cuyama The broken record continues: building benchwork after a track plan is finalized is almost always much more efficient than building benchwork first.
The broken record continues: building benchwork after a track plan is finalized is almost always much more efficient than building benchwork first.
That is a no-brainer.
I would add it is also wise to give at least some thought to possible future changes as well. What if after it is built you don't like how a particular track section operates? Will the dedicated shape of the benchwork restrict your options to rearrange? Will you have to perform benchwork surgery just to change the track arrangement? Modifying benchwork on a completed double deck railroad is not a task for the faint of heart.
Yet another compromise. You may notice that while my upper deck benchwork supports the track plan shape in general, it does so with a minimum amount of benchwork depth undulation. This is by design so it presents the least restriction should I decide to change track arrangement.
Alan
Freelancing the LK&O Railroad
TrainzLuvrWhat is considered under "modulating" deck widths?
Modulating deck widths = varying deck widths. Wider for yards and “towns”, narrower where the track is just running through.
TrainzLuvrHow does it work if the upper deck is deeper than the lower for people who are taller?
Where aisles are narrow, as many of your sketches showed, often that's a challenge. Support for the upper deck is always easier (and thinner) if the upper deck is narrow. Sometimes a wide area of upper deck can’t be avoided, but surprisingly often it can, just by judicious siting of layout elements.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
lifeontheranchThat is a no-brainer.
One would think so, wouldn't one?
Yet many folks don't heed that suggestion.
lifeontheranchYou may notice that while my upper deck benchwork supports the track plan shape in general, it does so with a minimum amount of benchwork depth undulation.
One difference between your layout and many (most?) other multi-deck layouts is that your lower deck is a mostly suporting role, the real focus is on the upper deck. In many cases, siting larger elements on the lower deck is an easier choice (but as we both know, your solution was specific to your situation and the prototype).
Byron
Disclosure: I took advantage of Byron's plan review service before beginning construction. Money well spent.
cuyama One difference between your layout and many (most?) other multi-deck layouts is that your lower deck is a mostly suporting role, the real focus is on the upper deck. In many cases, siting larger elements on the lower deck is an easier choice (but as we both know, your solution was specific to your situation and the prototype). Byron
True. However, in the beginning and prior to contacting you, I was in the same frame of mind as is TrainzLuvr now. I envisioned two fully functional decks. Then the 'compromise' realities began to hit home. As I attempted to design around them (including as TrainzLuvr mentions non-railroad aspects such as view, access, lighting, aisle width, structural, aesthetics, etc.) it became obvious the whole railroad was going to end up being one giant less-than-ideal compromise. Trying to do everything meant not doing anything well. That is when I shifted gears and decided to build essentially a single deck layout with a supporting role lower deck. That is the plan you received from me.
Like I was in the beginning, it is possible TrainzLuvr and others may not be giving proper consideration to the effect quantity has on quality. More is not necessarily better especially if the compromises start compounding. YMMV. By using the supporting role lower deck idea I sacrificed a few LDEs to increase my enjoyment of the overall layout. The same idea may work for others. At least worth considering if one is still in the planning stages.
@lifeontheranch
I understand what you are saying, and I believe that our "compromise" realities are artificial, and I'll tell you why.
For the past 10 months, I spent almost every free moment of my time reading forums, blog posts and opinions, and watching hundreds of hours of video related to the hobby.
Yet, I realize now that I'm obsessing too much about minute details, the "getting it right" or as you said "doing anything well". I worry that things will not transpire the way I want them, and as you put it, become a less-than-ideal compromise.
This is really a systemic problem (think entire society) and is caused by the peer pressure of the community. I'll call it the fear of not being accepted, or the fear of not fitting in.
Watching some videos on YouTube, you can see it in the eyes of some hosts and their body language. They are trying so hard to "do things right", every tiny detail matters and they are very methodical about it. Yet, all they really want is to run a few trains around, have a beer and relax after a long day at work.
