CNJ831 <snip> Let's look at a few of your points. You consider that lower-level lighting poses no problem at all. Was any consideration, or advice, given regarding the likelihood that the room itself may very well need to have an extra circuit, or other major electical work, done to handle the additional load if the proper number of additional lighting units is to be installed? I've personally seen several multi-deck layouts that required major electrical service work done for the layout to be adequately lit - a job that needs to be done professionally and commanding some big bucks.
<snip> Let's look at a few of your points. You consider that lower-level lighting poses no problem at all. Was any consideration, or advice, given regarding the likelihood that the room itself may very well need to have an extra circuit, or other major electical work, done to handle the additional load if the proper number of additional lighting units is to be installed? I've personally seen several multi-deck layouts that required major electrical service work done for the layout to be adequately lit - a job that needs to be done professionally and commanding some big bucks.
While lighting is a consideration, it doesn't need to be a huge extra expense. If you're already paying an electrician to wire the room for a single-level layout, having him install additional wiring for lighting a 2nd level should not cost all that much more -- presuming that that extra circuit is necessary (it might not be).
Was the fact addressed that building a proper multi-deck layout also requires far more carpentry ability than constructing the average island, or against the wall designs, which is generally supported by simple legs?. Poorly executed, the upper deck will be unstable and perhaps even a danger to the operator and his trains. And was consideration given to just how many hobbyists actually have a room really conducive to having a layout run completely, or nearly so, around the room without numerous doorways that need to be bridged, or especially room for those space-eating helices?
Funny. When building my 2-level layout, it didn't need any extra carpentry skills to drive a few screws into the wall studs for the brackets supporting the upper level than it took to build the lower level. If anything, it was far simpler than trying to build legs that were all the same height on a floor that isn't level.
As for bridging doorways... Yes, that is a definite challenge; however, not all plans would require any such bridges. Using loop-backs or switch-backs can eliminate the need to use either a helix or no-lix. All it takes is careful planning -- which we should be doing anyways.
Likewise, do you have any idea of just how few modelers work in groups to speed the building of each other's layouts? In my experience, the hobby is composed of about 90% more or less lone wolves, not of social clubs, or teams of hobbyists. This typically places the bulk of the work on the shoulders of just one person and unless he has considerable perseverance and a wide range of talents, he's more likely to fail in attempting a multi-deck/helix-equipped design than one of any other sort.
Perhaps the reasons many modellers give up working on their layouts is due more to (a) lack of time; (b) lack of money; (c) waning interest; and/or (d) life (work, family, etc.) than the fact they are attempting a multi-deck layout. Those reasons would be applicable to all modellers who give up regardless of the type of layout they are building -- beit single- or multi-level.
The point I make is that it is a huge step going from the typical simplistic and modest-sized island, L or U-shaped layout, to some large and complex multi-deck design. Certainly there are experienced hobbyists out there that can tackle such projects without hesitation but for probably something like 90% of the folks here, it's well beyond their apparent capabilities.
It is, of course a HUGE step to go from something simplistic and modest-sized to something large and complex. But that can be on a single-level layout just as much as on a multi-level layout.
Why does a multi-deck design automatically mean it is large and complex ? I've seen many single-level layouts that are far quite large and complex.
The complexity of a layout is not determined solely by how many levels it has.
With careful planning, a multi-level layout can be the answerfor some modellers. It is not a panacea. It does not suit everyone or every situation. Multi-level layouts do have challenges that single-level layouts do not face; but they also offer opportunities you won't find with single-level designs.
As I said before : All it takes is careful planning -- which we should be doing anyways.
chateauricher Perhaps the reasons many modellers give up working on their layouts is due more to (a) lack of time; (b) lack of money; (c) waning interest; and/or (d) life (work, family, etc.) than the fact they are attempting a multi-deck layout. Those reasons would be applicable to all modellers who give up regardless of the type of layout they are building -- beit single- or multi-level.
I would think that it could be that the complexity of the layout PLUS the other reasons for the putting aside of the project can all be reasons--there does not have to be a heirarchical valuation as to which was more, or less, than the other reasons.
chateauricher Why does a multi-deck design automatically mean it is large and complex ? I've seen many single-level layouts that are far quite large and complex.
Introduction of design elements involving increasing elevations and motive power I would have at my disposal might play a factor. A helix, nolix, or whatnot is not usually approached on a single level layout but if one goes 2 level or even 3 level---?
I'd think that there might be increases in complexity on that level. Then again, size does not seem to be an issue lately---
In a commercial we have up here regarding " chicken wings"--" when it comes to chicken wings---SIZE MATTERS" Maybe we're seeing an element here?
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Its amazing the number of people, that from what I know are not board moderators, who think they should monitor what informantion or opinions are shared on here. What a silly notion that we should "protect" people from hearing something that may encourage them to try something new or harder or bigger than they have done in the past. But I suppose that is just part and parcel with the "dumbing down" of our whole culture. Kind of like censorship in a communist country, we need to be "protected" from ourselves.
My layout is currently undergoing a rebuilding from a previous multi deck plan. The new plan revised the track plan slightly and will allow most of the layout to be moved in sections at a later date.
My layout is multi deck. Two scenic levels and a stagging level. I fills an 880 sq ft room (22 x 40). But as some others have said, size and complexity are two different things. I have only one freight yard, one large through passenger terminal, one engine terminal. The upper level is almost intirely mainline running through open country with very few industries or secondary trackage.
The lower level is nearly filled by the freight yard, engine and passenger terminals and industrial trackage, and is mostly urban scenery. The yard areas are large to allow handling of long trains, one of the principal goals of the layout. The freight yard is 7 tracks all over 18' long. The passenger terminal is 4 tracks over eight feet long.
