Hello, Could some of y'all explain the pros and cons of such a layout? i believe that it might work for me, but i would like some advice first. By the way, I am doing HO scale.
Thanks, stephen
Just think it could be worse.
I started construction on my double decker last summer. Three levels if you count the top staging level.
PROS: -- Longer mainline run; in my case, twice as much track & layout in the same space-- Each level provides a great place to install lighting for the level below
CONS: --Need some way to get between the two or more levels, such as a helix. Lots of hidden track in the helix and the helix itself has a large footprint.-- Visibility; for example when I am standing up, I can oly see about the bottom half of the backdrop on the lower level-- Height; if you go by the theory that there is a perfect height for a model railroad, then with a multi-deck layout at best only one level will be at that height.
Just some quick thoughts off the top of my head. In my case, the longer mainline run was the deciding factor and the main driver in why I chose the multi deck option. So far the cons have not been an issue. Jamie
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
Perhaps the primary fact to be pointed out with regard to double-decked layouts is that, unless the layout's dimensions are relatively small, the effort and time required to complete such a design is about equal (sometimes greater) then building two full layouts. The sad fact is that unless the hobbyist is unusually industrious, such double-decked layouts often don't get beyond the track-on-plywood stage, which in my book does not classify them as model railroads, even in the broadest sense.
Far too many modelers, particularly those who have been in the hobby a relatively short time, design layouts far more extensive than what they are actually capable of building, be it of the double-deck design, or simply of the basement-filling sort. Those faced with such an all but insurmountable workload and limited talents more often than not eventually reach a point of frustration where they just throw up their hands and end up walking away from the hobby.
Other cons specifically associated with double-decked layouts are the problem of lighting, the operator's visibility, securely/sufficiently supporting the upper level, narrow scene depth and the wasted modeling space necessarily devoted to getting trains successfully from one level to the next (those space-eating helixes).
The pros side certainly includes doubling of the mainline's run and that of potential industry sites to be serviced by the railroad (more realism). But whether the additional effort and time required to complete such a venture is reasonable can only be answered after the hobbyist fully evaluates his actual available time and talents. Sad to say, I've seen far more failures than successes among my fellow hobbyists over the years when it comes to building large/complex layouts.
CNJ831
Essentially the issue would be for me how much time, financial resources and physical abilities do you have available for this? Material cost for all the lumber would be a major issue with the layout that I'm helping build. We only went for one level for the simple reason that the child we are doing this for is not in a position to be standing up all the time and with a second level he would have problems with that.
Adding any more than another level would create wiring headaches--we're having enough fun with wiring one level never mind two. And if you're not an electrical genius you are NOT going to love wiring two levels.
The helix will swallow a lot of floor space as well as add more of a design/installation challenge to your layout--how are you going to access train if train decides to go off the track---and you sealed it. Don't laugh--some one that I knew did that and he's out of modelling because of that. Gets really frustrating when you have to tear things apart because it was all covered. I did warn the guy but---
Do you have the carpentry skills needed to pull it off? How about--again--the financial resources?Do you have enough electrical skills to pull off a 2 level layout? Do a check list of those skills--
And if you find yourself still thinking that you can do it then go ahead and have fun!!
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
On my latest layout I have 4 levels in spots.
The biggest problem (other then getting between decks) is the visibility problem.
I have just recently added more space to the basement and in the rebuilding process I have begin to use engineered thin edge benchwork
The typical section of benchwork is open grid design and the front edge is usually 3" to 4" tall (which really limits the viewing of the lower level).
With my new design I only have an 1" tall front edge on the deck. While this does not seem like much reduction it works extreamily well.
Basically I just make the supports wedge shaped and built the deck with a 1x4 back board. I have effectively eliminated the front 1x4 that most owners end up having when they build a open grid box assembly.
The new thin edge benchwork is attached to the wall of the room just as the old full box open grid benchwork was done previously. I just eliminated the extra weight and increased the site distance using the wedge design.