But they can't, because the trains must operate like the prototype, and stay in staging between the op sessions. Their layout has become a show-room, similar to what some people have in their homes. Glass cabinets filled with porcelain figurines, and 18th century style furniture. Nobody really goes in there to sit and enjoy it, lights are always off. Only guests are being paraded through, on occasion, for the show.
Is this then really a "fun" hobby, they way it is?
Yes, I could pay a professional designer to plan a layout for me and be bona fide. In the process, the layout becomes someone elses interpretation of my ideas, fused with "accepted" norms, rules and standards that the community had put onto itself.
Are people truly enojoying it because all their car-cards are sorted, the rail looks prototypical (hand-laid code 70), and all the LDEs have proper spacing and selective compression?
Most will say they are, but I believe that deep inside they are not being honest to themselves. They are saying it because the community they belong to conditioned them to "fall in line", or be excluded.
Anyway, I went way off topic. I totally get it that most will not agree with (or even like) what I wrote. That's fine. My hope is that those who do take a few moments to honestly reflect upon this might discover some personal truth in it.
YouTube Channel
Website
It is a big tent hobby with room for all.
What you say may be true of some people but not all. What does apply to all of us is physics. Those rules you cannot bend. Physics dictates compromises must be made in a double deck layout. Societal pressure may color your compromise decisions, if you are that kind of person, but at the end of the day no one can violate spatial geometry.
If one is to run a few trains around, have a beer and relax after a long day at work they can do so enjoyably only if they got the geometry reasonably right. Deck too high - I spill my beer trying to see. Deck too deep - I spill my beer reaching. Deck too dim - I can't find my beer. Aisle too narrow - my beer hits the fascia. Bad layout geometry wastes beer!
LOL! I'm still trying to figure out how to compress the aisles. Science fiction is abuzz with rooms that are bigger inside than outside. If someone could come up with that, there's gotta be a way to make it real. After all, everything started with an idea, and some of them were bat *** crazy: at the time, someone thought people would be flying in the air like birds, travel under the sea or into space, crazy...
Joke aside, we take it for granted that the laws of physics equally apply throughout the universe. And all we are going off is based on our local observations and EM waves that came hundreds of thousands of years ago from elsewhere. For all we know, most of the stuff up there is already gone, we just haven't gotten the updated "image" of it yet.
I believe eventually we'll violate the spatial geometry just like we violated everything else. Humans are pesky creatures when it comes down to it. If there's a will, there's a way.
TrainzLuvrWatching some videos on YouTube, you can see it in the eyes of some hosts and their body language. They are trying so hard to "do things right", every tiny detail matters and they are very methodical about it. Yet, all they really want is to run a few trains around, have a beer and relax after a long day at work. But they can't, because the trains must operate like the prototype, and stay in staging between the op sessions. Their layout has become a show-room, similar to what some people have in their homes. Glass cabinets filled with porcelain figurines, and 18th century style furniture. Nobody really goes in there to sit and enjoy it, lights are always off. Only guests are being paraded through, on occasion, for the show. Is this then really a "fun" hobby, they way it is?
Wow, that's completely foreign to my experience. Some people are more serious and purposeful, some less so. But I’ve never met anyone who was doing something with the hobby that they did not find enjoyable. (I’m not talking about a tedious or pesky task, but their overall concept and approach.)
TrainzLuvrAre people truly enojoying it because all their car-cards are sorted, the rail looks prototypical (hand-laid code 70), and all the LDEs have proper spacing and selective compression?
Some are -- a lot! After all, they worked hard to make it that way. Why else would they do that with their own time and money? Others enjoy the hobby in different ways – and if someone is having fun, they are doing it right. Heck, one of my clients had me design a Warner-Brothers-cartoon-themed layout; complete with roadrunner/coyote/train tunnel gag (among others).
If a detailed layout reflecting prototype practices is not what you want – then don't do that! You might find it easier to feel confident about your choices if you had a concept, theme, etc. identified for yourself ... and then you could compare choices against that theme. But that’s really a broken record from me, I know.