The mainline is continuious double track and runs through hidden staging below the lower level. Minimum radius is 36", max grade is 1.8%. Mainline run slighly over 8 scale miles (550 feet). The mainline trackage on each level is generally level with the lower level at about 34" above the floor and the upper level at 56" above the floor. Personally I prefer this wide seperation for several reasons. In fact increasing the seperation by lowering the lower level was one other reason for the rebuild.
The lower level, where the industies/yards are, is easily operated standing or sitting and is 3' deep in most places. The upper level is only 2' deep in most places but does completely cover the lower lelvel in many locations due the 45 degree knee walls of my garage second floor layout room.
The layout is designed for 35-55 car freight trains and 8-12 car passenger trains. Staging allows storage of nearly 25 trains.
I belong to a local round robin group as well. Three other layouts in our group are multi deck or partly multi deck. I think it is a great type of layout. To all say build on!
But one more thought about who should tell who what, lots of people start ill advised projects they do not have the means or ambition to complete, so what. I'm not their mommy.
Sheldon
ATLANTIC CENTRAL Its amazing the number of people, that from what I know are not board moderators, who think they should monitor what informantion or opinions are shared on here. What a silly notion that we should "protect" people from hearing something that may encourage them to try something new or harder or bigger than they have done in the past. But I suppose that is just part and parcel with the "dumbing down" of our whole culture. Kind of like censorship in a communist country, we need to be "protected" from ourselves.
Yo dude--slow down a mite please. If you are talking to an absolute newby in machining do you throw them at some piece of milling machine without some form of prior exposure to something similar? Or, in this hobby--would you encourage the guy to go 3 level layout without him/her even having once used a hammer on a nail? Don't get snarky--I've been there. I even saw one guy down in this neighbourhood with NO experience put benchwork together for a 2 level layout and found that the dang thing wouldn't stay on the wall--he ripped the drywall off the wall because he didn't know that you needed to anchor the shelving TO the wall studs!--that is why we have books on these things--give encouragement --YES--but--also be there in case they may need your help. Thank goodness some of us were around to set this guy straight.
BTW--he went for a "simpler" one level layout to LEARN some stuff--Are we going to be told that we 'crushed his dream' because he decided to go for something a little less 'complicated'---OOPS.
ATLANTIC CENTRAL But one more thought about who should tell who what, lots of people start ill advised projects they do not have the means or ambition to complete, so what. I'm not their mommy.
And so why should it bother you that some people might want to advise people on doing it smarter? As you yourself said about people monitoring--you fell into the same rigmarol---Read your first paragraph. You pretty much said that others shouldn't say anything---OOPS
Barry,
This is a public forum, there will always be newbes to very experianced reading. Personally I'm not to going to "qualifiy" every statement I make as to whether it applies to "experts" or "newbes". And the petty "you should not have have told him that" stuff is getting pretty old.
Facts are one thing, correcting facts is just that. All this "correcting" or qualifing opinions is nonsense in my OPINION.
I've been in this hobby a long time and helped a lot of people with a lot of stuff, but modelrailroading has developed its own pockets of politcally correct, how sad.
I try to just explain what I have done and why. It's not my place to tell anyone what he can, should, would, might do or not do. Nor do I feel it is anyones place to be the "guardian" of the newbes.
If you don't know what you can or can't afford to build or what is in your time and skill range, than you have bigger problems than whether or not to build a double deck layout.
WHY? Point conter point is one thing, these endless debates are pointless. And on that note this is all you will hear from me on this.
JUST MY OPINION.
I'm asking one thing here--given the 'Guardian' role being thrown around here--if one writes a book about how to go and build a layout--benchwork and such --would that classify them as 'guardian' --HHMMM??
Yes it is your 'OPINION'---others, however, will have theirs--so you really don't need to throw words like 'Communism' around-either--just cool the rhetoric is all----
The Key here is scenery with the Multi layer layout. Work on the scenery from the top to the bottom. Then you wont have any destoryed in the process. Kevin
Myself--I went for a one level set up in my own home so that I could gain some experience in finishing that level--now I'm considering the next step. Because I built the first level at a 50" height I can drop down to a 38" height for sitting operations. Nolix looks like the way to go on this silly layout of mine--so that may be where I'm headed.
All the rhetoric about boobirds and such was unnecessary precisely because the OP did in fact ask for the PROS AND CONS. He did not ask for just the pros---so OOPS that someone showed up with some cons that were 'inconvenient'. If someone had a different set of experiences from other people and just wanted to tell of the issues he saw, does that mean therefore he's all wrong? Some of us did go for a one step at a time approach for that reason---to learn as we went along----
Nothing like quoting what one has already quoted!
tgindyOPERATIONS: ...where will your railroad come from? ...where will your railroad go? ...with who & how will your railroad interchange with what can be seen by what you model?
OPERATIONS: ...where will your railroad come from? ...where will your railroad go? ...with who & how will your railroad interchange with what can be seen by what you model?
When you sift through all of the thoughtful thoughts in this thread - It all comes back to operations.
When "operations" dawned on me, the 'givens' & 'druthers' soon began to emerge. Three prototype-operations to-modeling books have proven helpful:
http://index.mrmag.com/tm.exe?opt=I&MAG=BOOK&MO=1&YR=2003&output=3
http://index.mrmag.com/tm.exe?opt=I&MAG=BOOK&MO=6&YR=1991&output=3
http://index.mrmag.com/tm.exe?opt=I&MAG=BOOK&MO=6&YR=1998&output=3
It never ceases to amaze, exactly how one thought leads to another idea, especially when you take your time and permit 'the visioning' to begin.
Multi-level model railroads will make sense when your 'operations visioning' justifies the planning that goes into your pike.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
HHMMM--some people seem to get an operational kick from ISL's without the 2 or 3 layer layout? That justification can work that way as well--