I've been reading in the Cat-6 string about duck-unders as an alternate to lift-outs, drop-downs and hinged rights-of-way where layouts are designed for inner operations. Over the years this subject has been treated repeatedly. Granted that I've hardly read them all; so -
Occasionally I've run across someone who eliminates (or at least mitigates) duck-unders by raising a portion of the layout to allow for a walk- or stoop-under. But that almost presupposes a large pike that allows for significant changes in elevation or a couple of helixes. But if there's enough vertical clearance in the room, why not just raise the entire layout?
That leaves two options for internal ops: either step-up walkways all the way around the interior periphery or a false floor across the entire interior - except for the steps at the bridged entry point(s). Of course one could spend more by running the false floor clear to the walls, but properly built longer legs should suffice.
I'll grant that there are some liabilities to this approach that I haven't thought of. Please offer them here. Or otherwise opine.
John (of Attu)
John, I have a basement layout, built on a poured concrete floor. I have often mused about excavating a hole in the floor to built a pair of stair steps to walk under the layout and back up. Waddya think ?
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrain John, I have a basement layout, built on a poured concrete floor. I have often mused about excavating a hole in the floor to built a pair of stair steps to walk under the layout and back up. Waddya think ? Rich
Years ago I saw a layout article (MR?) that had concrete stairs set in the basement floor so one could walk under the layout.
I think the real concern would be what's under the floor such as drain pipes plus you may need to add a drain somehow to the bottom of your walk under.
Post pictures if you do it.
Paul
Always loved basements, Rich. For lots of reasons. But here there's an extra bennie, as long as you don't have ground water issues. Surely the quicker and cheaper (but a tad dirtier ) fix.
John
IRONROOSTER richhotrain John, I have a basement layout, built on a poured concrete floor. I have often mused about excavating a hole in the floor to built a pair of stair steps to walk under the layout and back up. Waddya think ? Rich Years ago I saw a layout article (MR?) that had concrete stairs set in the basement floor so one could walk under the layout. I think the real concern would be what's under the floor such as drain pipes plus you may need to add a drain somehow to the bottom of your walk under. Post pictures if you do it. Paul
Attuvian1 Alwasy loved basements, Rich. For lots of reasons. But here there's an extra bennie, as long as you don't have ground water issues. Surely the quicker and cheaper (but a tad dirtier ) fix. John
Alwasy loved basements, Rich. For lots of reasons. But here there's an extra bennie, as long as you don't have ground water issues. Surely the quicker and cheaper (but a tad dirtier ) fix.
It has been done, multiple times. Over the past 60 or 70 years a number of club layouts have been built with raised floor systems that allow stand-up access to under layout areas and providing stairs down - stairs up access to "island" aisles.
Look up "The Model Railroad Club" in New Jersey.
But few basements have that kind of headroom. As for digging down, that would be very doable in most cases. Just a fair amount of work.
Sheldon
Rich, that is part of my plan. Small seat to roll under when I don't want to move the lift outs.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Rich, that is part of my plan. Small seat to roll under when I don't want to move the lift outs. Sheldon
richhotrain I have often mused about excavating a hole in the floor...
Rich Crippen by Bear, on Flickr
"One difference between pessimists and optimists is that while pessimists are more often right, optimists have far more fun."
richraising the layout could make sense, but as an alternative to raising it high enough to walk under, just make it high enough to roll a wheeled office chair under the duck under.
also makes it easier to work on the underside of the layout while sitting on a chair
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
gregc rich raising the layout could make sense, but as an alternative to raising it high enough to walk under, just make it high enough to roll a wheeled office chair under the duck under. also makes it easier to work on the underside of the layout while sitting on a chair
rich raising the layout could make sense, but as an alternative to raising it high enough to walk under, just make it high enough to roll a wheeled office chair under the duck under.
Raised floors need to be built to the same standard as building floors to handle the weight and live loads (people walking around). You don't want it to feel bouncy while people are moving around, and you don't want it to collapse under your guests.
