This thread was running a short while ago:
http://cs.trains.com/forums/1486998/ShowPost.aspx
It asked for opinions on the "ideal" layout size that people would like to build. There were some good thoughts there, which might be a good starting point. But, your question is a bit different.
I've been workin' on the railroad in my family room for a bit over 3 years now. Even though my wife thinks I spend way too much time on the trains, I'd describe my time spent on the hobby as "moderate." In those 3 years, I've done track and scenery for 50 square feet of railroad, plus engines and rolling stock.
Now, to be fair, I'll admit that I'm more of a detail freak than most. I like a lot of my buildings, particularly those in the foreground, to have interior detail. Although I buy most of my vehicles, I do put together a time-consuming Jordan kit every now and then, too, and I do some custom decal work.
But, my point is, how much railroad can you really build? How much time do you have? How much budget? 45 by 25 is a lot of space. I would go with peninsulas and view-blocks, personally, and I'm not sure the view-blocks would even be needed if you planned your scenery appropriately. Of course, maybe you don't care about scenery that much, and your primary goal is a long mainline run, but even then, with that big a room you can have a very long run on a single layer.
So, here's my suggestion: Build an around-the-walls layout, with a number of peninsulas. Start with one view block, just to see how it works. On one wall, build a single helix up (or maybe down, even) to a significant shelf of staging. Then, if you hate the helix and the second level, you haven't invested too much in it. If you like it, and it works well, and you're still hungry to build more after completing your main level, then you can extend the staging, add another helix, and put scenery and operations on that level, too.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
MisterBeasley wrote: This thread was running a short while ago:http://cs.trains.com/forums/1486998/ShowPost.aspxIt asked for opinions on the "ideal" layout size that people would like to build. There were some good thoughts there, which might be a good starting point. But, your question is a bit different.I've been workin' on the railroad in my family room for a bit over 3 years now. Even though my wife thinks I spend way too much time on the trains, I'd describe my time spent on the hobby as "moderate." In those 3 years, I've done track and scenery for 50 square feet of railroad, plus engines and rolling stock.Now, to be fair, I'll admit that I'm more of a detail freak than most. I like a lot of my buildings, particularly those in the foreground, to have interior detail. Although I buy most of my vehicles, I do put together a time-consuming Jordan kit every now and then, too, and I do some custom decal work.But, my point is, how much railroad can you really build? How much time do you have? How much budget? 45 by 25 is a lot of space. I would go with peninsulas and view-blocks, personally, and I'm not sure the view-blocks would even be needed if you planned your scenery appropriately. Of course, maybe you don't care about scenery that much, and your primary goal is a long mainline run, but even then, with that big a room you can have a very long run on a single layer.So, here's my suggestion: Build an around-the-walls layout, with a number of peninsulas. Start with one view block, just to see how it works. On one wall, build a single helix up (or maybe down, even) to a significant shelf of staging. Then, if you hate the helix and the second level, you haven't invested too much in it. If you like it, and it works well, and you're still hungry to build more after completing your main level, then you can extend the staging, add another helix, and put scenery and operations on that level, too.
DITTO !!!
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.
You might want to look up Joe Fugate's mushroom article in MR, or his work on these forums. The mushroom gives the advantage of having multiple levels, railroad stacked over railroad, with raised aisleways that put the modeling at a consistent, workable height.
The usual problem with multiple decks is that the upper deck is too high to operate (never mind build) and/or the lower deck is too close to the floor. Unless the upper deck is narrow, reaching into the lower deck is almost guaranteed to be a head-thumping experience.
That said, I expect to have an upper deck in my future - on a narrow shelf, with minimal switching, above a not-much-wider lower level scene, both hung from a wall on shelf brackets.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Santa Fe in Missouri;
I recently had the urge to design a multi-level layout; I contacted a SIG called Double Deck Anonymous and they sent a couple of guys over to help me kill a couple of twelve-packs of Fosters until the urge passed. My suggestion is that you do likewise!
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
Santa Fe in Missouri wrote:Great suggestions! I will have increasingly more time to devote to this large layout. I am in my mid 40s and this is my retirement home so as the kids head off to college the time devoted to the layout will increase. I bought the house with the idea that this would be the layout room. I like what Jim Hediger has done with the Ohio Southern and double decking, but I also like the vast expanses of layout scenery that can be found with a peninsula. I will probably combine both.
I would really think about what Mr. Beasley said. Life - at least for me - continues to surprise despite my best long term planning efforts. Predicting the next 20-30 years is an art I have had no success at. After all, here I am in my mid-50s with kids still in middle and high school, and retirement savings depleted for various good reasons. 20 years ago, I had it all planned to be in your anticipated situation instead of mine. But no regrets.
