My comments in bold... Since the layout is planned to be a basement dweller in this house, what would floorplans for these rooms accomplish? So I don't repeat myself,a nd to type less since I type slow and crappy enough, I'll list Givens & Druthers. Givens: Must be modular, portable, and able to fit in nearly any spare bedroom. Must have integrated staging of some sort to store train off the layout. Must portray modeled tunnels as correctly as possible. Must be a layout built to railfan. Individual scenes will be isolated from the rest of the layout, so trains viewed at one tunnel shouldn't be able to be viewed at other tunnels, other than broadside to the layout. Must have 2' aisles on all sides minimum. NO duckunders, liftout/lift bridges only if absolutely necessary. Stick to the KISS principle! No fancy, complicated construction! Cookie cutter plywood subroadbed, Atlas C80 flex, cork roadbeds. Druthers: Would like to have 18" min rad curves on modeled sections; 16" in hidden areas where necessary. Min. #6 turnouts on the entire layout. Would like to have enough staging to store at least 6-8 8' trains. Would like to keep the layout as faithful to prototype as possible, while not omiting any scenes inside my chosen modeled area. Keep compression to minimum to keep signature scenes. Would prefer to have tunnel 1 and 19 or whatever tunnels to physically separate staging from the modeled layout. Keep mainline run to maximum, given space considerations. I likely forgot a few, will add as necessary. Thanks Dave!
Hemi: I must have peanut butter or something more obnoxious between my ears...If I had thought a little more clearly, I might have realized the need for modular and that you've already cut back considerably on what you want to model. Sorry. How about a U-shaped 9x12 layout with the opening of the U on one of the 4 sides, perhaps with only a 2 foot opening. The tips of the U could be 3.5 feet loops and the rest of the U could be 24 to 30 inches deep (Is a 30" module practical?) Where are the walls (i.e., which portions of such a U-shaped layout might be accessible from both inside AND outside of the layout)? Dave H.
Is a helix impractical on said U-shaped layout? Not double deck, but 'nolix style', like my original climbing mainline plan. Staging on inside of 'U'? Where would it be best to put staging? The 'walls', if any, at least in a room similar to the spare rooms I have, would be none. No other access other than the opening. Backdrop would be placed on edges of layout, wouldn't have space to model outside the 'U'. In the basement anything goes, but in a small room, I dunno. I don't want a basic 4x8 footer! That definitely doesn't fit any of my givens or druthers. Oh yeah, the drawings are NOT TO SCALE....
Hemi: Here's an option that was inspired by your givens/druthers regarding separating each tunnel for photographic isolation: It is NOT a traditional solution. Instead of putting staging at the front of the shelving as per your arrows, or under the shelving or behind fascia as in other postings, how about putting it in a 6 to 8" strip right down the center of the shelf at about 4" elevation. Loop down and around the helix 1.5 loops to the front of the shelf at 0" elevation. Pass through Plain and proceed to the right (climbing about 2.5 inches) around the U to the other side of the U and make a half loop around to the back portion of the staging at 4" elevation. Return right to left to the other end of the U by running behind the staging tracks to the other end of the U. Enter the helix at the back again but this time, the track spirals upwards instead of down and comes out one loop higher at 6 inches (or 1.5 loops at 7 inches) but continues to climb to 8" as it moves left to right around the U to Crescent, where it ducks into a tunnel at the back of the shelf and loops 2.5 times down to the front part of the staging area. Proceeding through the staging strip brings the track back to its starting point. As in the 8x8 track plan, trains would rise through all of the tunnels with a left to right movement. Scenery starts at the fascia board at 0" elevation (and could go lower if you wanted to get fancy). The front 8 or 9 inches would be scenic-ed to match your photos as closely as possible. All tunnels would need to be removable for track cleaning and maintenance. The scenery would rise from 0" to at least 6 inches high at the back of the front strip (AKA the front of the staging strip in the middle of the shelf). The top two inches of the front strip scenery would be a view