Thanks for the opinions and insight. I think I'm going to plan for 20" railhead to railhead which should give me about 15" for scenery and work once benchwork and lighting are accounted for. It will only allow me for 2 full turns unless I squeeze my clearances at the ends of the run but I think I'll skip that. If I stick to a max mainline grade of 2% I'll need about 84 feet to make the 20" climb from level to level so I need to go back to the drawing board to see if I can get close to 160 feet of run for each level. I'm hoping for 15 feet for each town and 15 feet between towns which has the benefit of allowing the towns to be level and the between town runs to be on grade. I may have to sacrifice my minimum radius of 34" but most of my rolling stock is 60' or shorter so no big deal. There are other alternatives such as moving a wall though that will cramp the staging area and the realestate agent may not like it...
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Hi,
my layout is in a 9 by 11 foot room. It consists of three levels, level one is at 38 inches, level two at 50 and the third level at 62 inches. The staging is below the first level. As it stands the seperation of 12 inches is too small for scenery and working on the layout. The next layout will have 20 inches of seperation between rail heads. One item that might get overlooked is the fact that you loose at least one inch when creating the supporting structure for your scenery.
Also one of the people replying to this post mentioned the belt buckle and armpit rule for layout heights. My lowest level is at about belt buckle height and it is a good height for the layout. The upper level is at my chin height and it requires something to step on when I would like to work on that level. As another person suggested, try a mock up of maybe two modules at different heights and see what works for you.
Hope this helps.
Frank
PS: My levels are connected via a helix that has 30 inch radius. The smaller the grade the better.
"If you need a helping hand, you'll find one at the end of your arm."
My decks are built at 38-inches and 58-inches, with 2-inches figured in for typical cover (40-inches and 60-inches nominal). So the raw separation is 20-inches. But with the brackets underneath the top deck, the separation is closer to 16-inches-- and is what I'm sizing my backdrop for-- and other couple of inches is eaten up by the wiring / lighting needs under the top deck. I haven't built my lighting valance yet over the top deck but plan to do it with similar margins.
John
Depending on the depth of benchwork and what type of scenery you want to have will help with the deck seperation question. I used 18'' top of homasote to homasote which has worked pretty well. With my 3'' thick benchwork it gives me a 15'' wide opening between levels. There are a couple of spots where I have 3' deep benchwork where a bit more would be nice. Tony's book has some good pictures of a variety of double deck layouts that can give you some idea what you may want. The idea of building a mockup is a good one. I used a central peninsula with a helper grade as my connection between the main two decks. I also have two helix's that allow access to lower level stagings. Both work well for access between levels. ------------- Ken McCorry
I found the deck levels (belt line and armpit) of Ed Merrin's layout to be an ideal compromise. We're all about 5'8" or so, so that will give you scale.
Well thanks for the advise guys. A little more background on what I'm currently doing and what I hope to achieve may be helpful. Current layout is a double track main continuous loop set at 36" with a distinct lack of opertion. The 36" height actually works well when sitting in a rolling chair so I'm ok with 30" as minimum for a multi deck layout. Plans are to model the PRR from Omal to Liverpool (Ohio river valley) then to the ore docks in Cleveland following prototype trackage. The ore docks will be the highest elevation so one is forced to look up at the Hullet loaders (always loved theose things) I have a 8x12 space offof a corner of the layout room that I intend to use for staging yards. This is going to dictate hwere my interchanges fit in. I plan to keep switching areas and interchanges fairly level and use the run between towns to gain elevation up to 3%. Branches I'd be willing to go as high as 4% keeping in mind that those would have much shorter trains on them so double heading or pushers won't be needed. Shelf type construction up to 24" deep probably built on 2'x8' sections of foam with a central peninsula built on the diagonal of the room. 34" mminimum mainline radius and 18" on branchs. I sould be able to keep a 36" minimumm ailse. I'd like to have some laods in empties out on the peninsula. Figuring at least 2 turns around the room and hoping for 3 but that may not be possible due to vertical constraints.
It's definitely something that needs to be planned out no question but do not be afraid to take the advice of all and sift through it and choose what bits and pieces from each person you will apply to your layout. I can say with almost 100% certainty that Tony Koester would give you the same advice. Tony is by far one of the more accomplished modelers of our hobby no question but how do you think he got that way by only using his ideas, trust me thats as far from the truth as it could possibly be. That all being said I know 8" is the accepted minimum width where one can fit trackage and some some scenery. If you are going with a true shelf type layout or a multi level there's a difference. You can use open grid bench work with risers to achieve two levels and not have a massive amount of construction and the two separations as you normally see. Howard Zane's Piermont division is just that type of layout he has section of track that constantly climb to the next level. You view his layout and it appears as all one but he accomplished the multi level effect by hiding it with magnificent scenery. One train may be at lets say 48" from the floor while there will be one running right over the top of it at maybe 54". Tow levels one scene. His book and the videos showing his layout are definitely a great learning tools as well as just being down right cool to watch and read.
If you don't want a helix thats perfectly understandable as a lot of us don't have the room but consider a semi helix where the train switch's back on it self to help climb up to another level. Switch backs were common place on may a prototype to accomplish exactly what your trying to do. I would think about reconsidering your 30" off the floor it's way too low but if you like working on your knees and back be my guest. There are general rules of thumb when it comes to a basic minimum hihgt for bench work but everyone is different and to each his own.
I recommend you take a look at Joe Fugate's layout:
http://siskiyou-railfan.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.20
Joe has a huge layout fit into an unusual room shape. It is multi-level.
You can get a lot of ideas from Joe's layout. I also recommend you consider purchasing Joe's videos. They contain a wealth of information about building a layout such as his.
