3-level layout deck heights?

[tgindy]

Before you get to the deck heights => there two questions you need to answer for yourself...

[2] What's the prototype rationale in the layout design?
[2] Does this give me a planning reason for three levels?

Let me share some rational at the beginning stages of my own n-scale free-lanced Conemaugh Road & Traction.

It will be built for one person with allowance for more if someone else comes along.

It is in year one of a ten-year planning and modeling process. The CR&T could be looked at either as either a 1.5 level or a 2.5 level depending on your perspective.

The prototype rationale is Altoona to a Johnstown Pennsy circa 1956 (for steam and diesel) in the Western Pennsylvania autumn (for scenery) as prototype inspiration. Only with the most minimal of a Bethlehem Steel through yard, and spurs, did the 4-track PRR ever touch down in Johnstown's Conemaugh Valley.

Johnstown had, and still has, a smaller version of a "Union Station" where you went through a brick tunnel under two of the 4-track Pennsy mainline and then climbed the stairs to a platform to meet what is now Amtrak.

Thus, Conemaugh Road & Traction will drop off passengers at the LOWER front of the passenger station while the Pennsylvania Broadway Limited (and thru freights) will be at the UPPER back of the station apx. 20 feet higher => This is where the 1/2 comes in.

The CR&T will never track interchange with the Pennsy and this actually creates the flexibility to model a local shortline, and a separate but layout-incorporated PRR layout with Class 1 high iron mountain railroading.

You always felt like you were LOOKING UP up to see the Pennsylvania Railroad pass through the city! You were always going about your business in the lower valley when you heard the whistle blasts, or the vibration of the diesels sounding for miles through the Conemaugh Valley.

But, if you were at the level of the Pennsy mainline, you always felt like you were LOOKING DOWN into the Conemaugh Valley. Can you believe it? => a prototype reason to have your town look like its in a spaghetti bowl?

Here is where the n-scale over ho scale advantage comes into play for one level to the next with three methods of raising track elevation for the Pennsy layout portion...

[1] The Pennsy portion will highlight the Horseshoe Curve in one layout corner which will actually be part of a NOLIX.

[2] The Gallitzin Area in another layout corner will use the tunnels to begin only a PARTIAL HELIX. Gallitzin will also have a prototypical helper reverse loop back to the curve.

[3] The rest of the Pennsy layout portion will be a NOLIX using an elongated double-track dogbone, for the illusion of a 4-track mainline, from one level to the other for a continuous run option. The PRR's low point will be at the upper passenger station platform with the CR&T at the lower front of the station.

The result is the PRR can be in continuous operation while the CR&T can be a little more operational intensive, or; the CR&T can be silent while PRR operating helpers in Galitzin are looping back to Altoona staging.

The Pennsy planning rational will also provide the upper level a reason to look prototypical as that upper level.

As with any layout => if you have a reason => you will work toward a goal with a purpose.

And then, you can think more about heights of the levels with justification.

[Anonymous]

Why Don't you start with one and go up from there. I wouldn't try it because of the whole lease issue. I would want to have something in place fairly quickly to enjoy running some trains rather than spend two years building it and then loose the lease.

[TandHRR]

I found the article about wraping a track around a room 3 times, Model Railroader November 1966 "Stacked Mainline for Mileage" Marquis.

[jfugate]

Also, if anyone is interested, there's some more ideas about electro's design options over on the LDSIG web site.

[ndbprr]

The higher everything is the less separation you can get away with. I visited an East Broad Top On3 layout last week that the top level was 42" and the bottom level was 8" below that. I had to bend over at a 90 degree angle to see it. Not good. If that had been 48-60" for the top level it would have been easier. Since I am 6'5" I am kicking around how high to make my top level for my two levels. I think I am going to go 42-44" for the bottom and 60-62" for the top level. Clearance won't be a problem on the top level. For the vertically challenged operators I plan to make an equivalent of the kneeling rail in a Catholic church that is pivoted off the legs. I envision a fairly simple hooking of the toe to drop it and put it back up. I may even try to spring or counterbalance load it so when the opertaor steps off it clears itself automatically. I'd be interested in knowing if anyone has tried using then interlocking rubber mats like Sam's club sells to ease leg fatigue and if they worked.

[electrolove]

Right now I'm building a 240 cm long freestanding 3-level benchwork just to see if it's possible to do. I will post more pictures when it's finished. It's 200 cm in height and the decks are at 50, 100 and 150 cm from the floor.

[TandHRR]

I've been thinking of my own triple decker, so I was relieved to see this post.