So I recommend 2 possibilities. Build small layouts, and start over when the mood strikes or the situation causes. Or work a truly progressive plan to a large layout - a layout designed to be successfully and satisfyingly stopped at several points short of "completion".
just my thoughts
Fred W
I suppose, in the interest of full disclosure, I should reveal that my own layout is actually a double-decker, of sorts. Beneath the layout you see is a subway system you don't see, except at a few points along the edges:
This is another option, if you plan on modelling an urban center with mass transit as part of your layout.
Consider something most of us cannot do...
Look for Model Railroader articles that have an adjoining lounge area (couch - two chairs - coffee/end tables) that can double as a Model Railroading Library. Perhaps you could build, or install, a professional-looking window that permits you to see the trains running in the train room unattended using DCC programming.
In my case, the CR&T's usable space is apx. 9'x9'. It must be N Scale with multi-level and 36"x36" helix in one layout corner, to get in everything desired into the layout. The multi-level plus helix really multiplies the planning process roadblocks.
A 9'x9' N Scale layout translates to an HO Scale layout of 18'x18'. You really don't need the complications of a multi-level layout to do what you can do with your basement space.
If you want to do a multi-level layout, take a look at Joe Fugate's, "Siskiyou Line," which employs the "mushroom layout design." My hunch is that you won't need a helix to gain elevation, and you could use a nolix instead for a mushroom plan dessign.
http://siskiyou-railfan.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.20
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
Hi!
How fortunate you are to have such a large space! "Twer I were you", I would finish off the layout to be area first, which will give you a relatively dust free and better place to work/play.
Being such a large space, I would be prone to a single level layout - if for nothing else than simplicity and "ease of use".
But I think you really have to ask yourself, "do I have what it takes to handle this major undertaking?" In example, is your previous layout experience and skills up to the task? Do you have the finances, time, and enthusiasm (probably the most important factor) to go through with this? If the answers to the above are extremely positive, then I would say go for whatever size and number of levels you desire. But if your answers are "middle of the road", I would strongly suggest a single level and perhaps even a smaller layout design.
Oh, almost forgot...... Once built, maintenance will be a continuous project, and the larger and more complicated the layout, the more time/energy needed for maintenance.
Trust me, "been there, done that"!
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Hudson wrote:Have you considered the "Mushroom"?
what is a mushroom plan?
Pictures work best, here is a link to Joe Fugate's Siskiyou Lines, a double deck "mushroom" layout.
Notice that the two decks in the middle of the cutaway are vied from opposite sides. that is the essence of a "mushroom" double deck.
Building a layout is always a juggling of time/space/money. In this case, I suggest that the design should also consider function. If your desire is to create highly-detailed, well-sceniced museum piece, then you will be much more effective with a single level.
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
Another thought for you to ponder:
After 10 years of working on a double deck 8' X 19' HO layout, I've found that the everyday tasks of model railroading like tracklaying and scenery take quite a bit longer on the second level just due to reach and logistics problems of having everything where you need to get at it.
Instead of figuring twice as much time for a double decker you are much better off figuring 2.5 times the time comittment. This also applies to ongoing maintenance once the layout has been completed.
Given the space you have available, we're talking about a lot time that will be needed.
Just food for thought.
Scott
Especially for anyone who is serious about building a layout which will require a large investment of effort and money, I recommend that they join the NMRA-sponsored Layout Deseign Special Interest Group (LDSIG). LDSIG periodically produces a magazine on layout design, and past issues (still available) contain many treatises on double-decker advantages and disadvantages as well as double-decker design/construction challenges and decisions. That source will provide more extensive and "expert" information than is possible with this forum.
Mark
One thing I haven't seen mention of here is that adding a helix and a second deck will not really double your layout space. A helix takes up a fair amount of real estate. A single deck design would use that space otherwise. A double deck design loses that amout of space on both decks. You still gain real estate in the grand scheme of things, but it's not double.
That being said, my own layout is a double decker with a helix, and then staging under the lower deck accessed by a grade, noot a helix.
For your purposes, a multitrack helix might work well if you really want to decks and a continuous run capability. A helix on each end isn't necessary if the main traverses each level and then moves back to the one helix to go from deck to deck.
pcarrell wrote: One thing I haven't seen mention of here is that adding a helix and a second deck will not really double your layout space. A helix takes up a fair amount of real estate. A single deck design would use that space otherwise. A double deck design loses that amout of space on both decks.
One thing I haven't seen mention of here is that adding a helix and a second deck will not really double your layout space. A helix takes up a fair amount of real estate. A single deck design would use that space otherwise. A double deck design loses that amout of space on both decks.
The upper-deck space at the top of the helix is visible and useable for modeling scenes. One just loses visible space the helix occupies over the lower deck. Also, sometimes it is possible to have a "hernia" on part of one of the helix loops which can be visible and scenicked.
train lover12 wrote: Hudson wrote:Have you considered the "Mushroom"?what is a mushroom plan?
Instead of considering a "mushroom" layout you need to consider a "pepperoni" layout!
Now how many of you turkeys have been sitting around for the past couple of days wondering when I would get that in?
