Top Deck Support on a Double-Deck Layout

[Pruitt]

Hello All,

My CB&Q in Wyoming is a double deck layout in most areas, with one area a peninsula and the others against the basement walls.

I'm starting prep work for top deck construction, and was wondering if anyone had any experience in supporting an upper deck over a lower deck. I've got a couple of different ideas, but I wanted to hear some suggestions from others.

The requirements are: no legs from the lower level on the aisle edge of the benchwork, and no suspension system in the middle of the top deck aisle edge. In other words, no view blocks!

That leaves basically two approaches - cantilevered legs off the back edge from the floor, and suspension from the ceiling joists at the ends of the benchwork (approximately a 22-foot span). The top deck benchwork is three feet most places.

Any ideas out there?

[orsonroy]

I've actually got two suggestions: reduce the width of the top level benchwork from 3 feet to under two (1 foot in most places), and keep the engineering to a minimum! (you're overthinking the project!)

My last layout was a three level multideck, and my new layout (I just moved) will be a two+ level multi. My lower level was mostly 2 feet wide, but my upper decks were almost all 1' wide. Having narrower decks above the base will allow you to get more room lighting to the lower decks, will allow easier access to the lower decks, reduce head bangs, and reduce claustrophobia (Ever stand in a long, narrow, badly lit hallway?).

Model trains don't weigh much of anything. Even O scale brass engines can easily be supported by 2" foam, 1/4" plywood, and U-channel stamped steel L-brackets. There's no need to suspend benchwork from the ceiling or build complex cantilevered supports. If your layout's support uprights are basically standard 2x4 studwall construction, just add horizontal 2x2s as your brackets, supported with a short 2x2 cleat and maybe some long arm steel L-braces.

Let me know if you'd lioke to see some photos of my old layout, and I'll email them to you offline. Basic layout construction is generally the best way to go in the long run, since it's cheaper, easier to build, and allows you to get trains moving faster!

[colvinbackshop]

Ray has it right...Go with a narrower upper level.
I do have mine wider (with the widest at 24") than he has had them, but keep in mind that the wider they are the more support they will need, and the harder they will be to work on and to do maintenance.
Check out Linn Westcott's book "Building Model Railroad Benchwork". He has a lot of great information over all and addresses your questions regarding multilevel benchwork. I built a variation of his "multilevel wall bracket" to support my upper level layout and it has worked great.
You mention a peninsula...If you are going to make that multilevel, a modified Westcott style bracket, making it a "T" supported by the lower level works well.
Jim Hediger has a great idea also, using a cross buck type of support. It's in a back issue (way back, like mid-90's...maybe) of MR...Don't remember which one, but it's out there.
I, like, Ray would be happy to share any photos I have on this method...Just drop me an email.

[Anonymous]

I have a related question for you experienced folks . . .

My bottom level will be 24 inches wide. My top level will be 16 inches wide except at yards where it may become 24 inches wide. How far apart (vertically) should the two levels be for room lighting? Thanks

[orsonroy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cablebridge
My bottom level will be 24 inches wide. My top level will be 16 inches wide except at yards where it may become 24 inches wide. How far apart (vertically) should the two levels be for room lighting? Thanks

That's completely up to your tastes and what sort of grades you can realistically squeeze into your layout area. On my old layout, the average space between decks was only 8"-12". That's because I was trying to squeeze in multiple decks into an area that BARELY fit that sort of design. I had around 90 feet of horizontal run between decks, which isn't all that much. On my new layout, I'll have much more run between decks (I estimate 125 feet), which will allow me to get more space between decks. My new goal is between 12"-16" between levels. I've run on large multilevel layouts where the average deck space was around 20"-24", and they looked great. Unfortunately, that meant that the upper deck was always a tad high. I'm 6'2", and my comfortable upper deck height is around 52"; these layouts had the upper deck hovering around the 60"-65" range! (WAY too high)

But even with decent seperation between decks, the lower will always be a bit too dark. I illuminated my lower decks with C9 Christmas tree lights, which helped a lot. I'm looking for cheap compact mirrors for my new layouts, to add above the bulbs as reflectors.

