carl425Stix was suggesting that multi-level is the more often used term vs multi-deck.
I actually don't think that's what Stix was referring to ... but heck, I shouldn’t wade into these semantics/philosophy discussions anyways …
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyamaMy first post to this thread specified the difference between the OP's photo and multi-deck. So there's no conflict with Koester's (or any other normal) usage of the term "multi-deck".
Yes, I know. Stix was suggesting that multi-level is the more often used term vs multi-deck. I cited Tony's book to as an "official" example that agreed with you. As I do.
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.
carl425Tony Koester"s book on the subject is called "Designing & Building Multi-Deck Model Railroads" and he should know since he wrote the book.
That's got nothing to do with my point, which was related to multi-tier verses multi-level.
My first post to this thread specified the difference between the OP's photo and multi-deck. So there's no conflict with Koester's (or any other normal) usage of the term "multi-deck".
If we're gonna get bogged down in semantics, I might as well chime in.
My layout has two decks, two discreet decks; each is supported independently. Each is built in an open grid fashion, and each is covered with a flat sheet of plywood. It is clearly a multi-deck layout.
For those who build layouts using L-girders and risers . . . the tracks can be on just about any level. Such layouts could be called multi-level, but probably not multi-deck.
Just my opinion, of course.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
cuyama wjstix I think "multi-level" is the term I've seen used the most. A potential confusion with "multi-level" is that usually the tracks on those tiers aren't level.
wjstix I think "multi-level" is the term I've seen used the most.
A potential confusion with "multi-level" is that usually the tracks on those tiers aren't level.
Does hidden/unsceniced staging under the visable/sceniced portion of the layout count as a deck, level, shelf or whatever?
wjstixI think "multi-level" is the term I've seen used the most.
I think "multi-level" is the term I've seen used the most. Seems to me not to long ago MR or RMC had a layout article saying something like "Bob decided to build a multi-level (rather than a multi-deck) layout because...."
SouthPennOn John Allen's Gorre & Daphetid, a train would pass through the same area of the layout multiple times, but at different elevations.
.
This is the station on the GORRE & DAPHETID that served two cities on two different tiers of the layout.
Such creativity... I love it.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
gregcmaybe these layouts would be better described as multi-tiered
Agree, that's why I described them that way earlier in this thread.
maybe these layouts would be better described as multi-tiered
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
On John Allen's Gorre & Daphetid, a train would pass through the same area of the layout multiple times, but at different elevations.
7j43k Here's an American example of a "turnback": I couldn't find a larger picture. It's the older GN line up to the old Cascade Tunnel. The locomotives will go through a curved tunnel over on the left, and proceed to the right on the upper track, through the snowshed. This line was abandoned when the new Cascade Tunnel opened--1929, I think. Here's a map. The above trackage is shown on the far left (above the words "Tye River"): Note the wide black line below the Tye River. The track went up the "right" side of the river valley, turned back on itself on the other side of the river, kept proceeding up the side of the hill, turned back through the tunnel, and still kept rising farther up. I designed a layout which included this trackage. There was an aisle where the river was. And snowsheds. And trestles. And bridges. Wheeeee! The overall layout was 30' square. I don't have the room, and I don't model the GN anymore. So it stayed on paper. You can also see on the map the original line. It's the dotted track, and included lotsa switchbacks. Ed
Here's an American example of a "turnback":
I couldn't find a larger picture. It's the older GN line up to the old Cascade Tunnel. The locomotives will go through a curved tunnel over on the left, and proceed to the right on the upper track, through the snowshed. This line was abandoned when the new Cascade Tunnel opened--1929, I think.
Here's a map. The above trackage is shown on the far left (above the words "Tye River"):
Note the wide black line below the Tye River. The track went up the "right" side of the river valley, turned back on itself on the other side of the river, kept proceeding up the side of the hill, turned back through the tunnel, and still kept rising farther up.
I designed a layout which included this trackage. There was an aisle where the river was. And snowsheds. And trestles. And bridges. Wheeeee!
The overall layout was 30' square. I don't have the room, and I don't model the GN anymore. So it stayed on paper.
You can also see on the map the original line. It's the dotted track, and included lotsa switchbacks.
Ed
ALso on the map you can see the markings for the old switchback that existed before the first tunnel. In 'Creative Layout Design", John Armstrong presents a plan based on that which is designed for a split level type of house where the highest elevation actually ends up in the next level up in the house.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Every layout requires compromise. Each layout builder will differ in what compromises are acceptable.
gregc ATLANTIC CENTRAL But today many modelers have rejected the idea of having the train run back and forth thru the same scene repeatedly, instead prefering more of a linear sense of going from one place to another. i can understand the desire, but this seems pretty limiting unless you have a lot of room
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But today many modelers have rejected the idea of having the train run back and forth thru the same scene repeatedly, instead prefering more of a linear sense of going from one place to another.
i can understand the desire, but this seems pretty limiting unless you have a lot of room
I don't disagree. And if you are ok with going thru the scene twice, and especially if your scenery is mountainous, it can work very well.