I have seen a number of articles that could help answer some of these issues. I believe a freestanding benchwork section for a triple-deck layout is in either "2006 Great Model Railroads", or "8 Model Railroads You Can Build"- the overall supporting legs are crossed boards. The top of the "X" supports the top deck, and the other two decks work around the legs. I figure that placing the apex at or just above the middle deck height could minimize the intrusion and be easily covered by buildings and mountains.

Another option that I envision incorporates the "shadow-box" as a structural part of the benchwork- in cross section this would look like a ladder, sandwiching decks between two sheets of plywood. (If you have issue with the shadow box, you should get away from multi deck layouts any how.) Having the fascia board cover some vertical areas will also help that situation where a train's caboose hasn't left town A before the locomotives get to town B because the operator will not see that, an the same time he has physically walked to town B. I think I remember this concept being in a mushroom layout discussion, but this mushroom was in plan, not section (look here: http://www.housatonicrr.com/blobs.html)

I recall another article from an old RMC (I think) that had a trackplan that ran around a room three times, but at least one level was always hidden. That way there would be less distraction when one level was switching a town, or running through some other spectacular scene. This would also help with the operator walking from Aytown to Beeville before the consist has completely left Aytown.

If you have a hung ceiling, it could serve as the ultimate staging yard, why let it limit you [:D]

Good luck, and best wishes.

[jfugate]

Multiple decks is a design compromise, plain and simple. If we had the space, we would all much prefer to model using a single level.

Multiple decks create a lot of visual clutter, which is why I really like the mushroom benchwork configuration. It's a way to have a double-decked layout and yet have it look single decked without all the visual clutter.

However, in electro's case, he can't attach anything to his room walls, floor, or ceiling since it's a leased space.

Multideck benchwork is complex enough to do when you *can* attach things to the walls, and trying to do a triple deck free standing layout is really going to rachet up the complexity scale tremendously. I won't say it can't be done, I just think sometimes lowering your sites a bit to something you are more likely to complete will yield the more satisfying layout.

Electro's other consideration is this layout is mostly for his own enjoyment and getting other operators on a regular basis may be a challenge. Building a triple-deck layout for one operator may be too much layout for one person to handle. Also, this is electro's first layout and those of us with actual layout building experience need to gently guide him to avoid later disillusionment.

Again, I won't say never go for the gusto, just consider other options before you decide.

My bet is 1.5 levels (some single deck, some double deck) may give the most satisfying layout for one guy. Ambitious, but not so huge you might give up before it reaches a satisfying level of completion.

[jecorbett]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cmrproducts

It could be said that those that DO NOT like multi-deck layouts are more into watching the train run through the scenery ROUNDY-ROUND than into heavy-duty OPs (switching cars).

I couldn't disagree more. There have been many examples of outstanding operation oriented layouts that were single decked. The Virginian & Ohio and the Utah Belt are just two famous examples but there are many more as well. Multi-deck layouts allow one to get more mainline in the same amount of space with the tradeoff of limiting the scenic possibilities and requiring additional engineering in the benchwork. For those like me who have enough space to create the sized railroad they want and can manage, there is absolutely no reason to go multi-decked. When completed, my layout will fill a good portion of my 1200 square foot basement and will give me plenty of operational possibilities without being a roundy-round (not that there's anything wrong with it).

[BigRusty]

A Swede can do anything. My Grandpa Ofeldt came over on the boat from Oland and was a millionaire by the age of 39. A lotta money in those days. If that bloke in NJ could build Northlandz all by himself, Electrolove's project should be like child's play. I have been model railroading for over 65 years, I daresay a long bit more than the rest of you "newbies. I am planning a 4 tier layout in my new 24 x 44 foot model railroad building.The bottom and the third levels will be hidden staging so I really have a nice space between the second a fourth visible layers. The helix will be in my adjacent workshop over my workbench so it can be on a 2 percent grade with a 48 inch minium radius. I have been reading this post since it started and offered some advice along the way, some of which appears to have been heeded ( hidden staging areas for one) and I say to you, sir, GO FOR IT! You are on the right track, either build a full scale mockup or a scaled down version out of cardboard boxes to see what works and what needs to be changed. Now is the time to do that.

[cmrproducts]

It could be said that those that DO NOT like multi-deck layouts are more into watching the train run through the scenery ROUNDY-ROUND than into heavy-duty OPs (switching cars).

And I can understand this. They may like to just watch the train go through the scenery again and again as in Rail-fanning. The multi-deck would take a lot out of this design as the layers could be somewhat distracting.

