Hi,
As I've understood it double decks are fairly common, I was thinking of doing one of those with a staging yard below the lower level. Now, my question is this. Are there many triple decks out there? Are they feasible? I was just considering today that it would be possible to make a layout with three decks, with the upper deck at 160 cm, middle at 120 and the lower at 80 cm.
Is that feasible or just a bad idea? I would use a Helix between decks.
Magnus
wyomingrailfan wrote:feasible. there was a layout in the Great Model Railroads 2007 that was a triple decker, but the 3rd deck was still being built.
I like that one. It's one of my biggest inspirations.
Yes, mine is a triple decker, started in 1989. It fills an area 28ft by 35 ft, uses a helix from top to middle, a long hidden grade from middle to bottom. All three decks are visible and most of the bottom deck is sceniced. You can check it out using my layout link.
Bob
forgot the link. www.atsfmodelrailroads.com/
pastorbob wrote: You can check it out using my layout link.Bob
You can check it out using my layout link.
Where is that?
Lillen wrote: wyomingrailfan wrote:feasible. there was a layout in the Great Model Railroads 2007 that was a triple decker, but the 3rd deck was still being built. I like that one. It's one of my biggest inspirations. Magnus
That would be my Mississippi Alabama & Gulf layout. I'm glad you enjoyed it! I thought you might be interested in a photo of the layout before and after the third level was added.
Before:
After:
My deck heights are 30 inch staging, 40 inch lower and 57 inch upper. I am currently adding a 16 inch lighted valance from the ceiling to give the "shadowbox" appearance to all three levels. I began with conventional L-girder construction for the first two levels, but switched to a heavy-duty shelving system for the top. If I were starting over, I would incorporate this system for all three levels.
My light valance will utilize the same low-watt fluorescent bulbs I used to light the middle level. Egg crate diffuser sheets will eliminate the harshness of the overhead light to the viewer. I should have construction completed and photos posted to my website in the next few weeks.
I encourage you to check into a multi-level layout. In my case it increased the size of the layout from 206 square feet to 618! This was well worth the 36 square foot space of the helix, which, btw, is not included in those figures. Truth be told, if I had a 618 square foot space for a layout, I would still probably triple deck it to 1854!!
Unfortunately, that would also be my total living space after the divorce.
Cliff Powers
www.magnoliaroute.com
Yes, that was an early mock-up of the Napoleon Avenue Wharf warehouse on my New Orleans level. The finished model was kitbashed from four Walthers rolling mill kits. The roof, which is 8-feet long, is removable for access to the 5-track staging yard hidden in the building. Here are some photos of it from my website. There are more in the "third level progress" photo gallery if you are interested.
Cliff, thanks a LOT for showing that.
Ever since I read about your layout I've been fascinated by it. It's been a huge inspiration of mine since it contains so many features that I would like as well. I have another thread right now on the forum about proper boats since I want to include that and I also want a huge passenger station. So when I read your article it just hit me as pretty much perfect for what I was going for. The room I will rebuild to house railroad is slightly smaller. It's only 4*8,5 meters. But is should be enough. The Helix which I plan to use a 100 cm radius will be placed in a room next to that layout space so it doesn't interfere.
The basic idea of your track plan is the one that I keep changing when trying to fit it with what I got and want. For example I want a 36" minimum radius so the Blobs will have to be larger.
I will be going with a shadowbox as well since I really like the way it looks and saw some excellent ways of putting in lightning on Joe Fugates DVDs. I think it makes a model railroad looks more professional.
Thanks again for showing me. Any advice you would like to give me from problems that you came across?
Lillen wrote:I would use a Helix between decks.
I would use a Helix between decks.
Be sure to check out the 4-page, "Construct a simple and reliable helix," in the April 2008 Model Railroader. This helix is being used to connect a triple decker. The benchwork pictures are a welcome addition to any collection of helix-how-to.
The rest of this month's issue is also makes it a very worthwhile purchase.
The best comprehensive helix primer article I have seen to date is the 6-page, "A primer on helix design," found in the 1997 Model Railroad Planning, or as a PDF Station download.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
pcarrell wrote:My own layout currently under construction is a double decker with a staging deck under that. I don't really classify it as a triple decker as the bottom level is only 6" under the one above it, it doesn't have any scenery (obviously), and it shares the same benchwork as the bottom sceniced level.
My own layout currently under construction is a double decker with a staging deck under that. I don't really classify it as a triple decker as the bottom level is only 6" under the one above it, it doesn't have any scenery (obviously), and it shares the same benchwork as the bottom sceniced level.
Phil:
This looks like a partial staging solution to add into my N Scale CR&T double deck planning for the PRR (Class I) layout portion whereas the short line, the traction layout portion in my case is mostly motive power with a some local freight delivery from a Pennsy interchange.