Darrell, quiet...for now
Sounds like some the solutions are really helices that have the diameter of the layout room.
A nolix should be easier to build (assuming most of it is just the track and roadbed/subroadbed and is exposed as the OP implied) but you do need the space for the needed run of track (a nolix completely around a 12x12ft room would yield a 12 inch rise/fall more or less at a nominal 2% grade).
Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/
My current HO layout is in a 9.5 by 24 ft room and has two decks. Separation is 24 inches. I have a no-lix that connects the two levels, but because my room is small, my grade is 5% and I use helpers. The lower level goes twice around the room and the no-lix takes off from the highest elevation form the lower deck.
Here is a link to my simple site.
http://mysite.verizon.net/vzescsbb/HO_MRR/C&A-Main-Page.html
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.
My Santa Fe is three decks in a space 33ft by 29ft. The bottom deck is mostly single track and a staging yard which is "finished" That deck is 20" below the middle deck, but again, except for the staging area, not much action. The middle deck is 28 inches below the top deck and includes a peninsula town/yard and other towns. This deck works around the room twice and then goes into a helix to the top deck. the top deck is large flat area with a major town, yards, etc. The top deck has a staging area, the middle deck has two staging areas included.
It is easier to explain in person visually than in an posting. You can see it on my website, which shows all three decks in various photos. This layout was started in 1984 and has survived to the present with no plans to change it.
Bob
As mentioned above, there are a variety of factors to be considered. Since it has been 43 years, I don't recall the rail-to-rail separation on the layout pictured below which uses a nolix to reach a partial second deck. I'd guess something like 14 inches.
The "thing" with a nolix is that it is problematic having to penetrate a higher deck. That problem was solved above by not having a complete higher deck. Another solution is to have a continuous deck constructed in a spiral. Regardless, unless the layout is large, the grade will be continuous and/or steep.
Mark
I am planning a multi-level around the room layout, two levels (no staging). Here is how I calced the levels.
Starting with eye level looking straight ahead = 68".
I then subtracted 12" (which is approx. my mid chest level and 2" below my arm when it is streched out) making the upper level rail height = 56". At this level my reach is approx. 24" so my shelf depth is 24". Subtract 4" for benchwork thickness = 52". Then I subtracted another 20" (figuring that my tallest structure will be 16" and adding in 4" for additional clearance) making the first level rail height = 32" with a shelf depth of 36".
I have mocked this up and it works quite well for me, but as has been stated, try a mock up and see how you like it.
Also you need to figure in your (acceptable) grades and calc the length needed to get from one level to the next. Even with my room being 16' x 32' I needed to use helixes to maintain an acceptable grade of 2.5%.
RF&PRR
Hi Doc,
Doc in CT Paulus JasI would not go by the advice from posters who probably or possibly have never build a layout, And who would that be Paul?
Paulus JasI would not go by the advice from posters who probably or possibly have never build a layout,
And who would that be Paul?
Problem is, you never can tell. I've built 6 single deck layouts. Not all of them were finished. To me building a double deck-er seems more complex. You do have to get the height's right; there is not much space for lightning or other stuff below the upper deck.
I would go by the book, written by someone with loads of experience and knowledge. Someone who can explain the pro's and cons of different methods. Someone like Tony Koester.
I've been helping building numerous box frames, grids or L-girders. On a single deck layout especially with L-girders every thing is easily adjustable.
Sorry Doc, I did not meant you or anybody in particular. IMHO some projects have to be done systematically and are not fit for taking chances.
Paul
Tony Koester's home layout is built as yours. So you could read this:
http://www.kalmbachstore.com/12434.html
I would not go by the advice from posters who probably or possibly have never build a layout, let alone a multi deck layout. A multi deck is too complicated to take chances.
Lee
If you haven't already done so, pick up a copy of Ian Rice's Shelf Layouts for Model Railroads either from the Kalmbach Store or from another online retailer (name is same as a river).As Mike pointed out above, 6 inches would work for very shallow access, but you will need 12 to 24 inches for scenery and lighting and thickness of benchwork between levels. Also you will likely want level staging somewhere as there are no operational brakes on model railroad rolling stock.
Alan
Well, make a mock up with some shelves on the wall.. They don't have to be permanent. I would say 6 inches is clearance enough from railhead to bottom of next deck..... But, That would be for limited scenery.. This seperation would be good for a lower level staging area, with maybe 2-3 tracks deep. Any more and you'll need more clearance to reach over the closer tracks to get to the back...
But it sounds like you want all levels to be scenicked, and no hidden areas. With that in mind, I would suggest maybe 20" difference from railhead to bottom of next level. I don't know what kind of benchwork your designing, But you'll have to figure that in to get the actual railhead to railhead heights. If thinking of a third level, remember that that'll be pretty tall and hard to see locations far from the eye to run ops. I would think that a 3 level layout contains little industry and more scenery for trains to ride through on the upper deck.. BUT, this can be fixed by providing stools to stand on to see higher, or raising the floor in some spots.
I know there are a few folks here who have multi level layous and will be able to provide you with some more specific details... Good luck
So I'm planning a future layout to fit a 24 x24 space with as long a mainline as possible. This leads me to desiging it as a multiple deck layout, built as a giant helix with an average 1.5 to 2% grade, less would be better and rough figure of 140 ft run per level. No I don't want an actual helix since 1. there are no tunnels on the line I want to model and 2. I've learned that I can't tolerate hidden track and 3.I need somewhere to put my staging yards. Problem is I'm unable to determine how many decks I can comfortably fit in my alloted vertical clearance, starting at 30" from the floor and hindered by an 84" ceiling. So those of you who have multi deck HO layouts, what is a good separation between levels? Something that offers easy accessability for operations, rerailing etc yet isn't so great that you sacrifice realestate.