block for the staging area. Scenery for the back strip would start at the back edge of the staging strip at 6" high (or about 2 inches above the staging tracks). Scenery on the back strip would rise enough to form any tunnels needed on the back strip of the shelf. It would be possible to make a styrofoam lid for the staging track strip. Such a lid could be a 2 foot wide by 8" deep by 1" thick generic mountainside used to cover the staging tracks any time you wanted to take photos and moved around the layout as needed. Or you could cover the entire staging area with lids that were specifically scenic-ed in details to match the area at the front of the shelf and at the back of the shelf. (Hmmm...I suppose if you were really ambitious, you could have 2 lids for each portion of the staging strip: one which was detailed to match the landscape behind the front strip and the other detailed to match the landscape in front of the rear strip. Then you could select the landscape for the tunnel you were photographing.) Regardless of temporary-generic lids or finely detailed lids for specific locations, it is imperative they be easily removable for access to the staging tracks. (Beautifully scenic-ed styrofoam lids would seem to meet this expectation.) If the entire layout is set on legs relatively high (for me, that would mean putting Plain at 52"), you thwart little fingers and may not be able to see much into an un-lidded staging area except when you deliberately wanted to. Scenery on the back part of the shelf would be approaching eye level. (FWIW: My main level is at 65"--a great level for making you think you're railfanning.) Dave H.
Wow, a definitely non-traditional solution. I got lost after the train exits staging. Are you suggesting using this mid-level hidden staging as a runthru? I'm not sure I follow. Perhaps a diagram would help. Sticking to the KISS Principle, lidded staging would create a problem: where to store them, and lifting a lid to see what train is in staging is not very prototypical... Having a view block, like only old layout worked well. I could work that in this case as well. But seeing into it wihtout a ladder, at my selected track level height of 48-52" would make for a challenge to address trains on the DCC throttles, and clean up derailments. Tunnels will have removable tops, which has proved its worth in my Z layout. Eye-level railfanning is what I had in mind. This U-shaped deal accomplishes the 'what-if it doesn't fit int he next house' problem, and the U-shape maximizes mainline without a duckunder. Until I fully understand what you are describing, I still like fascia staging the way you outlined for the earlier plan. Turnback loops for staging would allow staging more trains. The turnback loops and the helix would be the only hidden track, and would be accessed from underneath.
Hemi: Here’s a drawing …sorry it isn’t prettier or done up in something like xtrakcad. The numbers given for elevation in the drawing may be a little different from the elevations in my other posting. Tracks entering the loops by Plain from the staging strip split in opposite directions! One track goes up as it loops and the other goes down to Plain. The tracks entering the loops by Crescent also split in opposite directions…there is NOT a continuous helix in this plan, as there would be on one side of the U, if staging were located as you showed with the arrows in the thumbnail. If you check the numbers, you can see that the radii I wrote down yield uniform circles most of the loop, then jump out (or in) to the next loop. I did this more to help myself keep track of which loop size I was on, rather than as an actual suggested radius for that specific section of track. I think steady changes in radius lead to smoother trackwork. As it turned out, the radii will need to be reduced anyhow because the opening into the U is too narrow as I drew it. Look at the picture near the center of the page showing eye level angles for seeing into the staging area. With base level benchwork set at 52”, I think that, when an operator is standing at a normal distance from the edge of the layout, a front view block that extends at least 2 inches above the railheads of staging tracks (at 56") will be sufficient to hide cars in staging. But, by moving closer to the benchwork or even leaning over it an inch or two, it would be possible to see into the staging area for checking turnout positions addressing locos, or re-railing cars. See my postings on view blocks at: http://www.trainboard.com/grapevine/showthread.php?t=78832&page=9 