CSX_road_slugMy operators and I were getting plenty of enjoyment with the old single layer, I don't see any urgent need for additional towns and station stops on the new one just yet.
Sounds like you've got things set up and going just the right way for you.
CSX_road_slugLive coal loads - one of my favorite operations is to run a fully-loaded train from staging to the rotary dumper, where the individual hoppers can be flipped and emptied. My previous layout allowed me to do this with just two Athearn 6-axle locos because there were no grades. Trying to pull that string of loaded coal cars up a helix or a nolix would require at least 3 -- possibly even 4 or more -- engines.
One way you could resolve that, were you so inclined (pardon the pun) would be to make sure loads go down the helix and empties back up.
John
Another good one, John:
In my case, it's kind of complicated. When I planned out the Yuba River Sub, I envisioned a railroad running through the California Sierra between elevations of 3,000 to 6,000 feet. Of course I knew that I would have to 'fudge' considerably on the elevation changes, since I had only 24x24' of space in my "California basement"--otherwise known as a garage.
First of all, I was modeling country that had never seen a railroad (but I didn't let THAT little detail stop me at all, LOL!). But it was country that I was familiar with and I knew that my fictional trans-Sierra line would incorporate some of the natural elements of that particular country--the San Juan Ridge, the Malakoff Hydraulic Mine Diggings, the Sierra Buttes, and Yuba Pass--all features of the Northern Mine country that have quite different elevations for their settings.
I 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 ).
So, like Crandell, I ran the track back and forth on connected elevations. However, I've tried to use the scenery so that whatever level the train is running, the eye is attracted to THAT scene, and not the track level either above or below it. I've done that with a series of cuts, tunnels and bridges that pretty largely disguises any parallel elvations in trackage. It seems to work okay for me--it's certainly not a total 'cure' for the problem of back-and-forth elevation gaining, but it does allow me to build those big mountains that I 'imagineered' when I planned the railroad originally.
I've seen some double and even triple-decked model railroads that impress the heck out of me, even with their relatively mountainous 'selective compression'. But that's not what I envisioned for the Yuba River sub.
Now, if my garage were a quadruple, instead of just a double--I could have gone absolutely berserk, and never had to double back at all, LOL!
Tom
Tom View my layout photos! http://s299.photobucket.com/albums/mm310/TWhite-014/Rio%20Grande%20Yuba%20River%20Sub One can NEVER have too many Articulateds!
IRONROOSTER One other possibility for a double deck layout is to have two different layouts. Different scales, different eras, different countries, or whatever. For 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. Enjoy Paul
One other possibility for a double deck layout is to have two different layouts. Different scales, different eras, different countries, or whatever. For 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.
Enjoy
Paul
Along the line of Paul's idea, in my previous house, I had an L shaped space along 2 bedroom walls. I started a 2 level shelf layout. The upper level was the HOn3 line. The lower level was to be standard gauge with the narrow gauge transfer facility on that level. Movement between the 2 levels would be via cassettes. The lower level idea died because of elevation insincerity that just bothered me. My narrow gauge line (upper level) had a harbor scene. It was hard to justify the transfer facility being lower than the harbor scene. This sort of elevation mismatch bothers me somewhat in the multi-level layouts I have seen - much more than running through the same scene twice bothers me on a non-linear layout.
In 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.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
I 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.
35 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.
Dave
1948PRRAfter some testing, I'm in the 24" radius and 3.6" rise area with a deck spacing around 18". My calculations indicate about a 2.25% grade.
After some testing, I'm in the 24" radius and 3.6" rise area with a deck spacing around 18".
My calculations indicate about a 2.25% grade.
It sounds like you and I have some similar constraints. I'm interested in hearing more about your helix construction concepts.
Would you consider double-decking your layout? If not, why not?
I have been in the planning stages of my model railroad layout for over 30 years. As a teenager, I built two single deck layouts, a 4 x 6 and a 14 x 10; both seemed to suit my purposes well. I have never considered double decking a layout. I prefer a walk-a-long linear track plan, one scene per sight line. I like to look at a scene from a distance, and a double decked layout ruins that picture, for me.
The older I get, the simpler tastes I am developing. For me, less is more. I am tending towards modeling a rural branchline; I won't need a long mainline run to get that done.
Have you seen someone else's double-decked layout? Did you like it? Why or why not?
