I have built several model railroads. The last one that I built was a double deck walk around the wall style layout . I live in Texas, so everything is bigger in Texas The railroad was housed in a building that was 40ft by 72ft So space was not a problem. I used 24" spacing between the lower and upper level. this included the upper level benchwork. This provided a max height of 18" between the decks for modeling. The lower level had 18" depth, where yards and town sites were located this was increased to 30" depth. The upper level was reduced to 16" depth over these areas. The lower areas were reduced to modeling coastal or low laying areas. Model height of buildings were compressed to be no higher than 11" high or they would appear to be poking though the upper level of the layout. The lower level height was set at 32" with the upper height at 56". The upper level was used for mountains.
trainnut1250Recently I have noticed that any bounce that may have been present in the upper deck brackets pretty much goes away with the addition of hardshell...It stiffens everything up considerably (at least Hydrocal does). I did have to put some extra thickness over the lights to keep them from shining through the plaster ( nuclear layout..it glows??)
Thanks for that tip-- that's been one of my concerns. I have part of my upper deck completed-- in the end I chose a different method from yours-- I went with commercial double-track shelf brackets, of the type available from the big orange store-- and bolted them to wooden arms to make them easier to work with. (See my HOWTO article here: HOWTO: Easy Benchwork Using Metal Shelf Brackets)
trainnut1250For those who might be interested: I have several PDF's on the construction of my layout in the form of yearly updates. If anyone would like to see them, e-mail me and I can send them to you.
Feel free to add me to your list-- I've sent you a PM with my email address!
thanks,
john
Oakhurst Railroad Engineerjwhittenwhat are the dimensions and specs It is a small 18" radius, with 3.5" spacers... I would not recommend such a small and steep helix for larger or longer trains. ... You can see the original trackplan at http://www.oakhurstrailroad.com/Track%20Plan.htm. Thanks, Marty
jwhittenwhat are the dimensions and specs
It is a small 18" radius, with 3.5" spacers... I would not recommend such a small and steep helix for larger or longer trains.
... You can see the original trackplan at http://www.oakhurstrailroad.com/Track%20Plan.htm.
Thanks,
Marty
Wow, that looks nice! I like your track plan. Looks like you have some good helpers too. How often do you run it? Your pictures look awesome btw.
jecorbettI'm joining this conversation fairly late but my current home was purposely designed with a large open basement so I could get all the railroading I want on one level.
Better late than never!
I wish I had the luxury of having my basement designed for trains... In fact, I think I can easily categorically say most emphatically that my basement was not! It would be difficult for me to conceive of anything else one could possibly do to make it a more challenging environment-- from a design point of view. Otherwise its quite a nice place. Dry, climate-controlled, finished-- um, except for the parts that I, er- "unfinished" But danged if they didn't scatter every thing possible everywhere throughout the entire basement. Electrical panels here, plumbing cutoff there, bathroom over yonder, stairs smack in the middle and then to top it off, tilted 45 degrees... and more. But, I'm not complaining really-- I do *have* a basement now, which is a marked improvement over my previous situation for sure!!!!
Without considering the aforementioned, the basement space in its entirety is roughly 35x35 feet, almost exactly square in dimensions except laid-out in more of a bow-tie shape due to the shape of the stairs and the bump-out in the back of the house. If I had it all to myself-- and in time that may prove to be the case-- I don't think I would double-deck it. But supposedly the basement is a shared space (though I've seen scant evidence of it thus far) with the rest of the family-- my wife is ostensibly relocating her sewing and quilting assemblage down there so it can be a family "hobby & activity" space. So with that in-mind, I've dutifully been doing my best to work within the constraints of our "deal" granting me the space-- of roughly half the basement.
Originally I had claimed "the walls" as my dominion, and would be in general quite happy with that. But my wife didn't want everything else to be located "in the middle", nor did she like some of the "compromises" regarding traffic patterns and "ducking" here and there. So almost immediately the "walls" plan was a lame duck. After a lot of thought and planning, I narrowed it down to one I *really* liked-- and then-- Surprise!!-- my wife agreed to the rearrangement and subsequent removal of the mehcanical room and a large closet behind it-- and that plan, though pleasing, was out the window.
I have finally arrived at a new plan, not as pleasing, but practical and making reasonably good use of the space. My new layout shape is essentially a large spiral, encompassing a space approximately rectangular, about 35 feet long by about 20 feet wide on the one end and around 12-14 feet on the other. There's technically a little more space but I have to leave some for negotiating around the room and whatnot. And as I mentioned in an earlier post, I also have the branch that runs (high) around the walls back to the office space, so in that regard, I have a very nice allocation of space for the layout. And I think double-decking it was a good compromise for giving me the lineral footage I wanted and preserving room for the family-- should they ever decide to take advantage of it....