The tracks by the settling ponds are at 48” and toward the back of a 30” deep shelf. All other pics have tracks at 65”, but they are usually viewed during operating sessions from step-up benches which puts them, functionally, at about 53”. It is possible to check trains in hidden track areas by leaning in a little or moving down the aisle to see around the view block from the side instead of over the top. All of this becomes a moot point if you prefer staging where you positioned the arrows in the thumbnails. I proposed the mid-shelf staging and the lids covering it, to give you the possibility of extending scenery an extra 6 to 8 inches behind or in front of the tracks you wanted to photograph. If you put staging at the front and make it fully visible instead of lidded or partially hidden by a view block, and put Plain in the middle and Crescent at the back of the shelving, then your loops will be much simpler but you will have much less separation between your tunnel scenes. Sadly, I doubt I’ll ever get a chance to run on your layout, so…;>D…I guess you’ll just have to pick the arrangement YOU like best <Big Grin> I had the lone track running directly through the staging area back to the top/left side of the U so that I could match the train progression uphill from left to right, just as you had done on the 8x8 layout. Is it a priority to have the trains moving the same direction through all the tunnels (i.e., always moving right to left or else always left to right so that East and North or West and South are always in the same direction on the layout rather than to the right on one level but to the left on the other)? Some people are bothered by this issue, and others could care less…Again, your choice. Uh-Oh! I just noticed that the idea of putting a single track helix from Crescent to Staging at one end and 2 turnback loops at the other (one for the tunnel track and one for the staging track) does not permit continuous loop operation...unless there is a second track that loops from staging around the descending track and UP to Plain. This is still doable if you make the helix rise in a counterclockwise helix with the ascending track on the outside of the helix and peeling off after a single loop at about 2 inches elevation, then continuing to ascend to Plain at 3 inches a little ways down the stem of the U. (A counter-clockwise helix puts the right side running track on the outside track of the helix so it has a slightly greater radius and thus a longer circumference for a single loop, which yields a slightly lower grade on the outside (ascending) track. Dave H.
Dave, Are these modules you describe 30" wide? If so, that's pushing it, even with my long arms... I would like to keep the east and west seperate, so WB trains are moving right,a nd EB moving left, or vice versa, depending on where I locate Plain. That helix situation is more a section of hidden mainline than an elevation gaining device, correct? With trains moving thru staging duuring their progresion east or west, staging is also a part of the mainline as well, correct? That 18" aisle at the loops will really constrict things, I would realy prefer 24" or better. My issues with this plan is the amount of tracks. Will seem crowded, I think, and cutting and repairing that many rail joints after a move will be a pain. That helix and turnback loops will also be a spaghetti bowl of track on each end, could be a nightmare to enginer, and watching clearances, access, ect. Anything less than 16" rad. in any hidden track is as tight as I want to go, preferably wider. Easements and wide clearance is required for my autorack, and passenger car trains. Since I want continuous run capability, how will I bypass staging on every lap, for quicker turnaround of trains? I'm not expecting lots of real estate betwen scenes on higher and lower levels, in fact, it will be more challenging to build scenery that disguises each other. That, and building enough trees that won't cost me my firstborn. 24" modules would accomplish that, with 6" worth of staing somewhere on the plan...
Hemi's layout Hemi, Check this out. It is designed for a 10' x 11' room. There are two-foot wide aisles. There are some limitations with such limited space. The two sidings could be Plain and Crescent. Placement of tunnels at your discretion. Lots of room for staging underneath.
Rod, That's an interesting plan, and I think it could work, without the duckunders. There's that D-word again! Liftouts, yes, but how would it be built to be portable?
