Joe Fugate Modeling the 1980s SP Siskiyou Line in southern Oregon
Larry
http://www.youtube.com/user/ClinchValleySD40
http://www.flickr.com/photos/52481330@N05/
http://www.trainboard.com/railimages/showgallery.php/cat/500/page/1/ppuser/8745/sl/c
QUOTE: Originally posted by clinchvalley Mine are set at 60", 40" and 24". Lowest level is usually worked sitting on a roll around short stoll. Pictures on link below. Ops sessions with up to 20 operators and it works just fine.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate With three decks, at the very least, two of the three decks will not be at an optimum height, which will mean you will need to compromise operation (think NO switching). You run the risk that all 3 decks will not be an an optimum height in order to cram them all in.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate 4. The farther apart you make the decks, the harder it will be to get the trains between the levels. Long multi-turn helix's are just awful, swallowing a train for really long periods of time. Avoid using a helix if you can, but if you need a helix, don't make it have very many tiers -- 2-3 tiers is ideal.
QUOTE: Originally posted by exPalaceDog QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate 4. The farther apart you make the decks, the harder it will be to get the trains between the levels. Long multi-turn helix's are just awful, swallowing a train for really long periods of time. Avoid using a helix if you can, but if you need a helix, don't make it have very many tiers -- 2-3 tiers is ideal. The Old Dog would consider that to be a benefit, not a problem. Many layouts have the problem of having the engine arriving at station B before the caboose leaves station A. A helix can provide the needed distance between stations.
Ray Breyer
Modeling the NKP's Peoria Division, circa 1943
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
QUOTE: Originally posted by orsonroy My last layout was a triple decker. Since I didn't use a helix to get between levels, my decks weren't set at a constant height. My lower level started at 36" and climbed to 44". My second level started at 44" and climbed to 52". My third level started at 52" and climbed to 58". The average seperation between decks was 8", with the least amount of seperation being a short stretch of 3", and the most being 11". I found that I could live with 8"-10" of seperation, especially for what the layout gave me: a 3.25 scale mile long mainline in basically a 7'x25' room. I did find that I preferred working and viewing the middle deck. The lower deck was mostly a big yard, and was 36" for most of it's elngth. It was worked by a office chair with casters. The upper deck was again mostly even at 54", and was worked standing, with step stools handy if necessary. I'm designing my next layout now to fit into my new basement, and I've got 14x26 available. I'm not sure that I'll triple deck my next layout: while it will give me almost five scale miles of run (and mainline run is important to me), I really didn't like the top level: while fun to view and to show off, the fact that it was nose high to me actually reduced my overall enjoyment level of the layout. I feel that 48"-50" is optimum viewing/operating height (and I'm 6'2").
QUOTE: Originally posted by electrolove Do you have any pictures of your last layout, or maybe a trackplan that you want to show?
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
QUOTE: Originally posted by R. T. POTEET Pardon me there, Electrolove, but I think you've got rocks in your head - either that or you've spent too much time out in those fierce Scandahoovian winters. I would think twice before ever even contemplating the building of a double deck layout - I would consult the yellow pages for a good psychiatrist if I ever once looked at a potential layout area and said "hmmmmmmmm!!!Could I get three decks in here????" (John Armstrong tackled multi-level layouts frequently; Robert Schleicher has several in his [large] book on track plans drawing from layouts theorized in Model Railroading magazine. Multi-level layouts appear to work better in N-Scale than in HO: probably the only 0-Scale multi-level pike I have ever seen was in an RMC in the early to mid-sixties and it was an operation oriented around the walls pike with very little scenery and was essentially an Appalachian (steam powered) coal hauler with a requirement to swap engines every X number of miles. He had at least five turntables (and roundhouses) on this layout - and, if I recall, went around the room four times. It was something typical of 1930's era modelling where the purpose of a layout was to show off your equipment and hence, your machinist skills!!! It did that perfectly and I was genuinely impressed with the quality of his motive-power. To the best of my knowledge I have only seen one double deck layout that really worked; a multi-level structure doesn't really engender much potential for my concept of scenery construction (don't ask me what in the h**l I mean by that); generally multi-level layout don't work for me. I can only recall having seen one tri-level layout - EVER; that one did work, hewever. It wasn't actually a "mushroom" per se but the upper level (read: top deck) was wider (24-27 inches)than the one below it (18-21 inches) and required a stool to stand on; the lowest level (read: bottom deck) (about 12 inches deep) was used almost exclusively for staging and was at a "grab-a-stool" height; most of the operation took place on the middle level with, as stated, the lower level being used for (hidden) staging and the upper level being used for (un-hidden) staging (please, don't ask me what in the h**l that means either!!!) He didn't use helixes (helixes???) but rather used (mostly hidden) long ramps to transition between levels; his ramp grade was probably 3% and it took him a good mile of running (HO=60+ feet) to transition the (approximately) 18 inch separation between levels. He went from 30 to 48 to 66 inches at an approximate (average) 1% grade - 350 linear feet or thereabouts. This individual had been extremely cautious with scenery; most of the problems I have observed - and this, of course, is opinion - with multi-level layouts has had to do with integrating the scenery elements within the track plan. His worked because he kept the background short; few do!! On his layout you were always standing right at trackside and, for all intents and purposes, there was no background. Keep us posted there electrolove; I am always interested in seeing how things work out in regards to things which I, myself, would probably never try. Here in the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west we like to have people say that we have "True Grit". (You might remember a film with John Wayne with that title [it was also a novel by a guy named Portis]). I would say this there, Sweden; if you are firmly intent on tackleing a two-level layout, much less a three-level one, its a sure sign that you have "True Grit".