But when doing OPs I usually am not looking around at the overall scenery as I need to concentrate on the immediate area as the switching needs to get done as the next mainline train is due any second and the mainline must be clear!

So I usually am only looking at the local industries and really do not pay much attention to the scenery, unless it is in my way!

Now doing scenery on a multi-deck is going to be more of a challenge than a single deck layout is BUT if the owner of the layout is more into real OPs (switching) then pseudo-OPs (Roundy-round) then the scenery is only secondary to the real purpose of the layout OPs.

And I always wondered why there are so many layouts being rebuilt as most were almost finished with scenery and buildings. And after reading the stories in the model magazines or asking them in person, I find out that they were only the Roundy-round operators and they really had just got bored with watching the trains run round and round.

But the modelers that were into serious OPs seemed to keep the layout operations for decades!

So it just maybe that those modelers that want to build a multi-deck layout are a little more serious about real OPs (switching) instead of just watching their train run around the Christmas tree (er… Single level Layout).

Just one persons view

BOB H – Clarion, PA

[jecorbett]

I just think that this is a hobby where dreams often collide with reality. In most cases, the railroad we build is not the one we would like to build. The one we want is usually bigger and has more features than the one we end up with. Limitations of space, time, and money usually prevent us from doing everything we would like. When I first got involved in this hobby as an adult, one of the primers I read cautioned about the pitfalls of trying to build too big a layout right from the start. I didn't want to hear that and started right off trying to build the big one. The result was a poorly planned, poorly executed layout that I lost interest in soon after completing the mainline and much of the scenery. I ended up being out of the hobby for about 10 years until I retired and moved into my new house. Again, I set out to build a large layout but this time it is one I had been planning for much of those 10 years I wasn't actively in the hobby. I have a good concept and am doing things the right way, but still it has progressed much slower than I anticipated even though I am now retired. If I was going to start over again I might be tempted to build a smaller layout that I could complete and run in a much shorter time frame.

Electrolove obviously has a lot of enthusiasm and big dreams and I hope he achieves them but I am afraid he may be setting himself up for a lot of frustration when the layout doesn't proceed as he hopes. I would be very interested to see how this project stands five years from now.

[SpaceMouse]

I for one am humbled. OF course, if it is your dream you should build it. I feel overwhelmed at putting a one level layout in my 28 x 28 basement--because I am a year and a half into my 5 x 8 averaging 15-20 hours a week working on it. I still see years of work left on it.

But I should not project my apprehension to you. Go for it.

[selector]

I admire ElectroLove for having the courage, the confidence, and the vision to do as he is doing. He has also shown a great deal of class by asking for, and responding thoughtfully to, advice from others who are watching from across the sea. He is thinking big when others would shiver with timidity.

Go get 'em, EL.

[ericboone]

Electrlove,

I'm designing a four level layout myself, although the bottom level and half the top level are staging only, so I guess it is more of a 2.5 level layout. The design is a "no-lix", so I do not have consistent deck levels. The lowest scenicked area is 35 inches off the floor while the highest scenicked area will be 64 inches with an 8 or 10 inch raised floor area to put the view at a more comfortable 54 or 56 inch view. The decks are nominaly 14 inches apart. Since I'm modelling relatively flat terrain, in most areas, the decks will be 2 or 2 1/2 inches thick giving me 11 1/2 to 12 inches of height to work with for the occassional grain elevator or cement plant silo. Go for it.
I went through several track plans, one was four levels with only the middle two being scenicked and one was even a five level plan with the middle three levels being scenicked. In all cases, I was making a plan for the same 25 miles of prototype railroad. The 5 level layout gave me 17.5 feet on mainline per actual mile, but the upper level was too high and the lower level too low. The 4 level layout just crammed all my cities too close together, giving me only 9 feet of mainline per actual mile. Given the long trains I wanted to run, this was just too short. The 4 level plan with 2.5 scenicked levels solved a number of problems. I got 14 feet of mainline per actual mile, allowing long trains, using a 4x fast clock using actual railroad timetables, and it helped make my deck clearances more even. At one end of the mainline I will model is a large yard. The other end has a small yard and a large industrial area. Both areas need to be flat to keep cars from rolling. Going to a 2.5 scenicked level layout put the one area on top of the other. Otherwise, with my no-lix design, deck clearance below the flat areas was too short at one end.
One word of caution has to do with aisle width. I can not tell how wide your aisles are from the pictures you posted, but they seem to be narrow. With more levels, comes more operators and thus the need for them to move around each other.

