First I'd say it depends on how tall you are. The upper level should be viewable to you, maybe shoulder height, unless you plan to have some sort of riser to step up onto to view the upper level.
The seperation between levels will depend on the percent grade you are planning, size of layout room and are you planning a helex? The lowest I've seen talked about is around 30", but you want to be able to see it under the level above it.
Your upper level should be narrower as you won't be able to reach as far at that height, you might plan on using a stool to work on that level, even if you don't use it during operations. Set up a skeleton, framework at various heights and see how far you can reach over comfortably and how much you can see below.
Good luck,
Scale and depth make a difference. N scale on 12' deep shelves could easily be just a foot apart. HO on 2' deep you probably want at least 18" between. I suggest you do a mockup and try several arrangements.
Enjoy
Paul
glsummers wrote:When building a three level layout how high should each level by and how wide should they be. Thanks Larry
Greetings, o lurker of forums! (5 posts in 6 months - I hope you've visited more often than that.)
Actually, your question is something like, "How many rooms should I have in my house?" It all depends:
As you can see, before you can get an answer to the basic question, you will have to ask - and answer - several other questions.
SO - how about a horror scenario.
And an even bigger joker - only the topmost level is fully visible! All the rest are hidden staging and thoroughfare tracks, accessed by opening or removing fascia panels.
Actually, the yard has a lot of clear air over it, the other tracks are on narrow roadbeds (with fences) and there are removeable sections of scenery over some critical points in the netherworld. As far as I can determine, there should be adequate access even though there are a few places where there is very little air space between levels.
Scale? HOj, 1:80 (twice US N scale) - comparable in bulk and clearance requirements to HO.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
I think that 3 visible levels is pushing it a bit, not so much for access - you can squeeze your hand into a pretty tight space - but you'll be very limited for your scenery choices - no tall buildings or trees. My layout is designed to be partially double-decked, with the lowest part, at 36" high, operated from roll-around office chairs, and the upper level at around 61". I could have made the upper level about 70", for eye-level viewing, but I prefer to be able to see the entire scene while operating. Separation between the lower level and the underside of the upper will be about 19" or 20". I'm building both levels mostly at a width of 30", although there'll be one area, with mostly scenery (and no track out of reach) that will be about 40" deep. There'll be fluorescent fixtures attached to the underside of the upper level - something you need to consider, as any overhanging upper levels will severely limit the light that falls on the lower ones. The other factor which influenced the height of the decks is the length of the grade needed to get from one to the other: with the separation as stated, the grade is about 45' long, utilising two horseshoe curves and using a lot of real estate.
In the photos below, the breaks in the backdrop are for the eventual installation of the second level:
You can see how little room there really is for installation of the lighting. As it is, any pictures taken in these areas have to be very carefully composed to avoid showing the support areas for the upper level, such as this:
or this:
Wayne
I am currently starting a 3-level N-scale layout. This is an "around the walls" shelf-style layout, and the shelves are narrow at only 12". Here are my level heights:
I settled on these heights after doing some mockups with shelf brackets and foam "shelves". I am 5'-8" tall and these heights eemed to look good in the mockup. The level separations were also influenced by the fact that I will have a helix that raises elevation 2.5" per turn, so the difference from the lower to the middle level is 15" or 6 turns of the helix, and the difference from the middle level to the upper level is 10" or 4 turns of the helix.
Hope this helps! Jamie
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
OK, I will give this a shot too.
I would make the bottom level staging only. That way you won't have to put any scenery in and it can be closer to the second level. For the second level, I would put the top at 42 inches above the floor. That makes the lower level at about 12 to 16 inches lower than the bottom of the middle levels facia. I would also make the width of the lower level 18 inches, and the width of the middle level 24 inches. That way you can sit on a stool for switching if you want to, and have some room for your legs under level 2.
The top of the upper level I would put at eye level, and make some pull-out or hinge-down steps or portable platforms.
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.
Three levels? Oh, brave soul, good luck, I admire the Rambo spirit in you!
A simple link to my blog and the fate of my attempt to build a two level. (Be sure of what you wish for and really desire.)
http://wwwjoe-daddy.blogspot.com/2007/08/ll-pox-on-hidden-staging.html
Just my two cents, I hope your efforts turn out exactly like you want and you have a load of fun building then operating your railroad.
Joe Daddy
I'm in the process of building a three level layout right now.
The top layer is at 160 cm high, the second at 110 cm and the lowest one, which is pure staging is at 80 cm.
I think it works fine. But I wouldn't try three scenicked. The lowest one would be invisible anyways. I tried a mock up and let met tell you I didn't like it. One thing to keep in mind is to keep the deck thickness down. Plan for this and it will work out.