TrainzLuvrMost will say they are, but I believe that deep inside they are not being honest to themselves. They are saying it because the community they belong to conditioned them to "fall in line", or be excluded.
I think you completely misjudge the vast majority of model railroaders, again based on my experience. And it sort of insults their character and intellect. It’s a very individualistic hobby -- and that seems obvious to me from looking at the pages of nearly any magazine.
I could provide many examples, but it feels like we've been down this path multiple times before in multiple venues, and so I’ll bow out of this thread. Sincerely, good luck.
Edit:
P.S.
TrainzLuvrYes, I could pay a professional designer to plan a layout for me and be bona fide. In the process, the layout becomes someone elses interpretation of my ideas, fused with "accepted" norms, rules and standards that the community had put onto itself.
By the way, that's 180° opposite of the way I personally work with clients. The layouts have come in all shapes, sizes, concepts, themes, and approaches (only a portion of which have been published). Would you suggest that my Warner Brothers-loving client was conforming to someone else's view of how he should do model railroading?
You’d be wrong.
Hi cuyama,
I'm not sure why you keep doing this "hit and run" tactic, as if I'm calling you out on something?!
I really have utmost respect for what you do, your experience in the hobby, and look up to your posts for professional advice.
In my last post I put out my personal opinion and said that many would probably disagree with it, although that does not necessarily make it a wrong one. You just might be passing on a judgement too soon. :)
Human nature is a tricky thing and people might appear one way but actually are polar opposite deep inside, sometimes without even knowing it themselves. That's why I said that *honest* introspection helps, regardless what the subject matter is.
Our behaviour is highly regulated, not just by our genetics, upbringing and beliefs (the within), but even more by our environment and outside influences (the without).
IIRC, Richard Bandler (co-creator of the field of Neuro-Lingusitic Programming) once said that we continously "hypnotize" (actually entranse) each other in our daily interactions, and that most of the time we don't even notice it happening.
With the advent of advanced media (TV, video, internet) the flickering happening all over it is more than enough to cause it. And being subliminal, the subject would not even know it is happening.
Sorry to go off-topic again. :)
TrainzLuvrI'm not sure why you keep doing this "hit and run" tactic, as if I'm calling you out on something?
Nothing personal, I simply don't want to waste my time and yours with more advice that you seem not to find useful.
I shouldn't have dropped back into this thread after making that decision previously.
Good luck.
Over and out.
I fully intend on having my design reviewed by a professional before one section of flex goes down. I don't have the time, really, to have to do this all over again. Changes here and there - sure. Fill my basement then tear it down because it's not working out? Not gonna happen. It has to be "right enough" the first time. I've somewhat proven I can create workable designs that reflect my interests and the compromises I'm willing to make, via peer review like posting my ideas on forums like this, but this layout will be the largest undertaking I've ever attempted. I don;t work at Michael Rose's speed, so building my 5th layout in this space is just something that won't happen.
My thinking so far has been amazingly similar to Alan's, only int he reverse - my upper deck will play more of a supporting role. Some mines, truck dumps - maybe one large scene, the rest moostly trains running in scenery. Flipping it wouldn't work, I think, as the upper deck represents more of the mountain region of the railrooad, and also is at the top of the helix which represents the climb up, figuratively and literally. The main yard and engine terminal being at the base of the helix serves the double duty of being a division point where the flatland power can be switched out for mountain power. (these design concepts have been drilled in my head from repeatedly reading and re-reading Armstrong - hmm, might be time to give TPfRO another read, actually. I do also read other sources - the one kind of article I NEVER skip in any publicatioon is one on design)
As such, most of my upper deck will be narrow, giving a full view of the lower. Shorter people may have issues seeing everything on the upper deck, but that's one of my health-related compromises, setting the lower deck too low would kill my back building and operating it. Seated operation, well, I'd like a softer surface in the aisles than bare concrete or a hard flooring material that would allow easy rolling of chairs, plus I'm not a huge fan of track magnets everywhere for uncoupling, I'm a skewer kind of guy, which would in many cases mean constantly getting up out of the chair to uncouple, then sitting back down again, Might as well get it to a mostly comfortable height and just stay standing.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
cuyamaNothing personal, I simply don't want to waste my time and yours with more advice that you seem not to find useful.
