Hey gents,me again.It has come up from several sources, that since I am buillding around the walls this time, that double decking would be something worth putting some serious thought into. Does anyone out there have any reccomendations for reference material that is double deck specific? I cam find plenty on table tops,cookie cutter style,l-girder and open style.Even some great info on the dreaded "mushroom",but that is way more than I want to build. Subfloors???? eeek!!!lol I am planning on under table staging at this point so it already seems I have decided in a way. But if I double the scenicked portion then I really end up triple decked and I suddenly see my self getting in way over my head construction wise. I am mostly concerned with the benchwork aspect at this point.I'll figure out "short" scenery later lol. I know that double decking almost certainly will include a helix in there somewhere.Where with just the staging it will just ramp down, cookie cutter style, on a straight grade. Construction wise, helixes worry me.But hey I'll try anything once most of the time. Also the over all support has me a bit puzzled.It seems that basically it would be like building a relatively large shelf around the room.I am wanting it to be part the lower layout benchwork as attatched to the wall. If there is a book or a website out there that could give me some info other than the over simplistic approach that alot of the books I have been reading have so far. Not that I am a genius or anything.I just haven't been able to find a book with what I want, which is contruction info for double decking. I have some of the track plan books that have double layouts in them but very little or no info on the benchwork. And lastly,I would like to see some overall photos as well of a "finished" double deck layout as the vice president of the railroad (read the wife) has concerns of it making the room look too crowded. Her concerns come from the same layout books that have the plan but no photos. Of course personal experience is just as good,But thats not what I am asking for,as I understand I have been being quite the pest since I have found this board. (thanx to all who have replied in carious ways) Just point me in the right direction if anyone knows where that is. Oh and I have got some pictures (still in the camera at this point) to document this process from start to "finish"...if it ever does get "finished" lol.At this point to me finished will be getting a train running.Soon i keep telling myself...soon. Well that all for now I suppose...'m sure there will be more again real soon. Later again,
I've been looking at doing the same sort of thing myself. I model in HO, and prefer the mountainous areas of the UP. I'll have a 9'6" X 16' bedroom in our basement when I finish it, where I plan on building the layout. Not wide enough for a mushroom. I want lots of mainline track, and preferably enough that I can run two different trains on seperate tracks so they don't interfere with each other. Combine staging and a good switching yard...... Maybe I need a bigger house? LOL.... I've decided on under-table staging for 4 trains of up to 10' long. I've routed it along the front of the lower layout so I can see the "parking" area and move around cars if I want. I have a helix under the table to "climb up" to the main level, exiting from the back of a mountain. To get to the upper level I decided to climb up the wall and around the corner of the room. I've decided to build a "suspended helix" just before it gets to the top level so I can have that level around 2' above the main level. The main level is quite deep, with 3' along the main run, and over 6' deep at the end of the room with a "donut" in the middle of it so I can access the track for construction and repairs. I've designed it such that I can build the main level and get operating, and add the upper level some time down the road. Am I satisfied with the design? No. I've got 22" corners in some areas, and I'd prefer the widen them out more. I'm also running 1" in 3' climbs, which I'd prefer the reduce but can't see how in the space I have. I'm also afraid that it'll turn into a spaghetti bowl.... At least I have a year or more until I can start construction to ponder and think about alternatives. Mark
Just my 2 cents (that I'm afraid I'll get critisied for): I really don't care for multi level layouts. I think that having two decks close together lessens the idea of trains travelling distance. I prefer to model less in a single level and have the staging operations "model" more distance. This is just my personal view. Multi level has MANY advantages and you can fit much more operation in. I guess its a personal choice. Follow YOUR interests.
Greg, Check out "How to Build Model Railroad Benchwork" By Linn H Westcott (Kalmbach of course) - anyway it has details about how to build double decks and helixes. I must say I am not fond of the idea of a helix (although I have no first hand experience with them) I simply don't like the idea of having to wait while I can't see my train Also in the benchwork book there is a diagram showing one way to get double deck without a helix (it's on p66 and is from a John Armstrong plan I remember seeing but don't remember where) Also checkout Tony Koester's plans for his new Nickel Plate Third Sub (Sept 2000 MR) - it's double deck - has no helix and has low grades - of course he has lots and lots and lots of room!
