TrainzLuvrWhat would you do different another time around, if not using 2x4s? Also, is it a multi-deck, and if so, what are the level depths and heights from the floor?
The only problem with 2x4 framing is the amount of space that the framing members take up. Some of my framing sits up against the basement wall, though not attached to it. I cannot run my mainline close to the wall because I use Tortoises to control my turnouts, and I need space to mount them under the layout surface. Same for the cross members. It seems that I always need to mount a Tortoise where a 2x4 crosses in that exact spot. So, my next layout, if there is one, will be 1x4 framing.
Rich
Alton Junction
richhotrain The only problem with 2x4 framing is the amount of space that the framing members take up. Some of my framing sits up against the basement wall, though not attached to it. I cannot run my mainline close to the wall because I use Tortoises to control my turnouts, and I need space to mount them under the layout surface. Same for the cross members. It seems that I always need to mount a Tortoise where a 2x4 crosses in that exact spot. So, my next layout, if there is one, will be 1x4 framing. Rich
Hey Rich-
If it makes you feel any better, the odds of hitting a 1x4 are exactly the same.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
richhotrainMy layout is a single deck, two track mainline with a 42' x 25' footprint, a sort of open-P shape. The only problem with 2x4 framing is the amount of space that the framing members take up. Some of my framing sits up against the basement wall, though not attached to it. I cannot run my mainline close to the wall because I use Tortoises to control my turnouts, and I need space to mount them under the layout surface. Same for the cross members. It seems that I always need to mount a Tortoise where a 2x4 crosses in that exact spot. So, my next layout, if there is one, will be 1x4 framing. Rich
That's a very nice space, 4x of what I have available. :)
Would it not be a problem when people lean and push the benchwork, if it was made from 1x4s? I presume it would all be 1x4 including the legs and depending on the kind of wood used, it would still be lighter than 2x4s.
I guess with L-girders one can move the joists to accomodate for the location of the tortoise motors, but then the L girders take valuable height in multi-deck layouts, which I kind of loath having a 6'5" ceiling.
YouTube Channel
Website
ROBERT PETRICK richhotrain The only problem with 2x4 framing is the amount of space that the framing members take up. Some of my framing sits up against the basement wall, though not attached to it. I cannot run my mainline close to the wall because I use Tortoises to control my turnouts, and I need space to mount them under the layout surface. Same for the cross members. It seems that I always need to mount a Tortoise where a 2x4 crosses in that exact spot. So, my next layout, if there is one, will be 1x4 framing. Rich Hey Rich- If it makes you feel any better, the odds of hitting a 1x4 are exactly the same. Robert
TrainzLuvr Would it not be a problem when people lean and push the benchwork, if it was made from 1x4s? I presume it would all be 1x4 including the legs and depending on the kind of wood used, it would still be lighter than 2x4s.
When I was into tropical fish (discus) breeding, I built all of my own aquarium stands that had to be capable of holding some fairly large tanks, and water weighs 8 pounds per gallon.
TrainzLuvr richhotrain My layout is a single deck, two track mainline with a 42' x 25' footprint, a sort of open-P shape. The only problem with 2x4 framing is the amount of space that the framing members take up. Some of my framing sits up against the basement wall, though not attached to it. I cannot run my mainline close to the wall because I use Tortoises to control my turnouts, and I need space to mount them under the layout surface. Same for the cross members. It seems that I always need to mount a Tortoise where a 2x4 crosses in that exact spot. So, my next layout, if there is one, will be 1x4 framing. Rich That's a very nice space, 4x of what I have available. :) Would it not be a problem when people lean and push the benchwork, if it was made from 1x4s? I presume it would all be 1x4 including the legs and depending on the kind of wood used, it would still be lighter than 2x4s. I guess with L-girders one can move the joists to accomodate for the location of the tortoise motors, but then the L girders take valuable height in multi-deck layouts, which I kind of loath having a 6'5" ceiling.
richhotrain My layout is a single deck, two track mainline with a 42' x 25' footprint, a sort of open-P shape. The only problem with 2x4 framing is the amount of space that the framing members take up. Some of my framing sits up against the basement wall, though not attached to it. I cannot run my mainline close to the wall because I use Tortoises to control my turnouts, and I need space to mount them under the layout surface. Same for the cross members. It seems that I always need to mount a Tortoise where a 2x4 crosses in that exact spot. So, my next layout, if there is one, will be 1x4 framing. Rich
My module club, and many others, are just 1x3s and 2x2s and they take vastly more abuse, leaning on, dragging around, throwing in the back of the car, etc than any home layout. No problems there.