One of the advantages of taking your good 'ole time in layout design, room preparation, and a trackage/overhead practice module - is to be able to plan ahead while adding an idea like this one.
tgindy wrote: Lillen wrote: I would use a Helix between decks. Be sure to check out the 4-page, "Construct a simple and reliable helix," in the April 2008 Model Railroader. This helix is being used to connect a triple decker. The benchwork pictures are a welcome addition to any collection of helix-how-to. The rest of this month's issue is also makes it a very worthwhile purchase.The best comprehensive helix primer article I have seen to date is the 6-page, "A primer on helix design," found in the 1997 Model Railroad Planning, or as a PDF Station download.
Lillen wrote: I would use a Helix between decks.
Thanks for the sugestions. I got both the articles. I back ordered every issue of Great model railroads and model railroad planning as inspiration when I plan my next layout. The Helix issue(1997) was very good.
tgindy wrote: One of the advantages of taking your good 'ole time in layout design, room preparation, and a trackage/overhead practice module - is to be able to plan ahead while adding an idea like this one.
I agree! I'm not going to lay a piece of track for atleast half a year I think. First I have to insulate and renovate the room/house that the layout will be in. This gives me plenty of time to search books and the Internet for ideas. it also gives me plenty of time to ask stupid questions.
tgindy wrote: pcarrell wrote:My own layout currently under construction is a double decker with a staging deck under that. I don't really classify it as a triple decker as the bottom level is only 6" under the one above it, it doesn't have any scenery (obviously), and it shares the same benchwork as the bottom sceniced level. Phil:How many tracks do you have in your 'below deck' staging area?Also, is there trackage access from one end, or both ends of the staging area? This looks like a partial staging solution to add into my N Scale CR&T double deck planning for the PRR (Class I) layout portion whereas the short line, the traction layout portion in my case is mostly motive power with a some local freight delivery from a Pennsy interchange.One of the advantages of taking your good 'ole time in layout design, room preparation, and a trackage/overhead practice module - is to be able to plan ahead while adding an idea like this one.
The staging area is mostly a foot wide shelf that runs a wall with 4 tracks one way and 1 the other, then it turns a corner to a turnback blob and where it turns the corner I added a cutoff to make it so the turnbck blob can also function as a reversing loop, and then I double tracked the loop for one more holding track. I can basically hold 5 full length trains in staging, one to run and four waiting. I could add a sixth train if I ran two in staged series. Here's a shot video I shot when I was testing the track out. (The close drop-offs have all been fixed since this time. http://s83.photobucket.com/albums/j319/pcarrell/Autumns%20Ridge/?action=view¤t=262699db.flv The video starts with the train heading out of staging and into the sceniced live interchange, then back to staging. You can tell what will one day be sceniced because I used Atlas code 80 track (this IS N scale you know) for the staging because it's cheap and bulletproof, and the sceniced parts are all Atlas code 55. The first turnout on the code 55 is one of the newer #10 turnouts. Pretty, ain't she? As you can see, the sceniced level above is yt to be added, but I was thinking along ther lines of what Brunton did with his layout in this pic: http://www.railroad-line.com/forum/data/Brunton/2008316183015_08-03-16_Glenrock_Scenery_Foam_Carved.JPG (Hope you don't mind Mark).
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
R.T. Poteet,
My lower level is at eye level from my very comfortable office chair on wheels!
Magnus,
QUITE feasible. Our local club layout is a triple-decker, with the top two levels being visible mainline and the bottom level being "hidden" staging/storage.
Robert Beaty
The Laughing Hippie
-----------------------------------------------------------------
The CF-7...a waste of a perfectly good F-unit!
Then it comes to be that the soothing light at the
end of your tunnel, Was just a freight train coming
your way. -Metallica, No Leaf Clover
pcarrell wrote:Pretty, ain't she?
Pretty, ain't she?
Yes-sir-ee-bob! Good input.
pcarrell wrote: R.T. Poteet, My lower level is at eye level from my very comfortable office chair on wheels!
R. T. POTEET wrote: pcarrell wrote: R.T. Poteet, My lower level is at eye level from my very comfortable office chair on wheels! You most probably are not approaching sixty eight years of age with legs suffering from a reaction to ZOCOR either; I'm like the midget married to the Amazon and that's as far as I can go with it. When the lower lever is at eye level my upper level is going to be in the clouds; one level at a time thank you!!!
No, you got me there. I'm in my mid 40's and quite flexible, despite my love handles.
I've been thinking real hard! I've come up with an idea. I'm not to sure it's plausible. It's more an idea then an actual plan so please. No name calling OK?
Basically my idea is a version of a mushroom and a multideck. At the lowest level, 80 cm of the base floor, then the next 120, then 160 and then the last 200cm of the base floor.
Now, the lowest would only be accessible from the right side and the top one would only be accessible from the left side. This very detailed plan in the picture depicts the peninsula. On the left side the floor would be 40 cm higher. That way the lowest shelf and the highest shelf would be at the same level. On the sides along the walls there would be no 200 cm shelf to the right and no 80 cm shelf to the left.
The advantage that I see is that I could make the top and bottom penninsuala very wide. One of them, the top could have the passenger station, the bottom could have the ships and just a lot of water behind them to increase the depth of the scene.
Is this just to stupid to work? I know it's kind of weird but it's an interesting and probably unprobable thing to do but I would like some feed back.