Magnus
Jack Burgess' Yosemite Valley RR is a beautiful multi-deck layout with up to 4 levels, and another favourite of mine is Andreas Keller's 3-deck CN Fergus Subdivision.
Both layouts are H0 scale, and the websites have lots of info and great pics.
Svein
Svein,
Jacks layout is really a double deck layout with a few twists. Most of the room is double deck with the exception of the entry way where he he does some unusual stuff. His room steps down a lttle ways in and so he has some interesting intersections with his decks in that area (Things aren't what they seem). Beautiful layout, great website. Jack has written a great book about the YV in addition to producing lots of CDs with scale drawings of nearly everything along the line.
I would agree with those who suggest two decks with staging on a third underneath. That is my current design and it works very well.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
joe-daddy wrote: Three levels? Oh, brave soul, good luck, I admire the Rambo spirit in you!
Well, this may help me realistically model the bankruptcy aspect of the prototype
Sorry one important bit of info I did not mention when describing my 3 deck approach was that I placed the staging on top because placing it lower would have interfered with the entrance to the room (already have one swing out section as it is). Initial version of the track plan can be found here:
http://csxclinchfielddivision.blogspot.com/2008/06/track-plan.html
Jamie
Before I begin let me state that to be perfectly honest - and I have projected this before - multi-level layouts just don't work for me and I don't really understand why anyone would want to build one particularly a three-level one; nevertheless I will own up that I have recently been giving serious thought to a two-level design for my new N-Scale layout. I have not really discarded the idea as of yet although I have still not become completely comfortable with it.
Here's what I have come up with so far: I want to restrict my in-helix grade to 2% and that is going to require 32 inch minimum radius for the outside (upgrade) track; the inside (downgrade) track will be on a 30 inch minimum radius which computes to a 2.12% grade. Level separation withing the helix will be 4 inches and the roadbed/subroadbed width will be about 6 inches - I don't want any trains stringing themselves onto the floor.
Now, as far as the separation between platform levels I don't want to be climbing onto and off of stools so I have set an upper deck heighth of 54 inches at track level. My lower platform I want at 30 inch heighth. That gives me a 24 inch separation between platforms; allowing seven inches for benchwork, subroadbed, roadbed and below track level scenery of seven inches gives me a 17 inch track level to underside of benchwork separation. I can live with that but it is going to allow only about a 21 inch depth of platform on my lower level; depth of platform on my upper level will probably be 27 inches.
Now, what about you? Assuming that you reside in the good ol' ooh ess of aah then your ceiling is going to be 96 inches. Making another assumption that you might want to leave at least 24 inches upper level to ceiling and 30 inches lower level to floor then the math is 96 inches minus 24 inches minus 30 inches divided by two gives you deck to deck separations of 21 inches. If that is too tight then you can lower the river or raise the bridge of both.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
I would like to add my two cents on this subject. I also have a three-level layout with staging on the lower level. I will admit that in the beginning I was afraid that I might not be happy with the results. Now that carpentry, wiring and track work is 100% complete, I can say that the end results far exceeded my expectations. In fact, I am so pleased with the multi-deck presentation that if I were to have three times the space, I would go with a triple deck design in it as well. The resulting shadowbox effect has a very finished and museum-like quality. Here are my most recent results as shown on my website.
Having said that, I'm not sure I could pull off three scenicked levels and still be happy. I'm not saying it can't be done. But I would have to sacrifice staging for 32 trains which I would not be willing to do. To answer your original question, my spacing is 30" staging, 40" middle level and 58" upper level. Most of the benchwork is 24" wide. I'm 5'10".
I will say that if I were to build a single deck layout, it would be at least 55" high. The eye-level perspective of HO equipment is amazing.
I hope this helps!
Cliff Powers
www.magnoliaroute.com
maandg wrote:I would like to add my two cents on this subject. I also have a three-level layout with staging on the lower level. I will admit that in the beginning I was afraid that I might not be happy with the results. Now that carpentry, wiring and track work is 100% complete, I can say that the end results far exceeded my expectations. In fact, I am so pleased with the multi-deck presentation that if I were to have three times the space, I would go with a triple deck design in it as well. The resulting shadowbox effect has a very finished and museum-like quality. Here are my most recent results as shown on my website.Having said that, I'm not sure I could pull off three scenicked levels and still be happy. I'm not saying it can't be done. But I would have to sacrifice staging for 32 trains which I would not be willing to do. To answer your original question, my spacing is 30" staging, 40" middle level and 58" upper level. Most of the benchwork is 24" wide. I'm 5'10". I will say that if I were to build a single deck layout, it would be at least 55" high. The eye-level perspective of HO equipment is amazing.I hope this helps!