QUOTE: Originally posted by paulstecyna21 is this layout going up against a wall or not?
QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate Electro: Very ambitious project you have there for one guy -- you planning to get any full time help? I'm curious, have you built any other layouts before? Three levels will severely restrict your scenery options vertically. On my 2 deck mushroom, I'm not modeling the Rocky Mountains, and I still had vertical scenery issues. If you model the three decks as I suggested with them at roughly, say 34", 53", and 62", that's a deck separation of 19" between decks 1 and 2, and 9" between decks 2 and 3. That's not much space for deep canyons or high mountainsides unless you just run the tops straight up into the bottom of the upper deck. Helix-1 from deck 1 to deck 2 will need to contain 5 tiers, and helix-2 between deck 2 and 3 will need to contain 3 tiers. An HO train travelling at a scale 40 mph will be in helix-1 for 3 minutes, and will be in helix-2 for 2 minutes. That may not seem like much, but consider this: I estimate you will have about 150 feet of mainline per level. A train running non-stop at a scale 40 mph around the level will take about 4 minutes to make the trip. So the total trip around all 3 decks non-stop will take 17 minutes, roughly a third of which will be inside those helix's. In terms of track miles, your helix's act like a 4th deck, with an estimate 150 feet of track *inside* the helix's. If I were building the DRGW in your space, I'd eliminate some towns and get it to fit down into two decks -- that's my advice. If you have a history of sticking to projects that last 10 years or more and cost thousands of dollars to fund, then by all means go for it. But if you have a history of embarking on ambitious projects and never finishing them, then I'd cut back to something you would more likely complete. I have learned that a more modest layout that you can complete to a decent level is far more satisfying than trying to do too much and then ripping it out because it becomes such a burden you never even get close to finishing it. My Siskiyou Line has 360 feet of mainline and fits in 810 square feet. As far as large dream layouts go, this is what I would call moderately good sized. And as it is, I have found it's all I can handle and then some as to demands on my time.
QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate QUOTE: Originally posted by clinchvalley Mine are set at 60", 40" and 24". Lowest level is usually worked sitting on a roll around short stoll. Pictures on link below. Ops sessions with up to 20 operators and it works just fine. So Larry, some questions: 1. What's your average deck width, and are all your decks basically the same width or does your deck width vary? 2. Is your entire layout tripple decked, or is the third deck primarily staging? To me decks with only staging don't qualify as real decks because operators don't spend a lot of time actually "running trains" on those decks. 3. Do you have step stools for operators to use when doing switching on the upper deck? Or are you blessed <tongue in cheek> with 20 operators all over 6 feet tall so they can see a 60" deck well enough to do switching on it? [swg]
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse While I won't go as far as to say you have rocks in your head, I think you might be jumping too far out there. Remember, figure $50-$100 per square foot and 50 hours per square foot in labor and you'll see your project is massive--and I assume you will be doing this by yourself. Just estimating, you are looking at spending $40,000 and at 15 hours per week, 25.66 years.
--Zak Gardner
My Layout Blog: http://mrl369dude.blogspot.com
http://zgardner18.rrpicturearchives.net
VIEW SLIDE SHOW: CLICK ON PHOTO BELOW