Some would say that this is similar to using the bookshelf brackets (which it is very similar) but I do not have any brackets extending into the lower level. To some this is no big deal but to me with having 4 levels the backdrop work gets way too involved cutting and fitting pieces to cover up the wall brackets and the height/clearance problems caused by the deck supports is eliminated.
BOB H - Clarion, PA
CNJ831 gave an excellent analysis of multi deck layouts. I'll add that the "biting off more than you can chew" factor certainly applies to my layout and was something I considered during the planning stage. Although I have the benchwork in place for all three levels, my current approach is that I am building a single level layout on the lower deck. While the track plan has been designed to include all three levels, the lower level can function as a standalone layout with a temporary return loop built where the space has been reserved for the helix. This way, I can finish the track on the lower level then start the next level up, or start doing scenery on the lower level and defer the rest of the layout for however long I desire. It also helps that the benchwork that supports the upper levels was just a minimal addition to what I would have built for a single deck layout (one more 12" bracket arm at the top of each wall bracket). Jamie
Every double deck layout that I have seen has the same problem. Either the top level is too high or the lower level is too low. These were all HO scale.
I have never visited an N scale double deck layout, but I imagine that N scale might be able to minimize this handicap.
Now that the Boo Birds have spoken, I will offer my Santa Fe in Oklahoma in 1989 as an example of a three deck railroad, in a space 28ft by 33ft. The top deck is all Oklahoma City and suburbs north to Guthrie. It includes staging from Texas, Flynn Yard, Nowers Yard, Edmond and Britton, along with Guthrie. This provides a lot of switching. Staging from Texas is open and incorporated into Flynn yard.
At Guthrie, the layout continues in two directions: One is a hidden main line leading into Arkansas City staging. Yes, the top deck has shorter length runs, but gets a lot of interference getting through Okla City. The other main at Guthrie goes into a helix working down grade and is the Enid District, which was a major grain route. It works down and incorporates Crescent, Lovell, Marshall, Douglas, Fairmont. A BN (SLSF) line from Tulsa to Avard comes out of staging and shares track off and on with ATSF into Enid. Enid is a large yard, grain elevators, Champlin refinery and other industry. From Enid the tracks (ATSF, BN) go down to the lowest deck which has Cherokee and Kiowa modeled, along with Waynoka staging.
The layout is pretty much finished and sceniced, though I did have to make a maintenance change this last month which meant some scenery was displaced and will be rebuilt. The layout is DCC and this version was started in 1986. I have been in this hobby since high school, 1954, and still do pretty good at maintaining, though eye sight isn't as good.
Photos are available on my website, even though they are a bit dated now, along with text on the layout. I also maintain and operate a garden railroad in the backyard, also Santa Fe.
I do get a little upset with self proclaimed experts who think because they have been in the hobby for 1000 years, they are experts in everything. I will match years with about any of you, but I still am learning from others, and yes, I don't build from scratch anymore. Instead I enjoy the exceptional new offerings that are RTR, and I enjoy my layout.
Oh, I have one bridge duck under at an entry way to the layout that most people have no problem with, with the exception of Tom Stolte of Odd Ball Decals. Now excuse me, I need to finish the little project of relocation I have underway.
Bob
msowsun Every double deck layout that I have seen has the same problem. Either the top level is too high or the lower level is too low. These were all HO scale. I have never visited an N scale double deck layout, but I imagine that N scale might be able to minimize this handicap.
Actually layout height is relative to the viewer, so every layout--single or multi deck--has a height issue unless all of the operators and visitors are the same height. Tony Koester describes this in his article in 2007 Model Railroad Planning. He gives examples of areas where he can comfortably operate the layout but other shorter operators need to stand on foot stools to switch cars. Jamie
The way you are talking about Multi-deck Layouts you would swear they jumped up and beat you! I am currently building a two level layout w/lower staging level. I have Two(2) Helixs. The largest helix can hold 3 people inside. access is from underneath. Second helix is a little tighter but will live with. Wireing is no different than a single deck layout. For lighting I have a single 4' florescent fixture every 8' under second level to light lower level, ceiling florescents light upper. The layout is desigened for optimal viewing for me 58" when standing and lower operators 29" will sit in rolling chairs when working a town or industry. They now have many books on multideck layouts. Also, I see you can download info on helixs from MR now. I personally do not see the big deal. I never could stand the "Spagetti Bowl" layout. With a multi-deck layou your runs are longer and you never have to go through the same scene 2,3,4,5,6 times. Yes, I will admit it will take alot longer to finish, but in the "long run" I personally prefer.
