only 18" deep, the staging tracks would be on the front portion of that. Maybe only four or five deep.
It will work but you will hate yourself in the morning. Minimum clearance staging areas sound great but the first time you have a problem, its a BIG problem. Plus any wires, switch linkages, scenery, etc on the 1" upper level that protrudes through the bottom of the foam will create an obstruction to the trains below. Any sagging you do get will create clearance or access problems.
Rule of thumb is that you have to be able to reach over a track of cars and pick up a car and remove it. Otherwise if you have a boo-boo on the back track you have to stop everything and clear out ALL the tracks in front of it to reach the back track.
If this is the ONLY way you can structure layout, if its choice between this and not having a layout, then go for it and build the lower level with the precision and quality control of a NASA project. If there is any other way to build the layout, explore those options before you decide.
Dave H.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I'd have to second that. Three inches is tight by the time you add rolling stock and rail height. Add wires and such from the upper level and I think you might be in trouble.
The basic concept is OK though.
I'd probably go with at least 4", maybe 5" as a minimum, and then I'd glue some 1/4" luan to the bottom of the foam. It'll add a lot of stability without a lot of cost and the thickness is minimal. I'd also support it on 12" centers to be safe. With thicker foam on top you could probably go more, but by the time you find out if it'll work or not with say a 16" center, it'll be too late to do much about it.
BTW, just so you know I'm there with ya, my own layout has large sections that are 1/4" Luan with foam over the top, all supported on 12" centers. It's been up for about a year and a half in a climate controlled room and it's holding up great with no sagging or warpage at all.
dehusman wrote:It will work but you will hate yourself in the morning. Minimum clearance staging areas sound great but the first time you have a problem, its a BIG problem. Plus any wires, switch linkages, scenery, etc on the 1" upper level that protrudes through the bottom of the foam will create an obstruction to the trains below. Any sagging you do get will create clearance or access problems.Rule of thumb is that you have to be able to reach over a track of cars and pick up a car and remove it. Otherwise if you have a boo-boo on the back track you have to stop everything and clear out ALL the tracks in front of it to reach the back track.If this is the ONLY way you can structure layout, if its choice between this and not having a layout, then go for it and build the lower level with the precision and quality control of a NASA project. If there is any other way to build the layout, explore those options before you decide.Dave H.
I've built plenty of layouts but never a multiple level one, hence the questions. All switches will be used with ground throws so no linkages to worry about, the terrain directly above the staging yard will be along the coast of a river, so no gullies or anything scenic wise that would go more than that 1" deep. wiring for feeders and such could be dropped down behind the staging tracks if needed, would that create a problem I'm not thinking about? My biggest concern at the moment is the structural integrity of the 1" foam being supported by only blocks. The hidden parts of the grade and the staging tracks themselves are perfectly straight, with 19" radius curves on the flat after the grades leading into the staging yard. If I put rerailing tracks immediately after the curves, are derailments in the staging yard very likely? (planning on using #6 or #7 atlas code 55 switches whichever they make I've forgotten at the moment) As far as getting out derailments...minimum clearance for N scale is considered 2" if I recall, so it's a little bit of wiggle room, not much.
I could make the grade 3% and add another inch or two to the clearance, but that would start to limit train length I'd imagine. I'm aiming for 4' - 6' trains set mostly in the mid-80's, so I could do multiple unit lashups, and of course the occasional steam railfan excursion.
I've been going back and forth on this idea, but it's really the only way to do what I want in the space provided without helices or a duckunder, since I want a decent yard, two towns and an out of town industry, oh and "sincere" scenary, but only have a 12' x 12' spare bedroom to work in. Appreciate the response, just trying to find a workable solution and get some input from people who might have tried such a thing before.
Edit: Phillip, would you think that the foam would still not sag without the luan? Maybe if the front was supported with blocks, but used longer more solid supports in the back behind the "hidden" trackage?
Hi
Here's a thought (although it might go against the spirit of your forum name!). How about building your 4 track staging yard on a sliding sector plate. you could built it out of plywood mounted on drawer slides. That way you can slide it out to fix any derailment or fiddle with consists. Ian Rice often makes use of such devices in his plans.