I'm sorry that you see everything black and white - your way or the highway. All the best.
TrainzLuvrIn my last post I put out my personal opinion and said that many would probably disagree with it, although that does not necessarily make it a wrong one.
This is all too typical in online forums in general. The guy who has done basically nothing but read and post in the forums elevates himself to the status of equal to those with dozens of years of experience and declares his own opinion to be just as valid.
"A man's got to know his limitations" - Dirty Harry
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.
I'm not sure what yoou are reading in to Byron's postings that makes you think this way. You seem to be working on the concept that if you engage a professional layout designer's services, you will get back their railroad that fits your space. While I'm sure you cna have it done this way, this is not the standard way anyone I've ever heard about works. It's what YOU want, in a way that best fits the space available, meeting as many of YOUR goals as practical. In short, you get out of it what you put in to it.
Frankly, if you can't clearly state your goals and desires, you're not going to be able to design a layout for yourself, let alone engage a professional design service. And if you aren't at a point where you can make those decisions, this is where the 'chainsaw' layout comes in. Experience gained is not money wasted. Those who ended up with their perfect dream layout first go-around are few and far between. On the contrary, the ranks of even the well-known 'famous' model railroaders who have torn up and started over again (and not because of a move) is filled with a who's who list of names.
carl425This is all too typical in online forums in general. The guy who has done basically nothing but read and post in the forums elevates himself to the status of equal to those with dozens of years of experience and declares his own opinion to be just as valid.
carl425,
Obiviously my post struck a nerve, if you had to reply to it this way. Furthermore, your post could be considered an "argumentum ad hominem," though I won't bother pursuing it with the "management"...
TrainzLuvrObiviously my post struck a nerve
Frankly, it did. I found it offensive. You basically insulted the whole hobby. You have been procrastinating for almost a year, never built a layout, yet presume to tell the rest of us we're doing it wrong.
Perhaps the tent isn't that big after all. Maybe you'd be more comfortable in another.
TrainzLuvr...I'm still trying to figure out how to compress the aisles....
I'd suggest not compressing the aisles, especially if you intend to go with a doubledeck.While I do have one place that could be termed a pinch-point, I could pass my twin in it, although not some of my friends. The area that's double decked (with the upper deck as deep as or deeper than the lower) works for me because of the aisle width, and the layout was actually designed, more-or-less on the fly, around aisle width. I didn't ever have a trackplan - it's basically a single track around the room, with a passing track/runaround in each town, and as many industrial sidings as I could squeeze in - what's to plan?.It's not suited to multiple operators (thankfully), but the wide aisles allow use of the rolling office chairs for lower level operations and most of the upper level (and the single level portion) can be opperated while standing. The aisle width also allows for easy movement of the step stools, when needed.The main drawback of the two levels is that most of the turnouts on the lower level need to now be modified for remote operation, instead of the ground throws with which they were originally equipped. A few on the upper level will require the same changes.Other than the need for the couple of "fill" lights which I mentioned previously, I'm satisfied with the lighting and with the operational possibilities afforded by the second level.The lower level is 1"x4" open grid, while the upper level is 1"x2" open grid with front members of 1"x4", mainly to facilitate installation of toggle switches for track isolation and control knobs for turnouts. The grid is topped with 5/8" t&g plywood, and supported by brackets of welded angle iron lag-bolted to the wall studs. The deep portion at the end of the aisle (first photo in my original reply to this thread) will support my full weight, as I discovered when I realised that I couldn't reach or see to paint the far side of the rails on the curve there - I literally became my own "top-side creeper".
