trackplan Can a 'double deck' layout be achieved?

[Josef2000]

I was hoping to have two baseboards/layouts connected by a helix.

Both layouts are a double loop but I was more concerned about the height. I'm quite happy for one layout to be 1 or 2ft off the ground, I'm 24 and relatively fit so no issues with the back (yet). I'm sure I could fit both layouts one above the other but the main concern with the height is if this will severely limit the amount of scenery I can do on the bottom layout.

I know that people make these layouts and have a helix connecting to a fiddle yard but if I remember correctly, they're just tall enough to allow the trains, disregarding buildings and that.

Note: I've attached 3 track plans that are still in progress but I think they show what I'm trying to say (hopefully).

If it's not feasible, I will probably stick to one of the track plans.

[DJ Dangerous]

I think that @Sean was working on something similar, but it went on hold. Maybe he can offer some advice.

[Horsetan]

5 hours ago, Josef2000 said:

I was hoping to have two baseboards/layouts connected by a helix.

Both layouts are a double loop but I was more concerned about the height. I'm quite happy for one layout to be 1 or 2ft off the ground, I'm 24 and relatively fit so no issues with the back (yet). I'm sure I could fit both layouts one above the other but the main concern with the height is if this will severely limit the amount of scenery I can do on the bottom layout.

I know that people make these layouts and have a helix connecting to a fiddle yard but if I remember correctly, they're just tall enough to allow the trains, disregarding buildings and that.

Note: I've attached 3 track plans that are still in progress but I think they show what I'm trying to say (hopefully).

If it's not feasible, I will probably stick to one of the track plans.

If you do a search on YouTube for BBM Berliner Anhalter Bahnhof, the creator of this quite frankly massive HO layout has built the thing on at least two, possibly three, levels to portray some of the 1930s route between Berlin and Basel, plus an extension to represent the journey to Milan (I think), so the locomotives really do have to work up the gradients.

Looks like at least half a lifetime's work.

[Josef2000]

1 hour ago, Horsetan said:

If you do a search on YouTube for BBM Berliner Anhalter Bahnhof, the creator of this quite frankly massive HO layout has built the thing on at least two, possibly three, levels to portray some of the 1930s route between Berlin and Basel, plus an extension to represent the journey to Milan (I think), so the locomotives really do have to work up the gradients.

Looks like at least half a lifetime's work.

Wow.. That fella has an impressive layout! My layout looks more like a 3x1 diorama compared to his
Thank you for the recommendation!

[Mol_PMB]

I have a long-term project with a multi-level layout in my garage, in Swiss Om scale. 
There are challenges in achieving a satisfactory vertical spacing between levels - once you have considered the thickness of the board, support, point motors, scenery and space to view it etc then you need a good 400-500mm between scenic levels. 
Helixes have a large footprint regardless of gradient but become even bigger for more gentle gradients. 
It’s all possible but needs careful planning! 

[Horsetan]

29 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

I have a long-term project with a multi-level layout in my garage, in Swiss Om scale. 
There are challenges in achieving a satisfactory vertical spacing between levels - once you have considered the thickness of the board, support, point motors, scenery and space to view it etc then you need a good 400-500mm between scenic levels. 
Helixes have a large footprint regardless of gradient but become even bigger for more gentle gradients. 
It’s all possible but needs careful planning! 

Alternatively, instead of the merry-go-round ovals shown in the original plans, if he builds it as a relaxed spiral end-to-end, the eventual route would be more realistic whilst making his stock actually work for its living.

It would be a bit like having FREMO modules all running together at home.

[Josef2000]

51 minutes ago, Mol_PMB said:

I have a long-term project with a multi-level layout in my garage, in Swiss Om scale. 
There are challenges in achieving a satisfactory vertical spacing between levels - once you have considered the thickness of the board, support, point motors, scenery and space to view it etc then you need a good 400-500mm between scenic levels. 
Helixes have a large footprint regardless of gradient but become even bigger for more gentle gradients. 
It’s all possible but needs careful planning! 

Thankyou for this, I'm going to plan this very carefully and do some research, rather than wasting timber and time.

 

 

17 minutes ago, Horsetan said:

Alternatively, instead of the merry-go-round ovals shown in the original plans, if he builds it as a relaxed spiral end-to-end, the eventual route would be more realistic whilst making his stock actually work for its living.

It would be a bit like having FREMO modules all running together at home.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here mate, please do correct me if I'm wrong but do you mean as though the 3 entire plans would be a 'large 14x7ft' scale helix? If so, that sounds challenging but I could see that being a lot of fun to operate.