So that means footings, posts, beams and joists, or stud walls and joists. Since the raised walkways are typically only under the aisles, the stud walls need to be shear walls.
You also need to consider safety barriers between the raised floors and the open space under the layout.
Seems like just building the layout a bit higher and rolling under it on a chair or stool is a much simpler, safer, and cheaper, approach.
AEP528 Raised floors need to be built to the same standard as building floors to handle the weight and live loads (people walking around). You don't want it to feel bouncy while people are moving around, and you don't want it to collapse under your guests. So that means footings, posts, beams and joists, or stud walls and joists. Since the raised walkways are typically only under the aisles, the stud walls need to be shear walls. You also need to consider safety barriers between the raised floors and the open space under the layout. Seems like just building the layout a bit higher and rolling under it on a chair or stool is a much simpler, safer, and cheaper, approach.
Agreed, they would need to be correctly built. Not really that complex given the likely spans in most cases. The bigger issue in most residential settings will be headroom.
Lots of layouts have been built with limited sections of raised floor to save space in what is known as a mushroom plan. Assuming the actual layout weight is point loaded to the main floor, the raised floor portion presents no unusual engineering issues.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL AEP528 Raised floors need to be built to the same standard as building floors to handle the weight and live loads (people walking around). You don't want it to feel bouncy while people are moving around, and you don't want it to collapse under your guests. So that means footings, posts, beams and joists, or stud walls and joists. Since the raised walkways are typically only under the aisles, the stud walls need to be shear walls. You also need to consider safety barriers between the raised floors and the open space under the layout. Seems like just building the layout a bit higher and rolling under it on a chair or stool is a much simpler, safer, and cheaper, approach. Agreed, they would need to be correctly built. Not really that complex given the likely spans in most cases. The bigger issue in most residential settings will be headroom. Lots of layouts have been built with limited sections of raised floor to save space in what is known as a mushroom plan. Assuming the actual layout weight is point loaded to the main floor, the raised floor portion presents no unusual engineering issues. Sheldon
Agreed, it's not a hard problem to solve. Even with headroom, the question I would ask is, Is it really worth it?
I remember the layout with the steps cut into the basement floor, I want to say it was a large O scale 3-rail layout. What I can't remember is how high the layout was or how deep the steps went. Depending on layout height, to be able to comfortably walk under the layout the stair runs on either side could take up a lot of floor space. I would argue that adding steps without allowing for true walk-under would be an even worse compromise than a duck-under. Expecting some to have to navigate stairs AND duck will lead to a lot more banged heads.
The mushroom layout is an interesting case, because its intent is to maximize layout space, not increase accessibility. The raised floor does not always remove the need for duck-unders or movable sections. In many plans that I've seen, the operator still needs to get into the lower deck section of the layout before accessing the raised floor. I'm pretty sure I've also seen plans where the lower deck passed right in in front of the steps, or the operator had to "nod under" the upper deck tracks.
For me, it's a lot easier to design and build a layout with a hinged liftout than one with elevated track. Here's a thread that provides good examples and how-to's:
https://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/292217.aspx
(MR still does not allow me to make the link clickable)
Simon
AEP528 ATLANTIC CENTRAL AEP528 Raised floors need to be built to the same standard as building floors to handle the weight and live loads (people walking around). You don't want it to feel bouncy while people are moving around, and you don't want it to collapse under your guests. So that means footings, posts, beams and joists, or stud walls and joists. Since the raised walkways are typically only under the aisles, the stud walls need to be shear walls. You also need to consider safety barriers between the raised floors and the open space under the layout. Seems like just building the layout a bit higher and rolling under it on a chair or stool is a much simpler, safer, and cheaper, approach. Agreed, they would need to be correctly built. Not really that complex given the likely spans in most cases. The bigger issue in most residential settings will be headroom. Lots of layouts have been built with limited sections of raised floor to save space in what is known as a mushroom plan. Assuming the actual layout weight is point loaded to the main floor, the raised floor portion presents no unusual engineering issues. Sheldon Agreed, it's not a hard problem to solve. Even with headroom, the question I would ask is, Is it really worth it? I remember the layout with the steps cut into the basement floor, I want to say it was a large O scale 3-rail layout. What I can't remember is how high the layout was or how deep the steps went. Depending on layout height, to be able to comfortably walk under the layout the stair runs on either side could take up a lot of floor space. I would argue that adding steps without allowing for true walk-under would be an even worse compromise than a duck-under. Expecting some to have to navigate stairs AND duck will lead to a lot more banged heads. The mushroom layout is an interesting case, because its intent is to maximize layout space, not increase accessibility. The raised floor does not always remove the need for duck-unders or movable sections. In many plans that I've seen, the operator still needs to get into the lower deck section of the layout before accessing the raised floor. I'm pretty sure I've also seen plans where the lower deck passed right in in front of the steps, or the operator had to "nod under" the upper deck tracks.