Cheers,
David
Occams Razor wrote: Edit: Phillip, would you think that the foam would still not sag without the luan? Maybe if the front was supported with blocks, but used longer more solid supports in the back behind the "hidden" trackage?
It might be OK, but the wood is not only insurance, it also provides a solid mounting point for under table switch machines, wiring harnesses, wiring junction boxes, etc.
MECman wrote:Hi Here's a thought (although it might go against the spirit of your forum name!). How about building your 4 track staging yard on a sliding sector plate. you could built it out of plywood mounted on drawer slides. That way you can slide it out to fix any derailment or fiddle with consists. Ian Rice often makes use of such devices in his plans.Cheers,David
That might work, although yeah it does kinda go against the spirit of the forum name, but that doesn't matter to a model railroad. I don't have a ton of faith in my carpentry skills so as to pull that off, but it's definitely worth thinking about.
Will also keep in mind phillip's idea of adding the wood, although there won't be anything to mount to it, it might be worth the structural support.
I think the drawer idea would be the best. At the same time, adding the Luan as a laminate under the foam should be a necessity. It would only add 1/4 inch thickness and would provide consideralbe stiffness plus be a good mounting surface as explained before.
Build the drawer first and get it attached to the lower level benchwork, and some sort of lock installed. Then add the track approaches up to the drawer. Bang the drawer around some and modify / reinforce / shim it where needed. Then lay the track from the approach at one end all the way through the drawer to the approach at the other end. Once everything is dry, cut the gaps in the tracks at each end. I would also cut them at an angle so the rear tracks don't catch on the front tracks when pulling the drawer out. something like this;
approach / drawer \ approach.
When the drawer is pulled out, you will also be able to work on the bottom of the level above it more easily.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
I think you should try it before you decide. You don't need to build the hole layout, just put up a pice of foam and support under it as you have planned. You will easily find out if it is good enough. I don't think it's crazy at all.
I do agree that 3" might be a little tight for handling trains so may be you will find some other solution. One way to solve it is to have the upper level designed with liftout parts.
nof wrote:I think you should try it before you decide. You don't need to build the hole layout, just put up a pice of foam and support under it as you have planned. You will easily find out if it is good enough. I don't think it's crazy at all. I do agree that 3" might be a little tight for handling trains so may be you will find some other solution. One way to solve it is to have the upper level designed with liftout parts.
Yeah I plan on trying it once I get home from work today. Just putting some foam on blocks on top of plywood at the various heights. But wanted to solicit opinions from those more experienced so I know what I'm getting into if I go for it. Especially the structural integrity of the 1" foam (which, I would use 2" for the top layer, but that would leave only 2" clearance below, and that's no good.)
I could make the top layer removeable easily, just...not glue it down (but attach the fascia to keep it in place) and put some extra slack in the wiring.
Anyone reading this have any thoughts on if I made it a 3% grade would I still be able to pull 6' long trains up it?
I'm a steam guy, but I'd think you'd probably be at least double heading a consist of that length on a grade like that.....maybe triple, depending on the loco's.
Well quick report from testing, with a 3" gap between the levels I can reach over 4 tracks and still re-rail a car provided there's none on the tracks in front of it. I can remove a car over the top of one occupied track. I tested this by stacking up three blocks of one inch foam, setting another piece on top and putting sections of Kato unitrack underneath, which should be adequate since I'm not planning on bothering with any roadbed on this level, just using latex caulk to lay track directly on shelf, both for height and cost reasons, unless there's a reason for it I'm not thinking of? These are acceptable sacrifices in my world, as long as I can keep the top layer from sagging. Sadly, no matter how much testing I do, it won't tell me the longterm effects of this, so if I do this I'll have to just be very meticulous and over do the support, and I think even then I'll make sure the top layer is easily removeable/liftable. The wires are still a valid concern, here's what I'm hoping to do to address that. First, all switches will be ground throws, so no wires required. There are no reverse loops on the plan, and I don't care about a functional signal system. Therefore the only wires I should have to deal with are the track bus and feeders. My idea is to run the track bus for both levels underneath the bottom shelf, and simply run the feeders for the top layer up through the bottom, but behind the hidden trackage.
