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.
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"...
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
@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?
YouTube Channel
Website
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
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
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.
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.
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.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
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. :)
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.
Byron
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.
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.
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!
Alan
Freelancing the LK&O Railroad
@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.
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
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).
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.
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.
lifeontheranchThat is a no-brainer.
One would think so, wouldn't one?
Yet many folks don't heed that suggestion.
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.
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.
cuyamaAs has been stated before in these threads, modulating deck widths on upper and lower decks improves visibility and access, reduces construction complexity and cost, and eases lighting issues in many locations. The broken record continues: building benchwork after a track plan is finalized is almost always much more efficient than building benchwork first. And I'm out ... best of luck with your layout.
And I'm out ... best of luck with your layout.
Thanks for chiming in.
I am almost finished with my plan and I also like to be efficient and think few steps ahead. Lighting being an important part as it was said number of times above, it should be considered somewhere after the plan is done and before benchwork is made.
What is considered under "modulating" deck widths? How does it work if the upper deck is deeper than the lower for people who are taller?
ANd the compromise of how much less railroad I can have if I just do a single deck is the one that is just too great to make, so double deck it is.
I mocked up some deck heights using spare pieces of foam and some boxes.
Even my last layout, which was all rectangular sections for portability I didn't add in the benchwork lines to the plan until I was done with the track plan. The only time I've ever done benchwork first was back in the plain island layouts. On all but the last N scale layout I built, I didn't really have a track plan, I could have a 4x8 so I had a 4x8 table and came up with soemthign as I laid track. The N scale one I did build the benchwor first because ocne again it was going to be a plain island layout, but then I came up with a plan before I put any track down. Building around the room, I can't imagine building benchwork before I have a plan.
trainnut1250 My solution was to set them where I found them to be the best so that the one person who will spend the most time with the layout will be happy (that person is me).
My solution was to set them where I found them to be the best so that the one person who will spend the most time with the layout will be happy (that person is me).
Ditto.
Early on I made a scale drawing.
It was this drawing that caused me to reduce the lower deck depth to 1'. Given the role my lower deck plays in the railroad it works for me.
If you are trying to put twice as much railroad in the same space then the conventional arrangement has both decks the same depth or the upper deck shallower than the lower. Same depth decks are easier to uniformly light but visibility of the bottom deck suffers. Shallower upper deck increases visibility of both decks but is very difficult to light evenly. If you have sufficient ceiling height a mushroom design solves both problems but requires more engineering and detailed planning.
No matter how you shuffle it, double deck railroads have their drawbacks. It is a personal choice where to compromise but compromise you will. :)
As has been stated before in these threads, modulating deck widths on upper and lower decks improves visibility and access, reduces construction complexity and cost, and eases lighting issues in many locations.
TrainzLuvr @trainnut1250 I sort of have an idea the kind of lighting I'd like to put, and there are some great choices now with chip panels instead of LED strips. It seems to me that problem might be my own height (6'3"). It doesn't make it easy to find a nice spot for the upper and lower deck height, separation and depth where I can actually see the back edge of the lower deck without obstruction from the fascia above. Right now I've set my test benchwork at 43" lower and 59" upper. Having 24" depth on the lower level, 16" on the upper, I get some fairly harsh shadows from the light below the upper deck benchwork towards the front of the lower level. And this is with 3 rows of 3528 LED strips. I can't really go any higher on the upper deck as my spouse will need a step-stool to operate trains beyond 60" height, and I have no heart to do that to her. :) Dropping the lower deck below 43" makes me feel I'm in a helicopter, watching over the trains there. If the upper deck was deeper than the lower deck, then I wouldn't be able to see much on the lower deck. My spouse and anyone else shorter than me also couldn't operate the upper deck due to their short reach. I don't know if there's some happy in-between somewhere, aside from not going double deck, which is not a happy choice to me anyway as I'd be giving up another 80'+ of main line run on the upper deck...
@trainnut1250
I sort of have an idea the kind of lighting I'd like to put, and there are some great choices now with chip panels instead of LED strips.
It seems to me that problem might be my own height (6'3"). It doesn't make it easy to find a nice spot for the upper and lower deck height, separation and depth where I can actually see the back edge of the lower deck without obstruction from the fascia above.
Right now I've set my test benchwork at 43" lower and 59" upper. Having 24" depth on the lower level, 16" on the upper, I get some fairly harsh shadows from the light below the upper deck benchwork towards the front of the lower level. And this is with 3 rows of 3528 LED strips.
I can't really go any higher on the upper deck as my spouse will need a step-stool to operate trains beyond 60" height, and I have no heart to do that to her. :)
Dropping the lower deck below 43" makes me feel I'm in a helicopter, watching over the trains there.
If the upper deck was deeper than the lower deck, then I wouldn't be able to see much on the lower deck. My spouse and anyone else shorter than me also couldn't operate the upper deck due to their short reach.
I don't know if there's some happy in-between somewhere, aside from not going double deck, which is not a happy choice to me anyway as I'd be giving up another 80'+ of main line run on the upper deck...