I would agree that as you build levels lay your lower first and pu a balloon loop so you can start running trains to keep your interest. I would find myself going gung-ho on building, then take a day or two to just run trains or lay track. Its your layout and you do what you want! Enjoy yourself, this is a Hobby!!
pastorbob Now that the Boo Birds have spoken, I will offer my Santa Fe in Oklahoma in 1989 as an example of a three deck railroad, in a space 28ft by 33ft. The layout is pretty much finished and sceniced, though I did have to make a maintenance change this last month which meant some scenery was displaced and will be rebuilt. The layout is DCC and this version was started in 1986. I have been in this hobby since high school, 1954, and still do pretty good at maintaining, though eye sight isn't as good. I do get a little upset with self proclaimed experts who think because they have been in the hobby for 1000 years, they are experts in everything. I will match years with about any of you, but I still am learning from others, and yes, I don't build from scratch anymore. Instead I enjoy the exceptional new offerings that are RTR, and I enjoy my layout. Bob
Now that the Boo Birds have spoken, I will offer my Santa Fe in Oklahoma in 1989 as an example of a three deck railroad, in a space 28ft by 33ft.
Bob, while I think that it's great that you've essentially completed such large and complex layout, I can easily point to dozens of other wouldbe model railroaders who have attempted such Herculean feats and totally failed, or at least never got beyond a bare-bones arrangement. Many left the hobby following the experience because they realized that their ideas put then in over their heads and were hopelessly discouraged.
I would also note that, by your own admission, you've been working on the same layout for nearly a quarter century. Now consider just how many causual modelers and newbies, both groups often with grandiose ideas for layouts, frequent this site, yet who can't maintain interest in a given layout design longer than a year or two before moving on to another concept. Many will likely never bring any layout to completion as long as they are in the hobby. You're not advising a bunch of John Allens or George Sellios' here. Most would be lucky to be successful getting through replicating MR's Beer Line layout on their own, given the present state of their skills.
I'll add that most "experts", even the self-proclaimed ones, usually speak from some sort of long experience and have seen a considerable cross section of what has gone on in the hobby and with various hobbyists over many years. To simply dismiss what most of them have to say and give a greenlight to every huge or complex proposed project, without first carefully evaluating the potentials of the wouldbe builder, is a very foolish move indeed.
So John, you're saying that there aren't any big single-deck spaghetti bowls that were never completed? Sheesh. Is it only the "experts" who agree with you who have valid viewpoints? Seems to me the folks commenting here who have actually built multi-decks should certainly be considered "experts" on this topic.
There are many examples of successfully completed multi-deck layouts -- and more are added every year. The multi-deck concept is realitively new in model railroading (perhaps that's why some dislike it), so it's reasonable that some of the best examples are being completed now, rather than in some hoary "golden age".
The issue of choosing a reasonable project scope for oneself is the same, whether single- or multi-deck. I've seen plenty of impractical overly grandiose single-deck ideas in this forum as well.
For those considering multi-deck, it's woth noting that a helix is not the only option. An around-the-room climbing ramp works well. In addition, it's quite possible to have multiple decks that are not physically connected, but rather are linked by operations and staging. I wrote about one such design in Model Railroad Planning 2008. Some have even used train elevators, though that is a pretty demanding project.
In terms of deck height, the "mushroom" scheme is an interesting alternative, though it is often over-applied by newbies. For some added construction complexity and a loss of some footprint efficiency, the mushroom approach can be used well with some layout concepts and schematics. The mushroom was invented by Richard Benjamin, popularized by John Armstrong, and brought to fruition by Jerry Bellina, Joe Fugate, Otis McGee (an Armstrong design), et al.
