doctorwayne..it seems to me that he's thinking of a second level and asks about distances between levels.
That's why I posted what id did the first time. I understood he's taking about a second level.
BUT, when he says he has 9" of seperation now, it made more sense to me that he's talking about what Greg talks about, the multi tiered layout.
I don't know if he's made it clear as of yet, just what he wants to accomplish.
Mike.
My You Tube
SeeYou190On my planned layout, this will require a very steep 5.5% grade. I built a mock up and found out a Walther Proto 2000 Fairbanks Morse H10-44 will pull three cars and a caboose up that grade. A Walthers Tranline FA will pull five cars and a caboose.
Hi Kevin,
Perhaps you should consider modelling a couple of mountain goats to add into the consist!
Sorry, couldn't resist.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
gregc what about a "tiered" layout
what about a "tiered" layout
mbinsewiI think that's what he must be looking at, or asking about. Good call Greg.
Sorry, but based on his original post....
Camarokid65im wanting to take it to a second level without helix. This is for diesel engines. Also for those of you with multiple levels what distance do you put between levels?
...it seems to me that he's thinking of a second level and asks about distances between levels.
My layout has a partial second level, gaining altitude on a 45' long grade built on a peninsula.That grade starts at 44" above the floor, and reaches its maximum height at 59" above the floor, yielding an uncompensated-for-curves grade of 2.777%.
However, the lower level is at a height of 39" where the upper level's height of 59" is achieved - a difference of 20", and, further along on the lower level, it drops to 36" above the floor, yielding a height difference from the upper level of 23".
The portion of the layout that's not double-decked is at varying levels to accomodate the grade to the upper level, and another grade down to the lower level, which yields a greater separation between levels.
Here's a sketch of the layout room...
The portion shown in grey represents the lower level of the area which is doubled-decked. South Cayuga is the part that's 44" above the floor, and the peninsula represents the 45'-long grade from there to the upper level of 59", achieved roughly where the green of the peninsula meets the grey of Elfrida.
As mentioned above, there's another grade which begins in South Cayuga, and it starts at about the same place, but leads downward, through a tunnel under the base of the peninsula, emerging at about the same point as where the upper level begins. Elfrida is the part of the layout that's 39" above floor-level, but once the track leaves Elfrida, it drops another 3" to Lowbanks.
Here's South Cayuga, mostly out-of-view to the left, with parts of both the upbound and downbound grades in view at the end of the aisle...
The photo below, taken before the upper level was constructed, shows the track down to Elfrida where it emerges from the tunnel. at about 39" above the floor. Directly above the tunnel is a bit of subroadbed sticking out in mid-air - that's the top of the grade to the upper level, 59" above the floor...
Here's a view with the upper level in place, and it's readily apparent that Lowbanks, to the right, is lower than Elfrida, to the left....
There are a couple of lift-outs at the entrance to the layout room, the upper one for a staging yard for the upper level, while to lower one allows continuous running on the lower level, if visitors simply want to "see some trains run"....
...the grade, mostly unseen, as shown above, runs from the right side of the doorway, at roughly 3.6%, emerging onto the single-decked portion of the layout at the deadend street, shown below, above the "goat" boxes...
The lower level of the layout is operated from a rolling office chair, (good view and easy reach for manually operated turnouts), while the single level portion is operated while standing/walking, using a walk-around tethered throttle.
The upper level can be run mostly while standing, although some areas benefit from the use of a step-stool.
I was able to add the second level only by using grades up to it, in conjuction with grades down to the portion below, both of them originating on the part of the layout that's a more-or-less single level (there are several grades on it, all leading to the ones for the access to the upper and lower levels).
Del, I doubt very much that you can get comparable separation between levels in your 10'x 12' space, but the use of grades, both up and down, to different parts of a "tiered" layout may, at least, offer greater separation between tiers.
Wayne
gregc one distinction i see between a multi-level and multi-tiered is the width of the bench. a multi-tiered layout requires some width, not only for track but scenery as well. multi-level layouts can be very narrow (< ft) (see John Peluso's Frisco) perhaps as little as 4" . so if you can make the benchwork narrow enough to have another pennisula that can lengthen the track enough to get to the next level, a multi-level layout could be much longer. of course this may require somewhat narrow aisles, so there are practical limits. perhaps the limiting factor is the track radii at the end of pennisula's across from those very narrow sections of bench.
one distinction i see between a multi-level and multi-tiered is the width of the bench.
a multi-tiered layout requires some width, not only for track but scenery as well. multi-level layouts can be very narrow (< ft) (see John Peluso's Frisco) perhaps as little as 4" .
so if you can make the benchwork narrow enough to have another pennisula that can lengthen the track enough to get to the next level, a multi-level layout could be much longer. of course this may require somewhat narrow aisles, so there are practical limits.
perhaps the limiting factor is the track radii at the end of pennisula's across from those very narrow sections of bench.
This is the situation I was faced with. In order to get the longest possible run I was able to fit a peninsula. That limited bench work to fairly narrow 18" and narrow pinch points. But I wanted to limit min radius to 32". Don't have an aircraft hanger.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
Marc_MagnusThis is a never ending thread,
Come on Marc ! It's still on page 1. It just got started.
Nice tutorial on how your layout is, for whatever the OP can glean from it.
This is a never ending thread, each of us have a point of view about grade, going from soft one to good ones like a 3% or more
But I thing we must speak about the best to use even if place restrict for sure the use of soft grade
The best to use is like general prototype a maximum medium grade of 1.5% to 1.8% as a maximum, using large curves if necessary with easement.
This is theory and only a few of us can use these grades because of our design wishes and place available.