.... and if not.... well, there's plenty more to model!!!
Thanks for your comments,
John
jwhittenNow that I see your pictures I recognize your handiwork. I studied your benchwork photos at considerable length prior to making my own double-deck benchwork decision--
Nice to see that some one found the photos helpful on the road to ruin I stole....er ah "borrowed" most of what I did from several of my local train buddies, lots of snooping around under their layouts..
Recently I have noticed that any bounce that may have been present in the upper deck brackets pretty much goes away with the addition of hardshell...It stiffens everything up considerably (at least Hydrocal does). I did have to put some extra thickness over the lights to keep them from shining through the plaster ( nuclear layout..it glows??)
The swing gate is my version of the swing gate design outlined in an article in July 2007 RMC "Building a Model Railroad Gate" by Fred Headon. My gate is approx 36" X 6" wide X 9" tall at the ends.
The trestle is scratchbuilt to SP standards and is a representation of the Tidewater Southern trestle at Ninth Street in Modesto CA.
Most have seen these images before, so forgive me for repeating them here:
Here is the thread on the build:
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/t/127351.aspx?PageIndex=1
The gate continues to work well and has been an effective solution to the age old duck-under problem.
For those who might be interested: I have several PDF's on the construction of my layout in the form of yearly updates. If anyone would like to see them, e-mail me and I can send them to you.
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
and helix construction photos are here: http://www.oakhurstrailroad.com/Construction%20Photos%20and%20Helix.htm ...
www.oakhurstrailroad.com
"Oakhurst Railroad" on Facebook
jwhittenwhat are the dimensions and specs on your helix? And your decks-- is your upper deck shallower than your lower deck?
It is a small 18" radius, with 3.5" spacers and a thin double thinkness hardboard deck (staggered joints). Average grade if perfectly done is about 4%. Ended up with some steep spots of 5% or so. The turnout in the middle complicated the otherwise simple stack construction. Runs well with the logging equipment with relatively short trains (maybe 6-10 short cars). I would not recommend such a small and steep helix for larger or longer trains.
The upper level is an 18" shelf, while the lower level is 24" wide. Deck levels are 34" & 56". I'm 5' 7" tall and would not want the upper deck much higher. I originally was going to do a balloon loop on the upper level that would have required at least a 36" wide area, but it would have overshadowed the end of one aisle. You can see the original trackplan at http://www.oakhurstrailroad.com/Track%20Plan.htm.
I'm joining this conversation fairly late but my current home was purposely designed with a large open basement so I could get all the railroading I want on one level. My loop staging yards are stacked on top of each other but all the visible track is on a single level and that is the way I want it. The lowest section of my benchwork is 48" high and I wouldn't want to go any lower. I certainly wouldn't want to go any higher than 60" so that doesn't level much room for multiple levels. Multi level layouts are a creative solution to extend a mainly for folks who lack the space for a decent length mainline, but in my situation. I am finding that building and scenicking one level is time consuming enough. I can't imagine trying to double the size of my layout with a second deck.
tomikawaTTAs for deliberately modeling two levels of complex, totally visible railroad activity, there's only one of me and I am the ultimate lone wolf. If I had it, I couldn't operate it enjoyably. The Netherworld is almost entirely automated.
That all sounds interesting-- do you have a track plan or photos to share? I'd be interested in seeing more.
Sir Madog Would I build a double-deck layout? Most likely not - for various reasons. I am a fan of small, but highly detailed layouts, so I don´t have the need to double-deck. The second reason is, that I like to have my layout at near eye level and that precludes a double-deck layout, as I would have to compromise too much on my preferred viewing angle.I have never seen a double-deck layout, other than those featured in MR, and most of them looked very good.
Would I build a double-deck layout? Most likely not - for various reasons. I am a fan of small, but highly detailed layouts, so I don´t have the need to double-deck. The second reason is, that I like to have my layout at near eye level and that precludes a double-deck layout, as I would have to compromise too much on my preferred viewing angle.
I have never seen a double-deck layout, other than those featured in MR, and most of them looked very good.