NittanyLionMy module club, and many others, are just 1x3s and 2x2s and they take vastly more abuse, leaning on, dragging around, throwing in the back of the car, etc than any home layout. No problems there.
For your modules, are you using dimensional lumber or plywood ripped into strips, and what type of wood?
Though I figure your modules are single level so you can add crosses and what not. I'm trying to build multi-deck so any bracing will interfere with levels...
TranzLuvr
Have you looked at plans in the Model Railroader database. Instead of trying to design your benchwork then trying to design a track arrangement to fit look at what others have done in a similar space. There are a number of plans that would fit your space (both N and HO) with good access. I am not suggesting copying them, but find some you like and use them as a starting point for your own designs. Many of the plans that fit your availble width are shorter. They could be expanded lengthwise to fit your space.
I don't know your experience, but I get the impression you are being too ambitious. A problem I still have after 50 years in the hobby.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
DSchmittTranzLuvr Have you looked at plans in the Model Railroader database. Instead of trying to design your benchwork then trying to design a track arrangement to fit look at what others have done in a similar space. There are a number of plans that would fit your space (both N and HO) with good access. I am not suggesting copying them, but find some you like and use them as a starting point for your own designs. Many of the plans that fit your availble width are shorter. They could be expanded lengthwise to fit your space. I don't know your experience, but I get the impression you are being too ambitious. A problem I still have after 50 years in the hobby.
In this case, my SO likes to say that I'm a "go big or, go home" kinda person, so you are probably right about being (too) ambitious.
Unfortunately, I do not have access to the MR database (I think it's subscribers only?)
What I'd like to understand is the logic behind layout planning (Armstrong isn't helpeful in this case).
How does one decide where to put a yard in the layout, or an industry, or any other element, and what follows or precedes what.
For that matter, how do you decide what industry do you include, and which industries pair together. Along the same lines, how do you know what kind of cars are used in specific industries?
It seems to me that the whole process is a convoluted mishmash of magic and fantasy. Some things are winged out, others are presumed, etc.
Heck, we put the rail down first, then build scenery around it. :)
I am not currently a subscriber. But I can search the database, see the thumbnails and by clicking on them read some basic info like overall dimensions as well as an invitation to subscribe.
Also the database is sometimes temporairly opened to non-subscribers as a lure to get people to suscribe.
Model Railroader is worth subscribing to, but unfortunately I am currently in circumstances where I have to economize and decided MR was one of the things I could do without temporairly. When I do suscribe again I will add the Online Archive.
DSchmittI am not currently a subscriber. But I can search the database, see the thumbnails and by clicking on them read some basic info like overall dimensions as well as an invitation to subscribe. Also the database is sometimes temporairly opened to non-subscribers as a lure to get people to suscribe. Model Railroader is worth subscribing to, but unfortunately I am currently in circumstances where I have to economize and decided MR was one of the things I could do without temporairly. When I do suscribe again I will add the Online Archive.
Hmm that's just bizzare, because I could swear to not being able to see the thumbnails before, just the sq. footage and the text about plans being avaiable to the subscribers.
In any case, I'm glad I'm out of the twilight zone and can search through it now. :)
Since I have been unable to fine untwisted 2x2's around here to use as legs, and I con't have a table saw to rip 2x4's, I make my legs like little l girders, a 1x4 on one side and a 1x3 on the other. One of the recent MR project layouts did it that way as well - but I did mine first. I use a short section of 2x2 at the bottom, which allows me to drill a hole in the bottom for a T nut and carriage bolt for leveling. The open L shape at the top allows me to bolt the leg to botht he logitudinal frame as well as the cross piece.
For a double desk especially, Tortoises are HUGE. I use RC servos. They are a fraction of the siz of a Tortoise - and I still managed to have a turnout located almost directly on top of the cross brace of my last layout, so i just improvised a linkage using the upside-down J sort of thing alloowing the servo to be a couple of ties away from the actual throwbar position, which was all the room i needed to fit it in. They are tiny, and you can get them on ebay for about $1.50 each. They do need a control circuit but that is easy enough to make (several articles in RMH by Geoff Bunza shows how - $10 of electronics to control 12 servos.) or you can buy commercial ones ready to plug in and use (the servos plug in, there is a standard 3 wire connector used by all of them).