Cliff,
Do you feel the upper deck interferes with viewing of the lower deck at all? It would seem that being 24" wide it really cuts off the lower deck view. I am only a couple inches taller than you and I feel I would have to stoop to get a good view of the lower deck. But I guess that would depend on how close you stand to the layout. So that means, how close do you stand when operating the layout?
With that said I LOVE your layout and would love to see it in person on day. The sceneryis some of the very best I have seen and the entire layout is well thought out.
Either the first (lowest) or third (highest) levels should be dedicated to staging. The two other levels should be at the best compromise in height so visibility and accessibility is optimized for train operations.
Mark
I think the key to a multiple level layout is to make the upper level seem like it is the valance for the level under it. So the facia needs to be finished and not draw attention to itself. There also needs to be some type of lighting installed on the bottom of the upper level, so there are no shadows on it, or for that matter, any level that is scenic'ed. Cliff's layout & pictures show this very well. Nice work Cliff.
Thanks Jamie, John and Elmer for your kind words!
John, I am pleased with the visibility of the middle level. My long aisles are 3 feet wide and if you stand back that distance, you can see the middle level to about six inches from the bottom of the backdrop. This is more than adequate to see any background scenery and especially structures. I had misgivings about this during the planning phase, but in the end I am most pleased with the results.
I will also say that it worked well for me to have the large urban buildings on the upper level. The conventional wisdom in double deck design is to have large switching areas like yards on the lower level. In my case, this was not possible. The New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal is huge and required the entire 4 x 19 foot footprint of the peninsula. Thus it would not have been able to support a level above it. I am currently working on the massive Public Grain Elevator along the Mississippi River waterfront. The taller structure will rise a mere 3 inches from the bottom of the light valance. Having it begin at a 58" elevation makes the magnitude of the complex even more impressive. In other words, I like having the large multi-story buildings on the top vs. the lower level. The smaller rural scenes work well at 40" and looking down on them gives the impression of sprawling countryside.
I will be posting photos of the grain elevator and new Cotton Warehouse on my website soon. Stay tuned!
maandg wrote: I will also say that it worked well for me to have the large urban buildings on the upper level. The conventional wisdom in double deck design is to have large switching areas like yards on the lower level. In my case, this was not possible. The New Orleans Union Passenger Terminal is huge and required the entire 4 x 19 foot footprint of the peninsula. Thus it would not have been able to support a level above it. I am currently working on the massive Public Grain Elevator along the Mississippi River waterfront. The taller structure will rise a mere 3 inches from the bottom of the light valance. Having it begin at a 58" elevation makes the magnitude of the complex even more impressive. In other words, I like having the large multi-story buildings on the top vs. the lower level. The smaller rural scenes work well at 40" and looking down on them gives the impression of sprawling countryside.
I have to agree. I was inspired by your layout while I did mine. My large passenger station is placed about 5 and half feet up. The Sheds looks great from that angle and the towering clock on the Milwaukee station kit looks huge since it's top is about 7 feet up in to the air. Beautiful and superb. I also do three levels.
johncolley wrote:I have had the immense pleasure of operating on a friend's three level layout several times. The bottom level wraps around the central peninsula and is staging. One end of it is exposed and used in operations as the throat that shortly feeds into the base of the first stage helix up to the mid level. This is around the room including the peninsula and features two work areas and a passing siding before feeding into the second stage helix right above the first. The second stage helix goes to the third level which includes a good sized yard, two industrial switching areas and two branches of terminal staging. The only problem I have on this terrific layout is that the owner/builder is 6'-3" and I am 5'7", so I have to use the stepstools to work the top level! LOL jc5729 John Colley, Port Townsend, WA
Very cool...sounds very similar in arrangement to what I have planned (you can view my track plan by clicking the link in my signature link below), except my staging is on top not bottom. I originally had it planned for staging on the bottom but changed for two reasons: (1) the middle deck would have been lower requiring two swingout/liftout sections and (2) I did not want shorter operators (myself included) to have restricted access to the top level if it was visible. My top staging is high enough so it is out of reach and can only be viewed using mirrors (or video cameras once I win the lottery).
Thanks for posting as this type of information makes me feel pretty good about the three deck approach. Hope others will be encouraged as well.
DeadheadGreg wrote:You want 3 levels? Go buy the GMR video of Doug Geiger's Granite Mountain Railway. I'm watching it now. and WOW.
Seeing it in on video is nothing like seeing it in person. Doug's layout is simply amazing.