How Many Decks?

[Anonymous]

So why ask the question? I suspect I'm in the minority. While I recognize the value of multiple-deck layouts to make a lot more track fit in a lot less space, I just don't like 'em.

To me they destroy the "illusion". I just can't 'suspend my disbelief' the way I can with a single-deck layout. I can't mentally 'see past' those upper shelves.

Yet, they seem to become more prevalent and dominant all the time. Even on layouts in larger spaces/footprints you're often seeing multiple decks. Sure, in a 10x10 room, I can see that a double-deck, nolix, etc. might mean the difference between enough line to enjoy operating and not. But you start seeing 25x40 layouts with multiple decks, and it's no longer a question of "had to" for space reasons.

Blah blah, rant rant. I know, shut up already... So that's it. Is this just a peeve of mine and everyone else is with the program? Or are there others out there who think the same way? Nobody's right or wrong here, I'm just curious.

[Anonymous]

I agree, although I don't recognize their value at all. I think multiple decking is stupid and WAY non prototypical. My opinion.

[Anonymous]

I wish I could multideck, partially cause of space, but instead they are on different levels next to each other. I think it depends a lot on how the train transfers between levels too, if it is an incline(like mine 3.5%!), or helix. Danny

[Anonymous]

There you go. If they ain't stacked on top of each other, it's alot easier to make it more realistic.

QUOTE: Originally posted by dannydd

I wish I could multideck, partially cause of space, but instead they are on different levels next to each other. I think it depends a lot on how the train transfers between levels too, if it is an incline(like mine 3.5%!), or helix. Danny

[IRONROOSTER]

QUOTE:
But you start seeing 25x40 layouts with multiple decks, and it's no longer a question of "had to" for space reasons.

Well, you never have to do anything with the layout - that's why it's a hobby. Like so much else in model railroading it's a tradeoff. In this case it's complexity of construction and less than ideal height (at least for one level) versus a longer mainline. Personally, I prefer single deck, but I am open to it if it is the only way to get the mainline I want.

Enjoy
Paul

[Fergmiester]

QUOTE: Originally posted by dannydd

I wish I could multideck, partially cause of space, but instead they are on different levels next to each other. I think it depends a lot on how the train transfers between levels too, if it is an incline(like mine 3.5%!), or helix. Danny

I have a "single" deck but multiple levels with 5% inclines. though I've thought about multiple levels I'll stay with one.

Fergie

[cmrproducts]

I have multi deck layout but not all of the layout is covered with a second or third level. Now with a 25 x 75ft basement one would think that I would not need to do multi deck. Well no one has yet offered me a 100 x 200 building either to put my layout in either!

I had to do what I felt was necessary to achieve the goals of my layout. It is based on the Conrail line from East Brady, PA to Driftwood, PA. Trying to do it somewhat prototypically and using the 1984 CR ZTS maps required that I move from the Allegheny River valley up and over the foothills and on towards the upper Susquehanna river basin.

So this required the layout to give the visual of actually raising in elevation. The multi decks did this. And with 5 independent short lines also operating to feed the main line cars required the tracks to get up and over the main modeled portion of the layout.

Does this cause problems? YES it does, but it accomplishes its purpose and allows for 15 plus operators to have fun running a railroad. This is not a roundy-round watch the train run through pretty scenery. It is an operations layout so when concentrating on your train you lose yourself in the situation and not really think OH! I’m looking at second level benckwork or third level.

But this just one persons view.

I have run on other layouts where every square inch of the layout is covered with track. This was done to make a long high-speed mainline run possible. Does it look prototypical with a train running through the scene 6 or 7 times, maybe not, but the layout always has a lot of operators and effectively gives the impression of a roundy-round layout even though it is a point-to-point.

Would this layout benefit from multi-levels? Maybe! But doing the Lakeshore line, which is fairly flat, would present some problems justifying the grades required to move to an upper level.

BOB H – Clarion, PA

[jrbernier]

My layout(25x20 room) is basically single level(base elevation of 45" ). Trackage elevations vary from 48" to 56". I considered 'double deck', but I have yet to find a lower and upper base height that I am really happy with on most multi-level layouts. As it is, I have more than enough 'layout' to maintain!

Jim Bernier

[Anonymous]

I have 3 decks. The first is an O-scale layout about a foot off the floor for the little kids.
The second deck is my HO-scale layout. The third deck is 18'' from the ceiling for another O-scale layout.

