Paul,
you have put it to the point. My original plan was just Ospizio Bernina station, embedded into a simple oval plus a staging yard to "change"trains appearing in the station. I agree that it is not worth the effort of all those difficult to build and usually cumbersome to operate helices just to gain another 8 feet of track and some extra running time. A little electronic device can do that, too!
I need to talk to Pascal about this. IMHO, he should rather spend the cash needed for the big solution on detail.
hi Ulrich,
the RhB is a real gem; so well covered too. The 15 feet length are great, such a pity the aisle space before the layout can't be used for creating a donut .
Of course it is not of any importance, my favourite scenes are Brusio, not the viaduct where the RhB crosses over it self, the wood loading facilities in town however and the passage through S. Antonio.
To many wonderful and model-able sites to choose from. The hidden snow free turntable in Ospizio Bernina is among them, if any-one might wonder what is inside that huge building in your drawing.
To me adding a helix and all those hidden tracks just to get a piece of the mainline in, would be not worth the effort. If the focus would have been on Alp Grüm, it would be possible to have a lot of main line in the very same scene. Will this layout been modeled in winter?
SmilePaul
This is the tenative design of a RhB (Rhaetian Railway) layout for a friend of mine.
It is a three-deck layout, the upper one showing the station of Ospizio Bernina on the Bernina line, the second level a short stretch of line to "parade" the trains and the lowest level a hidden staging yard.
The left helix is leading all the way down to the staging yard, the right one is split into two stages, connecting the upper level with the stretch of track and continuing to the staging yard.
Quite a challenge to build that layout!
Hi Ulrich,
was thinking back, on most American plans 18" or 45 cm seems to be standard.
Why a double helix? Is a loop to loop design not wanted at all?
Happy New Year, good health and lots of luck
Paul
Crandell,
I was also thinking of a separation of no less than 50 cm - this ain´t going to be a model of a subway
The different levels will be connected by two helices - quite a complicated job!
Ulrich, if you would like to enjoy either level without having to change your posture substantially, you would want the bottom surface near 1 meter, perhaps as low as 85 cm, while the upper one should be near 1.4 meters. I would never be happy with two senicked and nicely bacdropped decks that were separated by less than 40-50 cm. This would be for reasons of construction, maintenance later, visual appreciation, and for imagery. Oh, and don't forget lighting! How will you illuminate the lower layer?
The 20,000 DM question is....how can you possibly achieve that height difference if the two are to be linked by a grade? Or, if no grade, then a lifting table?
Crandell
I've seen too many multi-deck layouts where the levels are too close together. So I spaced my upper level right at eye-level. The lower level is at what I would consider the normal height. That made my upper level 25 inches above the lower level. I do have to use a stool to stand on when operating the upper deck, and I do have several of them around the room.
Looking back, I could have lowered the upper deck about six inches at the most, but I am happy with what I have. You don't have to bend down to see everything on the lower deck.
To get up to the upper level, I have a no-lix with a grade from 2% to 5%, which is a helper district for trains over 5 cars. The normal train length for my layout is 7 to 8 cars, not counting the loco and caboose.
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 in Oklahoma 1989 is three decks. Layout size is 29ft by 36ft. Scale is HO. The top deck is at 54" and for the most part rather narrow in width. It works down to the middle deck which is sits about a foot lower than the top. There is no helix, just a long winding mainline working down from the top with areas of flat space for towns and then down to the middle deck. The main loops one and one half times around the room. The middle deck has more wide flat areas, towns, yards and eventually goes out of sight behind scenery and down to the bottom deck. This is a long grade, no helix either, and all concealed. The bottom deck is about 11 inches in height to the middle deck.
The railroad is point to point, no loops. It has been in operation since early 1980's and does quite well. DCC is a must for me.
Bob
I'm not sure what you mean by "workable". My layout was designed to be partially double-decked ( the upper level is not yet built ) and I wanted it to be a continuation of the rest of the layout. This meant finding a way to get trains from one level to the next. I opted for a peninsula to gain altitude, rather than a hidden helix, as I wanted to enjoy the sight of the trains on the grade. Here's a sketch of the layout room, with the portions in grey representing the area to be doubledecked. The grade to join the single-decked area to the upper level begins just below the word "Cayuga", and extends around the peninsula, reaching the upper level where the grey portion begins.