I think that if your aisles aren't useful, your layout won't see much use.
Wayne
@doctorwayne
In my revised plans based on #40 and #42/43, I changed the aisle space to be around 36" in general widest sections. The pinch points are 27-30" and extend only for a foot or so.
With that I had to compromise on the benchwork depth, but in the long run it should be worth it to provide better viewing options for the lower deck.
I kind of like your idea of designing around the main line and aisle width, with as many passing sidings and industries as can be fit (accounting for the longest train length).
My current thinking is that if I put a yard at 24-30" depth I would not have an upper deck any deeper than 12-14" above it. It makes no sense putting anything of importance (industrial switching for example) above the yard that would cause interruption in the yard operation. Since the upper deck would be that narrow, the valance above it would have to extend over the yard to illuminate it evenly.
You said you used angled iron brackets to support the upper level, were these custom made? How deep/wide are these brackets and do they reach beyond half the depth of the benchwork they support?
How did you handle the issue of levelling the upper benchwork front to back, or was it an issue at all?
TrainzLuvr carl425 This is all too typical in online forums in general. The guy who has done basically nothing but read and post in the forums elevates himself to the status of equal to those with dozens of years of experience and declares his own opinion to be just as valid. carl425, Obiviously my post struck a nerve, if you had to reply to it this way. Furthermore, your post could be considered an "argumentum ad hominem," though I won't bother pursuing it with the "management"...
carl425 This is all too typical in online forums in general. The guy who has done basically nothing but read and post in the forums elevates himself to the status of equal to those with dozens of years of experience and declares his own opinion to be just as valid.
I had taken quite a hiatus from this forum, only to return to find many of the veteran posters and helpful folks have since "retired" from an active role here...
And yet here you are, promoting yourself to the saddle of a high horse trying to preach what's wrong with the hobby...
You have completely ignored or misinterpreted the advice and wisdom shared, instead taking a defensive stance...
This space reserved for SpaceMouse's future presidential candidacy advertisements
TrainzLuvr...You said you used angled iron brackets to support the upper level, were these custom made? How deep/wide are these brackets and do they reach beyond half the depth of the benchwork they support? How did you handle the issue of levelling the upper benchwork front to back, or was it an issue at all?
Yeah, the brackets were custom-made for me by my late brother-in-law. The vertical portion on all but one of these is 7.5" tall, and the angle iron is 1.5"x1.5". There's a 3.5" lag bolt into the wall stud near the upper end, and a wood screw of similar length near the bottom, mainly to keep the bracket perpendicular. The horizontal portion is 1"x1" angle iron, welded to the vertical piece, and all of the horizontal members extend the full depth of the sections which they support. There's one bracket different from the others, as it's installed on an outside corner of the room, and has two horizontal arms, extending at right angles to one another. The vertical portion here is hidden behind the coved backdrop, and is 22" long.In the photo below, a regular bracket can be seen in the foreground, and if you look closely, the two arms of the corner bracket can be seen in the distance, with just the top of the vertical member visible above the curved backdrop...
There was no issue getting the layout level front-to-back, as the brackets were welded in a fixture to ensure that they were at 90°.
The upper level framework was assembled in sections on the floor, and then lifted into place, affixed to the wall studs and to one another with screws. I then cut (outdoors) t&g 5/8" flooring plywood to fit the various areas. The main reason for using tongue & groove was to cut down on the number of sheets needed, as left-over portions could be fitted together, then cut to the proper width. The fitted joints help to keep scenic materials (ballast, glue, ground foam, etc.) from seeping through onto the mostly-finished lower level.
If I had thought a little further ahead, I could have mounted the brackets before drywalling the room, but the drywalling was done before the layout was even started and I had no idea at the time that it would end up with a partial second level.
Friend of mine is building a layout that will have 3 layers in some palces (there's a raised floor - so effectively 2 level layout). The upper ones are screwed directly to the wall studs, and then he is going back and using commercial right angle brackets (you can get tham at any of the big box stores) and using those on every crossmember that also hits a stud.