I 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")
My next layout, to be started later this year/early next year (after finishing the basement) will be around 1000 sq ft. I feel this is big enough to do what I want on one level.
An 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.
John,
jwhittenWould you consider double-decking your layout? If not, why not?
My layout is actually triple decked. Traditional double deck with a hidden lower deck for staging. Reason for the double deck was mainline run in a small space (13' x 22').
jwhittenHave you seen someone else's double-decked layout? Did you like it? Why or why not?
There are several great double deck layouts in my area. Of note would be Jack Burgess' Yosemite Valley, Dave Adam's Durlin Branch and Jim Vail's Glenwood and Black Creek anong others...These railroads manage to solve most of the issues associated with double decks and at the same time highlight the limitations in that they are excellent layouts that still have certain drawbacks introduced by the double deck design. (these are all killer layouts..we all should be so lucky to have these "drawbacks").
The mentioned layouts all support operations and that was my main draw to double deck design.
jwhitten"If one deck is good", the thinking goes, "two decks must surely be better!"
Well 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.
jwhittenSo what's the disadvantage?
I would say based on my experience so far, the biggest disadvantage is complexity of construction, followed by all the classic items that have been mentioned earlier: difficulty in climbing, deck height, spacing between decks, limited scenic depth, etc... There are ways to deal with most of the issues that present themselves using double deck design, see Tony K.s Book on the subject..
So far I am very happy with what I get from the double deck. Not happy with how complicated the construction has turned out to be...
See my post here for more info on my choices:
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/172223/1893684.aspx#1893684
Guy
see stuff at: the Willoughby Line Site
dehusman Operationally you have to either put in a huge helix or make a major portion of the visible layout a constant up grade. Either option can present problems when you try to overlay it on a prototypical territory. Major benefits were longer runs, less omission of critical operational elements.
In my own case I plan to do both. I really wanted to eliminate the helix, not operationally but visually-- to hide it somewhere-- but it turns out I can't do that. I *technically* could but I decided I didn't want to block off the crawl space under the family room and the sump-pump semi-permanently. So in the end I located it toward one end of the layout-- 35 ft wide by 20 ft on the one end and 12-to-14-ish ft on the other-- which will be all, or mostly, double-decked. Plus I have a very long branch line that runs around the exterior walls that adds about another 70 ft or so. I haven't computed the whole run with both decks and the branch yet though-- I'm guessing its in the 350-400-ish linear ft range.
As it happens the helix is located along the way toward the upper deck anyway-- meaning I can begin my climb visually for a bit, so as to get the scenicked "mountainous" aspect, enter the helix through a tunnel portal, loop around a few times, and come out of a portal on the other side-- totally out of the visual range of the first portal so the height difference will be unnoticeable, and then continue the climb leisurely from there to the top deck. It's so leisurely I am going to model a small "whistle stop" of some sort there to give it some interest without overly increasing the gradient.
dehusmanMany people choose a multideck layout to "get a longer run" then double the length of the train, which essentially negates the effect of the longer run. The multi-deck layouts I have enjoyed the most have lengthened the run but kept the train sizes toward the smaller end of the "big train" spectrum.
That's an interesting comment-- I hadn't considered that. My own "Givens & Druthers" call for typical train lengths of about 12-15 cars (local freights and such), with through freights in the 20-25 car range that stop at two yards located on either end of the layout, and coal drags of about 30-35 cars that will just roll non-stop through the layout. There will also be a light passenger service of a few cars, an overnight mail delivery run, a morning milk run, and then the specials. Except for the through coal (or empty hoppers) trains, my goal is for max train length of about 20-25 cars and typical in the 12-15 range.
selectorBesides, the real world don't come in decks. I stop all the compromising, selective compression, selective expansion, and fancifizing (?) at adding another deck.
Hi Crandell,
Thanks for your comments and your point-of-view. I myself am interested in double-decking so I can model more of the salient features of my chosen "prototype", which as you know is the semi-fictional "South Pennsylvania Railroad" and the very real but now defunct "Montour Railroad". I haven't yet chosen every single feature to include, but I know that I want to model a significant portion of the Montour, enough to include a good sense of it and its operations. And I want to model the interchange at Connellsville PA, which I have a perfect leg branching off of the main layout to do it with. And I want to model the interchange at Shippensburg PA also, and again I have a good spot on the backside of one of the decks that will otherwise be unused and its in about the right geographical location so it just works out.