I've seen pictures of your layouts-- we'll let you slide!
pastorbobHave had a double decker since 1979, added a third deck about 1986. Helix between top two, added the bottom deck later and connected it with a long hidden grade around the walls. Love it. Bob
Have had a double decker since 1979, added a third deck about 1986. Helix between top two, added the bottom deck later and connected it with a long hidden grade around the walls. Love it.
Bob
Being a pastor and all, I hope you don't put too much symbolism on those two decks... of course, on the other hand, if you did, it might inspire you to build four more levels...
As I have posted before, my Santa Fe in Oklahoma is three decks, 29ft by 33 ft, uses a helix between top and middle deck, long hidden grade from middle to bottom. We do just fine during an op session, no one has complained yet about back strain or leg strain. There are five staging areas, all mains are point to point. Layout is now 27 years old, wouldn't even consider rebuilding or changing.
trainnut1250jwhittenI'm intrigued by your upper deck design. Do you have additional photos that show its innards / construction details? John, I use two different styles of support brackets that I call "beefy Arms". These are essentially wall brackets made from plywood. The first type is visible in the first pic on the left side. It is a tapered arm that is screwed perpendicular into a mounting plate that is screwed into the studs of the wall. The second type is the stubby arm shown in the second photo. It uses an offset arm to allow for a hidden return track to run through it. The visible track has not been laid yet in this pic. Both arm types are meant to be covered in wire screen and are thick enough to hide switchmasters and CPFL lighting as is shown in the pic. They extend from the wall 18" in most parts of the layout, some farther some less. All are made from 3/4 cabinet grade ply. Sub roadbed on top is 1/2' cabinet ply with a homasote roadbed. Most of the road bed has 1 X 2's on edge underneath to stiffen them up a bit. The second photo also shows my approach to lighting the first deck. CPFLS in sockets that are mounted on small blocks of wood. I can move these around to get the best light on an area. They can be mounted up in the deck because they don't get hot. There is a 110 VAC buss running around the inside of the upper deck so powering the CPFLS is easy and they can moved anywhere without concern about getting juice to the lights. This method produces a very bright lower deck Guy
jwhittenI'm intrigued by your upper deck design. Do you have additional photos that show its innards / construction details?
John,
I use two different styles of support brackets that I call "beefy Arms". These are essentially wall brackets made from plywood. The first type is visible in the first pic on the left side. It is a tapered arm that is screwed perpendicular into a mounting plate that is screwed into the studs of the wall.
The second type is the stubby arm shown in the second photo. It uses an offset arm to allow for a hidden return track to run through it. The visible track has not been laid yet in this pic.
Both arm types are meant to be covered in wire screen and are thick enough to hide switchmasters and CPFL lighting as is shown in the pic. They extend from the wall 18" in most parts of the layout, some farther some less. All are made from 3/4 cabinet grade ply. Sub roadbed on top is 1/2' cabinet ply with a homasote roadbed. Most of the road bed has 1 X 2's on edge underneath to stiffen them up a bit.
The second photo also shows my approach to lighting the first deck. CPFLS in sockets that are mounted on small blocks of wood. I can move these around to get the best light on an area. They can be mounted up in the deck because they don't get hot. There is a 110 VAC buss running around the inside of the upper deck so powering the CPFLS is easy and they can moved anywhere without concern about getting juice to the lights. This method produces a very bright lower deck
Now that I see your pictures I recognize your handiwork. I studied your benchwork photos at considerable length prior to making my own double-deck benchwork decision-- particularly the bottom photo (and its cousins) you have posted up somewhere.
I too am using CPFL's for my lighting. And I have also done the experimentation to discover they can be placed in very tight quarters without issue. So I will be using them to light my decks as well. Presently I am still using the temporary light bars I threw together a couple of years ago for my single-decked layout. They still do a very good job of lighting up the room, even under the decks. But it will definitely be better when I get things reconfigured and in their right places.
I like your arm brackets there with the hidden trackage in them. I think that's a pretty clever concept.
I can't recall if I've seen the top picture before, but that's a very nice bridge you have there. What's the story with that?
PackerI don't have a layout, but for the one I'll build when I get my own place, I'm undecided. I could use it to mark the transistion between the plains (probably texas or nebraska) and Rockies (probably colorado), and have it so helpers are used. But then there is the issue of all the additional work. When I get my own place, I may be able to determine if it's really nessecary.
I don't have a layout, but for the one I'll build when I get my own place, I'm undecided.
I could use it to mark the transistion between the plains (probably texas or nebraska) and Rockies (probably colorado), and have it so helpers are used. But then there is the issue of all the additional work. When I get my own place, I may be able to determine if it's really nessecary.