Yes, too many newcomers bite off more than they can chew with their plans. But it seems to me that it happens equally with single- and multi-deck designs.
ByronModel RR Blog
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
There have been quite a few multi-level and multi-deck layouts built, so I can't understand CNJ's negativity about the concept. As for heights, I recall (from a long time ago!) being told that the ideal would be one level set up at a comfortable seated height and the upper level comfortable at standing height.
My own layout is not double deck (yet...) but does incorporate multiple levels of track piled up sandwich fashion, only the uppermost visible at any given point (except for windows in the fascia to facilitate parking trains in staging.) The ultimate has five levels:
Sometime in the indefinite future, I may put one or both of the narrow gauge feeders on upper level shelves above the presently-under-construction layout. If I do, they will reach the upper levels by train elevator and the track plans will be very simple - just like those of the prototypes.
Another factor is that I intend this to be my 'last in this lifetime' layout, I am in no hurry to 'finish' it and, unlike CNJ, I consider anything that can support operations to be a model railroad. But then again, I'm not an elitist. I'm just a rather experienced model railroader.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - on multiple levels of track)
The foremost consideration is that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder." So,do some mockups out of cardboard and see what works for you. I am in the process of building a three level layout, starting with a live staging yard at 30" helixing up to the first working level at 43 1/2" and going up from there. Short visitors will have to use stepstools, or just enjoy working the first two levels, plenty of operations there to keep them happy. Tall visitors...no worries, Mate, except it is difficult for them to work the lowest level unless seated. Is that a problem? John Colley, Port Townsend, WA
My layout is a 5x12 foot table in HO. At first glance, it appears to be single level, but 3 inches below the surface is a second layer of subway trains. The subway tracks form a simple loop with a single passing siding, plus a short stub-end siding and a couple of lines up to join the surface.
I had to complete the subway level before starting on the surface, because parts of the surface layout are not removeable, and the subways are fully scenicked.
I have one more small area, about a square foot or two, on the surface where the scenery isn't complete. Other than that, I have a high detail level almost everywhere, including multiple structures (mostly from kits) with scratchbuilt interiors.
Now for the numbers - this comes out to a surface area of 60 square feet. I'd estimate that the subways below the ground constitute another 12 square feet. This has taken me 4 years. I spend a reasonable amount of time on my layout, which means that it doesn't seem like enough to me, and it seems like too much to my wife. I have a full-time job, and we go away skiing most weekends in the winter. So, you can get some idea of what it took for this guy to build a layout.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
{Note in this thread, the thought process(s) many of us have gone through, to decide using a helix}.
There are essentially (3) ways to gain elevation: [1] the helix; [2] the nolix, or; [3] the nolix combined with track spirals. More important, your operations must justify the helix, let alone, the multi-level layout. Why not incorporate all three layout construction methods if possible?
OPERATIONS: ...where will your railroad come from? ...where will your railroad go? ...with who & how will your railroad interchange with what can be seen by what you model? ...does a helix best accomplish your overall operational goals?
Conemaugh Road & Traction, is employing a 2-track Pennsy helix, to stage and come from the Upper Level, to then surround and interchange with the CR&T, which is only located on the Lower Level as a local PCC/passenger & box-motor/diesel freight shortline.
The helix is in a 36"x36" space allowing for up to (4) tracks within the helix. P.S.: N Scale makes this possible in a 9'x9' usable layout space.
Why consider more than only a 2-track Pennsy helix? ...operations!
1st - The CR&T may have a doodlebug (gas electric) run from the lower traction level only to the Upper Level Summit which means a third helix track because the Pennsy will have passenger interchanges on the Upper Level & Lower Level, but completely bypass stopping at the Summit. 2nd - a fourth helix track may be added, limited only to a PRR GG1 electric, meaning a 3-track Pennsy mainline, one track with catanary, still has not been ruled out. The PRR was noted for always being busy, and DCC will help this in perception operations.