I am very hopeful-- all my toes and fingers crossed-- that I will have the main aspect of the first deck done this weekend so I can start laying track on the newest expanse of the layout. I haven't yet determined whether its going to be "temporary" or permanent, but it will be "fun" in either instance! I am saving up to purchase the tiles to finish up the basement floor, where I tore out the mechanical room and closet. I also have some other finishing work to do on the ceiling but I think I can do that over the layout, or else with minimal disruption.
I hit upon an idea the other day for affixing my 2x3 uprights-- to support the upper deck-- using my lower deck infrastructure. Which, if it works, will allow me to utilize my "temporary" layout decking as the permanent layout decking, and just add the remainder of the top deck. I am hoping that works out the way I envision as it will save me a bucket-load of time. But I have to get the room-- at least the walls and ceiling done before I can do the upper deck. The floor (tiles) I think I can work around the legs without much problem. I designed then to be movable (slide back and forth along the underside of the layout) with just that purpose in mind. And then can attach them permanently when I'm done.
I'm feeling so good about the above that I'm thinking about starting to plan out and lay track & scenic some of the parts that are already in-place and I know are not going to change no matter what. I'm pretty sure I have the final or very nearly the final benchwork "shape" for the layout with perhaps only some minor tweaks that shouldn't affect much.
I'm *really* excited-- I've been eagerly awaiting getting started on the modeling portions of my layout!!!!!
selectorI have experience to date only with grades and a folded loop. That works well, although I overdid it on the grades. I'm learning. The thought of building a second deck leaves me cold. I would rather have a plywood pacific in a parking lot than to ave to construct a second deck and the ramp or helix to join them.
When I built my first layout, it was single-decked. I got all the benchwork built and was ready to start laying track for real and do scenery when I really got to thinking about whether or not it was what I wanted. Visually and internally, I prefer the single-decked style of layout. But the more I thought about it, the more I decided I really wanted the ability to have longer runs between towns and expanded industries. I struggled quite a while to figure out how to redo what I had to get what I wanted until I ultimately just ripped it all down and started over. Which is what I've been doing for about the past six months, though not of straight work-- as I have time, money and inclination to work on it.
But you've got nothing to be ashamed of yourself-- you have a very nice layout and it looks great! I love all the photos you post.
No - for a couple of reasons:
1) Vista with tall structures - this is one of the main visual assets of my steel mill-based layout, with the blast furnace towering into the open "sky". Having another deck 3" above the top of it would spoil the effect, and be nearly impossible for me to digitally paint out of any photos.
2) Live coal loads - one of my favorite operations is to run a fully-loaded train from staging to the rotary dumper, where the individual hoppers can be flipped and emptied. My previous layout allowed me to do this with just two Athearn 6-axle locos because there were no grades. Trying to pull that string of loaded coal cars up a helix or a nolix would require at least 3 -- possibly even 4 or more -- engines.
My operators and I were getting plenty of enjoyment with the old single layer, I don't see any urgent need for additional towns and station stops on the new one just yet.
-Ken in Maryland (B&O modeler, former CSX modeler)
I am currently doubledecking my layout.
The new lower level will incorporate almost all of the things mentioned in the "But wait...there's more" section of the OP. It will be primarily open staging along the length of a 19' wall, but will also be a doubletrack display loop. the staging yard will have a cassette system to swap out rolling stock and represent points off line. I think I can also squeeze in a coal mine operation with two tipples and a small branchline with say a 45 tonner to drag hoppers between the two. This will be on a 15' wall and part of the other 19' wall that doesn't have the helix. The other 15' wall has the door, and will also have my workbench, which will have a spur track leading to a 1:1 work area.
The helix must fit in a partial alcove that measures 54" and is set back about 24" from the main wall.
I'm using the method that uses straight cut trapezoids to produce an octagonal helix. I bought a buiscut joiner at a local pawn shop to keep the 3/8 plywood the same level.
One issue I won't be able to avoid, is crowding of operating areas. i will just have to live with that. I'm mostly a solo op, but occasionally have one or two friends over. This may change as my operational scheme comes around, though.
The initial reason for the change was simply- staging.
I had nowhere to send my trains that were supposed to continue on.....