Hemi, Build the staging at a height that ducking under (I know you hate that word!) would not be that bad, say 44". Out of reach for toddlers! Unless they are climbers and then nothing is out of reach. Use 1x3 for frames. Add another inch to get to rail height. Staging tracks starts at 48". Leave 6" for staging, then framework, and visible track starts at 58". With about 50' of mainline and a 1% grade, you would gain about 6" in elevation, putting the last visible track at 64". (if my math is correct!) You would have room for storage and a work bench underneath. As far as portability, build your framework in rectangles, starting with the outside frames and then add the inside ones. Also, we are doing our mods with 1x3 frames on 12' centers covered with fiberbrace. Fiberbrace is a fairly dense material and is a lot cheaper than plywood. The only drawback is it is covered with an asphalt-like substance so it must be painted with enamel. We are also using the Woodland Scenics trackbed. It is easy to work with and will not dry out like cork. Hope this helps. Rod
Hemi: Here’s another try—not nearly so unique—but, in order to have the continuous running option of going from Crescent to Plain (instead of back to staging), as well as have the option of entering staging from either Crescent or Plain (instead of from only one or the other), I had to make one loop rising 1.5 loops clockwise to Crescent, and another rising 1 loop counter-clockwise to get to Plain. 1. Minimum 24” aisle to get inside the U 2. Maximum 24” deep shelves. 3. An access hole within the hidden loops could be 30 to 32 inches across, permitting you to stand comfortably inside to do maintenance/repairs. It would be possible to scenic portions of the outside loop from Crescent down to Plain, if you wanted to. 4. Visible staging at the front of the shelving—3 tracks for traffic to/from Plain and 3 tracks to/from Crescent. a. You can adjust the number of tracks as you wish, if the spaghetti bowl factor is too high; b. You don’t really need the reversing loop if the loops down from Crescent and Plain join at a single turnout before the turnouts that lead to the 3 (4?) staging tracks. On the other hand, if the two tracks remain parallel as shown in the staging diagram on the right, then the left hand reversing loop allows trains entering staging from Crescent to reappear at Crescent instead of only at Plain. (I just noticed I forgot to put in the right hand crossover in the middle of the staging area so trains from Plain may access the reversing loop too, thus permitting them to return to Plain instead of only being able to reappear at Crescent. c. You could leave a turnback loop only, with no reversing option. Although this looks like it would allow continuous running through staging, it would be necessary to switch both of the turnouts in the hidden loops twice each full run from Staging to Plain to Crescent and back to Staging: once to descend to staging from Crescent, and then a second time to rise to Plain from staging. Pretty inconvenient. d. Or you could put a double crossover at the throat of staging and only a turnback loop at the other end so trains returning from either Plain or Crescent could go to staging tracks for either destination. This double crossover is just a fancier (and more expensive, and more prone to problems) way of doing what the single turnout does in b. above. 5. No helix, but 3 hidden loops at one end and 2 at the other. Nesting the loops inside each other with varying radii instead of stacking them directly over each other, makes maintenance MUCH easier (as well as simplifies initial construction and later re-construction following a move). [Have you seen the Woodlands Scenic “Subterrain” Styrofoam Inclines with 2% grades? Using something like them might be easier than sawing a cookie-cutter design, although you’ll have to cut them down to 1.5 inches wide instead of 2” if you want to keep the 17 inch radius on the 3 loop end of the U instead of 16”.] 6. Modules could be 2’x 3’ and 2’x 5.5’ except for the loops, which would be 3.5’x3.5, and the corners, which would be 3’x3’. 7. Minimum radius in the hidden loops could be as large as 17.0 in one and 17.5 in the other, but you may want the staging turnback loop to be just 16 because that will give you a greater distance from the tunnel turnback loop so you can have more scenery options if you wanted the tunnel turnback loop to be scenic-ed instead of hidden. Enjoy! Dave H. Modeling the 1970s era Peoria and Pekin Union Railway in N-Scale
Wow, no helix?? Cool! OK, so I get this straight, staging up front, and continuous run capability? Excellent! Minimum radii is better, and reaches should be better now. The biggest problem I see now (and you wouldn't have seen it coming) is South Draw is backwards. The tracks come in from Tunnel 12, and follow a wide bowl in the valley to make a 180* horseshoe curve back, with a large ridge bisecting much of the Draw: http://www.railimages.com/albums/layout1/adc.jpg Tunnel 17 should be where the turnback from Plain begins towards Crescent. The plan is reversed, and I'll employ a flyover to cure that. (upper right of this photo: http://www.railimages.com/albums/layout1/adb.jpg) That way, I can correctly model this view: (Tunnel 15 and 16 are in view, with Tunnels 14 and points east on the left, and Tunnel 17 on the right, both behind me.) Double crossover? I think a set of turnouts would work better, and tortise them so I can automatically route trains.