Can your helix "double-up vertical real estate" usage? Remember, the tunnel entrances for each helix track do not have to enter/exit the helix at the exact/same elevation point. Additional tunnel portals may be placed beside the helix tunnel portals to permit Lower Level or Upper Level operations "to run under and bypass the helix" to augment what happens only on each layout level.
CR&T is incorporating prototype ideas from Tunnel Hill at Gallitzin, PA, which even had a helpers turn-around, for engines coming to and from Altoona & Horseshoe Curve. Note the 1950s-1960s 4-track mainline prototype approaches to, and through, the tunnel portals in these 40 Gallitzin pictures including scenic opportunities for rail-fanning at Tunnel Hill...
http://www.northeast.railfan.net/gallitzin.html
One of the Gallitzin pictures still has the Pennsy tunnel blowers left over from the steam era!
Do take your time planning, while building-in your priorities, and operational goals. You will be surprised what emerges over the course of time.
P.S.: A plexiglass window can be built-in the helix facia to "see what's happening" inside the helix.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
Double Deck pros and cons?? I am in the middle of building a double deck layout here is my take on the subject based on my experiences so far.
The biggest advantage of the double deck design is that one can double the amount of mainline run in a given space. This is especially important in point to point track designs where the line doesn’t pass through a scene more than once. On my layout, I have a 13’ x 22’ space with a mainline run of 180’. Single deck around the room would have been roughly 60’ of mainline run. Why a long mainline run? Operations. My layout is designed to host Ops sessions and thus I wanted as much railroad as I could fit into the space. Other advantages include more individual scenes to model.
The biggest disadvantage (in my book) is the cutting off of the scene by the upper deck. No stunning vistas on the lower deck. My last layout had a five foot deep canyon in it. This would be much harder to achieve on my current layout using the double deck design. Other drawbacks include much more complex planning and construction and the problem of climbing between decks. The issues such as lighting, deck support, etc. have decent solutions. Check out Tony Koester’s book on double deck design for a run down of the options.
Double decks will not work well in very small spaces for a variety of reasons. I consider my space and larger to be the minimum for double deck design. When the space gets too small, the advantages of the double deck get overshadowed by the drawbacks in climbing between decks and other issues. IMHO the builder may be better off with a single deck design in smaller spaces.
In my area, most of the Ops based layouts are double decked. Many of them feature excellent scenery as well. There are a couple of no ops, scenery based layouts that are single deck. They are stunning but feature very short mainline runs.
I have built several layouts. From a technical stand point,.this is the most difficult layout I have built so far. My trackplan was tricky to design and construction has presented many challenges (see the link in my signature for photos of how I solved some of these challenges). I am very happy with the results so far and would definitely build the layout as a double deck again if I were stating out new today.
As for the difficulty in completing the project? In general, I see more half finished layouts than completed ones. A double deck does take an extra amount of skill to complete but is certainly within the reach of an experienced modeler who has average skills and the discipline to follow through on the project. While it is not a beginner project, one shouldn’t fear the double deck I think that we are going to see more double deck designs and more creative solutions to the technical challenges they present.
My two cents,
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
I have a rather small basement and high on my list of druthers was a long mainline run. So a double deck was definately in my future. I didn't want a helix, so what to do? We opted for a "mountain district" with a total of 60' of curves and 2.8% grades situated on a peninsula between the 2 decks. The deck heights start at 40" and go into upper staging at 68". The layout area of the basement is 27' by 24'. There is 330' of mainline end to end. I have an upper and lower level 4 track staging area at each end of the layout. I also have an optional continuous connection on the upper deck for breaking in trains. I believe there are real advantages to having a double deck railroad. There are also drawbacks such as height not really being optimal and then having to make aisles a little wider. Access to a double deck layout is very important also. Make sure you plan ahead! It's all a matter of choosing CAREFULLY on your list of "druthers".
Good luck, Mikie
This is being linked to the other "Double Deck" thread now running for easier cross-referencing at "Layouts & layout building"...