I don't know about you or anybody else, but I've gotten to the point where building a deck or a section of deck is no big deal. I can crank one out in about an hour. Hour and a half if you want it free-standing with legs.
I've also gotten to the point where I've said -- To heck with gluing and screwing. That's why god gave us nail guns. I still do the gluing part, and my decks are essentially held together with glue. But nowadays I just tack 'em together with some 1-1/4 inch nails, or occasionally some 2 inch nails-- which from the nail gun are not much bigger than pins. If I go to screw something in later or something and it hits a nail, they're small enough they'll just bend out of the way. When I get to the part of doing risers though, those will be just screwed in case I ever need to change anything.
Oakhurst Railroad EngineerThe double deck gave me a chance to do exactly what I wanted to do: Recreate the complete operations of a Sierra logging railroad in only an 8.5 x 11 ft room. By using two decks and a helix, I was able to get an 88 ft point to point run, which is approximately a scale 1.5 mile run in HO. This is approximately a 1 for 1 size match of current tourist railroads such as the Yosemite Mountain Sugar Pine Railroad or Roaring Camp and Big Trees Railroad.
The double deck gave me a chance to do exactly what I wanted to do: Recreate the complete operations of a Sierra logging railroad in only an 8.5 x 11 ft room.
By using two decks and a helix, I was able to get an 88 ft point to point run, which is approximately a scale 1.5 mile run in HO. This is approximately a 1 for 1 size match of current tourist railroads such as the Yosemite Mountain Sugar Pine Railroad or Roaring Camp and Big Trees Railroad.
Nice benchwork. I am curious about two things though-- what are the dimensions and specs on your helix? And your decks-- is your upper deck shallower than your lower deck?
twhiteAnother good one, John:
Thanks! I sometimes wonder if everyone else agrees. But it doesn't matter. I enjoy posting them-- they make me think and learn in the process, and that's what I'm after. I don't know if the bulk of the folks who read my weekly posts like them or hate them-- I wish more of them would comment. But I do very much enjoy talking to the ones that do! So thank you very much for your comments.
twhiteI thought about double, or even triple-decking, with helixes to connect the various scenes, but then it dawned on me that since I was modeling VERY mountainous territory, I needed to represent these mountains, and decking just wouldn't do it, especially if some of the aspects like the Buttes and Yuba Summit actually needed to be almost floor to ceiling for the maximum scenic impact (yes, I freely admit to having been bitten by the John Allen bug when I was a young man ).
Yes, I have that problem too. In my mind I originally conceived and envisioned the South Pennsylvania Railroad as being pretty mountainous. In order to double-deck it though I'm having to scale back some on my grand visions of mountains and such. But on the plus side, I get to model a much better selection of the route-- which is only about 120 miles from end-to-end anyway, not counting the Montour RR portion, or the branch down to Connellsville. I think it will turn out to be a good choice. And, at least for my setup, I still have the branchline, which is itself fairly mountainous and will not have the restriction of a second deck.
YoHo1975They're recreating Tehachapi, so very mountainous. Their layout could be said to have 3 decks over 2ish stories. There are few houses that could accommodate such a thing.
Mine certainly would not. At least not in HO scale.
YoHo1975I would argue that one of the biggest problems with double deck layouts is the height of the lower deck. Generally speaking the lower the layout, the less realistic and the more obvious our compromises are. This is getting into a different philosophical discussion, but I'd argue that if the lower deck started at around 50" or higher, then the relative lack of height wouldn't be missed.
You're welcome to shift the "philosophical focus" if you wish-- my goal is to simply stimulate the discussion-- where it goes is subject to the laws of stimulated discussions-- which really means kinda anywhere.
I agree with you very much that an issue with double-decking is that the lower deck tends to be too low and the upper deck tends to be too high-- and that's one of my real concerns with it, as I've said elsewhere. But I like the fact that it essentially doubles my layout space and gives me the opportunity to do more in the same area. In my case, I will be modeling the montour railroad as an interchange partner with my South Pennsylvania Railroad. And I like the fact that I can devote a decent amount of linear space to it rather than just having a tunnel portal someplace and an extra siding to represent it. Similarly, I like that I can devote more space to my industries and whatever else I want to flesh-out more. I've decided I would like to include at least one section that is more "urban" than I would otherwise be able to "afford" with a single-deck linear budget. I'm not going to do that with every town, but I want to do it to at least one. I also like the idea that I can model some scenes in and around Pittsburgh-- the outskirts, and include some river scenes. Though they will probably end-up on the top deck and there will likely be some visual disquiet with the river scenes being on top. But I can live with that too
fwrightIn my present house, the layout room must also be used as a home office and model construction space. This forces the lowest track level of the layout up to close to 60" (my mockups show that seated at a work station or bench I want at least 55" before the bottom of a shelf intrudes), eliminating any possibility of mulitple decks.