[dgwinup]

Hi, Mark.

Good suggestions from orsonroy and colvinbackshop. (Hey, guys, how about posting those pics here so we all can enjoy them?) Reducing the width will reduce the amount of weight that must be supported. Although model trains are light-weight, some scenery isn't.

I think you are going to be limited to cantilevered shelves. Even with light-weight materials on the upper deck, spanning a 22 foot space would require an engineering marvel. The weight of the support material would be more than the span could handle. You would have to have more suspension points than just the two ends, even if the back edge is mounted to a wall.

There is one possibility of using a two-point suspension. If your trackplan will allow it, you could install a support in the middle of the upper level between it and the lower level. The support could be disguised with scenery that extends between the two levels. Tunnels would pass trains to either side. The scenery could provide a view block between different scenes on either side of the support. Just a thought. Otherwise, it's back to a completely cantilevered upper level.

Cablebridge asked about lighting. Lighting a lower deck is a challenge, not so much for getting light into the area as to keeping the heat levels down. Flourescents are an option, but you need good separation between the levels, otherwise the light on the lower level will be much brighter than the upper level and look unnatural. Incandescents add heat below the upper level, but should give you good light levels. Small low-voltage lights work well. Rope lights, with many small bulbs in a plastic tube also work well. Remember to do the math for power consumption. It doesn't take too many lights to overload a circuit.

Cablebridge, the separation between levels is a personal and planning choice. With your shelf widths, don't expect room lighting to supply enough light on the lower level. If your lower level is hidden staging, you only need enough separation to be able to reach your trackwork for maintenance and re-railing cars and locos, and lighting requirements are reduced for staging areas. If you plan on scenery on the lower level, a much greater separation is needed, not only for access to the scenery but also for proper lighting. In HO, hidden staging separation can be as little as 7-8", enough to get your arm in to reach the track and equipment. With scenery, you would want more than 12", preferably 16-18". That almost always necessitates the use of a helix to connect the levels unless you have enough space to run along or around the walls in a nolix. You want to avoid steep grades as much as possible unless you are modeling something like a logging layout where steep grades are the norm.

Hope these comments help.

Darrell, the quiet one, being quiet...for now

[Anonymous]

Darrell,

Thanks for the quick reply. I was planning on a 24 inch seperation between levels, and I am using a helix, 30" radius (HO). Next question, if you care ... What is the height above the floor I should use? right now, I am planning on about 64 inches (top) and 40 inches (bottom). Is this untennable?

[colvinbackshop]

I'll have to get back on a number of these questions/requests (including photos, height, separation and even lighting...) But I will quickly reply regarding the separation issue and how to make it work...somewhat! Is it the best? Maybe not, but at least it works, giving both levels equal eye appeal.
My two levels are situated at a slight "down looking" angle. I know that if I'm out railfaning, I like to find a higher vantage point, and so my pike is set that way.
The upper level is just below eye level and the lower is about the same.....when operated from comfortable office chairs, on rollers!

[orsonroy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cablebridge
Next question, if you care ... What is the height above the floor I should use? right now, I am planning on about 64 inches (top) and 40 inches (bottom). Is this untennable?

I've seen 64" high benchwork on at least two layouts, and it's not pretty. With one, the upper deck layout is worked from ABOVE and behind, on an elevated platform. There's a backdrop in the way which yard crews have to reach over to get to trains. Engine crews pulling into the yard (which I think is really at about 75") are staring up at the underframes of their engines. The second is at around 68", and is also not fun to operate. Yard switch crews have to stand on step stools when running their engines, and this is on a 3' wide aisle, making it REAL fun to pass the yard guys when you're running on a lower level. Again, it's not naturally accessable.

What does this mean for a layout design? To me, it means keep yards LOW, so you can actually operate them comfortably. Having a high layout is supposed to improve your sense of standing next to real trains. That means that a layout should be no higher than the bottom of your nose when you're barefoot. I'm 6'2", which places that measurement at about 66". On my last layout, the highest my decks got was 58". That barely allowed me to reach in one foot to operate switch moves, without hopping up and down. On my new layout, the maximum height will be 54"-56".