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/149646.aspx
As for mutiple levels on smaller layouts, here is a link to one of my favorite N-scale layouts that is currently under construction:
Tim Horton's Dawson Creek Subdivisionhttp://www.bcrdawsonsub.ca/
This is a smaller layout (approx. 13' x 11') and incorporates two levels connected via a helix. You can find a lot of info behind the layout concept and design on the above website, plus the layout was featured in the recent 2008 Model Railroad Planning. I think this is a teriffic example of a smaller multi-level layout that takes advantage of the helix to imply distance and separation between scenes. There are also many bedroom size layouts in past editions of MRP that feature multi-level designs (remember the helix in a closet?). Can you tell I am a big fan of multiple deck layouts? Jamie
I know of one fellow who did get a three level layout done ---over a thirty year period. It took him that long because raising a family, taking trips with family, and taking the time to do it right was more important than trying to beat the clock was. So maybe the plywood central guys might not have factored in their patience level and that they might have to learn said patience as well?
As for the nolix--that is one way to gain a second level if one doesn't want a blob stuck on their layout
CNJ831 Perhaps the primary fact to be pointed out with regard to double-decked layouts is that, unless the layout's dimensions are relatively small, the effort and time required to complete such a design is about equal (sometimes greater) then building two full layouts. The sad fact is that unless the hobbyist is unusually industrious, such double-decked layouts often don't get beyond the track-on-plywood stage, which in my book does not classify them as model railroads, even in the broadest sense. Far too many modelers, particularly those who have been in the hobby a relatively short time, design layouts far more extensive than what they are actually capable of building, be it of the double-deck design, or simply of the basement-filling sort. Those faced with such an all but insurmountable workload and limited talents more often than not eventually reach a point of frustration where they just throw up their hands and end up walking away from the hobby. Other cons specifically associated with double-decked layouts are the problem of lighting, the operator's visibility, securely/sufficiently supporting the upper level, narrow scene depth and the wasted modeling space necessarily devoted to getting trains successfully from one level to the next (those space-eating helixes). The pros side certainly includes doubling of the mainline's run and that of potential industry sites to be serviced by the railroad (more realism). But whether the additional effort and time required to complete such a venture is reasonable can only be answered after the hobbyist fully evaluates his actual available time and talents. Sad to say, I've seen far more failures than successes among my fellow hobbyists over the years when it comes to building large/complex layouts. CNJ831
Here we go again, someone that thinks their idea of layout design is better than a multi layered layout. For one thing, a multi layered layout is the ideal layout for multi person operations. (Case in point, knowcent's layout is multi layered and it can be operated by up to 6-8 and even more people at one time with a more realistic time table operation schedule. It takes one train 20 real time minutes at scale speeds to complete both levels for point A to return to point A, ample time for all operators to do a lot of switching along the route without having to sweat the time clock to get the main cleared.
Another good aspect for those that think a multi leveled layout is either too high or too low is as simple as sitting down on a chair to operate the lower level and then standing up for operating the upper level. There is just more railroad involved increasing the fun.
Lighting problems? Give me a break! all you have to do to light the lower level is to put in a few florecent lights on the backside of the fascia and there is plenty of lighting.
One of the sayings in the hobby is that one is never through with a layout so what better way to always have something to do than to build a multi- leveled layout. Then there is really always something to do.
I think you need more friends in the hobby. Somedays, there are 4 to 6 people over at knowcent's layout to give him some help with completing his layout. It goes in quickly if his buddies are there to give him a hand now and them. It's one of the few layouts that we can actually operate as a group without bumping into each other or sweating time restraints which is just as good as operating a club layout minus all the pomp, circumstance, and politics that is associated with club layouts.
In my opinion,multi stage layouts are the way to go for big layout operations in the space provided. And size doesn't matter either. Knowcent's layout is 30' x 45'- plenty of room for even a single level layout much less a multi leveled layout....chuck
The pro is more layout in a given space.
The cons are more complicated benchwork and some compromise on height.