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
TrainzLuvr What I'd like to understand is the logic behind layout planning. How does one decide where to put a yard in the layout, or an industry, or any other element, and what follows or precedes what. For that matter, how do you decide what industry do you include, and which industries pair together. Along the same lines, how do you know what kind of cars are used in specific industries? It seems to me that the whole process is a convoluted mishmash of magic and fantasy. Some things are winged out, others are presumed, etc. Heck, we put the rail down first, then build scenery around it. :)
What I'd like to understand is the logic behind layout planning.
At that point, you need to decide whether you will go freelance or prototype. Freelance will give you the freedom to do whatever you want whereas prototype will require you to maintain some standards regarding topography, industries, etc.
Which do you prefer? Passenger operations, freight, both? Era? Steam, diesel, or both?
Once you finish that basic planning, a lot of your questions will be answered and then it is simply a matter of selecting structures, industries, track work, and scenery. But, you need a plan. Putting "the rail down first, then building scenery around it" seems a bit haphazard.
TrainzLuvr NittanyLion My module club, and many others, are just 1x3s and 2x2s and they take vastly more abuse, leaning on, dragging around, throwing in the back of the car, etc than any home layout. No problems there. For your modules, are you using dimensional lumber or plywood ripped into strips, and what type of wood? Though I figure your modules are single level so you can add crosses and what not. I'm trying to build multi-deck so any bracing will interfere with levels...
NittanyLion My module club, and many others, are just 1x3s and 2x2s and they take vastly more abuse, leaning on, dragging around, throwing in the back of the car, etc than any home layout. No problems there.
All of the above. Mine is cheap dimensional white wood from Lowes. I'm not building high end furniture here.
Don't over think it. Even if it is a self supporting two level layout. I've got bookshelves that were functionally 2x2s running vertically up the wall, with 1x2 spars holding the three levels of shelves. It carried far more load than any layout ever will. It was pretty sturdy and didn't move or flex at all when bumped into or whatever. It was attached to the wall with drywall anchors.
richhotrainWell, you already know the limits of the space. Next, you need to decide on the scale....HO or N? Then, you need to settle on a footprint...."G", donut, whatever.
I agree he needs to decide on a scale. But I think my suggestion that he look at other's plans is a better starting point for him. He might even find a plan that substantially fits his desires and modify it. At least he will be able to see what will fit in his space and where using different configurations. He has been trying to settle on a footprint for over 6 months. Setting the footprint first can be very limiting and fustrating.
The decisions about freelance or follow a prototype, era, predomitely passenger or freight, etc. should be decided before or at least while looking at plans as they will help him evaluate the plans to determine what fits his goals.
I guess dimensional lumber must be really cheap in the U.S.
I was at Lowes yesterday and a 1x3x8 costs CA$9+tax. That's insane, IMHO.
It was labelled as Top Choice Pine, but so what. We grow and export lumber up here (Canada) and yet most of these big-box stores charge arm and a leg for it.
Considering I would need at least 5 pieces of 1x3x8 to make a 6' open-frame section including L-girdered legs, the cost comes up little under a 4x8' sheet of 3/4" Fir plywood. Spurce plywood would be cheaper even.
From a plywood sheet one can rip 18 1x3x8 pieces that would otherwise cost CA$162+tax as dimensional lumber.
But, the plywood isn't anything to write home about either. Birch costs CA$70 and Maple even more. On a piece of Spruce I got couple of days ago, I had plys separate in a few spots.
Seems like once again, the big-box stores get lousiest quality plywood possible, some even imported?!, just so they could rake maximum profits.
/rant
DSchmittI agree he needs to decide on a scale. But I think my suggestion that he look at other's plans is a better starting point for him. He might even find a plan that substantially fits his desires and modify it. At least he will be able to see what will fit in his space and where using different configurations. He has been trying to settle on a footprint for over 6 months. Setting the footprint first can be very limiting and fustrating. The decisions about freelance or follow a prototype, era, predomitely passenger or freight, etc. should be decided before or at least while looking at plans as they will help him evaluate the plans to determine what fits his goals.
I did settle on a H0 scale but my alter ego keeps coming up from time to time, teasing me about N scale. And so I keep running in circles...
Looking at the big picture, the expense is considerable, and I'm afraid to jump into one just to find out later I should've gone with the other.
