3-level layout deck heights?

[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. The brackets attach with slide nuts so I can actually adjust deck heights any time I wish in the future. I've gone thru extension design changes and welcomed 'what if' questions. I would pose this one; what if you did it as a shelf layout instead of freestanding. It would actually be a much longer mainline run and your freestanding quandry killing the project goes away. Lighting from the center of the aisle works well and only needs some augmenting in deep places.
About freestanding, find a way to secure the vertical posts of your structure to the ceiling and you'll have tons more stability.
Best of luck, go for it.

[jsotto]

The bigger the dream, the more important it is to carefully assess your modeling and operational goals, your resources, and your priorities. If a large layout is built like most small layouts are built, besides being expensive there is much greater risk of it being a maintenance nightmare and causing burnout during construction. Several very good and thoughtful responses have already been posted for your consideration by Joe Fugate, Mike Lehman, and others. I'll try not to be repetitive.

Reliability becomes a huge consideration. We all would rather be working on new projects to progress our layouts, not have to devote increasing amounts of time to fix something we thought we were done with. Simplicity of design generally contributes to reliability, as well as being quicker and often cheaper to build. This applies to benchwork, roadbed, track work, backdrops, level of finsh detail (dust control as well as cost),and control systems (including signals versus dark territory).

Where will you be willing to compromise? We each have a different answer based on our interests and priorities. In my case layout performance is more important than every piece of rolling stock and every building being super-detailed. Nor can I afford the time or money to upgrade the large quantities of these things needed to populate a large railroad to the latest and greatest available today. On the other hand, I am 60% complete hand laying 4200' of track and 530+/- turnouts that are reliable and maintenance-free (on two decks).

My construction phases have allowed me to start regular operating sessions since the railroad was 15% complete the first year and the railroad has not been out of service in the 2-1/2 years since while I continue construction. This greatly reduces the risk of burnout. Get something running as soon as you can.

Don't underestimate the importance of operator ergonomics, in terms of aisle space, access, and viewing angles. A large yard with DCC allowing several operators to be working in or near a yard at the same time can fill the aisle along the yard. Where do operators of the second and third deck stand?

The first step is obviously to try to avoid having another switching location on top of or below where the yard switch engine(s) regularly work. But if your nice scenic run is on a lower level, how can the scene be enjoyed when there are several people standing in front of it working a yard on a higher level? It's your call, just think about it in the design stage to avoid surprise and disappointment later.

An operator working the lowest level on a chair might be taking up the space of two people, although a nice compact bar stool can mitigate this point. If the chair will be on casters, what surface will the operator be trying to roll on?

Add a people layer in your CAD drawing. Then look at the operator "dwell" locations of each deck and put those people outlines on your people layer and check for congestion and conflicts. Identify the people by deck or job. You may want to make adjustments to one or more decks to spread the people out, and then move the correct outline to the new position(s). Is there enough passing space, especially if people are working on both sides of an aisle and a third person needs to squeeze by? And even if they "fit", do they all have enough of a view angle (vertically as well as horizontally) to easily work their jobs?

If mainline running and distance is more important than way switching, a third deck may be a reasonable choice. If not, you may find that you don't really get that much more enjoyable railroad during operating sessions due to people congestion blocking access and viewing of the "extra" railroad. The trade-off is yours to decide.

Best wishes on your project!

Jeff

[SpaceMouse]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cwclark

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

Electro:

Just one more thought ... your layout space looks to be a similar size to mine, but with the third level, you end up having about 50 % more layout than me.

This means your layout will probably need somewhere between 16 and 30 operators to operate it if you use two person crews like me -- or 8-15 operators if you just have one operator per train. Besides road operators, you will need helper crews, yardmasters for the major yards, a dispatcher and perhaps a crew caller.

yep...this is so true...I have a 23 x 25 layout that dogbones throughout the room and what i did was build it too big for one person to handle by themselves....just a basic switching move gets me moving back and forth throughout the room to keep up with the train that i'm hot and sweaty before i'm done..not to mention making and switching the cars off and on for just one train takes about two days to complete before it returns back to the yard...(kinda like a Union job...now ain't that prototypical!) I live in the country and it's really hard to find folks with a great enough passion for trains that they wouldn't mind coming over once in awhile to help run all the trains on the layout..so i'm sort'a on my own..if i want my layout to operate like i planned, i'd need 6 extra bodies to cover all the bases....sometimes a layout that is "too big" can be more trouble than what it's worth...chuck

The basement layout I am planning will be half the size of Joe's and only one level. I'm planning it for 4-6 operators.

[cwclark]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

Electro:

Just one more thought ... your layout space looks to be a similar size to mine, but with the third level, you end up having about 50 % more layout than me.