[Horsetan]

1 hour ago, Josef2000 said:

I'm not sure I understand what you mean here mate, please do correct me if I'm wrong but do you mean as though the 3 entire plans would be a 'large 14x7ft' scale helix? If so, that sounds challenging but I could see that being a lot of fun to operate.

What I was driving at was that, if you designed the layout along the same principles as the Berlin Anhalter project, you would (or should) end up with a lengthy route arranged in a sort of oval spiral. In the space you have available to you, I'd say this is well worth having a go. It would achieve the two or three levels you want in an unbroken run.

This would give you the sensation of seeing the trains appear to travel from station to station, running through open sections of line, just as they do when FREMO enthusiasts have a massive get-together and connect loads of different modules together to form a network.

[David Holman]

The simplest form of multi level layout is probably the folded figure of eight. This has been used countless times, but does involve gradients of course.

 Iain Rice came up with a neat idea of three small layout units, mounted one above the other on a wall and using a cassette to move trains between each level. This was real minimum space stuff, but no reason why cassettes couldn't be used to move trains between levels on a larger layout.

 Another Rice idea was to have two unconnected levels, with say a passenger line on one and freight on the other. Two independent railways serving the same town could do the same thing, likewise standard/narrow gauge or mainline and trams.

[Mol_PMB]

A few things to consider:

Gradients

From lengths of stations on your plans it looks like you plan to run quite long trains. What's the steepest gradient your planned train formations will be able to climb?

And what gradient will can the loco restart the train on? Curves also add extra resistance - what's the steepest gradient on a curve that the trains can manage?

In general, steam loco models don't pull as well as modern diesel locos. You may also need to improve the free-running of some of your rolling stock.

You could do some experiments on this with a plank and a few lengths of track.  

The last thing you want is to spend ages building a layout and then find your favourite trains are slipping to a stand or burning out motors. 

Once you've worked out a suitable gradient then you can look at other aspects of the design.

For the purposes of the next stages I'm going to guess at a maximum 1:60 gradient on curves. 

 

Helixes

On a helix the tracks are arranged vertically above each other. This means that there is a minimum vertical spacing between the tracks that has to account for your tallest rolling stock, plus the height of the track, the underlay, the board and any board supports, and a little bit of clearance. In 4mm scale this will total around 80mm. With the 1:60 gradient, that means that the track distance around the circumference of the helix must be 80 x 60 = 4800mm. Divide by pi (3.14) to get the diameter of the helix = approx 1500mm. That's the diameter of the (inner) track centreline and so the outer diameter of the helix will be a bit more, especially if it's double track - approx 1600mm. That would be quite big on your room plan, though not impossible, and it would wipe out a good amount of scenic space. Making the helix more compact requires increasing the gradient and making the curves sharper, both of which will limit the train length that can reliably climb them.

 

Multiple Level Scenic Layout

Here the levels have to be further apart than a helix - usually a lot further apart. Below the track you'll need thicker supports for the boards, and space for point motors, wiring etc. Above the track you'll need space for trains and scenery. But crucially you also need space to build and maintain these, so space to get your arms and head in, space for a power drill, screwdriver, hammer, static grass applicator, whatever. I'd say you would need around 500mm minimum between scenic levels, although this could be reduced if one or more of the levels is narrow (shelf-like) and can be accessed easily from the side. Think about how you will lay track accurately, install point motors etc in a confined space. And how you can replace/maintain those items once installed and with all the scenery around them. 

 

Whole-room-spiral layout

Put the multiple levels on a gradient and you get a whole room spiral which I think is what @Horsetan is suggesting, and is also basically what I'm doing with my Swiss layout (which is end-to-end). It looks like the circuit of your room would be about 10000mm so for a 1:60 gradient you would achieve 10000/60 = 167mm spacing between levels. That's nowhere near enough for a scenic level. You could perhaps alternate scenic and non-scenic levels (i.e. just have plain track on a shelf against the back wall on the intermediate levels) which would double the run length and double the spacing between scenic levels. Of course you can steepen the gradient, if your trains can manage it reliably.

Whole-room spirals are fundamentally end-to-end layouts because of the level difference between the two ends, unless you add a second, inverted spiral or helix to get the trains back down to where they started. That's starting to get really complex.

 

I don't mean to discourage you, just to give you food for thought. A really important factor is to set your maximum gradient because the geometry of everything else is defined by that.

