Just wanted to add here that Wayne's layout avoids what i see as a major drawback for most double-decked layouts - a helix. A helix at minimum takes up 16 square feet of potentially useful layout room. It is also a place for derailments where you can't easily reach. In my mind, any layout space that has enough room for a helix has enough space for a large enough single-decked layout. I guess it just depends on how much mainline you want. Waynes is quite well-done - the transition between the two decks is not a helix and is part of the scenicked layout.
- Kevin
Check out my shapeways creations! HOn3 and railroad items for 3D printing:
https://www.shapeways.com/shops/kevin-s-model-train-detail-parts
railandsail...what has turned out to be your favorite method of manual turnout control?
Originally, the turnouts were all controlled with Caboose Industries ground throws (except, of course, the motorised one (Tortoise) that's under a bridge. A friend gave me a number of turnouts that he no longer needed (some still in the package), and among them were some Micro Engineering and Pecos, both with the integral spring in the point mechanism. I've since modified a number of turnouts (mostly Atlas) with springs, which allows me to add Central Valley switchstands, which look much better in photos. A number of now-difficult-to-reach (due to the addition of the partial second level) turnouts will be modified to work through Blue Point switch mechanisms, using control rods and knobs on the fascia, which will allow use of the CV switchstands, too. The staging areas will retain the Caboose Industries ground throws, though, as they're all accessible and very reliable.
As for the issue with photobucket, I was unaware that photobucket was that niggardly in respect to photo sharing. I originally had a free account there, like most users here, I think. However, I was finding that my monthly bandwidth allotment was being used-up within two weeks or less, and after pestering photobucket for a while, they finally sent me a transcript of useage. Apparently, in addition to photos shared here and on a couple of other forums, various search engines were also harvesting my posted photos. When someone searched for, f'rinstance "boxcar photos", the results might include 10 or 12 of my photos, and everytime someone viewed them, it used some of my bandwidth. I eventually got a paid subscription to photobucket, and when they changed their policy, was allowed to "grandfather" my sharing privileges for a slightly increased renewal fee. If I renew at that price next August, my sharing will continue until the end of 2018. At that time, I can either cough-up the full fee or have all my posted pictures disappear.
I can neither afford nor support that policy, so my pictures here will disappear. I do belong to another train forum where posted pictures can come from hosting sites such as photobucket or flicker, etc., but they also allow attachments, which is a useful fallback for me. I may consider going to another hosting site, but not at the present time.
I do appreciate all of the kind words from folks here, and hope that they can wade through my words which come with the pictures. I'll likely continue posting here, but with no photos, the word content may increase dramatically....you know, the "picture is worth a thousand words" thing...
Wayne
DrWayne,
You have added so many great photos to discussions on this forum,...so I thought I really should have a folder where I am saving those photos.
But alas that damn Photobucket crap has invaded again. I save the photo image from your posting, but it does not let me access the photo on my computer??
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration
doctorwayne There's only one powered turnout on the layout and the turntable on the lower level is manually operated (the big finger). Track power in the two modelled engine terminals is controlled by fascia-mounted toggles and/or rotary switches. I've motorised the turntable on the upper level, but may revert to manual operation, as indexing "by-eye" is quicker, with less wiring. Wayne
There's only one powered turnout on the layout and the turntable on the lower level is manually operated (the big finger). Track power in the two modelled engine terminals is controlled by fascia-mounted toggles and/or rotary switches. I've motorised the turntable on the upper level, but may revert to manual operation, as indexing "by-eye" is quicker, with less wiring.
railandsail So I guess you are pretty confident you don't have to access the underside of the layout where you have those shelves for the boxed freight cars??
So I guess you are pretty confident you don't have to access the underside of the layout where you have those shelves for the boxed freight cars??
If the goal is to run laps around the layout and bypass terminals in the process, a layout doesn't need three tracks around the deck/room, 4 tracks, or 8.
It only needs one. You can do 8 laps on one track.
Since the 3, 4, or 8 tracks will be piled up on each other, the train will always look like its going through the same scene anyway, so there is no real advantage to having more than one track, IMO.
Some plans say there are 2.5 miles between stations, but you dont notice that because the tracks and the stations are right next to each other. The author is talking about if the plan was unfolded to form a straight line, the tracks would extend for 2.5 miles. That's a lot of track to fold up into a small layout.
- Douglas
I built a double deck layout once, decided afterwards I was not really happy with it.
Now, the only "double deck" thing I would do would to be build a "regular" layout at say 48", and have a shallow, shadow box type lower level, with no switching operation, just open running mainline, at about 30" off the floor, 14" high and less than 12" deep.