This means your layout will probably need somewhere between 16 and 30 operators to operate it if you use two person crews like me -- or 8-15 operators if you just have one operator per train. Besides road operators, you will need helper crews, yardmasters for the major yards, a dispatcher and perhaps a crew caller.

yep...this is so true...I have a 23 x 25 layout that dogbones throughout the room and what i did was build it too big for one person to handle by themselves....just a basic switching move gets me moving back and forth throughout the room to keep up with the train that i'm hot and sweaty before i'm done..not to mention making and switching the cars off and on for just one train takes about two days to complete before it returns back to the yard...(kinda like a Union job...now ain't that prototypical!) I live in the country and it's really hard to find folks with a great enough passion for trains that they wouldn't mind coming over once in awhile to help run all the trains on the layout..so i'm sort'a on my own..if i want my layout to operate like i planned, i'd need 6 extra bodies to cover all the bases....sometimes a layout that is "too big" can be more trouble than what it's worth...chuck

[jfugate]

Electro:

Just one more thought ... your layout space looks to be a similar size to mine, but with the third level, you end up having about 50 % more layout than me.

This means your layout will probably need somewhere between 16 and 30 operators to operate it if you use two person crews like me -- or 8-15 operators if you just have one operator per train. Besides road operators, you will need helper crews, yardmasters for the major yards, a dispatcher and perhaps a crew caller.

[jfugate]

Clinch:

Great advice! On my Siskiyou Line, it took me 6 years to get the layout to the point it was operational. It would have taken less, but after the 1994 National Convention I was so burnt out from 2 years of constant pushing to get the new layout ready to show that I took 18 months off and hardly went into the basement at all.

Once I started holding regular monthly operating sessions on the layout in 1997-98, I found it put a real burr in my saddle to have something new to show the guys each month. Plus as Clinch says, it helped keep my interest in the hobby high.

I have advertised around through hobby shops and my web site that guest operators are welcome. As a result, I typically have a waiting list of guest operators each month, with 12-20 operators running trains per session. I need at least 12 operators for the layout to function smoothly and we've found more than 20 operators puts too many extra bodies in the crew lounge and layout room for people to move around easily.

I've said it before and I'll say it again -- Al Kalmbach showed tremendous wisdom when he named his publication Model Railroader. The thing that really makes the hobby the most fun and satisfying is the comraderie and people you can share it with. [swg]

[ClinchValleySD40]

The key deciding factor should be "what are you going to do with it?". If you are just going to run trains by yourself or with one or two friends and have no operational plan, then a layout this large and complex is way over the top. A layout likes this needs a regular operational crew once it reaches that stage. Without that as a goal to push you along, you will get bogged down and possibly bored/frustrated with the whole process.

From inception my layout was designed for regular ops sessions, so everything that went into the design/construction was aimed at that goal. And building a large layout by yourself or with minimal help can be done. You just need to understand the commitment required and if family is involved, make sure they also understand and accept it.

[zgardner18]

I say, do what ever the hell you want. Honestly I'm with everyone when it is said that you are crazy, but on the other hand, it's your dream and if you believe that you can make it happen then lead the way. I'm looking to do a 2 layer with a bottom staging, so that means I'm looking to do a 3 layer too (not according to Joe Fugate--and I agree). I'm not to happy with doing the helix but what else am I to do?

I assume that what everyone is saying is that not only is a 3 layer hard work and costly but just plainly too much to be in one layout. Maybe you should limit your prototype to half or something. What about freelancing something into one. Look at what Pelle Søeborg has done: he wanted to incorporate Feather River and Donner Pass into his layout. Due to lack of room he now has Donner River. I want to use the Glenwood Springs area in my layout along with parts of Montana, and parts of California. so instead of making a big layout, I just ba***hem all together in certain areas and Presto, I have what I want. I would love to have a prototype layout but the reality is there isn't the room for it. Just something to think about.

I think that the big picture here is: are you going to still be around to see it finished? What if you have to move? Some people get half way done and then find themselves playing, running trains instead of finishing because they are so burnt out. Think about that.

Nobody should stop you from your dreams....................

[orsonroy]

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.

Chip,

That $50-$100 per square foot doesn't always hold water, especially on truly linear layouts. On my old layout townsites DID cost about that much including everything, but there was as much rural as urban.

For me, the one foot wide rural sections of layout only cost me about $8.18 per square foot:

1 shelf bracket - $1.00
1/48 of a sheet of 1/4" Lauan @ $9.00 - $0.19
1/48 of a sheet of 2" foam @ $18 - $0.38
3/576 of a sheet of 1/2" foam @ $9.00 (roadbed) - $0.01
1/3 of a piece of Peco code 75 flextrack @ $4.80 - $1.60
Scenery supplies: - $4.00
Adhesives - $1

And if building and scenicing a foam-based layout, working on the rural areas is fast. We're talking speeding bullet fast. I built ALL my basic benchwork in under 30 hours, and my old layout had right around 300 square feet of space on it. I worked on the rural areas of the layout first, since they were the easiest (modeling central Illinois doesn't take much) and each square foot took me no more than two hours to do from the ground to planting trees and bushes, not including drying time.