Greg, another couple of ways: 1. Make switch-backs to gain height to the upper level. (Looks like a sort of ladder and can be fun.) 2, Build the whole layout around the room (or how ever far) layout on an incline so the upper level is actually the end of a donut you raised above the one below. Both ends extend over each other a ways, no helix. There was a write-up about one like that back in the late 40's early 50's. They had made towns ever so often that were level, but a couple of mainlines behind the towns kept going up. The way he did his scenery, a mountain brought the scenery out to the edgeon the lower one, and a bridge ran across to the high part.
<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by watash: Build the whole layout around the room (or how ever far) layout on an incline so the upper level is actually the end of a donut you raised above the one below. Both ends extend over each other a ways, no helix.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> That's how Koester's plan works. The whole layout is one big slow rising helix - with flat towns. The drawback to this is that it takes heaps of room to do.
I have talked to one in this thread about the dangers of a helix (traditional - slinky type - that goes up and up) in a smaller room. Basically by smaller room, I mean large bedroom size or smaller. A helix eats track. I have built a double decker, with 20 inches seperation of decks from track top to track top. I wouldn't go any smaller than 20 inches separation because I have two reversing loops, one over the other that protrude out by about 38 inches from the wall (16 in radius curves here); less seperation would create too much of a tunnel effect. My layout is in a smaller room 7 by 13. The first decision for me was the grade. I wanted it no more than 2.5; mine is now around 2.2% and many parts of my style of helix not as curvy as a traditional helix; I will get to this latter. Here is the critical point. The calculation I use is slightly larger than 2% and works out to between 2% and 2.1%. That is, instead of a 2 inch gain in 100 inches, I do a 2 inch gain in 8 feet (close enough for government work) which is 96 inches. So I need 80 feet of track to raise the train 20 inches in height. Now my mainline is only 120 feet in length. So if the helix eats 80 feet that is 2/3 of the layout mainline, or 66% of the lenght. In terms of time the train runs, 66% of the time, in a traditional helix, the train will disappear from view. Trust me folks, from running trains on other friends layout with a smaller helix, a large helix just isn't doable in a small room. The time the train is hidden is just way toooooooooooooooo long. So what I have done is created an area that is "single decked" but very mountainous. In that mountainous area, the train will disappear out of view as it travels around the "back" of the visible mountains. But, and this is very important, it appears back in view as it meanders down one side of the mountain, into full view, back down the other side, and again out of view in the back of the mountain. What I am doing is basically creating a mainline railroad mountain scene using narrow guage techniques. In N scale, this is great because you can have two (you could have only one) mountains with bridges, snow tunnels, etc, just like in colorado or the canadian rockies. The mountains could easily be 3 and a half feet high, giving the illusion of real tall mountains, especially in N scale. I haven't examined the possibilities of the use of mirrors here, but it seems to me this mountainous region is a prime candidate for mirrors. In canada, we have the Fraser Canyon in which CP runs on one side, and CN on the other (not at the same height), with a river seperating them. You can have - around the outside of the mountains - a U shaped area. On the outside closest to the edge of the layout would be your lowest level, slowly climbing, with a long siding. This level would disappear aroung the back of the mountains and re-appear in the front on the other side of the U, on the mountain side of the U. In the base of the U would be the Fraser River. So, although you would have one continuous line, it would have the illusion of two seperate lines, like in the Fraser Canyon. I haven't decided what to do with a necessary third loop, but I don't see much of a problem with seperating it visually from the first two. Why all these funny contortions? One, the train gains elevation while disappearing for only short times; two, you can create a really excellent mountainous region based on prototypical operations; three, you are doing away with a traditional helix and its construction; four, you are incredibly extending your mainline; and five, you are breaking up a small room double decker into three distinct regions. The first region is the lower deck, the next region is the mountainous - nonhelixed - helix; and the third region is the upper deck. This break up makes the layout seem much larger. On our layout, the first region is the Vancouver port and granary area....then the Fraser Canyon (mountainous area)...then farming (wheat) and a small town on the top level. Each area has its own distinct personality, thus psychologically and vusually lenghtening the layout. Greg that is why you have those two bulbous protrusions on the layout design I sent you. Those two protrusions are seperate mountains. [ 14 April 2001: Message edited by: rsn48 ]
