I wanted to ask this question some time ago, but I never got around to ask until now, I have a nice track plan that I got out of the book, 45 oringinal trackplans by Bernard Kempinski, The plan is the Sunset Route (41) the plan in the book is HO scale 22x 50 but I used a formula that got me my Nscale measurments, 8x20, my train room will be 10x20, ( a built shed by Better built Barns here in Oregon), my work shop will be in a spear room here in our house, anyway, I just had a whim thought, is it possible to make a plan like this, which is a Walk in plan, into a multi deck plan??? Just wondering, with the size room I'm working with. I think I better stick to what I have, You know what MMR says, Dream it, Plan it, Build it!!!!
TrainsRMe1is it possible to make a plan like this, which is a Walk in plan, into a multi deck plan?
modelers considering multi-deck layouts often overlook the need for flat areas with sidings and spurs. An acceptable but continuous 2.5% grade would rise 18" assuming ~60ft of track around a 10x20' room.
suggest reading Koster's book on Multi-deck layouts and looking at his Nickle Plate Thrid Sub layout.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Neither the 22' nor the 50' dimension shrink to 8' or 20' in N scale without removing stuff.
Any reason you can't use the last 2' of the shed?
You could always try Brian's (railsandsail) idea and put a helix in an enclosed box outside of the shed. But even inside, a 4x4 square out of the corner would fir a very generous radius helix, leaving the rest of the space on each deck level. Maybe even a staging level below and another above if the inside height of the shed is enough.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
And by the way, no law says that the decks of a multi-deck layout have to be connected to each other. I have toyed with the idea of a track plan involving a junction with another railroad, and with duplicating the scene of the junction on BOTH levels of a two deck layout, but one deck would view the scene from an east/west perspective and focus on that railroad, while the other deck would view it from a north/south perspective and focus on the other railroad. It would involve two models of the same interlocking tower, but the junctions themselves would be "dummy" tracks and not see any trains (the "magic hand" of the layout owner could place cars on the respective interchange tracks between op sessions). Tony Koester, who believes junctions are a vital part of layout planning particularly in the interchange-rich areas in the midwest and east) speculated about an idea sort of like this years ago in Model Railroad Planning.
Specifically I was thinking about Ackley Iowa, where the former Minneaplis & St Louis line (later C&NW, now abandoned north of the former crossing and to the south is the Iowa River RR) crossed north and south over the former Illinois Central (now CN) east/west main line. It is a 90 degree crossing, roughly, and would be difficult to model activity on both railroads on a single level layout.
In theory you could even replicate the effect of the signals that protect the junction so that an approaching IC train on one level would also trigger the signal system lights or semaphores on the other level which is primarily M&St L or C&NW.
Dave Nelson
dknelsonno law says that the decks of a multi-deck layout have to be connected to each other.
I disagree. If they aren't connected you have two layouts. There is however no law that says you can't have two layouts in the same room.
But... one interesting layout is better, IMO, than two semi-interesting layouts.
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.
And because there was space on the other side of the layout, instead of that canal lock, Armstrong used a vertical turnout to select which deck the train ran on.
I wonder if either or both ever got actually built and used? I think this came up before and someone showed the vertical turnout they made.
Another option are those vertically sliding shelves that are advertised. Link the two decks AND provide staging all in one.
gregc
That dehydrated canal lock is one of the most innovative things I have seen for augmenting staging capability; it leads me inmediately to wonder if a typical model lift-bridge arrangement at 'consist length' with multiple cable lifts and perhaps even multiple coordinated spans could be built - say 'against a wall' for narrow space behind scenery or scrim - to move a train or cut between decks. Certainly an alternative to a helix if using long equipment or prototype detail interfering with truck swing...
You could incorporate automatic stops to keep the train from rolling as the movable section elevates, or just use bulkheads or tension wire at the ends - I didn't see that protection on the dehydrated lock but am only viewing its details on a small phone screen.
Overmodt leads me inmediately to wonder if a typical model lift-bridge arrangement at 'consist length' with multiple cable lifts and perhaps even multiple coordinated spans could be built - say 'against a wall' for narrow space behind scenery or scrim - to move a train or cut between decks.
what others have done
my experiment
OvermodThat dehydrated canal lock is one of the most innovative things I have seen
Maybe in the 50's when Armstrong invented it. With the availability of linear guide systems today there are far easier ways to skin this cat.
Take a look at the DIY stuff that's available to lift a TV out of a cabinet. Even drawer slides and a ball screw driven by a stepper motor would make a simple and effective vertical yard.
TrainsRMe1the plan in the book is HO scale 22x 50 but I used a formula that got me my Nscale measurments, 8x20
That's not correct. 22'X50' in HO scale is the equivalent of about 12'X27' in N scale.
TrainsRMe1is it possible to make a plan like this, which is a Walk in plan, into a multi deck plan
Given that it's larger than your space already, there are some challenges. It's certainly possible to do an N scale multi-deck layout in 10'X20', but it would be a redesign from scratch.
TrainsRMe1Just wondering, with the size room I'm working with. I think I better stick to what I have
Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that you're not considering multi-deck in any case? And the layout you referenced doesn't fit in the space you have if simply scaled down. (Maybe I'm the only one who is confused.)
Good luck with your layout.
Byron
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
To get the HO scale size to N scale, divide 160 into 87. this gives you .54375, multiply that by the 22 ft length and you get11.96 ft. do the same on the length and you get 27.187. Close enough for government work.
It's fun to watch all the ways IT seems to be fouling up posting recently. The search community button won't find anything, no matter how simple, which leads me to wonder why it takes such a long time to run a query. Kids these days...
I've built some good vertical lifts with ball slides and roller chains instead of screw jacks, but those tend to be more expensive to make than cables and guides unless you have the parts handy; I'd be leery of something using a single long screw jack to lift a 128" x 2" rail to precise height and register to get running rails to align, which a four-bar should do fairly easily over a period of years. I also admit that I had not thought of a plurality of decks in the one moving carriage, for which I am further grateful.
The roller-chain arrangement was for counterbalanced moving appliances in a New York galley-style kitchen, and it raises at least the possibility of moving the physical decks up and down to view one in 'the middle' with most of the vertical space and at convenient working height. Or raise it to easily access all that 'stuff' underneath that would take a contortionist to get to under orthodox benchwork...
floridaflyer To get the HO scale size to N scale, divide 160 into 87 ... Close enough for government work.
To get the HO scale size to N scale, divide 160 into 87 ... Close enough for government work.
If you're going to work to that degree of precision why waste time with decimals; just do 16:9 like the TV proportions and make the math easy.