We did write, and revise recently, our Givens and Druthers:
Givens--------
- Room size: 22.5’x12’ (irregular, open space/no wall with two columns on the North side; doorway access on the North-East, electrical closet on the South-West)
- Finished hardwood floor, but uneven/sloping
- Ceiling: 6’5”-6’6”; pot lights, two speakers, air-vent near the South-West window
- Two windows on the South side starting at 55" above floor level
- The layout will remain in the train area (no foreseeable expansion)
- Climate controlled space
- Scale: H0
- Full DCC operation (Roco Z21)
- Era: Transition (steam/4-axle diesels)/post-Transition (6-axle diesels)
- Prototype: Freelance
- Region: North America
- Operating crew: 2 (most of the time, but visitors possible)
- Open to multi-deck
- Benchwork: free standing, open-frame, or whatever works (not attached to the walls if possible)
- Min. radius: 24” (considering scale and longer passenger and freight cars)
Druthers----------
- Track: Code 83/70, depends on cost and availability/requirements of the plan
- Min. turnout size: whatever works, ideally #5+
- Single track mainline is ok, with passing sidings where needed for added ops interest
- Preferred 3’ aisle width, but 2’-2.5’ choke points are ok
- Signaled operation (CTC - automated)
- Option for fully computer controlled trains
- Swing out bridge is preferred, if required, no duckunders
- No need to reach more than 30″ into the layout
- Preferred longer main-line runs
- Moderate length trains are ok, long might not be possible
- Like yard switching and operations
- Like intricate track work (more prototypical to Europe than North America e.g. double slips, wyes, 3-way, etc.)
- Various industries to keep the operational interest
- Adequate staging (in a sub-level beneath the benchwork)
- Scenic views where possible
- Scenery: rolling hills, canyons, rivers, tunnels, rock faces, bridges, trees, lakes
- Like freight, but also some passenger service
- Interest in rail-fanning the layout
- Trains should pass through the same scene only once
- Potential for continuous running, if possible but not mandatory
I recently read The Art of Model Railroading by Frank Ellison and I totally dig that. I am going to re-read it once again, otherwise I think he was spot-on and things he said really left an impression on me.
Anyway, I went to one of the local hobby shops this week and spoke to another model railroader there who suggested I do around the walls layout on two levels, and put the staging on the peninsula in the middle, divided by a double-sided backdrop.One side for outgoing and the other for incoming trains. Plus a main-line running around the edge of the peninusla, set at a lower (or higher) elevation to separate it from the staging tracks.
A layout shape resembling something like #23 might work for that:
I'm also contemplating a helix somewhere in the space, if I can't figure out how to nicely do the no-lix.
I also wish to use the space inside the helix for something, so putting a large 130' turntable and roundhouses inside appears befitting.Most people keep their turntable and roundhouses out in the open as a centerpiece, but they take a lot of space, just like the helix does, so marrying the two seems like a win-win to me.
Portions of the helix will be open so you can still see trains inside it. I do not see that much going on with the turntable and roundhouses, beside turning locomotives around or storing them. Locomotive facilities would be outside the helix and those seem to me to be more in-use, operationally.
Based on the #23, I made a #37
But this time I have a honest to God layout plan (can you believe it?). You could say I had a "brainfart" this weekend. I actually have two plans, but this is the one I favour at the moment:
If you would kindly provide feedback on it, I'd appreciate it.
Certain things seem unconventional like that yard (which I'd like to flip so it looks like the one in the G below) and there are no industries or towns yet (where should they go?).Staging is at the right, 4" elevated over the rest. The main track is in yellow, A/D in orange, engine facilities in gray. Areas in blue are rivers (lift-outs/swing gates).The center peninsula is basically a nolix (in turquoise) that climbs around in a figure 8 with several tunnels and a trestle bridge in the blob, as a center piece.
I do not have the upper level done yet, using AnyRail 6 here which is easy to use, but not really friendly to multideck layouts and lacks some features.I also have 3rd Plan It 11 which has great features but atrocious user interface and experience in general (slow).
And, for the lovers of the G shape, based on #34 here is a rough plan for it, although I have no idea how would I nolix this to climb up to the upper deck, it's tight and not enough space:
Plus, the construction of these narrow areas in the center, and keeping them stable worries me, too.
Again, comments and critiques are appreciated.
To provide more background, originally I thought this would've been a scenic layout as it started with a smaller footprint (12x16). Then I read more books and seen more YouTube videos, and realized that a scenic layout was not for me. Watching trains run in circles gets boring pretty fast and I don't need a racetrack on rails.
I wanted to give my layout life of its own - once finished it needs to still be a place for me to go back to and enjoy it. The operations side sneaked up on me and the more I learnt about it the more I knew that would be the direction to take. And somewhere in the process, I was "permitted" to take the entire portion of the space, too. :)
Coming back to this thread from http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/263563.aspx I want to address what was said in the last few posts there.