As for the lower level, 40" sounds good. On my triple decker, the lowest yard was at 36", and was designed to be operated on a rolling office chair. Road engineers weren't in town long enough to care about how low the benchwork was.

[Pruitt]

Thanks for the comments, everyone.

I looked at Hediger's OS benchwork article in the Feb '83 MR - he spanned a 14' length with no supports, by creating a pre-stressed beam.

Thanks for the photos of your benchwork, Ray, they provided a lot of food for thought.

I'm thinking I may try steel plate as a stiffener - two 10-foot lengths of 4" wide by 1/4 inch thick A36 steel spliced together in the center with another of the same plate about three feet long. This would tend to twist and sag in the center under load, but that can be easily avoided by fastening the steel to the wood grid construction I'll be using for the upper deck. The total weight of the steel would be about 80 pounds - easily supported by colums or suspension cables at each end, and able to take a tremendous load - much more than my layout will ever impose - before showing any signs of buckling. Total cost shouldn't exceed $1.00 a pound for the plate (flame cut and unmachined), all primed and ready to install. If the cost is reasonable, I may even be able to get the supplier to pre-drill for the splice plate......

Hmmm.....

I'm sure this is way over the top!

[randyaj]

My two decks are24-30 inches wide on the bottom deck and 12-18 inches on the top. How I have built the top deck is a little complicated but I will try to explain it. When I built the bottom deck I ran the backdrop in one piece and tied it into the floor joists above. The top deck is screwed into the studs in the backdrop. To maxiumize the viewing of the bottom I used 1x4 on the back and 1x2 on the front with the supports in between cut at a tapering angle to match. This gives me an additional two inches of viewing plus with the angle can draw the eye in as well. I ran a 1" angle iron down from the front of the top deck to the rear of the bottom every 10'. This will be painted to blend as much as it can and is really not that visable. I am using a 18 inch gap between decks at the hieght of 35 and 53 inches. Whatever you decide know that a two deck layout has to have some compromises. We would all love to have a giant room where the layout could be one level with sweeping 50 or 60" curves and miles of track between towns but that is not possible for most of us.
Good luck
Randy

[jfrank138]

Alas, separate levels are necessary to achieve today's "sincerity" (as the late John Armstrong called it), i.e., a train passes through each scene only once in getting from point A to point B.

On my 16' x 32' O-scale basement layout under construction I have decided to ignore today's "once through each scene" religion and combine my "levels" into one level.

My hobby hero Frank Ellison allowed the trains on his point-to-point Delta Lines to pass through a scene several times in getting from one terminal to the other. On some laps around the basement they might be partially hidden behind a row of trees, or slightly elevated at the rear of the bench, or diving under the surface of the bench via a deep cut. In his imagination they were somewhere else as they build up the miles in getting from A to B.

Why not? If I can "imagine" that my 12-car freight is 50 cars long and that my "selectively compressed" buildings are three times larger than they actually are, then I ought to be able to imagine that my trains are crossing vast distances even if they use the same one-level benchwork on each circuit of the basement.

I guess these thoughts are fodder for a different thread -- one on layout design philosophy. But I think the Ellison approach is preferable to multi-level "sincerity" if the latter compromises maintainability, lighting, and convenience and requires the trains to be hidden in a helix for a protracted period of time as they gain the elevation necessary for another level.

All design approaches are valid of one is having fun!

John

[Anonymous]