I have had a double, then to triple deck layout running since 1989 and am well pleased with it. If you want to get a look, go to toto.net/rmmmr/ and look at the photo gallery for the layout. If you have questions, let me know. Bob Miller
My current layout is double decked with a 20 inch separation. I started with a hlix but after three turns I lead the track out and made some spiral tunnels like the CP use to get from Field to Lake Louise. I am pleased because there is some mountain railroad action rather than the wait while a train goes through the helix. As it is, visitors get curious when a whole train disappears in the initial curves of the helix only then to see it going through spiral tunnels which keeps their interest going. I do find wiring a real pain with two levels. If and when I build another layout, I will keep it at one level. In the meantime, the double deck sure extends running time from point A to point B
Bob Miller thanks for posting that link. Those are some of the best photos I have seen of the "overall layout" type pictures I am looking for.Understandably so many photos are of a scene on the layout and not how the layout (or empire in your case) fits in the room.But if anyone knows of any pictures like these that show the layout from a distance with the layout edges showing, I would really aprreciate apoint in the right direction. I did have a few questions for you. You mentioned 20 inches of seperation,approximately what are your lowest and highest elevations? The way I see it(in my case anyway my upper deck would not be able to be higher than 5 feet due to height restrictions of my 5'5" fiance.SO that would put my lowest level at just below 3 feet.I am still planning on that being mostly staging only So with a chair that shouldn't be too bad. Does any one have any references for "chair aisle width"? I am guessing it would need to be at least another foot or so wider than for standing/walking does that sound about right? Also another question is with you being in HO scale how large is your overall room?From the pictures it must be very large. And lastly are your staging yards in addition to your 3 decks? I read where it said you had 5 staging areas. Are they the same levels as the deck and just hidden behind scenery or how/where exactly do they fit in? Thanx again for the link and I must say That is a great website and truly awesome and inspiring empire.
Greg, Railmodel Journal Magazine publishes photos showing how layouts fit in a room. If you can get a hold of the Janurary 2000 issue and the January 2000 issue of Model Railroader you can see two perspectives of Jack Burgess' Yosemite Valley RR. The MR article as great photos of the layout, whilst the RMJ article has great photos of the layout room. Oh, and it's triple decked, in HO. has a helix and the MR article has a track plan to scale. The overall size is 20x20 feet.
I have just finished reading many many threads on multiple bench layouts in the layout design forum. These posts are almost two years old but cover a number of issues concerning multideck. One consensus was that if done properly, multidecks work. Basically the operators attention is riveted on two what they are doing, and within certain perameters, their attention was not diverted by another layout. Some didn't like more than two levels, a minority didn't mind three or more. My own feeling is that if you have two sceniced main levels, you could squeze a third one in underneath only for staging. You would done play this area for any operations. And use it for storage and staging. As used for staging, it would not be competing for attention since it would not be considered part of the modeled layout. As I have susptected, many felt that it was important to have an adequate distance between the two levels (modeled). Eighteen to twenty one inches seemed to be the norm. It was also felt that in a doubled decked layout, ailse width becomes more important. For one thing, in the bottom level, one might want to stand back a little further than in the upper level, so you don't want people bumbing into each other. Double decking in a smaller area is not the place to be stingy with aisle width.
Sort of a catch-22 isn't it. We use double deck to get more RR in less space, yet to make it work we need to use more space for the isles.