I did not pick a theme for the layout. I always thought that I could build it out of LDEs, scenes that would not necessarily be connected in some meaningful way. My SO and I thought to equally have mountains and deserts, rivers, trees, a few towns, etc.
Although, it does not appear that would make sense, if I'm to make this a believable railroad geared towards operations. Most people would have a hard time with having their train move from a forest into a desert, just by turning the corner.
I understand that picking a theme would actually dictate what happens on the layout (one doesn't have logging in the desert, or grain and biodiesel production in the mountains). Yet, I'm reluctant to just pick anything because of the kinds of scenes we want to have on the layout.
When it comes to train sizes, I was never a fan of extremely long trains. At the beginning I thought the space would allow for maybe 20 or so (40'-50' box) cars. And, I kept planning for a huge yard 15'+, and staging beneath it, along the longest wall, which you can see from most of the layout shapes I posted here.
Yet, in the past couple of months with the focus on operations and learning about selective compression I'm realizing that it is not necessary to have long trains. Actually they are detrimental to believability of a layout because industries could be represented with just a few cars each.
When you have 20-30 car coal drag, how many more do you need, to prove it's a coal drag? A 100 car train is unrealistic IMHO because most layout spaces are not sufficiently big to represent enough world around that train. It just looks "cool".
I now believe that focus should be put more into extending the mainline run and going places, which also creates more time on the layout for every train. The distance between A and B becomes more believable when the train does not look like it's leaving A and entering B at the same time.
TrainzLuvrCertain things seem unconventional like that yard
I guess that's one way to describe it. Why have you done the yard that way?
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
carl425I guess that's one way to describe it. Why have you done the yard that way
It was going along the lines of selective compression, not having excessively long trains and being able to represent industries with a few cars. Each spur is 3' long, and could fit anywhere from 3-6 cars.
Since then it was suggested to me that this would not work just as well as I envisioned it, one reason being there would be a lot of movement to assemble trains (but is that a bad thing?)
Simple soultion to that yard is to have the ladder along the right side where the benchwork bulges out after the liftout section and extend the body tracks the length of the long dimension - not sure why you drew it the way you did, either in that plan OR the G shaped one.
-----------------------/
---------------------/
-------------------/
(like so)
Yes, I realized that later on and made a revision to the plan, I just never posted it to this thread here...
This one I consider old plan though. I think I will go back to hidden staging because that space on the right could be used for industries or a town...
The G shaped plan fromt he same message - if you could negotiate just a tiny bit more space below the pillars, that track running along the outside could become the staging with a backgrop along the pillars, isolating it from the layout proper. Plus it would be double ended, allowing trains to depart and arrive from either direction. Whether you need that or not depends on your operating plan. I was able to get away with 2 tracks only letting on to the layout in one direction because all trains originated off that end of the branch terminated back where it started after reversing direction. There was no "off the other way" to worry about.
Another way might be to have a loop at the root of the center penninsula, on a lower lever, with the staging tracks fanning out under the penninsula. Armstrong reverted loop sort of thing. Trains enter visible trackage on the pillar side of the center pennenisula and climb along it and loop back along the upper side. No-lix around the room, but make the lift outs flat, and you should be able to gain enough to be well over the start of the lower level. Scenery section along the penninsula again to facilitate a steeper grade, then no-lix around the room again, ending with another staging loop on the penninsula. Yes that's effectively 4 levels of track but you get two trips around the room that are completely usable trackage and just the end stagings are at levels lower or higher. Have to do some calculations t see if you can get enough vertical distance without having crazy grades, but that would get a lot of railroad in the space. Neither liftout would have more than 2 levels on it.
I can't really go more beyond the pillars as that's a hallway - already into it 6-8" in the plan.
The non-G plan has a no-lix in the peninsula.
I keep trying to figure out how to no-lix the G shape but not coming up with anything. I thought about around the room but some places are very narrow and taking up space for the incline would make them even less useable or anything else.
Also, where would I put towns and industries in the G shape anyway, most of the areas are very narrow (counting that I would need to have a mainline, siding, industry spurs and a no-lix incline in the space)?
You need a lot less width for two tracks seperated vertically than you think - at least at the beginning of the grade when the difference is small. Retaining walls work well. Just don;t use the same trick EVERY place.