Trainz,
There you have it...the classic double deck conundrum. How do you accommodate viewers of different heights? The simple answer is that you don’t. No matter where you set the deck heights, someone will have an issue with the top deck being too high etc. My solution was to set them where I found them to be the best so that the one person who will spend the most time with the layout will be happy (that person is me).
Seems selfish? Possibly, but you do have an impossible situation on a certain level. I have several step stools around the layout for those who need them and it works out pretty well.
I set my decks at 40” and 60” with some variations due to grades. Deck separation is 20” between railheads most of the time. Top deck is 18” wide and bottom deck varies but is usually 24” wide. I found through mocking up that these dimensions worked best for me. Sounds like your specs are pretty close to that. You might want to have your wife check out any mock ups to make sure they work for her as well...
Alan,
I have lots of CPFLs on my layout. After 12 years of heavy use, I have replaced maybe a quarter of them. My story is the same as yours regarding the price and availability of LEDS at the time I was making lighting choices. I would definitely use LEDs now.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
rrinker I've had horrible luck with CFL bulbs, --Randy
I've had horrible luck with CFL bulbs,
I have heard others say the same but my experience has been quite the opposite. We have CFLs in many locations throughout our house. Some have been in place for a very long time. The CFLs in the garage are many years old and they get a lot of on-time.
I have noticed CFLs are not a good choice for enclosed fixtures. We have LED in our enclosed fixtures.
CFLs were at their height of popularity when I installed layout lighting. LEDs at that time were ridiculously expensive. I bought all my bulbs at the same time along with two dozen extra for replacements so as to avoid replacing with dissimilar bulbs. Considering I still have 23 spares it looks like I'll be using CFLs for quite some time. If I were installing fresh today then LED bulbs are the obvious choice.
I've had horrible luck with CFL bulbs, the only one that ever truly lasted were in the basement of my old house which were bare bulbs hanging from the ceiling. In this house, I replaced every bulb in the house with LEDs, they are definitely cheap enough now. Not a one has failed, even in enclosed fixtures - and the light over the sink in the kitchen sometimes is left on for 24 hours if I'm not around to turn it off (read: other people in the house never turn it off). I had one at the bottom of the basement stairs that I put a CFL in - twice in 3 months. I've since replaced it with an LED - 3 years and still good. My electric bill includes charts comparing year over year usage and since going all LED there is a noticeable drop.
But in the apartmetn I was in prior to moving here, I had replaced everything with CFLs - and was replacing them about as often as incandescents needed replacing. No savings there. That was over 8 years ago, maybe the CFLs are better, but so are the LEDs and there's no comparison.
TrainzLuvr @lifeontheranch You said that the lower deck has not been constructed yet. Is the upper deck going to be the main place where things are happening, because 32" is very low unless one is sitting in a chair?
You said that the lower deck has not been constructed yet. Is the upper deck going to be the main place where things are happening, because 32" is very low unless one is sitting in a chair?
Yes, the upper deck is the focal point of the railroad. The lower deck is staging, an interchange, and also to facilitate continuous run when desired. It will have a few small lineside industries to switch but mostly for staging.
Simplified lower deck track plan:
32" is the height of a typical dining room table. Not a great train viewing height but very reasonable for operating. Double deck arrangements are always a compromise. I compromised entirely on the lower deck to keep the upper deck at an ideal height. I am using #10 switches exclusively on the lower deck to help improve the view from the helicopter.
TrainzLuvr How often do you need to replace the CFLs because when all is added up over the years, it might be worth while just going LED right away? Why wait. :)
How often do you need to replace the CFLs because when all is added up over the years, it might be worth while just going LED right away? Why wait. :)
Knock on wood, I have only replaced a single CFL bulb out of the ~150 on the layout in 4 years. That one bulb only lasted maybe a few hours. Obviously, an isolated manufacturing quality control issue. Given the limited amount of on-time they see I don't expect to replace any for a very long time. The $ breakeven for LED bulbs would be way out in the future. Not a good investment.
TrainzLuvr Those cracked ice drop ceiling acrylic diffusers...do they make a textured light effect or is the light uniform across the surface below?
Those cracked ice drop ceiling acrylic diffusers...do they make a textured light effect or is the light uniform across the surface below?
The diffusers, well, they diffuse. They do a nice job of converting the lamp point sources into even diffuse light across the layout. So much so I plan on using them under the upper deck to provide the same diffusion for the lower deck lighting.
As always that's some top notch workmanship there.
TrainzLuvr Is it viable not to worry about lighting at the moment, as I'm about to start building the benchwork, and just make provisions for it during the construction? Or, is the lighting done while the benchwork is being constructed (along with the backdrops)?
Is it viable not to worry about lighting at the moment, as I'm about to start building the benchwork, and just make provisions for it during the construction?
Or, is the lighting done while the benchwork is being constructed (along with the backdrops)?
Building double deck layouts are usually pretty complex affairs with lots of inter-related steps. It is doable to make provisions for your lighting and work out details later.
I would definitely have at least have some idea of how to light the bottom deck before building the upper deck bench work. Things like baffling, deck thickness, wiring the lights and placement will need to be worked out somewhat in advance to avoid lots of annoying do overs..
Of course, there are things you won't be able to anticipate no matter how well you plan...I re-did lots of stuff in the process of building my current layout....