The real question is what are you after? If a long mainline is your goal, the double deck is only one possibility. Another is to just run the mainline twice or thrice or even four times around one level. This allows you to use your scenery, benchwork, etc multiple times. A third is to run very narrow benchwork and squeeze in an extra peninsula or two.
Don't worry about getting finished. I've been building layouts off and on for 35 years. Some get to scenery, some don't. So what! This is a hobby and I'm having fun!!! Besides some of the best known layouts were never finished. Also, there used to be model railroaders who didn't believe in scenery - might even be a few still around.
OTOH if a fully scenic'd layout is what you want, then build it one section at a time fully completing each section before moving on.
If you want a big layout and have the room for it, a small layout won't satisfy you. Go for it!!!
Enjoy
Paul
My N-scale layout (currently under construction) has 2 levels linked by a 2-1/2 turn 2% no-lix.
I do agree that building a multi-level layout does have challenges a single-level layout does not. However, multi-level layouts open up a whole new bag full of design and scenery options (and challenges) that can make the layout far more interesting.
The reasons I designed a 2-level layout include:
The only major challenge I have encountered so far is how to design and build a swing-gate (to access the middle of the layout) that carries not only the upper- and lower-levels, but the 3 turns of the no-lix. The gate will have to carry tracks at 5 different levels and open/close as a single unit. My solution ? A "door" to which I will attach shelves for each of the track levels.
Deciding whether to go with a single-level or multi-level layout is a personal choice -- there is no right or wrong answer.
cwclark Here we go again, someone that thinks their idea of layout design is better than a multi layered layout. For one thing, a multi layered layout is the ideal layout for multi person operations. (Case in point, knowcent's layout is multi layered and it can be operated by up to 6-8 and even more people at one time with a more realistic time table operation schedule. It takes one train 20 real time minutes at scale speeds to complete both levels for point A to return to point A, ample time for all operators to do a lot of switching along the route without having to sweat the time clock to get the main cleared.
CW - By no means am I placing my ideas of layout design ahead of anyone elses. What I am pointing out is the extremely naive outlook some folks here have when giving advice others.
This site supposedly has more than 50,000 members. However, during any given interval (say several months to a year) one can never point to evidence of more than a few dozen participants who give any evidence that they are actually advanced modelers having 1st class layouts. This to me is a striking indication of what the average level of modeling sophistication is among the membership. In my opinion, giving advice to the average casual modeler that he should in no way be hesitant in persuing what in some cases are absolutely grandiose, complex layout designs, or projects, is a very poor choice and in the end, likely a great diservice to that hobbyist.
Let's look at a few of your points. You consider that lower-level lighting poses no problem at all. Was any consideration, or advice, given regarding the likelihood that the room itself may very well need to have an extra circuit, or other major electical work, done to handle the additional load if the proper number of additional lighting units is to be installed? I've personally seen several multi-deck layouts that required major electrical service work done for the layout to be adequately lit - a job that needs to be done professionally and commanding some big bucks.
Was the fact addressed that building a proper multi-deck layout also requires far more carpentry ability than constructing the average island, or against the wall designs, which is generally supported by simple legs?. Poorly executed, the upper deck will be unstable and perhaps even a danger to the operator and his trains. And was consideration given to just how many hobbyists actually have a room really conducive to having a layout run completely, or nearly so, around the room without numerous doorways that need to be bridged, or especially room for those space-eating helices?
Likewise, do you have any idea of just how few modelers work in groups to speed the building of each other's layouts? In my experience, the hobby is composed of about 90% more or less lone wolves, not of social clubs, or teams of hobbyists. This typically places the bulk of the work on the shoulders of just one person and unless he has considerable perseverance and a wide range of talents, he's more likely to fail in attempting a multi-deck/helix-equipped design than one of any other sort.
As to the concept of multi-deck layouts being so conducive to group operations, that's yet another canard where most hobbyists are concerned. Firstly, serious operations, such as detailed in the magazines, is persued by only a very small fraction of all hobbyist. Most don't do much more than just run trains, or follow some unorganized form of operations. Then consider, as already pointed out, most hobbyist are lone wolves, so any operations will be only a one man deal, not a group activity.
