Benchwork configuration

[fleduc]

Hello,

I am thinking about constructing a two-level layout in which both levels would be connnected by an helix...

What would be a good configuration in terms of height of the first and second levels ? or in terms of distance between the top and bottom levels ?

I am thinking of leaving a two-feet difference between both levels. Is that enough ? or too much ?

François.

[tstage]

François,

Two questions for you. One, how much space do you have to work with? Two, what type of layout are you trying to model?

Keep in mind that a helix is going to take up A LOT of space. Would you have enough room in your "train area" to just run a grade up to the next level? Course, with a grade, you'll need more horizonal space to slowly move up vertically. The nice this is that you can still model the RR line as you do it.

At any rate, either one is going to take quite a bit of space, if you want to have a 24" height difference between the lower and upper portions of your layout. At a 2% grade (i.e. a 2" vertical rise over a 100" of travel - you DON'T really want to go much steeper than this), you'll need approximately 1200" or 100' of track to accompli***his. That's a lotta track. You could lessen the amount of horizonal track needed by decreasing the height difference between the two.

Again, the crucial question to know is how big is your space?

Tom

[orsonroy]

The more space you leave between decks, the more helix you'll need. That's not necessarily a problem, but it does mean more material going into the helix, more track in the helix, and more time it takes for a train to crawl up the helix. The time in the helix, especially, is usually an undesirable thing, and something you need to keep in mind when designing for a helix. There are a couple of things you can do to reduce a helix's size though:

1) have the layout crawl upwards on the lower level, and down on the upper level, to reach the helix. If you start your helix's grade on the layout itself, you'll be able to eliminate a lap or three.

2) reduce the space between decks. Do you REALLY need 24" worth of clearance between decks? On my three level, I've got a maximum of 16" between decks, which is plenty for my flatlands layout. More space between decks for a relatively flat layout is sort of a waste of space, unless the shadowbox effect of multilevel layouts REALLY bugs you.

As for the height of each deck, that's a completely subjective topic. My three decks are "about" at 36", 44", and 56". I find the middle deck, at 44", to be the easiest to operate on (the lowest level, being almost all yard, is worked on a rolling office chair). The upper deck, at 56", is the most visually appealing to me since it's almost at eye level, but the reach into that level to access switches and cars is a pain (and best accomplished while standing on a low stool). If I were to build a single level layout, I'd build it at about armpit height, which seems to me to be the best compromise between eye level viewing and easy access.

Multilevel layouts, moreso than "normal" layouts, are an exersize in compromise. In general, multilevels are great at giving you more mainline to play with, with the downside being access and potentially disturbing viewing. I strongly suggest visiting a few multilevels before you start building yours, to see EXACTLY how they look, and to figure out what you like and don't like about multilevels. I did, and it helped a lot before I even started drawing up plans.

[Anonymous]

Two level layouts are not my cup of tea but I'd question the 24" distance unless you are modeling in G or O. For HO, most of the 2 level layouts I've seen have had 12" to 16" of separation. N could be a little closer but you still need room to reach into the area between layouts to rerail a car or work on the scenery. A big helix could be used for staging tracks and could store a lot of trains with double track and some crossovers. How about a little more details on scale, layout size, etc.?

[Big_Boy_4005]

While there is no rule about level spacing, a couple of things come quickly to mind that might help you decide. What scale of trains are you using? How wide are the decks you have in mind? If the decks are fairly wide and overlap each other, you will probably need to add lighting to the bottom of the upper deck.

To me 24" sounds nice, even in HO. It will give you room for backdrops, scenery and lighting . I have 30" between levels on my layout, but 5" are lost to benchwork thickness of the upper level. I also work in O which makes a difference.

[fleduc]

I have a 12 x 9 feet space.
HO scale.

I was thinking of a U shape with one larger end for the helix space.
I thought of 24 inches between both deck for a nicer view. But I agree, it requires a long helix...

[tstage]

François,

Ray has given you some very well-seasoned advice from personal experience. It's a tough choice. A helix will eat up quite a bit of one end of your 9 x 12 space. Do you already have your heart set on HO or have started collecting locomotives and rolling stock in at scale? If not, N-scale might be a good compromise for that size area. Just another thought...

Tom

[ClinchValleySD40]

My layout is 40 and 60", railhead to railhead. It's plenty of separation.

[chateauricher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by fleduc
I am thinking about constructing a two-level layout in which both levels would be connnected by an helix...

What would be a good configuration in terms of height of the first and second levels ? or in terms of distance between the top and bottom levels ? I am thinking of leaving a two-feet difference between both levels. Is that enough ? or too much ?

I have a 12 x 9 feet space. HO scale.

I was thinking of a U shape with one larger end for the helix space. I thought of 24 inches between both deck for a nicer view. But I agree, it requires a long helix.

Salut François !

C'est pas souvent qu'on trouve des gens de la Ville de Quebec sur le forum. Nous sommes peut-être trois. (Oddly enough, while I was born and raised in the Quebec City region and have lived here all my life, I'm far more comfortable communicating in English.)

Anyways, to respond to your posts ...

I am working with an area about 1/2 the size of yours. Like yours, it will be a 2-deck layout; but in N-scale. I am working on having about 15" between the decks (top to top). Since the space I have is limited, I'm going with a no-lix instead of a helix to link the two decks. Construction has not yet started, so the distance between levels might change once I finalise plans.

As others have said, a helix eats up a lot of space which is, for the most part, wasted. It can also be a difficult thing to construct.

Tom (tstage) makes a valid point. Are you fixed on HO-scale ? Or can you use a smaller scale ?

[ereimer]

even with a smallish radius of 22" (assuming HO) a helix is going to take an area almost 4' x 4' . not only is that a massive chunk of your small layout room ( i feel your pain , mine is 14' x 8' ) but it's going to be a huge structure sitting in a corner and unless you hide it somehow it's going to dominate the room and take attention away from the rest of the layout . if you could move just the helix into another room it becomes a much better solution