So, I'm now in the way to design a new plan for the extension of my N scale layout.
Because of the two basic rules of space availabe and my wishes these are the grade I will use and the curves radius; these are defined by many threads I have read and seems the grades which give the less troubles for running models trains.
You must also consider which power you will use on the layout, steam or diesel.
Model diesel are for the most more powerful than steam models.
You need to know the lenght of the train you ask to use on the layout.
My N scale design plan use steam power, train lenght of 20 cars plus a caboose
My minimum radius is 18" in N scale
Grade is a maximum 2.5% but I use for the most a 2% grade and try to use curves of 19" in the grade and the curves are balanced to a maximum 1.7% grade; they will have easement.
This mean a six feet lenght to overpass another track, a bit more if curves are included in the grade.
But you can also increase the feeling of height in a design plan like me
My design plan is a long line, which comes from the hills of virginia and come down to a river line.
The two lines double each other on the plan but in reality they are a long run from a point to an another point; they meet to a big town.
So from this town the hills line go up using the around 2.5% grade but the river line go slowly down following the river bed with a gentle 1.5%; the result is at the end of the line the difference between the down track and the up track is bigger and will be around 25"; much more if the river line was flat at a level considered "0", my design give a symbolic - 1 level at the end of the river line and a + 1 level for the hills line, O level is designed at the meet of the two lines in my town of Corinnesburgh, in fact a forced grade which is invisible
Yes, I think Greg nailed it. A tiered layout is what I am doing here and if I ever get the rockwork done it should look like that.
Check out those curtains.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
I do prefer tiered layouts to multi-level layouts.
Single level layouts, even with action separated between tiers, just are more pleasing to look at, easier to maintain, and simple to light.
-Kevin
Living the dream.
I think that's what he must be looking at, or asking about. Good call Greg.
"my layout is in a 10x12 area am im wanting to take it to a second level without helix."
He's talking only 9" of seperation, I missunderstood the whole thread to be about a two level layout, without using a helix, you know, like a second deck type thing.
I don't think the OP is talking about that.
I am in HO scale. I would like a 3" seperation between levels on the crossover.
On my planned layout, this will require a very steep 5.5% grade. I built a mock up and found out a Walther Proto 2000 Fairbanks Morse H10-44 will pull three cars and a caboose up that grade. A Walthers Tranline FA will pull five cars and a caboose.
That will work for my plans for this line.
rio, yea right now im at 6" vertical at 195" in track length and thats close to about half way around my room. I just dont see going past 9" vertical. Now, its going to be a bit before I continue with it as i am working on scenery and such on the main level.
The approx 8" clearance was cramped but I wanted to keep grade/ slope from getting steep.
I'm surprised you got only 3.3% grade with twice my vertical elevation and a smaller room.
Im at 3% on mine at this point, but im thinking at stopping at 9 inch seperation between levels due to the room/layout size. It would be great to have tons of room!
OK, you started this... ...9'+9'+11'+11'=40'. I know there is some error in the curves at each corner. A 16" rise = 1.3'. 1.3' divided by 40' = .0325.
I rest my case.
Which, no matter who's calculator you use, is still too much for decent operation.
Maybe he could go 1 and 3rd times around? OR lower the vertical seperation.
I'm NOT a layout designer. I've never ever built a layout with a second level. I came close on my last "PWC", but I only climed enough to give decent clearances for one track over the other.
Mike:
11 feet by 9 feet once around will give less than 36 feet of run. a rise of 16 inches divided by 432 inches will give a grade of 3.7 percent. Effective grade around the surves will be higher.
I agree, but I don't have a second level, that using i"x4" joists and half inch plywood for subroad bed, giving 12 inches of space, is about the lower limit for level spacing.
riogrande5761I was very conservative on my vertical easements so might have been able to reduce the grade slightly, but you'll probably be in excess of 3%, possibly 3.5%
I tried the math using 16" as vertical seperation, and using a 9' x 11' track bed, doing once around came out to .033.
At one time, I had thought about a second level, and the "nolix" method. I stuck with one level.
I don't know what guys use as vertical seperation, 16" was just my first idea. To me, less than that just seems to cramped? vertically challanged?
I can understand avoiding a helix,
No. It was just a continuous loop, around the room twice. Start at the yard and then down grade into staging and then back up again to the yard. No reverse loops. In a small room, that would eat a lot of space depending on mimium radius. I wanted to maintain 32 inch minimum radius so it was around the walls.
rio, did you use a autoreverser on your layout?
Post a picture and I'll see what kind of grade I can give it.
All kidding aside, it depends on the amount of separation you have between levels.
On my last 10x18' layout I had track go from staging around the room at a 2.9% grade up to a yard above the staging and back down again, same grade. There was only 7.5 inches of clearance from the staging to the wood bench above.
Here is a wide view of the layout under construction with a section removed:
Here you can see the subroadbed climbing the 2.9% grade on the left and descending on the right.
With two six axle SD45's I could pull 25 car trains up the grade. Probably would need 3 diesels if they were four axle.
For a 10x12' layout, I'm guessing you will need a steeper grade. I was very conservative on my vertical easements so might have been able to reduce the grade slightly, but you'll probably be in excess of 3%, possibly 3.5%
Convert the rise and run to the same units and then divide the rise by the run. Multiply this number by 100 and you have the percentage slope.
In otherwords, how much separation do you need from bottom level to top in inches = rise
How much distance the track has to go, taking into account vertical easements = run
Simple math.
Guys, what is the appropriate grade percent to stay at when inclining your layout, my layout is in a 10x12 area am im wanting to take it to a second level without helix. This is for diesel engines. Also for those of you with multiple levels what distance do you put between levels?
Thanks, Del