You wrote: South Draw is backwards. ... and I'll employ a flyover to cure that. That certainly works for me! ...Double crossover? I think a set of turnouts would work better... The double crossover I mentioned would have been visible in the throat of the staging area and I would recommend against that due to KISS and cost of more turnouts. My preference: a single turnout aligned for the track leading up to Crescent when thrown one way and aligned for the track leading up to Plain when thrown the other. Back to back with that turnout would be a second turnout that is aligned to the nearby staging tracks when thrown one way and is aligned to the distant staging tracks on the other side of the U when thrown the other. This second turnout would be the start of the staging area reversing loop: the 2 or 3 staging tracks below Plain and their lead on the other side of the U would form one side of the loop, and the lead and 2 or 3 staging tracks on the other side of the U would form the other side of the reversing loop. The staging turnback loop would connect the two sides of the reversing loop. There are two other turnouts that are back to back in the hidden loop. These are both necessary for the continuous running option from Crescent to Plain and for access from staging from either Plain or Crescent. If you want to put Tortoises on them (which I heartily endorse!!), the nesting of the loops allows you to do so...if the loops were stacked, this would not be possible at all. As it is, it still may be necessary to adjust the track that passes under the 2 turnouts so it clears the switch machines. On the other hand, I've successfully mounted Tortoises 5 to 6 inches away from the throwbar and run a brass rod through a brass tube from Tortoise to throwbar. Edit: Posted this pic. Since this pic was taken 5 weeks ago, I've replaced all the ground throws between the Frisco gon and the fascia board with Tortoises controlled by stationary decoders (and got rid of the mini-toggles that I had temporarily mounted on 2 cardboard strips below the fascia, and also made nicer mock-ups of the buildings from foamboard). Due to the placement of an L-girder, the switch machines for all visible turnouts (and 2 turnouts inside buildings) are actually located within 6 inches of the fascia board, and brass rods activate the throwbars of any turnouts over the L-girder. If you elect this distant mounting option, you won't have to adjust that lower track and, by mounting the Tortoises toward the front edge of the loop module, you won't even have to duck into the helix to install or maintain them. (Possible downside: Little Fingers might take advantage of that easy accessibility, too.) Dave H.
Dave, I think I need to draw the staging track turnout configuration to better understand it, but I like the way it sounds. I plan on building the layout so I have an operational mainline is a short time, and upgrading turnouts to tortise/DCC control over time. Staging, and other hard-to-access turnouts will be first, and then the mainline. I use exclusively Peco Insulfrog turnouts, and have plenty from the last layout. Do you use Peco? Is it possible to leave the turnout as-is, with a tortise; or is removal of the spring actuating device underneath required for the tortise to work correctly? I like this config better, since it better adheres to the KISS priciple. I am no electrical engineer, and complicated wiring would leave me bald from tearing my hair out. With DCC, the reverse loop is easy; and turnout actuation is easy with Tortise motors, and DCC as well. I may have missed it, but what's the ruling grade on the layout? Plain is level, and Crescent is on the 2% in the real Moffat Route. Are both sidings flat in the model? I like sequential staging, that allows more trains; your plan shows 3 shorter sidings on each side. What's the liklihood of building staging with 16-17" rad curves, and build the turnback loop (minus reverse loop), and full-layout length sidings on either side? Does this eliminate the reverse loop or not? If space allows, one siding on one side of the loop, and on the other, full-length. That would hold a load of trains. I estimate a 22-24' siding, loop, then a similar length siding. Would allow sequential staging of 3, 7-8' trains, or 2 ten-footers. Per siding. More attractive in my opinion! In thory, 2 sidings, 3-7' trains apiece, or 2-10' trains each, and the loop could hold another 3-5 trains. Not bad, for a small layout, and the staging area can be filled without ruining continuous-running. With staging filled, and a train in each mainline siding, that allows for loads of potential operating without running the same train again and again.. All with a 24" wide module, excepting the corners and loops. I should have easy reaches on all portions, too. Bonus!