[Big_Boy_4005]

If you feel comfortable modeling your mainline in the space that you have, then there's no reason to multi deck. If not, it's an easy way to enlarge your space. It doesn't have to look ugly either. It just means that you have vertically shorter scenes stacked.

On my layout, the levels are at 30' and 60" with no scenic connections. The east and west ends of the main are stacked, and connected to a helix and staging.

Even though I have a space that most would envy, why should I waste half of it on sky for a flatland prototype? Beside, this allows me to do justice to the railroad in O, where switching to HO wouldn't change anything but fast clock speed. Either way, when I'm done, I'll have an 1100' mainline (single track).

[orsonroy]

This is actually a pretty complex question. I actually prefer the visuals of a single-deck layout, but prefer the long, once through a scene mainline of a multi. I've had the opportunity to run trains on two 10+ scale mile long mainline layouts, and they were both double deckers. My last layout was a 3.5 scale mile long mainline triple decker, squeezed into a small 8x25 space. Did I like the look of the triple? Well..... Did I like the fact that the three decks allowed me to run busy mainline op sessions? Definitely. Will my next layout be a multilevel? Yes, but only a two deck.

And if I had a 25x40 space to play with (my new space is "only" 15x25) I'd still build a double deck layout. That sort of space screams for an ops-based layout, and multidecking would be the only realistic way to get that. To me, having that large of a space (large home layout, small club) would be wasted with a single level layout.

[fwright]

I seriously considered 2 separate 8ft shelf layouts (over/under) to get all I wanted into the layout. Link was going to be manually removable 22in (max train length on upper level) cassette that sat on supports on door at end of both shelves. Then domestic and lighting issues kaboshed the plan. I couldn't use space below about 46 in because kid moved bed in space, and I am living in a rented house with wall sconces for room lighting, which limited maximum height of backdrop and layout lighting.

Then I read all the issues of getting multiple levels at desirable heights, and gave up on 2 decks as undesirable anyway. Instead I can extend around corner to add 6 ft more shelf when ready. With track mounted shelves, 2 levels is far easier construction-wise than 1, especially since I can't mount the shelf tracks onto house walls (real plaster and lathe).

yours in layout viewing
Fred Wright

[pcarrell]

Being in N scale affords the opportunity to use multiple decks and as long as they aren't too deep they look quite good. The deeper they are, the further apart they have to be vertically to look good IMHO.

[howmus]

The only multi deck arrangement that I have seen that I really like is the "mushroom" type that Joe Fugate uses. I would consider this if I had a high enough ceiling to make it doable.

[Big_Boy_4005]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TA462

I might add another deck in the future but for now I'm happy with what I've got. Elliot, WOW!!! Now that is going to be a huge layout.

Thanks Dave, I only posted those in here because I felt they were germain to the discussion. If you want to see more of the layout check out this topic.

http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=48785

I know I need to do a website. I have the resources, but I'm lazy and chicken. Beside, I have to unload more plywood from my truck.[;)]

[rolleiman]

I had a double deck once, made to fit an 11x9 room and made to be moved.. Getting from one level to another consisted of a 2 turn helix that then went into a figure 8 (as viewed from the top).. Grades were about 3% and anything longer than 6 or 7 cars required helper operations.. The main reason for building the double deck was to cram everything I thought I wanted to do in that room.. The reason for buidling it the way I Did was because I wanted some steep mountain grades where the train ducked in and out of tunnels. Functionally, it worked great but with the larger space I have now, I wouldn't do it again. To each, it's a hobby, meant to be enjoyed by the builder..

Jeff

[ericboone]

I'm designing a two level layout, but was thinking about adding a third for the mainline run. It is about trade-offs and personal preference. The third level would nearly double the mainline run and spread out the towns, but the lower level would be very low and the upper too high.
There is an intersting thread about this currently active in the layout building forum:
http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=48869

[trainboyH16-44]

I love long mainline runs without spaghetti, so multi-deck. I have a single deck now, but I'm working on getting a permit (My dad's premission) to do a multi-deck layout in the other room.
Matthew

[colvinbackshop]

I have to levels...mostly because of the space question. I guess, if I had a large enough room, I would run a single deck, but I really don't mind the double.
In my situation the scenes are framed with the valance and separated with some space. The problem that I see with two levels is that a very active scene shouldn't be placed on top of another very active scene...and that can be a difficult task to pull off with a limited space.