MisterBeasleyI'll post early and then get out of the way, because my own brand of double-decking isn't traditional. I've got subways, but also a "normal" layout above them. The subway level is only 3 inches below the surface. With plenty of liftoff sections for access, putting this second layer below the layout worked out pretty well. Actually, it was the first layer, and the rest was built later after the subways were completed. In my train room, a standard double deck wouldn't work. It's upstairs, and the room has a 45 degree angled roofline. It's also the "family room," so permanent attachment of a layout to the walls probably wouldn't have been greeted with enthusiasm by the rest of the family.
I'll post early and then get out of the way, because my own brand of double-decking isn't traditional. I've got subways, but also a "normal" layout above them. The subway level is only 3 inches below the surface.
With plenty of liftoff sections for access, putting this second layer below the layout worked out pretty well. Actually, it was the first layer, and the rest was built later after the subways were completed.
In my train room, a standard double deck wouldn't work. It's upstairs, and the room has a 45 degree angled roofline. It's also the "family room," so permanent attachment of a layout to the walls probably wouldn't have been greeted with enthusiasm by the rest of the family.
Actually, I hope you won't get out of the way at all! I love what you've done-- that's really cool and clever. I could only hope to scratch the surface on the topic of double-decking and was very much hoping that folks like yourself would come along and fill-in some blanks.
I mentioned in my post that additional decks can be used to showcase other interests and whatnot-- and I think you have illustrated a perfect textbook example.
Please, feel free to come back and tell us more about your subway, and post more pictures of it. That's really cool.
jwhitten Would you consider double-decking your layout? If not, why not?
Nope. Room is too narrow so aisle would be too narrow. I would end up with 1/4-1/3 the main line in a helix.
Have operated on several in a half dozen states in 3 different scales. Some were OK, some less OK. Major challenges on the not OK ones were not enough deck spacing, critical areas buried deep in benchwork, people working on upper level blocking view and access to lower level, most of the railroad is at suboptimal height and poor lighting. Operationally you have to either put in a huge helix or make a major portion of the visible layout a constant up grade. Either option can present problems when you try to overlay it on a prototypical territory. Major benefits were longer runs, less omission of critical operational elements.
Given the choice of a single level or a multiple level design, for my personal layout I would choose the single level in most cases.
Many people choose a multideck layout to "get a longer run" then double the length of the train, which essentially negates the effect of the longer run. The multi-deck layouts I have enjoyed the most have lengthened the run but kept the train sizes toward the smaller end of the "big train" spectrum.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
I feel that double decks would be for the purposes of getting in more pure modelling. They should be for those who are determined to get all the key elements and human artefacts into a given stretch of a prototype's lines.
This is not to say that those who are freelancing would not appreciate the advantages of a second or third deck...it would be a personal choice where either more range is desired for fan-type appreciation or because one deck doesn't have enough room for all the critical givens and enough of the druthers.
I have experience to date only with grades and a folded loop. That works well, although I overdid it on the grades. I'm learning. The thought of building a second deck leaves me cold. I would rather have a plywood pacific in a parking lot than to ave to construct a second deck and the ramp or helix to join them.
Besides, the real world don't come in decks. I stop all the compromising, selective compression, selective expansion, and fancifizing (?) at adding another deck.
-Crandell
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Double-Decker Layouts
"Land, they're not making any more of it!"
Except on our layouts that is. But even there land is a precious commodity. While it is likely true that many Model Railroaders secretly salivate at the thought of depicting every inch of their favorite railroads, the reality is that few of them possess the requisite resources to fully realize their imperial aspirations. And though it might be possible to represent a very small short line or specialized transport system in its entirety from end-to-end in one of the smaller scales, even those would prove to be the exception rather than the rule as even in N or Z scales, railroads represent very large propositions.
Of course not every modeler is particularly bothered by this. Some modelers don't have any particular desire to model a large swath of their chosen road. Or else if they do, are perfectly content to pick and choose and otherwise selectively compress their lofty visions down to a manageable reality. Sometimes modelers would like to include more but are constrained by the realities that exist in their lifestyles, budgets or environs-- or any combination of all three. Not content to "make do" with the status quo or to leave "well enough alone", some modelers press forward in their quest to find new horizons and new vistas to conquer-- and challenge the deeply-held and accepted notions of Model Railroading-- namely that of the single deck.
"If one deck is good", the thinking goes, "two decks must surely be better!"
Though of course as with many things in life, there are trade-offs-- pros and cons to consider. For every up there is a down, for every left there is a right, for every progress there is a congress and, well-- you get the picture.