My current layout project is modular for a future move, and is designed so that this feature might be added later.
Sheldon
NWP SWP and Brian, thank you for your kind comments.
railandsail...BTW, is that all one train in that photo?...
Yeah, one train. Somebody had asked in a post somewhere about how many cars a loco (diesel, if I recall correctly) could pull. I had just finished adding a little more weight to my Bachmann Consolidations, and decided to see if it had improved the pulling ability.I don't have much level track except on the partial upper level, so decide to build a train there and see what the loco could pull. I kept adding cars (some free rollers some not-so-free, some to recommended weights, a couple under-weight, and quite a few over-weight. The train stretched from the far wall in this photo and into the curve in the foreground...
...and continued around the same curve, in the foreground below, all the way into the curve at the distant wall in this photo...
....41 cars.
Since most of the cars needed to be placed back in their boxes below the lower staging yards...
...I decided to run the train down to that area. The locomotive did need an assist from a couple of Athearn Mikados to get up the grade that leads to the yard shown in the photo above.
railandsail...And, is it just the camera lense that makes that grade appear substantial?
No optical illusion there, Brian. The grade is 2.5%, about 45' worth wrapped around two reverse curves (the bridge partially visible in the upper midpoint of the photo is part of the other curve).
carl425 Bob Sprague has some nice examples on his website. https://www.bobstrackplans.com/
Bob Sprague has some nice examples on his website.
https://www.bobstrackplans.com/
carl425 https://www.bobstrackplans.com/
carl425 railandsail,can you just show me two smaller layouts that don't have the trains going thru same scenes but once https://www.bobstrackplans.com/
railandsail,can you just show me two smaller layouts that don't have the trains going thru same scenes but once
paraphrasing the designer, Leonard Blumenschine.... The layout has two 'terminal locations', Tupper Lake and Faust Junction. Start from either terminal, follow the main line (ignoring the crossover at Big Wolf for the moment), and when you end up at the other terminal you'll find yourself putting your loco on a common turntable that links both terminals,...even though the terminals are distinct from each other in character and function, and are located more than 2 scale miles apart. Whether a train makes one lap, or repeatedly uses the 'accidental crossover', it is always headed for the other end of the line, and it never has to pass directly through its destination or origination point along the way while building up mileage.
paraphrasing the designer, Leonard Blumenschine....
The layout has two 'terminal locations', Tupper Lake and Faust Junction. Start from either terminal, follow the main line (ignoring the crossover at Big Wolf for the moment), and when you end up at the other terminal you'll find yourself putting your loco on a common turntable that links both terminals,...even though the terminals are distinct from each other in character and function, and are located more than 2 scale miles apart.
Whether a train makes one lap, or repeatedly uses the 'accidental crossover', it is always headed for the other end of the line, and it never has to pass directly through its destination or origination point along the way while building up mileage.
7j43k I do not see one world floating above another. So, no. Ed
I do not see one world floating above another. So, no.
Ed
NWP SWPWhat is your opinions on the pros/cons of multi deck layouts?
read Tony's book (has good thoughts for any layout)
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Mel, a two deck layout has two separately sceniced levels.
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
railandsailCan you just show me two smaller layouts that don't have the trains going thru same scenes but once
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
RR_Mel Would this be considered a double deck layout?
carl425 railandsail Can you show me some relatively small layouts that DO NOT have the trains running thru the same scenes several times ??...particularly it they are going to make more than a couple of laps around a layout. One of the main points of multiple decks is to be able to make multiple laps around the room WITHOUT going through the same scene twice. Do you have access to the MR track planning database? There are many examples there. Another good resource is the annual "Model Railroad Planning" magazine that MR puts out. There are lots of more modern planning ideas presented in these.
railandsail Can you show me some relatively small layouts that DO NOT have the trains running thru the same scenes several times ??...particularly it they are going to make more than a couple of laps around a layout.
One of the main points of multiple decks is to be able to make multiple laps around the room WITHOUT going through the same scene twice. Do you have access to the MR track planning database? There are many examples there.
Another good resource is the annual "Model Railroad Planning" magazine that MR puts out. There are lots of more modern planning ideas presented in these.
Apparently I do not have access to the track plan database as I can't enlarge those track plans.
Can you just show me two smaller layouts that don't have the trains going thru same scenes but once
railandsailCan you show me some relatively small layouts that DO NOT have the trains running thru the same scenes several times ??...particularly it they are going to make more than a couple of laps around a layout.
DoctorWayne,Your layout (and photos) are inspirational.