The section that branches off my layout and heads around back to my office is single-decked, but at the height corresponding with the upper deck on the double-decked portion, which is about 58-60 inches. I'm thinking about dropping the height a little when it gets into the office to make it easier to see while I'm sitting and working. The whole office branch has been an integral section of the layout since its earliest inception. Even though the bulk of the layout has been re-oriented toward the "upper" part of the basement-- I do not wish to give up my "railfanning seat", which is how I consider the office branch
fwrightFor example you could have a mainline N scale layout on the upper deck with long trains, big yards, etc. and a Fn3 (1:20.3) branch line on the lower.
As far as IronRooster's suggestion of multiple scales... I am also into 45mm (G-scale) trains. When we were looking to buy a house, I had it in the back of my head to find one with a suitable outdoor space to build the layout outside, in G-scale. That didn't happen, so I'm modeling inside in HO. But I still like to get the G-scale trains out from time-to-time, and it could easily occur that it could get set up more permanently under the HO-scale layout, since there's plenty of room for it there.
West Coast SI gave considerable thought of adding a logging branch above an existing 15 X 25 layout, I decided against it when became a question of how to transition without compromising existing scenery, which is basically flat with few escarpements. As much as as I want that branch, it will have to wait to be included on a new single deck design.
Do the two decks have to be connected? That was one of the items I wanted to touch on in my original opening post, but it was getting too long and I needed to stop someplace. There is no rule that says the decks have to be connected, or even "related" to each other. Alternately the interchange between them can be virtual. Or you could use a train elevator. Or a cassette system for transferring a train between levels.
West Coast S35 or so years ago, back in my HO days, I had a layout that crawled up the wall of a spare bedroom making 4 loops around the room before terminating in a massive reverse loop 9 feet off the floor and suspended from the ceiling by metal rods, Tru-Scale roadbed and code 70 handlaid were the norm for me back in the day, however I never got beyond basic scenery for the second deck before becoming fed up with the complexity of the design.
That does seem a little complicated-- but interesting. Do you have any pictures you could share? What about scenicking? Was that portion scenicked?
tin canI have seen several double decked layouts and operated on several double decked layouts. All had nice features, but none convinced me that double decked is the way to go. For some reason, I always seem to enjoy the top deck more (I am very tall,6'8")
Yes, that's probably the one biggest thing I dislike about double-decking. My original layout was going to be about 54 inches high-- chest level. Then I realized that I could never comfortably double-deck it if I ever changed my mind. It was too low to comfortably put in a lower-deck. The height of the deck structure was approx 4-inches, so overall cutting too much into the space a lower deck might need. And too high to add an upper deck. And that was one of the principle observations that made me stop and reconsider before moving forward.
The other thing I dislike about double-decked layouts I'm willing to live with to get the larger layout space-- and that is I like scenic vistas. I was looking forward to the elevation changes and such that I will have to tone way down now, or even virtually eliminate due to the reduced height field of the double-deck. Even though I built mine at about the extremes-- 18 inches literally between decks, and probably 16 practical inches when I finish doing the lighting for the lower deck.
So far I only have one area in which the double-deck is "completed" though-- I've given some thought to perhaps just double-decking the remaining portion around the walls and leaving the portion that's out in the open a single-deck. Not sure how I will go with that-- visually I think it would be the better choice. Operationally-- I don't know. That's what I want to test.
Caveat: My double garage filler is very much a work in progress, with, at present, not a square millimeter of scenery (or a linear millimeter of rail that's intended to see flourescent-lit 'day.')
I don't consider my plan to be multiple-decked, but the part of the benchwork nearest the personnel door will eventually support more layers than a wedding cake. However, only the topmost will be visible. Starting on the very top and working down:
The end of the railroad is on one side of the peninsula, while that switchback station is on the other. The route from the top of the helix runs around the end of the peninsula on a sustained 4% grade. All else is buried in the depths of the Netherworld.
Along the far wall, above a narrow shelf that will only have the JNR single-track main visible, is territory that might hold the tracks of either or both of my narrow gauge feeders. If it's ever built, the trains will get there in elevators from the main-level interchanges. Note the IF. That second level is lower on my priority list than the (working) TBM burrowing through Haru-yama just behind a window in the fascia.