Nope...100% Atlas on this layout (which is DCC). On previous layouts I used about 25% Peco turnouts, but the power routing points were going to be too problematic for DCC, hence, the switch to Atlas switches. Are you familiar with Alan Gardner's DCC site? He has wonderful information (and a boatload more information about DCC than I do). http://www.wiringfordcc.com/switches.htm 2% ruling grade. Plain AND Crescent were level in my plan, but you can adjust to your preference. I made the staging area 7 to 8 inches deep so you could put 4 staging tracks in, if you want to. I think the best plan is to have one turnout that joins the 2 tracks descending to staging from Plain and Crescent into a single track, and then put another turnout back to back with it to split from that single track into the various staging tracks. This second turnout also splits the single track into the two legs of a reversing loop. It would be possible to add 2 more turnouts (one on each leg of the reversing loop) and have 4 staging tracks. The 4 tracks could combine back down to 2 tracks which are then connected by a single staging turnback loop; or, with a little adjustment of the staging turnback loop radii, you could make a second staging turnback loop that connects the 3rd and 4th tracks so you would have a double-tracked reversing loop--VERY long. One possible downside to building super-long sequential staging tracks...When you send out one train from a sequential staging track, you would have to move all other trains forward one train length on that track in order to accept a train back into that staging track. If you put 4 or 5 trains on one super-long staging track, then you will have to capture each consist, move the train forward, dispatch that consist and go to the 2nd, move it, dispatch, capture the 3rd, move it, dispatch it, capture the 4th , move it, and dispatch it, AND THEN quickly turn your turnouts as needed, and recapture the original train which you've been allowing to run continuously, all in time to stop the original train from entering staging tracks at the same speed it traveled over the mainline. If you have 4 tracks that combine back down to 2 which are then connected with a single turnback loop, you won't have to move as many trains to clear a new space for an arrival. Hmmm...It would be possible to manage staging so you don't have to move up trains to create space for a returning train. If you stage 6 trains caboose to caboose in staging (2 trains on 3 of the 4 staging tracks) and a 7th in Plain and 8th in Crescent, you could send one out from staging to Plain (or Crescent), and then the train at P (or C) could return to the spot in staging vacated by the 1st train. You then send out the other train that was on the 1st staging track, but it goes around the staging turnback loop and out the 4th (empty) staging track to Crescent instead of Plain. The train staged at Crescent descends to the staging area, and takes the empty 4th track to loop around and park on the 1st staging track, nose to nose with the other train that came into staging. Repeat with trains on the 2nd track and then 3rd track. It would also be possible for some trains to leave staging, go from P to C or C to P without a stop and return to the spot in staging that train had occupied before leaving. As far as generating a detailed picture showing the hidden loops by Plain and Crescent, as well as a picture of the tracks throughout the entire staging area... I think you have some sort to software that lets you create plans which are MUCH more legible than my pencil generated ones. Dave H.
Chew on this a while.. I made a basic drawing, not to scale, showing a possible arrangement linking Plain to Crescent for continuous run, and either siding to staging and back. I don't see any reverse loops (simplifies wiring), and crossover turnouts are at a minimum. I see this as a great plan, someone take off my rose-colored glasses, and show me what's wrong with it, please! The helix is not shown in its entirity, for clarity.