BTW, is that all one train in that photo?
And, is it just the camera lense that makes that grade appear substantial?
I have a medium sized double deck layout (triple deck actually, third lower deck for staging). See the link below my signature.
In my mind, the best reason to go double deck is for operations based railroad fun. You get a longer run in a space which is great for operations. Once through a scene and a sense of having traveled down (or up) the line.
My layout has twelve large scenes on two decks that are connected by a helix. I am very happy with the operational aspects of the layout. The compromises in design associated with double decks didn't really bother me too much. I have been able to build a realistic layout within those constraints.
If you aren't in to OPs, I don't recommend double deck layouts. Even then I',m luke warm on the idea unless you have experience building layouts and know what you are getting into. They are very tedious to build and are much more than twice as much work as building a single deck layout.
The cons are: there can be difficult design issues, tedium in construction and the builder will need layout building skills that are well developed. All of these issues are surmountable but not without a fair amount of effort.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
Wayne that's a pretty great looking layout. Thanks for the advice.
My layout is partially doubledecked, with the grade between levels on a peninsula. As maxman has mentioned, when you're operating on either level, the other more-or-less disappears. The one drawback that I've discovered is that many of the manually-operated ground throws on the lower level are now difficult to reach, and I'll be addressing that using Bluepoint switch machines operated manually from the layout's fascia. The lower level is operated from a rolling office chair, the upper level while standing...
...and a long-ish train descending from the upper level...
The upper level has some track in place and is useable, although not fully operational...
My layout is double decked with a helix. My lower level is for staging sets of trains. 9 tracks, plus I have a storage track around the bottom of the helix. Also 4 stub tracks on the lower level below the peninsula. I look at it as a play or show, it's not part of the main operation of a session, it's there to assist. We're in a model world, not a real one, unless you have real railroaders running trains during a session, but that's for another topic at another time..
On my layout, and maybe others, the helix is not part of the operations, so to speak. We look at it as trains going to or from another destination. All of the industries and passenger stations are on the upper level. Now on one wall before trains go up or come off the helix, I have a 'commuter train' station and across from it my commuter train yard. The railroad has continuous operation as I have a track mainline that goes around the top of the helix.
It works very well for me. A couple of lessons I learned. Biggest one is to make sure I have adequate spacing between decks. This layout has 12". Also, need to have the upper level not as wide front to back as the lower level. We have a retirement home, and I am starting a layout there as well. Helix, point to point and 16" from top to bottom. Also, width on the lower level front to back will be 24" and the top will be 18". Can't do more for one main reason - I'm short!! I need to be able to see and reach, or the use of the short person assist unit comes into play (small plastic step stool ).
Just my perspective..
Neal
hornblower One thing I often see on multi-deck layouts (as well as single deck layouts) is insufficient aisle space. Two decks means a potential for twice as many people to try to occupy an aisle (and pass each other) at the same time. Three decks means three times as many people in the aisle! No, a 30" aisle is not sufficient, especially when you consider that many of us have diameters much larger than that! My own double deck layout has 48" aisles and even that can get tight at times.
One thing I often see on multi-deck layouts (as well as single deck layouts) is insufficient aisle space. Two decks means a potential for twice as many people to try to occupy an aisle (and pass each other) at the same time. Three decks means three times as many people in the aisle! No, a 30" aisle is not sufficient, especially when you consider that many of us have diameters much larger than that! My own double deck layout has 48" aisles and even that can get tight at times.
carl425 railandsail Interesting Plan, Tupper Lake & Faust Junction This plan, IMO, is an example of the old "nothing but track bowl of spaghetti" layout that multi-deck layouts were invented to fix. By going to a second deck you get the mainline run of a plan like this but still have the opportunity to maintain scenic integrity by not having trains run through the same scene more than once.
This plan, IMO, is an example of the old "nothing but track bowl of spaghetti" layout that multi-deck layouts were invented to fix. By going to a second deck you get the mainline run of a plan like this but still have the opportunity to maintain scenic integrity by not having trains run through the same scene more than once.
Can you show me some relatively small layouts that DO NOT have the trains running thru the same scenes several times ??...particularly it they are going to make more than a couple of laps around a layout.
Hornblower
NWP SWP Now does two decks work for mountain scenery?
Now does two decks work for mountain scenery?
If you're doing a two-level layout set in Iowa, you've got a situation getting from one level to the other.
With mountains, it seems like that's solved: a bunch of the layout IS the way you get up to the next level. In this case, you might have a section of the layout that is two level, and another section of the layout that is the climb. And would be one-level. Sort of a split-level house idea.