As for deliberately modeling two levels of complex, totally visible railroad activity, there's only one of me and I am the ultimate lone wolf. If I had it, I couldn't operate it enjoyably. The Netherworld is almost entirely automated.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Vincent
Wants: 1. high-quality, sound equipped, SD40-2s, C636s, C30-7s, and F-units in BN. As for ones that don't cost an arm and a leg, that's out of the question....
2. An end to the limited-production and other crap that makes models harder to get and more expensive.
IRONROOSTERAn alternative to a multideck layout for a long mainline, is to run it through the benchwork more than once. This used to be very popular and with judicious arrangement of the towns can be very effective. A good example of this is Frank Ellison's Delta Lines.
I am personally not horribly turned-off by that approach. A number of my first track plan ideas involved multiple loops around the layout, albeit at differing heights so as to suggest other locales. But then I read about "modern" layout design techniques wherein the train only travels through the scene one time and that made sense. And I realize its my railroad and I can do what I want, but when I thought about it, I decided I liked the idea. And the same thing with keeping cardinal directions consistent too. While it doesn't matter if they actually correspond to real-world coordinates, it does make it a lot easier to remember things if you're not having to also figure out which direction is east or west all the time. So that was actually one of the strong druthers in my current layout. I could have come up with the track plan much sooner if that hadn't been a requirement.
YoHo1975Currently I'm in an Apartment and my plans are to build modules to be run with the local club. so obviously, right now, no multiple decks.
Why does that restrict your ability to double-deck? I would think that you would be an ideal candidate? True you would have to use alternate / creative construction techniques, but I think you could build some sort of free-standing 'T'-arm supports to hold up your modules. Perhaps with some 'slot-together' plywood feet on the bottom to give them a wider base for extra stability. Or else a spring-loaded friction brace (or several) strategically located to sturdy up your benchwork. Or a combination of both. Maybe make it all so it slots or bolts together and is easy to assemble and knock-down in a reasonable amount of time-- if that's a requirement for you... ???
YoHo1975My vision is a What-if/Freelance Scenario for a 3rd modern Chicago to West Coast railroad and I've always thought I would have a lower level be the Midwest/Great Plains and the upper deck be Mountains/West Coast.
Yes, that sounds like it could be a fun layout.
YoHo1975The other option which isn't explicitly mentioned, but is similar to the Nolix is the Mushroom style that MR did an article on some number of years ago. In that design, the deck have opposite facing fronts and the floor rises with them. So there is never more than one deck to look at in any direction, but another deck sits on top of it facing the other way. It's an interesting design for hilly or mountainous terrain. It requires more space than traditional helix designs, because the railroad is in the middle of the room rather than along the walls. It also has the advantage of a much longer unbroken run. perfect for long trains.
Yeah, I had to stop somewhere or else the post would have gotten long...
But I had originally planned to talk about the "Mushroom" style benchwork. If anybody wants to see a good implementation of that, they can check out Joe Fugate's layout. (I hope that won't get this post deleted). I reckon you'll have to find it on your own though 'cause last I checked, they were scrubbing the URL's to his place.
Steep grades and sharp curves, no problem, as it is a logging railroad.
As an innovation, trains actually enter at level two of the helix. Go up four turns to the upper deck, or down two turns to make a continuous run.
So, for me, a double deck was an enabler for my whole layout concept. I can't believe that at one point I almost chickened out and didn't build the upper deck!
Never a regret ...
trainnut1250Well yes if you are looking for more mainline run and more scenes in the same space. No, if you are looking for ease of construction and grand scenic vistas. A double deck is really an economic decision in that I can't afford the space necessary to get the same mainline run on a single deck layout. If I had the space, single deck wins hands down.
I think I agree with that. Double-Decks are certainly a bargain struck out of "necessity" -- assuming any model railroad desire could truly be characterized as such. I doubt anybody would go out of their way to choose it under other circumstances where space was not an issue. Though one reason why someone might still want to might be in order to concentrate the railroad around themselves if they plan on being a solitary operator, or just want the layout tucked out-of-the-way for some reason.
But even then, I don't think most people would choose to double-deck if they had plenty of space. Layouts look visually much more pleasing when presented as a sweeping vista to the viewer, as you suggested. And you won't bang your head as often...
I'm intrigued by your upper deck design. Do you have additional photos that show its innards / construction details?