Where is it written that railroads must be confined to a single surface? (Don't answer that!) And more importantly, what can be gained by adding a second surface?
More track, that's what.
Suddenly the intrepid Model Railroader is able to expand his/her miniature empire to include a new plane of existence, namely the upper deck, and in all likelihood take clever advantage of space going largely otherwise to waste.
So what's the disadvantage?
Depending on your point-of-view, there may not be any. If your goal is for "more railroad", "longer run", or "additional operations", or "more towns"-- or nearly any goal that includes some variation on the aspect of "more", then you're likely to enjoy what a second deck can do for you. On the other hand, it does limit your height excursions (how far you can model in the upwards direction). And if you're on the upper deck, it similarly limits your downward excursions as well. Thus, typically, you are confined to a modeling-height range with more restrictive limits. Typically between 10-inches (on the extreme low side) up to perhaps 16-18 inches, perhaps as many as 20 inches on the upper side of the range, depending on where you set the heights for your lower and upper decks respectively. Most people tend to locate one at about hip-level and the other at or just above shoulder-level, which would put the lower deck at or about 36-40 inches and the upper deck at or about 56-62 inches or so, depending on personal preferences.
Helix the Cat
And then there's the problem-- issue-- of traveling between the decks. How is that going to happen? Having two decks is good and everything but how are you going to get that train from the lower deck to the upper deck? Many modelers address the situation through the use of a 'Helix', which is a cylindrical column of track that spirals upward to span the distance between the decks. And of course there is a trade-off there as well. Model Railroaders like to have the smallest gradient (climb) they can get away with-- particularly grades less than 2% if possible and certainly less than 3% for sure.
Gradients sap pulling power from our locomotives and require us to run shorter trains or else use more locomotives, up to a threshold at which it is simply impossible to climb with any amount of power. But in order to get the smaller gradient you must be willing to permit the loops of track to occupy more space to spread out-- you don't get something for nothing. So the typical solution is to make the helix somewhere in the 28-36 inch radius range, which corresponds to a structure in the vicinity of a little under 5 feet on the small side, to about 6 feet or so on the larger side, and with as many loops as necessary to reach the upper deck.
Mountains to Climb
Alternately, the modeler can elect to simply "make the climb" and start from one place and start climbing until the height of the upper deck is reached. This will of course require the maximum amount of space and will eat into the otherwise linear feet available for modeling. On the upside, the modeler can depict a mountainous scene and incorporate "helper service" into his/her operations, etc. Which would probably be a good and fun thing to do. On the downside, the modeler may be attempting to model an area that is supposed to be flat in which case suddenly having mountains appear would prove rather incongruous. Fortunately the helix could alternately be enclosed in a "box like" structure, or otherwise hidden, if required, to avoid the "mountains out of nowhere" issue.
And of course there is also the "some of both" possibility-- the modeler could elect to model some portion of a climb with mountains and helpers, and also to utilize some hidden loops, perhaps buried inside a mountain, to hurry along the path to ascension. In many cases this is probably the best method as it gives the Model Railroader an opportunity to do some "mountain" scenicking while lessening the overall requirement for linear space.
Helixes, er-- Helii... uh, whatever
Helixes may also be used for additional purposes such as hidden serial staging, or to introduce "delays" into the apparent length of run, etc. They can also be used to interconnect between decks, although for that purpose the helix is not really required-- the modeler is simply taking advantage of the fact that there is a structure there anyway and doubly-utilizing the space. Finally, if the inner dimensions of the helix are large enough, it may be possible to locate the railroad's dispatcher position within its loops. Although making for an entrance suitable for a scene out of "Mission Impossible", it is taking advantage of the otherwise unused space to house an important railroading function.
Also, just for what its worth, there is no rule that a helix must be round. It could be ovoid, or oblong, or even stretch all the way around the layout climbing incrementally. Such a feature is commonly termed a 'Nolix', meaning that there is no actual "helix" or "obvious" climb per se, and yet the railroad still gains altitude. The 'helix' function of course being performed right out in the open but spread out over the length (or a large portion) of the layout in such a manner that it is hardly noticeable.