I designed a layout for a friend, a rather large layout, he was fine with that idea, it works very well.
In that case we only did it in some places, other areas the mainline is only seen once.
Sheldon
I have always had single deck layouts with a highline in the rear of the layout. It allows me to have a much longer run. They are kind of old fashion. They used to be a lot more common but nowadays people do tend to build multi deck layouts, however I recall seeing one in a recent issue of MR. I know a lot of people don’t like the tracks going through the same scene more than once but in my case I think it’s ok because the tracks have to climb over a mountain range and they can’t just go straight up the hill. They have to gradually climb up over it. So what if the tracks go through the scene twice. They do it at different elevations and it is not a spaghetti bowl. I do try to keep the width of the layout within arms reach but there is one area with a horseshoe turn that is pretty wide, so inside of that is an access hole, which is disguised as a bottomless mine pit.
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut today many modelers have rejected the idea of having the train run back and forth thru the same scene repeatedly, instead prefering more of a linear sense of going from one place to another.
Very interesting, thanks for sharing the details!
Mountain railroading west of the Mississippi is my favorite part of the hobby.
Steve
If everything seems under control, you're not going fast enough!
Steven,
I don't even know how to find it.
That said:
The layout was "around-the-wall", with a peninsula projecting from one side. Minimum radius was, I hope, 48". Again, the plan is "somewhere".
If you imagine the peninsula coming down from the top, the Tye River section filled up most of the right side of the layout, plus the right side of the peninsula. And the top right, of course--one of the turnback 180's. The other side of the peninsula was some mainline and a bunch of industies. There was, of course, a divider down the "middle" of the peninsula.
The rest of the layout had the usual yard, engine facilities, and local industries. I'm sure it was set up for continuous running, which means the track had to get back down after climbing the hill. Probably a helix--what else? I also think I put a staging yard inside the hill. Don't forget, with 48" minimum radius, the peninsula is very roughly 8' wide. So there's a good bit of room in there for "backstage".
Since there is the 180 at the upper right, the 180 at the end of the peninsula, and the 180 on the upper left, and the 48" radius, these three curves roughly account for 3 x 8' = 24' of the available 30'. Not much straight main track on the top.
That's about as much description as is useful. You don't need to know all the details, because you'd likely put in your own.
Ed, by chance could you possibly post a photo/scan of that track plan you drew up, that sounds like an interesting layout, I'm always interested to see older track plans.
Thanks in advance!
Not a fan of two deck layouts, but the obvious advantage is twice the surface area in the same footprint. That's a different goal than creating vertical separation between adjoining tracks.
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
ATLANTIC CENTRALBut today many modelers have rejected the idea of having the train run back and forth thru the same scene repeatedly
True, although there is more than one prototype for that, most of them in Switzerland.
The certainly most famous one is the Gotthard line near Wassen, north of the old Gotthard tunnel.
Equally famous is the narrow gauge Albula line between Bergün and Preda.
Another standard gauge line winding around a town is the Loetschberg line near Blausse-Mitholz.
And, last, but not least, the Bernina line from Ospizio Bernina down to Cavaglio.
I am sure there are similar lines to be found outside of Switzerland as well!
Happy times!
Ulrich (aka The Tin Man)
"You´re never too old for a happy childhood!"
Here's what I think is a beautifully executed multiple pass layouts.
I prefer layouts like the one in your photo over the multidecked layouts people build today.
John Allen even had a passenger station that served tracks on two levels on his GORRE & DAPHETID. Trains not only passed through the same scene twice, they could stop at the same station twice.
Greg, layouts the one in your picture were once very common, with the mainline passing thru the same scene multiple times at different elevations. I'm sure there are still lots of them out there.
But today many modelers have rejected the idea of having the train run back and forth thru the same scene repeatedly, instead prefering more of a linear sense of going from one place to another.
I have built a multi deck layout, decided I really did not like it.
I have also built layouts like your photo, also not my taste anymore.
For me, my partial second level was added so the trains could go "somewhere else" rather than simply at different elevations in the same places. The main level does have several major elevation changes, but mostly not in the same scenes.
Wayne
Yes, multi-deck means multiple separate decks -- by definition.
Multiple-tier/multiple-pass (on a single physical deck) layouts have been around since the beginning of the hobby and many are still being built today.
Byron
it seems that a common impediment to designing a multi-deck layout is achieving at least 12" (if not 18) in height in one loop of the layout which requires 50 ft of track at a 2% grade in addition to flat areas for siding and switching.
but as the image below shows, the difference in track heights can be much less if there aren't separate decks by just putting the higher tracks further back on the same layout. yes, this requires more depth.
i haven't read about many layouts designed and built this way. I'm sure there are many, but i think this approach is often overlooked.