So mega-layouts don't necessarily have to be money pits, IF you have specific design goals in mind. Keeping things as inexpensive as possible helps a LOT, especially if you do things like scratchbuild the bulk of your structures. And not modeling urban areas helps a lot too. On the eight "townsites" I had on my layout, only four were more than a depot, section house and weeds, and two of the remaining sites were 85% scratchbuilt (mostly, a depot, section house AND simple grain elevator. The only thing I had to buy were two $11 DPM storefronts). If you're modeling Chicago the cost per square foot will be astronomical, but for every one mile of track in a big city, there was 1000 miles that ran thorugh corn and other nothingness, and that's dead easy to model cost-effectively.

[mlehman]

Hi electrolove,
I'll throw in my two cents. The problem with triple-decked layouts is not so much the actual construction needed to support all three decks as it is the human-machine interface, so to speak. Depending on your height, and those who'll help regularly with construction and operation, it really is hard to get three levels that are all comfortable for humans to interface with constantly.

Then consider that this will be a long-term project. You won't be getting younger. I know I'm sure not! My own layout is sort of a level and a half and some of the comprmises that seemed OK 15 years ago when I started are getting harder to put up with as I age. This is something to consider, no matter how young, healthy and flexible you may be now.

The suggestions to think about using a "mushroom" design are worth exploring, if you really do want to squeeze in most of the trackage yopu'd be able to on a three decker, while using what are effectively only two visible levels. Of course, the mushroom has its own structural issues to be resolved, but it avoids some of the negatives of having three visible decks.

Joe just mentioned the vertical dimension of scenery. Trying to model the Mainline through the Rockies cries out for some significant mountain sides, IMHO. For this reason alone, sticking with a double-deck will give you the room to model dramatic scenery. You may even want to consider having an area or two where you use just one level through a scene to make a really dramatic mountainside effect. In HO, you really do need about a half a meter or 2 feet of vertical space to do this, with a full meter being even better to model a mountainside. My tallest vertical scenes are on my narowgauge and two foot tall mountains are just starting to look tall enough with these smaller proportioned trains. Throw some high cubes and auto racks onto some standard gauge track and my mountains would look even less impressive.

Finally, using a third deck for staging only is one way to offset some of the negatives of a third deck. Having this as open staging on the lowest deck and not trrying to scenic it might work. You'll be able to see the trains and will only be running them down into and up off it to the scenicked parts of your layout.
Regards,
MIke Lehman
Urbana, IL

[ClinchValleySD40]

Go for it. If you want to do 2 or 3 or more decks, try it out. Get a couple of old cardboard boxes, about the size refridgerators come in. Cut sample decks from them and hang them from the ceiling with string. If you hang them good enough, place a few structures and such on them to see how it will work.

And don't worry about building something big. Mine is 60'x30' multi deck monster and I've got it up and running with monthly ops sessions in a few years. Expensive yes, major commitment.

[ClinchValleySD40]

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]

Answers
1. Decks vary in width. Some as narrow as 18", some as wide as 30". Depends on what I am trying to do at the specific location.

2. Triple deck on about half the layout. Lowest deck is branch lines. About 1/4 of the layout is 4 decks with the lower two being staging. All of the layout is at least two decks.

3. Step stools not necessary. Operators vary in height with the shortest on my crew about 5'9" and he has no problems. And they love the roll around stool for the lowest deck.

We do a lot of switching on the lowest deck. In the picture, the lowest deck contains the town of Omar with a power plant and five other industries. If you plan out the decks correctly, you won't have any problems with these heights. I operated for a few years on many model railroads and took ideas from each. If you are ever in SE Michigan, stop by and run some trains.

Larry

[electrolove]

Joe:

Yes it's a very ambitious project, you are absolutely right about that. The thing I'm working on right now is a little bit of 3-level benchwork, about 240 cm in length. Just to see if it's possible to build a 3-level freestanding benchwork. If it's not possible I think I must forget my 3-level plans. The reason I'm thinking of this trackplan is because I have no other trackplan. So I'm still open for suggestions. Regarding the 10-year plan I think I'm ready. I have tried to built a Swedish layout many years ago, but the trains are so bad runners so I gave up. No flywheels and things like that. I even had a train called 'Hilding Carlsson' that could not run over a simple code 100 turnout because the wheels was so small so it get stuck. Here is a picture of it:



And over a year ago I started to build a smaller layout but it was full of compromises so I did not take it any futher. And it's just a memory, gone forever. So my experience is not that big, but I'm a fast learner thanks to your excellent DVD's [:D] And I have no problems working with wood. And I will never forget my first Märklin trains.