So here is my point about headroom/ceiling height. Liftouts or duck unders aside, what is your preferred viewing height?
My new layout - lowest visible track - 42" from the the floor.
Most common track elevation - 46" from the the floor.
Highest track elevation (one small section with little to no operations) - 51" from the floor.
The ceiling height in my trainroom is only 84".
Even the intermediate elevation would need a ceiling height of 109" (9'-1") to provide the same "view" of the layout and provide a 72" walk under height.
And as you pointed out, the stairs would need 5 risers to be code compliant.
Great for large layout ina commercial building, not so much in most homes.
I will reiterate that I believe a "roll-under" is the best option*. Raise the layout height a bit, build low-clearance benchwork over the access point, and buy a stool or chair on wheels.
Very few people are lucky enough to have a layout space where the stairs enter in the center of the room, or where there are no utlities or mechanicals that need access. Why do I mention that? If you need to have removable sections to access mechanical systems or utilities, then building a removable setion to enter the room is just as easy (or hard, depending on your point of view).
* Or just build a walk-in layout, with return loops at each end if continuous run is desired.
Edit to add: My opinion above is for a home layout. Walk-under access for a large club layout feels both more desirable and achievable.
AEP528 I will reiterate that I believe a "roll-under" is the best option*. Raise the layout height a bit, build low-clearance benchwork over the access point, and buy a stool or chair on wheels. Very few people are lucky enough to have a layout space where the stairs enter in the center of the room, or where there are no utlities or mechanicals that need access. Why do I mention that? If you need to have removable sections to access mechanical systems or utilities, then building a removable setion to enter the room is just as easy (or hard, depending on your point of view). * Or just build a walk-in layout, with return loops at each end if continuous run is desired. Edit to add: My opinion above is for a home layout. Walk-under access for a large club layout feels both more desirable and achievable.
Agreed, but I do not like turnback loops. From an operational stand point, I want left to always be west right to always be east.
Even if I used DCC I would want that operational convention.
So being "in the middle" of the layout is important.
And while my track plan allows continious operation, its primary design is thru staging, hidden from view, as the train makes a second "loop" around the room under and behind the scenery it passes thru multiple staging yards.
AEP528 My opinion above is for a home layout. Walk-under access for a large club layout feels both more desirable and achievable.
My opinion above is for a home layout. Walk-under access for a large club layout feels both more desirable and achievable.
I still like the club for the social, despite its quirks...
If my next layout is an around the room design that requires a duckunder (it will most likely), I'm considering building up the floor on the inside of the layout about one foot with a step up to the floor from under the duck-under. Provides one more foot of head clearance under the duck-under, making it perhaps a nod-under.
Might be a bit tricky to get the exact position of the step up and the duckunder as to maximize the floor space and not bonk the head as I step up.
- Douglas
Doughless If my next layout is an around the room design that requires a duckunder (it will most likely), I'm considering building up the floor on the inside of the layout about one foot with a step up to the floor from under the duck-under. Provides one more foot of head clearance under the duck-under, making it perhaps a nod-under. Might be a bit tricky to get the exact position of the step up and the duckunder as to maximize the floor space and not bonk the head as I step up.