Even if I do still end up going this route I'm laying and making sure the staging level works perfectly and is as bulletproof as I can make it before adding on the above level. My biggest apprehension is still the foam possibly sagging. I've used 2" foam with 18" supports before on a single level layout and had no noticeable sagging, but not sure if I can expect the same results from 1" foam (even with supports much more frequent, I'm still thinking solid support wherever possible behind the staging is the way to go).
A much worse problem than needing to re-rail the occaisional errant box car or reefer is track maintenance! With only 3" of overhead clearance attempting to repair a bad rail joint will be torture. Trying to fix a turnout will be insanity.
Two things can be done to help.
1) Build the lower level 'staging' area so that the plywood its on can be slid ouit from underneath and taken to the work bench in case track work (or resoldering a feeder wire) becomes necessary.
2) Keep ALL turnouts adjacent to an aisle where they are more readily accessible. A turnout more than an inch or two away from full visibility and access with a 3" overhead is a definitely the one your be having trouble with.
Also be sure to plan carefully how you will install things like feeder wires or switch machines to tracks on the layer above the yard. If the yard is removable this will be much easier.
To keep feeder wires from drooping down into contact with the trains in the hidden yard you might consider using hot-glue to tack them in place (just don't use too much or you'll melt the foam).
If you'll be having friends over to run trains also bear in mind that poor visibility in the underneath area will be problematic.
* They'll have trouble figuring out where they train you assigned them is located and get the switches lined for it.
* If you don't keep the turnouts along the benchwork edge they'll also have trouble being able to see when a train has cleared the fouling point of a turnout. Leaving a caboose obstructing a turnout is a good recipe for scattering derailed cars all throughout your subterranean space.
Like Dave H. mentioned, if there's another way to build the layout take a good look at it. If you can add even another inch of headroom, take another look at that. But if its they only way you can do it then go ahead.
Regards,
Charlie Comstock
Occams Razor wrote:I'm fairly confident that a 3" gap from bottom of upper layer to top of upper level is enough clearence, unless I missed something? I know it's tight for my hand, but since I'm not actually fiddling with the rolling stock in that space, just removing it if it derails, it is enough. Suggestions? Will this idea work?
I'm sure it can be built but it sounds like a maintainence nightmare to me. Remember Murphy. The train is NEVER going to derail on the closest most easily accessable track. MR had an article some years back about a guy who put his close clearance staging on a drawer arrangement. Pretty slick. The idea was (I think) that instead of trying to get at it by fumbling around inside of a close space, simply pull the drawer and have ready access to it. This particular one, again, I think, was something like 8 feet long and 24 inches or so deep (HO scale track). You can buy full extension drawer glides at most building supplies or mail order from cabinet-maker supply shops.
Build what you want but if I were you I'd rethink the access thing.
Good luck..
Thanks for the comments guys, I am listening and still mulling this thing over. I really like the idea of only having trains pass through once and this seems like the simplest easiest way to do it, but like getting ideas from others, and when you guys point out potential problem areas it makes me think of how to address them and make sure they're ones I have a solution for. I did consider bringing the main part of the layout up about 4" and having the staging and return portion of the layout below the horizon so to speak, but couldn't think of a good way to blend the end of the scenery to the wall/backdrop with a gap back there (that would be 8" -10" for 3 or 4 tracks).
As far as maintence, cleaning tracks and such, the solution I had come up with was to invest in a good track cleaning car. Repairing turnouts is something I hadn't thought of, with them being hand controlled though, and testing and triple checking before "covering" them, is this really a concern? In N scale I've used both Kato and Atlas Code 80 switches and never had to repair one after initial install, is my planned use of Atlas code 55 something that would frequently require repair?