On a past model railroad club we had a free standing sectional layout with two decks. The layout was mounted on castered cabinets in sections up to 18 feet long designed to move from location to location. The curved sections tilted 90 degrees down into the cabinets so to pass through a standard doorway. The over all weight was a consideration. To keep this down we used the following for the top deck.
The central spine for the straight sections was 3/4 inch plywood which extended down into the cabinets. The curves were made from two sheets 1/16 inch plywood glued back to back. This created a very strong curved spine support.
The top decks two to three foot wide over hang, was supported on 2 inch wide vertical strips of 1/2 plywood. The two inch strips were notched one inch deep for the thickness of the spine where they crossed the spine. One inch square by 2 inch long wood blocks were screwed at the joints to the spine to re-inforce and stiffen the connection.
When the 1/2 inch plywood decking was screwed to the top of the plywood risers using more one inch square wood blocks the whole deck became quite stiff and solid.
The inside of a curve on the lower level was left open when the upper deck spaned a 6 foot gap using the same 2 inch by 1/2 inch plywood stringers and cross beams forming a box beam with the plywood deck. The two long stringers were notched over the central spine at each end to keep the curve in shape.
The finished deck was 3 inches thick and concealed lighting and wiring harnesses very well and did not detract from the viewing of the upper and lower decks.
If you are planning to get up and walk on your top deck by all means build it securely and solidly.
If the only use for the top deck is to support model trains then it does not need massive structural engineering. Ever built a balsawood airplane and noticed how stiff and strong all that thin wood became?
All parts of the deck would be reachable from the aisle and not need to support the weight of the builder.

[doctorwayne]

I'm working on adding a second level to about 2/3 of my around-the-walls type layout. In the double-decked area. layout height on the lower level is 38", the upper level will be 59". The width of the upper deck will vary between 21" and 36", equal to the width of the area directly beneath it. Train access to the upper level is via approximately 45' of 2.8% grade, shorter and steeper than originally planned due to the loss of about 200 square feet of layout room. The upper level benchwork will be 1"x2" pine, 16" o/c, with a deck of 3/8" sheathing plywood, all supported on custom-welded 1/2" angle iron brackets lag bolted to the wall studs. While the brackets are overkill as far as layout support is concerned, they'll be spaced appropriately to support 4' double fluorescent fixtures for lighting of the lower level. This should provide similar light intensities for both levels. The lower level is currently operated from rolling office chairs. Track work on the upper level will be easily accessible by standing operators: the majority of the 36" wide areas is for scenic effect and after installation should not be a problem.
If you're set on the 3' width, try to keep as much of the trackwork in the near half of that space, unless you're really tall with super-long arms. Depending on how you've lit the room, this width will really make the lower level dark, so be sure to plan for some supplemental lighting for that area.

Wayne

[randyaj]

I agree about the lower level lighting. Even though my upper deck is narrower that the bottom and the top deck benchwork is angled on the bottom to recieve more light, I have installed clear "christmas"lights on a string on the bottom of the top deck. These are small and not seen, and since they have a light every couple of inches they provide a constant source of lighting.
regards
Randy

[mrunyan]

You state no supports on the edges. Is there a skyboard in the middle of the lower deck? Use it to support the upper. That is what I'll do on my triple deck just for rigidity on the span. But a pole support from floor to ceiling at the peninsula end. Or if there are a few industries, run threaded rod and hide it inside a smokestack and cotton hiding the rest. Consider engineered lumber instead of steel. It is essentialy a steel I beam. Stiffer and lighter than dimensional lumber.
For cheap mirrors consider acrylic mirror tile, scribe and snap it into strips for behind the rope lights, or simply the shiny side of aluminum foil would help.

[Anonymous]

Another thought regarding supporting the upper deck is to use minimal profile supports such as dowels or 1" x 4" ripped so it's nominally 1" on all sides. You can hide/minimize their appearance by black/gray paint, trees, structures, etc.

[tomikawaTT]

I am a firm believer in using the modular shelving support systems which mount slotted steel channel vertically on 16" centers, with shelf brackets that hammer into the slots. The upper level is supported from the back, there are no aisle-edge view blocks and the resulting framework is more than adequately strong to support anything short of 1" scale live steam.

At present I am building a layout with several levels, all supported in the aforementioned manner. I have drilled the shelf brackets and screwed them to 1" by 2" horizontal joists, bringing the plywood sub-roadbed down to the tops of the brackets. Total upper level thickness, including 3/8" subroadbed, is less than 3" for a 24" wide shelf, and there is space for lower-level lighting (cheap miniature Christmas Tree bulbs) and all the upper-level wiring needed. A fascia of hardboard can be shaped vertically to match the scenery and bends easily for curved edges.