[mlehman]

I don't see anyone here that is knocking the idea of a triple deck layout. People are suggesting that some caution, planning, and thoughful consideration be taken before jumping into what is obviously a large and complicated project.

As for any layout with three or more levels, one has to decide what is more important -- operation or scenery. Unless one is modeling a prairie, the constrained area for scenery on a three-, four- or more level layout tends to throw the emphasis toward operation, at the expense of scenery. This is just one of many compromises that you have to make in using multiple levels.

My point here, just so it's clear, is that there is no free lunch with going to multiple levels. You're giving up something for gaining the advantage of squeezing in the extra mileage. As long as the owner is comfortable with what is lost, as well as what is gained, then they should proceed, but only if they are sure they won't be disappointed with the results due to unanticipated constraints on aspects of layout design and operation other than the amount of trackage they can squeeze into a multiple level layout.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL

[cmrproducts]

I can not see where this project is any more complicated than learning a new job other than the job supposedly compensated you, and that is up for debate. But after having built over 20 layouts (I have been a Club member for over 20 years) and helped others with their layouts, taking on a large project is no big thing.

A little pre-planning probably is the best thing and to set realistic goals will keep one focused and accomplishing something.

If the project gets too big then just slow down a little.

I have been building my latest layout (and largest) for only 5 years now. All I really have down is 2800 feet of track and a lot of benchwork. Is that slowing me down NO! Do I get frustrated at times that I am not making as much progress as I would like YES! But does that stop me and make me want to quit NO!

It just makes me more determined to get things done. I have the rest of my life to fini***his layout, however long that is. And I plan on spending all of it doing the layout. This is the same as electrolove. It is his layout and NO ONE should tell him what to do!


BOB H – Clarion, PA

[jsotto]

Hi again Electrolove,

I hope you realize that many of the responses here are NOT negative, but cautionary with many constructive, thoughtful points based on experience for you to consider in your planning for multi-levels. My double deck railroad is my third going back 23 years and I am very happy with the results or I wouldn't be rebuilding (due to household moves) to a similar design. Several others here clearly are well satisfied with their multi-deck results and enjoy the pleasure and satisfaction of being able to share it with larger groups for operation.

Certainly you are considering a major, long term effort that will benefit from more attention to careful planning than a less ambitious project. There are those among us who are successfully progressing similar large visions. We would rather share our experience to help you succeed than see you burn out and leave the hobby. It truly can follow the adage that you get out of an endeaver rewards in proportion to the effort you put into it.

Best wishes,

Jeff

[jecorbett]

I hope you prove us wrong but I have to agree with those who have suggested you are biting off more than you can chew. It's nice to have big dreams but you also need to take a reality check. Building a quality layout is a time consuming process and to do it on such a large scale will take one man an awfully long time. John Allen worked on his magnificent Gorre and Daphetid railroad for over 20 years and even at that he never completed the mainline. At the time of his death, he had one more bridge to build to complete the line and operate it the way he envisioned. With the space you have available, you should be able to build and outstanding layout on just one level. It may not have everything you want in it but few if any of us are able to include everything we want in our layouts. This is a hobby of compromises.

[dinwitty]

The only issue is comfort running each level. Top level maybe close to eye level, next level down about midwaist, the next upper leg height. play with it and see what feels right.

Try a test construction, use C-Clamps to hold things.
I think my shelf-module style will work.
it could be 3-4 levels.
A trick for some modelers is the visible hidden track for run length, no switching, and just below is a big town or industrial area, or reverse.
That gets a little more and thats a part of my planning, I am going to be doing a lot of trickery.

[MEC568]

I'll second Joe Fugate on hidden trackage. At the club I'm in our layout has three peninsulas, the main line run from the base of the first peninsula goes under ground as it gets to peninsula 2 then runs all the way to the far end before it loops back and exits at the base of the third peninsula. All this instead of just cutting across the base of the second peninsula. It is a major bore waiting for your train and I do exactly what Joe said, I crank my train to full speed as soon as it disappears until it comes back out.
Don't build hidden track unless for staging.

Chris

[cmrproducts]

With the multi-deck layout concept and everyone here stating that multi-level layouts do not work, how come that if it is Bruce Chubb doing the layout with 5 or 6 levels then it is OK but when some one else (that is not world famous) then they are considered crazy!

My home layout is in a 25 by 75 foot basement and I have over 2800 feet of track in so far and it is on multi levels. I some places I have 4 levels ( now actually the tracks are just passing through the background) but I still have multi-levels.

Each area is designed to work a certain way as the lowest area is a large yard and can be worked from a rolling chair or standing as the yard area is 32” wide. It is 33” high. Now the middle level varies from 45” to 50” and the highest level is at 60”.