If using risers and subroadbed - absolute front to rear level is a non-issue. Just tilt the risers slightly so the subroadbed is level front to rear. It won't take much.
Ah, didn't think of t&g plywood - thanks for the tip. I've seen people use extruded foam in that way and never thought that the same could be done with plywood. Duh.
It appears that your brackets are not on every (16") stud, but instead spaced further apart (how far apart)? And does it cause any problems with the upper deck load?
I wonder if I could use angled brackets for both levels, it would save time on the benchwork construction even more. It would forefeit the risers and sub-roadbed and use up more plywood yet I could get both levels built in no time.
Found these ones online, and while they can carry 1,000lb each, they are expensive: http://www.rockler.com/heavy-duty-steel-shelf-brackets-white-finish
What I like about these is the curved portion which could be used to shape the backdrop and get a really nice sky.
@rrinker,
risers and sub-roadbed were my first option for levelling the main deck, although doing that on the upper deck would take way too much vertical space from below.
Now I'm thinking maybe I should just go with angled brackets on both decks and then shim the surface where needed to get front to back level.
Used same brackets except bought them from A&M Hardware. Painted sky blue to match backdrop.
Are your brackets also spaced further apart (32")?
A&M does not ship to Canada it seems, and Rockler is making $10 profit on each pair. That's almost 50%. :(
FOr 18" wide or narrower benchwork, if you build 1x4 box frames and screw those to the wall and then use something like these, at less than $3 each:
http://www.homedepot.com/p/Everbilt-2-in-Steel-Zinc-Plated-Corner-Brace-4-Pack-13611/203170052
you should be good.
For less than $4 each there are 6" long ones, might be better.
With the larger brackets, every other stud is plenty. It's a model railroad, not a walkway for elephants.
Really, those would be enough? They are just 2" on the side...
I was hoping to get away with using 1x3 instead of 1x4, to save on the thickness of the levels. And to cut maybe 2" wide inset 1/2" deep, on the bottom edge towards the front, where I could mount the LED lights
TrainzLuvr Are your brackets also spaced further apart (32")? A&M does not ship to Canada it seems, and Rockler is making $10 profit on each pair. That's almost 50%. :(
It varies depending upon the benchwork configuration. Many are on 48" centers. My benchwork is 1x4 ripped birch plywood. It doesn't require closely spaced support.
TrainzLuvr...It appears that your brackets are not on every (16") stud, but instead spaced further apart (how far apart)? And does it cause any problems with the upper deck load?...
The space between brackets varies from about 4' to 7'. There are only 8 brackets supporting the second level, which is about 45' long, measured at the edge of the aisle. One end of the upper level is supported by the lower level, while the other end is affixed to the wall, and the portion at the end of the aisle (first photo in my first reply, again) is fastened to the wall at its rear, and to the walls on either end - it will support my full weight (and has). The rest, I'm not sure, but I have no need to be on top of those areas, as I can easily reach to the backdrop from the aisle. It's certainly sturdy enough that I can lean my weight on it, when working from a step stool, without it deflecting, when I have to reach to press in track nails or grab a tool near the backdrop.
I have no idea what the weight of the upper deck might be, but it's mostly 1"x2"s and plywood, plus, eventually structures and scenery. I'll be doing the landforms (hills at best) using extruded foam, but for the most part they'll function as view blocks to conceal un-modelled or barely-represented industries (a gravel quarry and a rendering plant) and to hide access to one of the staging yards, which is in another room.
The other ones at 6" long would be better than the 2" ones. Remember that the horizontal piece across the back is also screwed to the uprights, the brackets would not be the only thing holding it up. I'd post links but I don't know that he's posting the pictures to Facebook as public or only to friends. If you do a search on Facebook for public photos using the term Hershey Benchwork it looks like at least some of his photos show up. You can find the rest via those.