This system will probably NOT work for a peninsula unless there is a view block down the center that is both vertical and sufficiently strong to handle the twisting effect of the shelf bracket system. Of course, if the two sides of the peninsula allow a T-shaped upper deck, the twisting effects of the two sides will largely cancel each other out. (In my case, my peninsula has a non-structural stud wall somewhat off center. I can chin myself on a shelf bracket without generating any visible stress.)

[nobullchitbids]

Some thoughts on support and design:

Since the original spur for this thread mentioned a peninsula, allow me to remind all that one way to gain separation for the second deck is to use a continual grade up AND down on the peninsula, then transition this single-deck portion to double-deck in the way John Allen did it (Track Planning for Realistic Operation). If the upper deck is climbing while the lower deck is descending, 30 feet of transition effectively becomes 60 feet, which can give at least half again as much separation as before.

As for the anchoring, while I have yet to try this, why not use standard shelf supports anchored to the studs of your walls? These usually come in some form of arch design, and this will allow a backdrop to be form fitted to the wall and underside of the support, stiffening it. I would suspect that such a system readily could support an upper deck of at least 18 inches in width, and perhaps as deep as 24 inches. Install a valence on the edge of the upper deck (more stiffening) and use e.g. strings of Christmas-tree lights installed behind the valence (separate strings for the red, blue, and yellow, to create different times of the day). The curved backdrop, when painted "sky" with artist's oils, should reflect and scatter the light onto the deck below, and if a space is installed between the lower deck and the backdrop, there also will be room for backlights ("kickers") as well.

One caveat here is that one probably will have to have an electrician add at least one extra 15-20 amp circuit to the room for use by the lights only. Christmas-tree lights typically are 15 -Watt, or .0125 Amp. each (12 or 15 strings max on such a circuit with nothing else). Any spots or side lighting would be extra.

[colvinbackshop]

Regarding posting/attaching photos on this forum...I haven't figured that one out (I'm not that good at this computer thing), but I can share some of what I have going here at the Colvin Creek Railway.
I agree with John regarding two levels, making for a better "train through a scene once concept" and also making much better use of my available space.
My two levels are benchmarked at 56" and 32", with slight elevation changes on each of the levels. The levels are connected with a 5 turn helix on the end of the lower level peninsula (a bit of a space eater, but it was the best I could come up with, with out going into the other room) and I had ruled out the "around the room" helix idea, after I actually started with it because it really limited my scenicing possibilities.
With the valances in place and both fluorescent and "Christmas" lights right at valance level the light difference, one level compared to the other, isn't very bad. My valances also give a "modeled scene" of between 18 and 20".
I also agree that the modular shelving support system seems to be a great way to go....Had I thought of that or read about it, now years ago, I would have given it a try. As it is the Westcott style of wall brackets work very well, giving all the support I need and allowing a backdrop to be attached directly to them. They were time consuming to construct, but as easy to install as modular system would be.

[dgwinup]

colvinbackshop,

To post photos to the forum, they have to be downloaded from your computer to a website. Then they can be downloaded from that website to this forum.

Two very popular photo websites are railimages.com and photobucket.com. Both have a free album feature. I use both, but overall I prefer photobucket.

There is a procedure to post your pictures on this forum, but I can never remember the syntax for posting. On photobucket, below each picture in your album there are three different URL's, each with a different syntax. To post from photobucket to here, just right click on the last URL under your photo, copy it, return to the forum and paste that line into your comment. When you post your comment, the picture will appear in your post. Photobucket makes it EASY to post here!

Horizontal format photos on this forum can be enlarged just by clicking on them. Vertical format photos won't enlarge. Don't understand why, so I just make sure all my photos are horizontally formatted. You can also download drawings, layout plans, etc., onto photobucket. Then they can be added to your postings here.

Hope this helps.

Darrell, photo-happy, but quiet...for now

[jmozz]

i am thinking of a upper level too what is or what does a u channel stamped l bracket look like jmozz

[orsonroy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jmozz

i am thinking of a upper level too what is or what does a u channel stamped l bracket look like jmozz

Think of a length of steel, shaped like a U, and bend it in half (making it look like an L).

