Hello everyone,
I'm not sure if this has been asked or discussed, so I'm going to ask (I tried to search the forum for this topic, but didn't see anything).
I have a 12'x13' room with a double door off center. It leaves me 44" on one side and 70" on the other. I considered a helix, but as we know, it takes up a lot of space. This would leave me with a point to point as the opposite end isn't wide enough for a return loop.
I can do a one level layout with a removable section in front of the door. It would give me continuous running if I so choose and still do some type of operation. In addition, to the left of the door that swings into the room, I will have a peninsula approximately 7' long and 30" wide for a yard or multiple industries.
My question is as follows: Has anyone built or operated a two level layout that doesn't connect to the other level? This would be operating 2 different railroads or scenes. If you've done one or both, I would be interested in getting some feedback, both pros and cons. In addition, if I do 2 levels, it would have to be no higher than 66" since I'm not that tall.
Thanks again to all who reply.
Neal M.
nealknowsHas anyone built or operated a two level layout that doesn't connect to the other level?
As discussed in your recent thread...http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/260078.aspx
... I have done a couple of these for clients and they worked fine. In one case (Edit: actually, two cases), staging on each deck represented the other deck, and in the other the two decks represented different places and times.
As mentioned in that earlier thread, I wrote about such a layout in Model Railroad Planning 2008 (Oahu Railway) and described the concept in Layout Design Journal #28; Spring 2003.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Neal, I got to thinking about this very idea when reading the 2014 edition of Model Railroad Planning, page 62. Tony Koester had floated the idea of modeling the same town on two decks, and the town would be sort of removable segment that would be fitted into both levels as a form of interchange. He admitted on page 7 that one MR staffer termed it "the worst idea I've ever seen."
I don't know about worst, but to me it seemed Koester had overlooked the more interesting possibility -- forget the elaborate fitting of the very same segment on both levels, but imagine instead two levels where the same town is modeled on both levels, but for different purposes. Just by way of example, imagine a two deck layout that models, in part, Davis Junction in Illinois. That junction has an east/west Milwaukee Road line with an interchange to and junction with a north/south CB&Q branch (over which the Milwaukee Road had trackage rights) that went from Rockford to the north through Davis Junction on down (crossing the Chicago Great Western in the process) to just north of Rochelle to the south, where it merged with the CB&Q main at Flagg Center. The Milwaukee had a yard office and depot inside the legs of the wye north of the main. (The Milwaukee would run onto the CB&Q at Flagg Center, then through the diamond in Rochelle, go over the C&NW diamond, and continue south to where its own main parted from the Q at Steward Junction, and went on down to Mendota and beyond. The Q's Steward Junction depot still stands by the way - well worth a five minute detour if you are railfanning Rochelle.
This is why there is a Milwaukee Road caboose across from the Rochelle Railroad Park by the way, and why there is a Milwaukee Road combine at the museum in Mendota.
It would be difficult to do justice to Davis Junction on a single level layout but would be very possible to do so on different levels. You could have two models of the same depot on both levels just to make plain what you were trying to convey.
Koester had the germ of this idea in his article but I think he was too wedded to the novelty of a removable cassette segment that would serve both levels. And the problem with that is that both levels had the same orientation, which to my mind misses out on the more interesting and challenging design of one level being north/south, the other east/west.
Dave Nelson
dknelson but imagine instead two levels where the same town is modeled on both levels, but for different purposes.
That's the situation on a couple of my designs: the same junction or crossing is modeled on each deck, but from the perspective of one railroad on one deck and from the perspective of the other railroad on the other. (Or a branch and mainline on separate decks -- with the branch junction modeled on each deck.) Works well.
No reason why you can't have two separate levels, either with different railroads or one being another part of the other. A helix does eat-up a lot of space, as does a no-lix, the latter which I chose for my layout.I'd suggest first that you change the door so that it opens out, rather than into the room. Mine was built that way, as I knew that there'd need to be a lift-out at the door.For two levels, the main thing is to have enough space between them so that the lower level is fully accessible and visible, and the upper level easy to reach, whether standing or on a step-stool.
Here's mine with both lift-outs in place.
The door can still be opened from inside the room or out, and there's no chance of someone outside unwittingly opening the door and, as it swings into the room, damaging either the layout or the door.
Here's one side with the lift-outs removed...
Wayne
I have no idea why when I searched I didn't find it.. sorry if I offended you.. Senior moment?
nealknowssorry if I offended you
Not offended at all, just a reminder that there were also some good comments at that time. Heck, I don't remember what I had for breakfast ...