ATLANTIC CENTRALAgreed, but I do not like turnback loops. From an operational stand point, I want left to always be west right to always be east. Even if I used DCC I would want that operational convention.
Can you explain how having a turnback/return loop (at each end) prevents left being west and right being east?
Thanks.
Onewolf42 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Agreed, but I do not like turnback loops. From an operational stand point, I want left to always be west right to always be east. Even if I used DCC I would want that operational convention. Can you explain how having a turnback/return loop (at each end) prevents left being west and right being east? Thanks.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Agreed, but I do not like turnback loops. From an operational stand point, I want left to always be west right to always be east. Even if I used DCC I would want that operational convention.
Well if you use simple balloon track loops at each endit does not. But they are hard to scenic and/or hard to hide.
I run DC and prefer not to have reverse loops. If I want to reverse a whole train I have a wye into a staging yard that will do that.
My track plan is a double track twice around the room loop. The second trip around the room is hidden and passes thru multiple small staging yards behind and under the scenery.
To explain more, not everyone builds shelf type linear layouts, so some layouts end up with places where the east/west viewing flip flops.
My new layout plan is posted in the thread that prompted this one. The one about cat6 cables.
Our models also look better from the inside of our selectively compressed curves than they do from the outside of those curves. So while I do have some peninsulas with outside curves, most of my visible curves are inside curves.
The outside curves are broken up by scenery, backdrops and by one turn helixes that extend the run time as the trains pass thru the backdrop into the next scene.
The twice around design, with the hidden staging basically on the same level as the visible trackage allows cutoffs in and out of the staging at various locations. This does two things, provides simulated interchange connections, and separates the two big loops into four small dedicated loops for display running.
Most of these features would not work as well, or would take more space with a walk in design.
Because if you are viewing the entire loop and both tracks at the same time, west- left and east-right means that you have just watched the train make a 180 degree directional turn, probably for no earthly prototypical reason. Unless its a mountain grade, but since we would not actually see the entire loop from our viewing distance, its best to put a backdrop down the center of the turnback loop (so we are not seeing both the east and west tracks at the same time)
If the trunback loop is supposed to represent a straight section of track that is simply folded over because of layout room space contraints, then a left-west running train turns into a right-west running train. The train is moving to the right but is still traveling west schematically.
Sheldon is trying to avoid those oddities, and so would I if I built a layout that had peninsulas. I would probably never build a dogbone shaped layout for those very reasons.
Doughless Onewolf42 ATLANTIC CENTRAL Agreed, but I do not like turnback loops. From an operational stand point, I want left to always be west right to always be east. Even if I used DCC I would want that operational convention. Can you explain how having a turnback/return loop (at each end) prevents left being west and right being east? Thanks. Because if you are viewing the entire loop and both tracks at the same time, west- left and east-right means that you have just watched the train make a 180 degree directional turn, probably for no earthly prototypical reason. Unless its a mountain grade, but since we would not actually see the entire loop from our viewing distance, its best to put a backdrop down the center of the turnback loop (so we are not seeing both the east and west tracks at the same time) If the trunback loop is supposed to represent a straight section of track that is simply folded over because of layout room space contraints, then a left-west running train turns into a right-west running train. The train is moving to the right but is still traveling west schematically. Sheldon is trying to avoid those oddities, and so would I if I built a layout that had peninsulas. I would probably never build a dogbone shaped layout for those very reasons.
Yes, all true of my visual goals as well.
Very few of my curves show more than a 90 degree change in direction. Most are less.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Unless its a mountain grade, but since we would not actually see the entire loop from our viewing distance, its best to put a backdrop down the center of the turnback loop (so we are not seeing both the east and west tracks at the same time) Yes, all true of my visual goals as well. Very few of my curves show more than a 90 degree change in direction. Most are less. Sheldon
Also, if you are standing at the base of a peninsula (and right is to the east), and the train is moving to the right...from the base to the tip...as you walk around the peninsula the train is still moving to the right, but now from the tip to the base.
It simply made a curve around the backdrop to accomodate layout space problems, but schematically the train never changed direction.