These are what I used: 10x12 for $.99 apiece:
http://www.thehardwarehut.com/catalog-product.php?p_ref=17985

[colvinbackshop]

Darrell:
Thanks for the information regarding posting photos.....But I'm still in the dark!
I went to www.photobucket.com and ended up at http//online-photography.com. or something along those lines. I didn't see or find anything there that would allow me to "use a service". I haven't tried the other site you mention...yet!
As earlier stated, I'm not good at this computer stuff...Maybe it's right in front of me and I can't see it, or....I'm just lost!
My quote for the day:
"Excuse me, I'm lost. I have gone to find myself. But...Should I return, before I get back, please ask that I stay and await further instructions."

[dgwinup]

colvinbackshop,

Try typing this into your browser address line: http://www.photobucket.com/

Type it just as you see it. (You can also copy and paste it into your browser.) It should take you to a page where you can join photobucket. Just click on the "Join Now" line and fill in the form. When you are registered and are on your album page, remember to save it to your computer so you can return to it easily. You can either bookmark it in your favorites list, or you can save it as an icon on your desktop or in a folder.

After you upload your pictures to photobucket, posting them here is easy. Just copy the correct URL line (the bottom one), and paste it into your comment. The picture will appear in your posting.

All this computer stuff takes time to figure out. It gets easier the more you do. My son has a computer at home. He calls me from time to time with a problem. Most of the time, the problem was caused by his 12-year old daughter re-setting stuff on the computer and he can't figure it out. I just tell him to get his daughter to fix it! LOL She knows more about it than I do!

Hope this helps.

Darrell, helpfully quiet...for now

[TomDiehl]

One layout design for a double deck layout I haven't seen listed here yet (in case you haven't noticed, conventional thinking is just not "ME") is one I saw MANY years ago, I believe, in Railroad Modeller Magazine, called the mushroom. The concept is simple, build a double decked layout in a peninsula using any of the framing methods listed above, then place a backdrop on the lower level on one side, and the backdrop for the upper level on the other side. Effectively, you won't be able to see both decks at the same time from the same place, (pass thru scene one time) and a bonus of the visual separation is that your layout will seem much larger. We did this at the club layout (the one I've mentioned before with the 5 loop helix), plus used an elevated walkway for the upper level. The layout is big, but this feature makes it even bigger.

[colvinbackshop]

Well...I've finely got some/have taken some time to go to "photobucket" and now have (I hope) some pictures to share.
This method is very strong, maybe stronger than necessary. I'm saying that I could park a car on it, but I can put a lot of my weight on it with out any trouble!


The Westcott style wall-bracket, modified slightly. Basically a "box beam" attached to a
2x4 and supported with an inverted leg and block. The short leg will be covered with scenery.

http://i28.photobucket.com/albums/c232/colvinbackshop/detail2.jpg


Details, a closer look, with the backdrop attached.


Mostly finished benchwork. The lower level support arms are attached/built "in place" once the wall-bracket is already attached to the wall. The lower level arms are supported by the wall-bracket and a leg to the floor.

[dgwinup]

colvinbackshop,

I see you got your pictures posted. Congrats!

Nice pictures, too! Bench looks strong enough for anything you want to put on it! Nice work!

Darrell, quiet...for now

[colvinbackshop]

And thanks Darrell for all your help with me getting the photos posted!
As a follow up:
I mentioned that the inverted brace would be covered with scenery. The three walls that have the wall-brackets attached also have the Sawyer Lumber RR, a point to point (actually point to interchange) running at a slightly higher elevation along the walls, dropping down to the upper level B.M. on the peninsula and the interchange.



Here is a scene where both the SLRR and the CCRY cross the Cloquet River. The SLRR crossing the river valley on "Long Bridge" and the CCRY crossing the river, but running in the valley.
The area in front of the CCRY line and again a step lower with yet another "rapids", is now a lake with a couple of islands. Over time the CCRY truss bridge has been replaced with a low profile girder bridge, making for a better view of the river and Bob, from "Bud & Bob's Outfitters" out there on a rock fishing for the brookies.