Expanded Horizons
So let's get back to double-decking. What are the major considerations, aside from what's already been discussed above? Depth of scene, for one. Expanded operations for another. Ability to model a length of run approaching something like that of a real railroad-- or at least a less "selectively compressed" version of it. Improved conjunction with scheduling and fast time clocks. More space available for "railroady" features such as yards, servicing facilities, sidings, etc.
Shallow-Minded People
Some people believe it is better for the top deck to have a shallower scene depth than the bottom deck, although both would likely be attached to the wall (or structural supports) behind. This means that the upper deck would be set back a bit which, to its proponents, means that its less "in your face". Other people believe the opposite, that the upper deck should stand out more and the lower deck should be reduced. They feel that makes it easier to "step in" and interact with the lower deck. The "right" answer of course is whatever you, the Modeler, wants-- what you feel is right for you.
Gimme More, More, More!
Having two (or more) decks means that you have more combined linear feet available for modeling-- track and structures. This means you can build longer yards, more expansive or fully-furnished servicing facilities, more industries, more towns, more... what-have-you. I, for one, am firmly in the "more" category. But one thing that isn't often thought of-- at least not right off-- is that it also permits you to have "more" realism. At least in the sense that you can expand your industries, make them longer, larger and more complex. You can include track or servicing facilities that you otherwise could not (or would not) with less linear feet to work with. It means that you can model an expanded version of a yard which might improve operations or permit more "prototypical" operations as a result. Particulary if it means the difference between modeling a double-ended yard versus a stub-ended yard.
Another thing that isn't often considered right off is that having more linear footage means you can space your towns and stops further apart so that they take more time on the fast-clock schedule. And avoid the issue of a train's engine being in one town while its caboose is still dragging through the previous town. Alternately you could add more towns, or else more "whistle stops" and "apparent" towns. Or you could model more "inbetween" (rural) spaces. Or model more of any particular town. The possibilities for using the extra space can seem limitless.
Double Impact
One of the downsides to double-decking your layout is that you're at least (typically) doubling the materials required to build the benchwork, but often at least a little more due to the additional support structure(s) that must be fashioned in order to support the additional deck(s). Of course there's no rule that says you must double-deck the entire thing. Perhaps you only need / want a little extra space, in which case it might prove best to simply double-deck only a small portion, which would have a correspondingly smaller impact on budget and materials.
Operationally Diverse
An upside to double-decking is that you can perhaps model a wider diversity of operations-- main interest is four-track Pennsy but have a side-interest in logging? Simple enough, use your second deck to depict the logging operation. Or add a mining branch. Or an industrial district. Or whatever you like. Use the extra space to focus on and expand some extra or additional facet that your interested in, or to showcase your especially fine modeling talents in some area or another. Or use it to set up an area for photography. Model a scene or multiple scenes and employ "scene composition" techniques from the "art" world to assist in photographing your structures and trains to their best advantage.
But Wait, There's More!
Of course there are lots of details and aspects to double-decking that are left to be discussed. I have only touched upon a small sampling of the benefits and features that can be gained. And of course there's no rule that says you can only have *two* decks.... if two decks are good, why not *three*??? Or more?? Another possibility is that additional deck(s) could be used to facilitate staging operations. Or simply for near offline storage. Or maybe its possible to rig up a partial deck on slides that could slide out as your workbench when needed and slid back under when not. There is much left to cover on the subject of double-decking.
Why Have More When You Can Have LESS!?!?
And conversely, I have not even attempted at all to defend the virtues of sticking with "single-decked" designs. The benefits there are improved scenicking possibilities, particularly in the vertical perspective, less distraction and visual interference when looking at the layout. No addition overlapping scenes to compete for or confuse your visual attention. Some people might just simply prefer the "visual expanse" a single deck provides the viewer-- the ability to look out over the layout and just take it all in.
So whatever your point of view...
My questions for today are:
Have you already double-decked your layout? If so, tell us about it. What were your difficulties in construction? Did you discover that its easier to do one deck before the other? (Did you find that out the hard way ??? ) What do you like about your double-decked layout? What don't you like about it? If you had it to do over again, what would you change or do differently?
Have you operated on a double-decked layout? What about that, did you like or dislike operating in a larger linear space? What elements do you think worked, or didn't work? Did the layout(s) you encounter utilize the additional space in a positive manner?
Tell us what you think about the idea of double-decking a layout!
As always, I'm looking forward to your ideas and opinions, and I love reading your responses!!!
... Oh! and PICTURES... Post'em if you got 'em!!!