On the G shaped version - if the isnide the pillar side ont he bottom is level, allowing for easy sidings, and you start climbing where the loopback goes, and climb all along the edge that is on the other side of the pillar (place for mountain scenery visible from the hall side), and along the right hand wall where you have it depicted as hidden, leveling off as it hits the lift out. just that distance there, allowing for vertical transistions, gets you 10" of vertical at a 2% grade. Once across the liftout for the electric box, since that track is buried in the back, it can continue to climb behind the yard. By the time it emerges on the pilla side of the middle penninsula, that's another 5+ inches vertical climb. Level here along the length of the penninsula (I'd make this side the wider part of the penninsula, for locating industries - if the industries are on the same side as the yard, you will have crowded operating conditions). If needed, you can gain another inch or two along the turnback curve of the penninsula and a few more inches along the yard side of the penninsula. From the curve around behind the roundhouse to the liftout, all level for the yard and facilities. Along the inside of the right wall, you can mix in grades and flats. You are, at this point, some 18" above the starting point on the bottom leg. Which would have been the staging yard. A full 18" clearance (less benchwork thickness) isn;t always necessary for staging, so grades could be reduced or other areas made level. Now that you've gone from staging once around the room, repeat to get the second level of the layout. Perhaps witht he climbing and level areas switches up a bit since you aren;t going to have another big yard above the first one. ANd when that loop comes around the room, you are now high enough to put the opposite end staging above the second running level on the right side wall - the right side ends up with 4 levels of track - bottom is the staging for one way, then 2 operating layers, and the top desk is the staging for the other way. Upper staging may need stepstools to easily reach equipment, especially on the rear tracks, but considering the trade off is you get to wrap the layout around the room twice... the center penninsula and the yard area would have 2 levels of track, the lower penninsula and the right side wall get the 4 levels.
As for supporting the center of the middle penninsula - you worry too much. You have a > 5 foot wide anchor piece at the turnback curve, plus the wide section wedged into the corner at the room of the penninsula. The shank is not going to be unstable. Either make the legs L girders, or use plain old 2x4's and that will keep weight down low. The wider parts at the two ends will keep it stable.
I'm trying to visualize what you wrote, before I put it on paper/screen, and it sounds like it would work but the piece I'm missing is the direction - which way are you climbing up (leaving the lower level staging on the right wall and going down (west), on the outside of the pillars then around the turnback, or...)?
I really do not like my upper left corner, and I'm wrecking my brains trying to figure it out. That turntable/roundhouse was just a placeholder but even putting them there as in my non-G plan still does not feel right.
Alternatively, I've been trying to figure out what part of the room is the least useful, so it can house a helix, and that's proving a bit difficult. Around the right pillar; in the upper left corner; or in the lower left on the diagonal...
Thanks!
I was going upgrade going counter-clockwise. Staging ladder under bottom leg, above the pillars, witht he tracks extended back along the right wall if the length is needed. Actually pushed back as fas as possible, so you have room after the ladder to start the climb. It climbs up and around the left pillar, and slimbs all along outside the pillars, around the bottorm right, and climbs along the back wall (the outside track). Level throught he liftout so that's not an engineering nightmare, then climb again along the wall behind the yard. If necessary - since this is staging, you might be able to stop climbing along the right wall and have enough room to reach in to rerail cars in staging. You don't need the same headroom you'd need to install full scenery. The track going across the back wall behind the yard might then be alternately visibile and hidden, say running under some buildings and stuff. You start climbing again around the left corner behind the roundhouse and along and around the middle leg to get the yard level high enough over the line coming out of staging. Yard area is all level, across the liftout, witht he staging line under it. Think vertically, under, not one track in front of the other, but one above the other. If you then make part of the right wall flat and part climb, same witht he bottom leg, and then once again climb all the way around the pillar and across the bottom and up the right side, and this time climb along above the yard and left curve, you should be high enough over the yard for a true second deck. Climb on the right wall again and you cna put staging over the bottom leg.
Don't forget to calculate track length properly going around curves - you get a lot more track in even a half circle than you might think. What I did was all based on the climbing parts having a 2% grade, which isn't killer.
My only suggestion is go HO' Why because their is so much more stuff to pick from and it look so much more real compared to N' I have never has a person at my place pick N over HO. I keep some N scale trains and when I ask them what they like better they all pick HO. N scale looks toyish compared to the detail on a a HO Loco or car. Yes we all wish we had tons more room to work with. But in the long run it is the quality not the size of a layout that counts. Also some like just to run trains around a long mainline though the country side and some like more of a switching layout with many business and industries' Its hard to have everything but with your room which it very close to my size room 11ft by 22ft one can do a very nice HO layout. Now start building.hehe