The point I make is that it is a huge step going from the typical simplistic and modest-sized island, L or U-shaped layout, to some large and complex multi-deck design. Certainly there are experienced hobbyists out there that can tackle such projects without hesitation but for probably something like 90% of the folks here, it's well beyond their apparent capabilities.
Whew! I guess i wasn't expecting this much info. The idea of the double deck I had was,1) bottom level has many towns in one state. 2) next level has towns in another state. Also, why would I have to have a helix? i could have something like this >, only more round shaped. I see that a helix might be nice and practical,but seeing the trains going round and round like they are in a tornado and no scenercy at all kinda defeats the purpose of realism. By the way, I appericate the advice.
Thanks, Stephen
Razorclaw Whew! I guess i wasn't expecting this much info. The idea of the double deck I had was,1) bottom level has many towns in one state. 2) next level has towns in another state. Also, why would I have to have a helix? i could have something like this >, only more round shaped. I see that a helix might be nice and practical,but seeing the trains going round and round like they are in a tornado and no scenercy at all kinda defeats the purpose of realism. By the way, I appericate the advice. Thanks, Stephen
Stephen, The way you are planning to use your two levels is the same way i will be using mine. My lower level is a section of CSX with a few towns in Georgia and the upper level has a few towns in Tennessee/Alabama. My helix will be completely hidden and will give the operators of through trains (that travel the full length of both decks) a better sense of distance between the two levels (different states) of the layout. I will also have local trains that emerge from staging and only work a single level of the layout, reenforcing the concept of a local train that only serves a small section of the overall railroad. Jamie
A little more on the organization of my three deck Santa Fe I have already written about. Top deck is in sight staging and hidden staging with tracks going out of Flynn Yard south to Texas. There is a mole hole area hidden under Oklahoma City where an operator spends time during operating sessions with shelves of cars, a computer list of trains and info about them, and car cards/waybills. So he can knock down southbound trains and build northbound trains for the entire session if need be.
The trains run on the top deck until they reach Guthrie OK where the line splits, the mainline north to Arkansas City goes into staging, guess what? that staging is in the same room with the Texas staging. Same man in the same mole hole.
The Enid district runs down the helix to the middle deck and runs to Enid, with all towns inbetween represented, plus the BN Avard line coming out of (what was that again? STAGING FROM THE MOLE HOLE AREA.) Enid yard is worked by BN and ATSF, two operators, then continues down a long descending grade to the bottom deck where the ATSF tracks arrive at Cherokee OK, jct with the old Orient, and then head to Kiowa and terminate (with staging). The BN line appears at Avard (not modeled) gets on the ATSF and heads to Waynoka, a 10 track visible staging area.
I might mention the Cherokee area gets switched first at the beginning of the session while everyone else is getting ready, so the cars to pick up are waiting and we don't end up with an operator trampled later. Waynoka does not get switched during the session, just in and out bound, to protect operators from being trampled. I get the fun of switching them after the session ends.
I could not do or have the operation I have in the room space I have been given by my chief dispatcher, who is my wife, if I had a single level or even a double level. Yeah, three decks isn't perfect, but what is. I just had to "go down" from the top deck to reach a malfunctioning electrical connection on the helix. I removed a section of Flynn yard that sits over the area, slid back some rail joiners, lifted the section out, fixed the malfunction and had the section back in place and ready for operation in a few hours. So three decks ain't so bad.
So every question has several points of view, and the deck issue certainly has several, but bottom line, if you want a "serious" operating layout, and are willing to work to get it built and running, then go for it. If not, well, a circle around the room isn't all that bad..........
Bob, I'd love to see some pics of your layout. I have brothers in Guthrie and Edmond, in fact my brother was the mayor of Edmond a few years back. I'm in Hubbard, Texas not much railroading going on around here. I'm at: vettsup2u@yahoo.com if you have a few pictures to share of your layout, thanks Bud
atsfmodelrailroads.com