Hemi: I think your rose-colored glasses will get cleaned (or broken), if you put in your elevations!!! ;>D If Staging is at 0 and Plain is at 2 inches, then you rise a little (maybe to Elevation 1/2 inch) moving from the staging to the 30 degree crossing, and another 1.5 inches to get to Plain by going around the the loop. If Crescent is at 4 inches, the loops of the helix (removed for clarity) will spiral down 3.5 inches to the crossing at Elevation 1/2 inch, and (in this drawing at least) rise 1.5 inches in about a quarter turn to enter Plain at 2 inches. This arrangement could work if the track at Tunnel 1 is at Elevation 1 inch. I'd like to offer an alternative: It would be possible to achieve a 2 inch rise from staging to Plain, if the back-to-back turnouts between staging and the crossing were moved back to a spot between the label "T1" and the label "Staging", and if the loop went COUNTER-clockwise around as it rose from staging to Plain, and joined with the counter-clockwise loops of the helix descending from Crescent down to Plain at about Elevation 2 inches. Just after the rising counter-clockwise track joins with the descending counterclockwise tracks at a spot approximately over where the crossing is in your drawing, they split apart again: one track finishes descending counter-clockwise from Crescent and spins off of the helix to go to Plain, and the other track continues counter-clockwise on down to staging. This descending loop would have to fit inside the loop that is ascending as it spirals clockwise around the helix up to Plain.
Hemi: I just re-read my post and it's clear as mud...I'll post a layout plan tomorrow. In the meantime, the plan I posted before has a pretty good pic of the loops...just not of the back-to-back turnouts in the throat of staging.
Dave, Thanks again for your input! I mainly drew it out to better understand what I needed to do. I look forward to you next drawing. Maybe to keep it simpler, we might have to just build the layout so continuous run is only thru running thru staging, and looping back around. That would simplify a lot of things. The main reason thisis getting complicated is so we can cont. run without running thru staging each lap. I don't have a ton of room to play with, either. We'll see what your next idea holds.
Loop Options Hemi: How about this for the loop details (two options), staging options for the reversing loop, and (at the right of both loop details) how the 2 turnouts in the throat of staging would go together? Edit: Probably ought to put the image in:embarassed: I don't think it will be too hard or too complex to arrange the 2 turnouts in the hidden loop area. You'll probably have to make the loops a little lop-sided instead of uniform, and curved turnouts will help (if anyone makes reliable ones in N-scale--Peco, maybe?). Regardless, the loops will still have the shortest (at Elevaton 0 inches into and out of staging at Elevation 0) on the inside, and the highest (to Crescent) on the outside. The 3 loops will yield a structure that looks a little like a large bowl. If you build up your scenery along a line similar to what you showed in your own detail picture of the loops, you should be able to prevent casual viewing into the loops with view blocks that have top edges that are just a few inches above the railheads at Crescent. How are you going to scenic the part of the layout where the loops go into staging? Whenever I think of this layout, I picture scenery that extends all the way around the loops (completely enclosing them from the sides, but leaving the loops totally open over all track and turnouts for ease of maintenance and repairs--and to let you stand upright inside the loops as you work) and treats the track entrances into staging as additional tunnels. I imagine there being 2 dark green fascia boards...one that extends from the front edge of the staging level (maybe 3/4 of an inch higher than the staging railheads to provide a little extra protection from the Big Plunge) and a second fascia that extends upward about 4 inches from the back of the staging level. The second fascia would NOT be uniform in height--some places it might be higher than the tracks at the back of the layout, and some places it would be so short that the scenery almost comes down to the staging level. The back fascia,near the tunnel from staging into the loops, might even have a rock casting or two. The top edge of this second /back fascia would move up and down to conform with the contour of the mountainside. FWIW: I originally intended only putting scenery on the upper deck of my multiple deck layout, and just having undecorated staging tracks representing the various RR yards in cities where trains would depart for my main P&PU Yard in East Peoria. What I've ended up doing is reconfiguring many of my staging yards to also have some industries or engine facilities and I've put landscaping and buildings into several of my formerly barren staging areas.