As far as keeping them close to the edge of the layout getting sidetracked for a minute here Charlie but didn't realise the famous and oft-admired by me BC &SJ was just down the road in Hillsboro!), I had thought of that and taken it into account. Mostly will be operating solo, especially anything that actually requires staging since none of my group of friends and acquaintences is into that kind of thing.
Other thing I saw mentioned was resoldering feeder wires, and again I might have to plead ignorance to the medium. My typical way of using feeder wires is to solder the wire to the rail joiner and then use that every section of flex. I've had HO layouts run like this for 10+ years without any of the connections failing (N scale my longest lasting layout was 2 years and used Unitrack so no comparison there), have I just been extremely lucky? Would this method not work with Code 55 N scale track? Or even if it does is resoldering something that is required often?
I'm really not trying to be stubborn and just sticking with my gameplan in the face of advice otherwise, I'm just simply trrying to verify that I've covered, at least somewhat adequately any problems that are likely to pop up. Very much appreciated!
Yes, Occam, thanks for starting this. My about-to-build layout will have hidden staging too - some below, some behind scenery - and tight fits in all cases, so following this thread and all the developments and advice will be great! I had never thought about the drawer idea for the staging (even though I've seen the cassette system in use on a modular layout!) so will see if the 'underneath' staging can be near a front edge for accessibility.
JimOttawa
bagal wrote:Pelle's Daneville and Donner River trackplan gives staging yard at 47 1/2" and Daneville at 56" so that is 10 1/2" railhead to railhead. I am building something similiar and pondering the same question as the original poster so would be interested to see a photo of Pelle's construction methods.Bill
I'm more interested in railhead to subroadbed (least I think that's the proper measurement), but actual clearance, but I'm kind of surprised it came out to be that much on that layout. I grabbed a photo from the book and measured the width of one of the 1" x 2" 's in the photo, and then used that as a guide to estimate the clearance. Obviously I was way off. Oh well, back to the drawing board. Although I still wasn't planning on tacking up a fascia in front of the staging.
There's lots of Construction photos of Pelle's layout in "Mountain to Desert: Building the HO scale Daneville & Donner River"
Occams Razor wrote:Not too beat a dead horse, but I did find a precedent for low clearance staging in N scale, actually even less then I originally planned on. The staging on the Janesville, Wisconsin layout from the Oct 2004 Model Railroader has it's staging at 0" and the upper deck at 3"!
Send the author some mail care of MR asking if
1) They still like the staging with that low overhead?
2) How much they operate?
3) What kinds of problems they've had?
MR often seems to focus mostly on the surface and sweeps 'little' problems under the roadbed...
In principle your plan should work with regard to a single mainline on the lower level. It is with multiple tracks were the problems start and the size of the hands of your operators...
Can you move the staging yard around so you need a longer underground run to get more clearance? 5 inch or more seems safer.
By the way, here in continental Europe it is quite common to have the staging yard (called, translated from German and Dutch as shadow station) below. Very often it is connected by one or more helixes!
So it is possible, with enough clearance.
greetings,
Marc Immeker
Just doing some more thinking on the topic, since if there was no staging and therefore no switches on the bottom level, just a continuous run connection (single or double track) that would be less objectionable. Problem then is the plan has no staging. So...perhaps the solution is rather than double ended staging (which due to grades would have to be under the long side of a "g" shaped plan) why not single ended staging beneath the top of that "G" What would this gain? I could easily use another 8' to drop another 2", while the continuous run connection would only have the 4" (3" with the 1" foam subroadbed) of clearance the staging itself would then have 6" (5" yadda yadda) Not too mention longer tracks since they could extend into the closet and also not having to be shortened by being double ended.
Biggest negative I see with the new idea is trains have to go either head first into staging (if they get turned on layout) or back in otherwise, but I don't see this as a big deal.
-Matt
pcarrell wrote:It's doable, but it violates occams razor.
Doesn't model railroading in general? Or at least any model railroad that's not a basic loop with no turnouts or anything?
Seriously though, would that be a better solution? Or just making a bad situation worse? No change?
-M