R.T. Poteet said: "How many of you turkeys have been sitting around for the last couple of days wondering when I would get that in?"
Gobble, gobble.
markpierce wrote:The upper-deck space at the top of the helix is visible and useable for modeling scenes. One just loses visible space the helix occupies over the lower deck.
This is true, and you can take a track from elsewhere and gain some height to clear the helix and get a track in there. My current plan calls for that actually.
Also, sometimes it is possible to have a "hernia" on part of one of the helix loops which can be visible and scenicked.
Another trick I was planning to employ. Boy, you're letting all the cats out of the bag, huh?
"Dittos" on the two helix planning tricks.
There is another "helix-trick" I am considering...
Also, the 2-track mainline needs to come out of either one or two tunnel portals. Check out these pictures of the Gallitzin Tunnels at Tunnel Hill in the prototype for potential scenery over the top of a helix.
East tunnel portals coming from Horseshoe Curve with PRR steam tunnel fans...
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_gallitz4.jpg
West tunnel portals going to towards Johnstown...
Before Reconstruction - http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/cr6085.jpg
After Reconstruction - http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/prr5711a.jpg
Abandoned Portal - http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/amtk278.jpg
So, there can be layout real estate doubling-up opportunities with a helix.
pcarrell wrote: One thing I haven't seen mention of here is that adding a helix and a second deck will not really double your layout space. A helix takes up a fair amount of real estate. A single deck design would use that space otherwise. A double deck design loses that amout of space on both decks. You still gain real estate in the grand scheme of things, but it's not double.That being said, my own layout is a double decker with a helix, and then staging under the lower deck accessed by a grade, noot a helix.For your purposes, a multitrack helix might work well if you really want to decks and a continuous run capability. A helix on each end isn't necessary if the main traverses each level and then moves back to the one helix to go from deck to deck.
As I have mentioned in other places I have done some investigation on the rational of a double-deck layout. The layout space available to me will allow approximately 175 linear feet of double-track mainline. This single-deck trackplan is combination routing; going to a double-deck design will require me to give up that combination routing and I will lose about 20% of my linear footage bringing my mainline down to about 140 feet. The box for a helix will require another 20% reduction beyond that bringing me down to about 110 feet "per level"; this is only a gain of about 28% in overall linear footage. I suppose if I were 58 instead of 68 I might consider it!
Not that I plan on building a double deck, but one question comes to mind. Where do you hide the wires for the upper deck tracks, signals and structure lighting?
LIRRMAN
If you have the drive, time and knowledge (includes friends with expertise), you can accomplish nearly anything. I second the motions, though, about jumping in too far, too deep.
Check out www.rockrail.org and look at the Chicago, Champaign and Central to see what is possible. My recollection is this basement is 56' x 28', plus an 8' x 9' crew lounge. It was built in less than 12 months, 100% of the benchwork and most of the trackwork by one person! This is starting with an unfinished basement. He did have help hauling down the 70+ sheets of drywall (not just for the walls; the benchtops are 5/8" drywall!)
The last time I operated there, the Fairview switch job took me 3 hours. I'm no hot dog, but not a slouch either, when it comes to switching.
If I had that much space, I'd build a double-decker along the long wall with a helix at one end.
Then I'd fill the rest of the room with pool table, poker table, bar, etc.
I'm certainly a huge fan of the mushroom configuration. The mushroom works so well it's the only multideck design I would build if starting over. I won't even consider a traditional double-decked design any more I'm so sold on the mushroom approach.
The largest problem with a traditional multideck design (where both decks face the same direction) is that BOTH DECKS typically are at the wrong height - one deck is too low and the other deck is too high. But the laws of physics dicate you must take this approach in order to get a traditional double deck design to work.
With a mushroom design, since both decks face opposite directions, both decks can be near the same relative distance from the floor, since you can easily put a raised floor on one side. This lets you "have your cake and eat it too" since both decks can now be near perfect viewing height.
The disadvantages of a mushroom are that you need a room at least 12 feet wide and 7 feet or more of ceiling height. The wider the room, the more efficient a mushroom becomes, approaching 200% of space utilization.
The other disadvantage of a mushroom is the raised floor itself. It's one more thing to construct, and since it must support the average model railroader, your raised floor will need a stout E-rating (E rating is used to rate the load capacity of bridges). Building a stout raised floor with today's lumber prices isn't going to help the layout budget.
My experiences with my HO Siskiyou Line layout have been so positive that I don't hesitate to recommend a mushroom configuration to anyone considering a multideck design if their room is wide enough (12+ feet) and their ceiling is high enough (7+ feet).
If you want to know more, check out Model Railroader's Jan and Feb 1997 issues, or google "Fugate mushroom".
Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
Whatever you do, don't do what this guy did:
He'd really hate it if someone built a bigger helix (there's about eight scale miles of track in there)!
Mark P.
Website: http://www.thecbandqinwyoming.comVideos: https://www.youtube.com/user/mabrunton