I really like that concept of 2 railroads that cross with the same town being modeled on both decks as the 'connection' between them.
There certainly are some advantages of modeling two decks withno physical connection between them - you can build both decks at optimum heights without worrying about having enough space to climb that far without having a ridiculous grade. They could even be partially connected, as in the case of the two crossing railroads, if there is an interchange there, a connection could be made with a train elevator modeling the interchange track. No 'live' connection, but one road would make its pickups and setouts at the interchange, and then at some later time the elevator moved to the second level and later in the day the second railroad makes its pickups and setouts at the interchange.
While typing this I thought of a second idea, that of modeling the same railroad on both decks, only one being say resent day and the other an earlier era. I don't know how well that would work out, but in areas that have seen tons of change it would be perhaps easier than swapping structures and so forth to adjust the era of a single layout. Plus you can't pull up and relay the track all the time, the present day may have only 1 track where in the 40's there were 2 or 3. But you'd also have to be VERY into modeling a specific area and railroad to actually want to do it twice at the same time.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
rrinker I really like that concept of 2 railroads that cross with the same town being modeled on both decks as the 'connection' between them. While typing this I thought of a second idea, that of modeling the same railroad on both decks, only one being say recent day and the other an earlier era.
While typing this I thought of a second idea, that of modeling the same railroad on both decks, only one being say recent day and the other an earlier era.
A good example might be the Santa Fe Super Chief leaving Dearborn Station in Chicago on one level,then disappearing, only to reappear approaching Los Angeles on the second level. Add a third level between the lower level and the upper level, and you can model the cross country portion of the route.
Rich
Alton Junction
I may be wrong, but is a layout on two levels, which are not connected, in effect not two induvidual layouts, built one upon the other, even if they share a common theme?
Sir Madog I may be wrong, but is a layout on two levels, which are not connected, in effect not two induvidual layouts, built one upon the other, even if they share a common theme?
If you can find a copy, Creative Layout Design by John Armstrong has an interesting design for a layout on 2 levels. In his case he described with drawings 2 ways to move whole trains from one level to the other. I have also seen elevator arrangements as well. You could also do 3 levels or more.
Personally, I would opt for 2 different scales doing 2 different kinds of railroads. Say a mainline in N scale and a shortline in S or On30 scale.
Good luck
Paul
As Byron, stated in his earlier comment this concept has been successfully implemented at least a couple of times. I currently have a layout space very similar to the original poster's space. I tried to visulize how to use the space without using a helix, just don't have room for a helix and people at the same time. I took my plan to the 2013 NMRA convention in Atlanta and asked Byron to take a look. He suggested a two level disconnented layout. Well I went home and made it; modeling a switching layout of one city, Jacksonville. The layout has a central classification yard on the top level with several industries. The bottom level is one industry. I stage the rolling stock on one track coming from the yard to one lead track on the lower level. The lower level has its own Switching locomotive to work the cars during an operations session. In between Operations Sessions I move the cars between yard tracks for the next session. The whole concept works quite well for my Operating Switching Layout.
TASThe layout has a central classification yard on the top level with several industries. The bottom level is one industry. I stage the rolling stock on one track coming from the yard to one lead track on the lower level. The lower level has its own Switching locomotive to work the cars during an operations session. In between Operations Sessions I move the cars between yard tracks for the next session. The whole concept works quite well for my Operating Switching Layout.
I'm glad that the concept of unconnected decks linked by staging and ops is working out well for you!
IRONROOSTERIf you can find a copy, Creative Layout Design by John Armstrong has an interesting design for a layout on 2 levels. In his case he described with drawings 2 ways to move whole trains from one level to the other. I have also seen elevator arrangements as well.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
I had thought seriously about doing what Paul mentioned, doing two different scales. In my case, HO standard gauge on the lower, On30 on the upper. I'm using modular shelf components bolted to the walls of the basement, so I can set up shelves anywhere from 12" to about 72" high. I did a 'test run' of two levels with a couple 36" shelf sections on each level. It was OK, but I decided to just do the lower HO with more room for a backdrop. A low backdrop of say 12-15" just didn't look right to me - but then on my prior layouts the backdrops were around 48" high!
However, the HO layout is low enough that the lighting running above the layout (shelf sections with a 1x4 hanging down as a valance with small light tubes behind it) is only a little above my eye level. If I get the lower layout done someday and want to do something different, it wouldn't be hard to lower the upper shelves down 3-4" to eye level and have trains there too.