My dream is to build something the size of your Siskiyou line because you really turned everything upside down for me, and I realized that my dream is not going to happen in my old space. That's the reason I have the big layout space right now. But I'm not 100% sure in what direction I will take my plans so I can still be saved. [:D]

Help me guys, I'm lost in the rockies... Somewhere in Rollins Pass...

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.

[electrolove]

The idea is to make it freestanding, not attached to anything. I'm working on a little bit of benchwork right now to see if I can make 3-levels freestanding or not. If I can't make it freestanding I think I must forget the 3-level plans.

QUOTE: Originally posted by paulstecyna21

is this layout going up against a wall or not?

[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.

[paulstecyna21]

is this layout going up against a wall or not?

[electrolove]

There is just too much bull*** in this forum!!!

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".

[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.

There are a lot of reasons to think in terms of maybe one level.

[orsonroy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by electrolove

Do you have any pictures of your last layout, or maybe a trackplan that you want to show?

I've got quite a few photos of my old layout, but none of them are posted online (and I really don't have to time to work on one of those free accounts), so I can't post them here either. Email me offlist and I'll send you a few.

[electrolove]

Do you have any pictures of your last layout, or maybe a trackplan that you want to show?

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").

[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".

[dinwitty]

I'm working about a 15 inch difference for my shelf modulars, no deeper than 18 inches. That difference may vary as my ideas work it, but it may work out, but some buildings may be too tall for it.

..duh..multipost, howd I do dat? fixed...

[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").

[jfugate]

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.

You can always add more distance between towns by adding more hidden trackage, but that has its own problems.

1. If you are modeling the prototype, there may not be a good rationale for having hidden trackage between town A and town B.

2. Hidden trackage is just that -- HIDDEN. Most model railroaders like the hobby because they like watching trains run. Having lots of hidden trackage between towns is taking things in exactly the *wrong* direction.

A helix is the ultimate compact construct for jamming a lot of hidden trackage into a given space -- and it can get ridiculous in a hurry.

On the LDSIG list, for instance, is a layout design where someone wanted to have part of the layout downstairs and part of the layout upstairs, with a helix that elevates the trains between floors. Sounds like a great idea -- until you do the math. An N scale train traveling at a scale 40 mph would take over 30 MINUTES to traverse such a helix.

In theory, yes, adding more distance between towns sounds like a great idea.

Using hidden trackage as a general design philosophy to lengthen runs is generally a *bad idea*, in my experience.

It makes for really booring layouts that try an operator's patience and leads to more accidents because the operator can't see what's happening so he doesn't pay attention. Or the operator gets ancie with the train out of sight and keeps edging the throttle up a bit - just to be safe. Once the train finally emerges from the hidden trackage, it may be just short of Warp 1 ... [swg]

[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.

Have fun

[exPalaceDog]

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.

The Old Dog would suggest building some foot stools. Sit on them when working the lowest level, stand on them when working the highest level.

Have fun

[electrolove]

This is my plan so far...

Level 1: Royal Gorge Route


Level 2: Utah Area


Level 3: Moffat Road


Backdrop:


Level 0: Hidden Staging (Denver and Salt Lake City)


As you can see I have three levels. Denver and Salt Lake City is hidden staging. The journey begins in Denver. We can take the Moffat Road or the Royal Gorge Route to Dotsero. From Dotsero we travel the Utah Area to Salt Lake City. There are two helixes, one at each end.

Moffat Road:
We start on level 3, Denver is hidden staging - Big Ten Curves - all tunnels in the tunnel district - Moffat tunnel - Winter Park - Frazer Canyon - Byers Canyon - Gore Canyon (upper and lower) - Bond - To helix and level 2 - Dotsero - Glenwood Canyon - Glenwood Springs - Grand Junction - Green River - Helper - Soldier Summit - Provo, and to Salt Lake City hidden staging.

Royal Gorge Route:
We start on level 1, Denver is hidden staging - Castle Gate - Pueblo - Canon City - Hanging Bridge - Leadville - Salida - Tennessee Pass - Minturn - To helix and level 2 - Dotsero - Glenwood Canyon - Glenwood Springs - Grand Junction - Green River - Helper - Soldier Summit - Provo, and to Salt Lake City hidden staging.

Maybe I can take away one helix, that's the next thing I will work on.

Here are some pictures showing my layout space. Done in SketchUp 5 on Mac OS X. A very easy to use 3D app.







And finally the trackplan inside my layout space.

[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]

[electrolove]

I found one picture with 3 levels. Is the deck height 60", 40" and 24" in this picture?

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.

[ClinchValleySD40]

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.