While the single-decked portion of the layout has quite a few elevation changes (mainly to afford connections to both upper and lower areas of the doubledecked portion), I set the lower deck height at 36" above the floor. An operator can sit on a rolling office chair to operate or view this portion of the layout. To reach the upper deck, I had room for about 50' of track, mostly on the peninsula, in which to gain altitude. Setting the grade at about 2.5%, I ended-up with the upper deck height at about 60". This is a good viewing level for me and leaves about 24" between the upper tracks and the lower ones. However, within that 24", I'll need about 2" for the upper benchwork (1"x2" framing with a 1/2" plywood top) and another 4" or 5" for mounting fluorescent fixtures on the underside of the benchwork, for lighting the lower deck. There'll be a fascia on the edge of the upper deck, mainly to hide the light fixtures, so the view of the lower level will be limited to a height of 17" or 18". This works well with the sightline available when sitting on one of the rolling chairs, too.
So, the height difference between two connected decks needs to be accomplished within whatever distance you have available to gain height at your maximum allowable grade. This can be on a peninsula, like mine, or on a helix (hidden or visible) or on switchbacks.Another option is to have two separate decks, which may be either two portions of a whole, connected by other means, or two entirely separate entities. The latter could be done in different eras, themes, or even different scales. Other means to connect two physically separate levels can include a train elevator or a simple cassette section, onto which a train may be run. The cassette is then manually moved to the height of the other level, and the train continues onto it.
Wayne
Oops, you did say HO!
Todd Hackett
Libby, Montana 59923
I take only pictures then leave footprints on railroad property that I know is not mine, although I treat it as such...
Hi
The first thing I would consider is how you are gonna get from one deck to the other. You don't say your room/layout size or what gauge you are working with, so we will assume some things. You either have reasonable room to do a no-lix; which is an interface between the decks on 1 to 3 walls; or you are gonna put in a helix, and your scale is HO. The major factor for both runs is grade - most multi-level layouts I have seen have somewhere between 20 to 30 inches seperation; this seperation would allow you to reach into the lower deck without leaving dents on your head. If you only have to reach in 20 inches to those back tracks, that is one thing. Further depth requires you to scrunch down for that reach, which means you will put in head AND shoulders to deal with stuff, and possibly get more dents. A 16 inch rise could also be incorporated, but that is your call.
Ok, so assuming a 20 inch reach and you want a reasonable grade ... say 1.5%; the length of the run is about ( 20 / .015 ) / 12 or about 111 feet. A 40 x 30 room on three sides would almost make that. A 2% grade would shrink that wall run to about 86 feet. Three sides? I say that as you will need to make provisions to get into the layout if you don't have stairs in the middle, or if you don't want some sort of removable bridging to accomplish same. Then you have to realize that the top vertical foot will need special scenic rendering - is the train going to go out of sight during that last vertical foot, or are you going to use the outside of the upper deck to run the ramp up?
A helix has a big footprint; if we assume 20 inch rise and 1.5% grade, you are looking at 5 loops of track 4" apart; which would make your radius ( 4 / 0.015 ) / ( 2 PI ) or about 42 inches. You can make the circle into an oval by adding straight sections on both sides; which can also decrease your radius - but the footprint does not change - for instance, say you add 24 inches of tangent track on both sides; so your radius would be: about 34 inches ( (4/.015 - 48 )/ 2PI ). If you have room, the larger radius would be better as the apparent grade to the trains would be closer to the actual grade. Also, with a helix the trains go out of sight for an extended period of time. It seems that human nature tends for us to bump up the speed control when this happens, and your train ends up shooting out the top ( or bottom ) at a gazillion mph. Others might cringe at a 2% helix grade but it is your call - build a two loop helix ( cheap ) and run trains up and down it to see if it will work for ya.
Keep in mind that you will have vertical curves at both the top and bottom of either: no-lix or helix. The no-lix could probably have a greater rise as there are long straight sections between the curves and those sections could have a greater rise than the corners, which could make your interface shorter. You will have to do the math for that.
You now have a project to think about. Then when you are done thinking .... think about it again as you don't want ANY issues with either after whichever is built.
ctclibby
Oh, I assume that someone else will check my math as I have known to screw things up a bit. Go Atlanta!
I am in the process of designing a multideck-layout - for the first time ever.
What would be a workable difference between the two decks in HO scale? The layout will be set somewhere in the Alpine region (Switzerland).
Help?