I am 6 feet tall and this works out right for me. For the shorter operators the 60” level has a fold down step that is the full length of the high level area and this then makes the benchwork only 54” high.

As for getting the layout complete, just get some track down and get a few sidings in and begin operations. Don’t wait until the whole thing is finished to run the layout. Put in substitute buildings or boxes with black magic marker doors and windows on them to represent the building and do Operations. As you have the time, build the buildings and scenery but by all means run the layout as it keeps up the interest. I have OPs every other Thursday night and also have OPTUDs (OP Till U Drop) and have 40 operators in to run the layout with many coming 100 miles away.

I am building my layout by myself and it is my retirement project. Will it ever be done, Maybe! Am I going to worry about finishing it NO! But I am going to have fun until I can’t do anything any more which I expect will be a long time into the future.

I say go for it and don’t listen to the negatives as I was told the same thing when I started my layout and no one thinks that any more.

BOB H – Clarion, PA

[R. T. POTEET]

Attitude problem???Whose got an attitude problem???I solve my attitude problems with Chivas Regal and club soda.I hope that electrolove can solve his at something short of the ceiling for his top deck!!!

[zgardner18]

QUOTE: Originally posted by R. T. POTEET

You are absolutely right there, electrolove; there is a lot of BS on the forum and since you quoted my response I take it you are referring to me! So be it but your the one who asked the idiotic question about deck heights on a three level layout.

Try this BS on for size then: your rail height is going to be approximately 2-2.5 inches above your platform/deck height. The average height of an (HO) car is 2.1-2.3 inches. We're dealing now with 4.1-4.8 inches. Allow 3 inches for the depth of the benchwork and the lighting and you are 7.1-7.8 inches. Got any bridges? Twenty feet in HO is 2.75 inches. You're at ten inches already and you haven't put a g*dd*mned structure or a tree on there yet. How much sky do you want in the background there electrolove???

Yes, there's a lot of BS on the forum and I am sure that some of it eminates from the far,far reaches of the wild, wild west. So while you're in the process of frying brain cells try these figures: 24-45-66 or maybe 25-47-69 or maybe even 26-49-71 or maybe even.......!!!How in the h*ll is anyone supposed to know what is the right height for the decks on a three level layout. Its yours; you decide!!!!


Even better try 24-39-54-69-84; that's a five level layout!! If three levels are great five would have to be fantastic!!!You can bet your Volvo on that one!!!

I'm sorry but I couldn't help laughing about this. Though it was probably serious, It just made my day. maybe even my weekend. This is way forums are so interesting: nobody knows who is joking and who isn't. I'm sure my input was BS too.

[electrolove]

R. T. POTEET:

You really have a attitude problem. I will not comment this anymore.

[jfugate]

R.T.

Your point is a good one, but there's no reason to be so mean-spirited about it.

[*^_^*]

[NZRMac]

Why the attitude man CHILL out, it's just a hobby.

Ken.

[R. T. POTEET]

You are absolutely right there, electrolove; there is a lot of BS on the forum and since you quoted my response I take it you are referring to me! So be it but your the one who asked the idiotic question about deck heights on a three level layout.

Try this BS on for size then: your rail height is going to be approximately 2-2.5 inches above your platform/deck height. The average height of an (HO) car is 2.1-2.3 inches. We're dealing now with 4.1-4.8 inches. Allow 3 inches for the depth of the benchwork and the lighting and you are 7.1-7.8 inches. Got any bridges? Twenty feet in HO is 2.75 inches. You're at ten inches already and you haven't put a g*dd*mned structure or a tree on there yet. How much sky do you want in the background there electrolove???

Yes, there's a lot of BS on the forum and I am sure that some of it eminates from the far,far reaches of the wild, wild west. So while you're in the process of frying brain cells try these figures: 24-45-66 or maybe 25-47-69 or maybe even 26-49-71 or maybe even.......!!!How in the h*ll is anyone supposed to know what is the right height for the decks on a three level layout. Its yours; you decide!!!!


Even better try 24-39-54-69-84; that's a five level layout!! If three levels are great five would have to be fantastic!!!You can bet your Volvo on that one!!!

[ClinchValleySD40]

Originally posted by mrunyan

I've started on my triple deck N layout of the EJ&E. My deck height will be 36-51-63. I'm using C shaped Unistrut channel on the walls and custom brackets.

Sounds like you've been to John D's excellent EJ&E layout in Michigan.

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

 

 

 

 

• Reply