 

[Warbonnet]

A chap on here had 8 levels to his layout at one stage, started below the knee, finished above head height. No helixes either. Ran 60 wagon trains on it too with diesels with ease.

[Josef2000]

These are all very interesting and helpful points, Thank you@Horsetan, @David Holman, @Mol_PMB & @Warbonnet!

I will definitely reconsider and do some more measuring, testing and planning! I think my next step is to work out the maximum gradient to find my limitations and go from there.

It might be worth noting that I plan to use a mix of 3D-printed resin stock as well as MM and Bachmann diesels. The longest train I plan to run is the Enterprise; however, I may shorten it to a maximum of 8 cars, consisting of a DVT, 1st, Buffet, 3 Standard, EGV, and Loco. The rest of my rolling stock consists of 3 and 6-car DMUs.

[DJ Dangerous]

2 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

In general, steam loco models don't pull as well as modern diesel locos. You may also need to improve the free-running of some of your rolling stock.

You could do some experiments on this with a plank and a few lengths of track.

Spot on, there. A lot of our conventional wisdom comes from an era when locos weren’t the powerhouses that they are today.

The A/S / IRM A Class will probably tackle much much steeper grades, even with heavier loads and more resistance, than a steam loco from twenty years ago.

Testing the start/stop on a long plank is a great idea.

[murrayec]

This will give you some idea on inclines and the space required, I have built a few inclines and found 1:30 is about the min 'straight' incline that works- just! all depends on what you are going to run on it......

Having a deep lower track- for scenery, is not possible in limited space. That is why helixes are used but need to be based on large radii, these limit the size of trains, and limits the loco running gear life.

Down the rabbit hole.......

Eoin

 

 

[Horsetan]

4 hours ago, Mol_PMB said:

...Whole-room-spiral layout

Put the multiple levels on a gradient and you get a whole room spiral which I think is what @Horsetan is suggesting, and is also basically what I'm doing with my Swiss layout ....

 

This is exactly the type of thing. 

Edited 13 hours ago by Horsetan

[Mayner]

I visited several multilevel layouts including those with spirals, a common thread is that the occupy large floor areas, double garages, purpose made layout rooms or basements, as the helixes, reverse loops or dumbells required to make these layouts workable take up a lot of space. The majority of multi-layouts visited tended to be in the traditional category popular for modelling American mountain railroads with two or more levels of track running through the same scene, the different levels linked by helix on an incline often in a folded 8 configuration with a single track main line with several yards and crossing places in a mountainous scenery complete with high steel trestles and tunnels.

The Double Deck category appear to be mainly based on railroads/railways in a plains/prairie as opposed to a mountainous setting on a shelf style baseboard with a backscene, Bill Darnaby in the United States appears to have been one of the pioneers of the Double Deck concept with his Nickle Plate layout and built a mock up a two level mock up section in his basement to check deck clearances including a typical wayside Depot complete with grain elevator featured in one of the Model Railroader Railroad Planning annuals.

MRH Mag forum provides practical advice in considering a Double Deck Layout https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/what-to-consider-with-double-deck-layouts-12212304

I have marked up to layers of Josef 2000 plan to provide an insight into the space required to fit a helix and a reverse loop. providing sufficient vertical clearance  for the reverse loop to cross over the heilix could involve some challenging carpentry.

Another point to consider is that you will need to take curvature into account in working out the maximum load of a loco hauling a train up a spiral/helix. On the prototype the grade is often reduced on curves (compensated) to reduce the effect of friction hauling cars around a curve. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruling_gradient

Level 1 Schematic showing reverse curve or half a dumbell at one end to allow trains to run continuously and spiral to allow trains to run to a lower level,

Showing helix descending to lower level, the track on the bottom right could descend to a lower level or formed into a return loop outside the area of the helix.

The terminal roads on this plan would need to be reversed/mirrored to allow a train from another level to terminate in the station, another alternative would be to reverse the direction  of the lower section of the helix to run towards the bottom right of the layout

Edited 12 hours ago by Mayner

[Signal Post]

Charlie Bishop of Chadwick Model Railway has built a large layout involving a two helix design, one at each end of the layout.

His lower level is non-scenic and comprises a large fiddle yard. The helix design and construction feature in a number of his YouTube videos sometimes as main features of a video or sometimes as an aside during an update on some other topic, having watched most if not all of his videos a couple of take-away points that I have got from them are:

(i) The helices themselves take up quite a bit of room (as already mentioned by other posters on this forum).

(ii) Necessary to consider access arrangements to rear of helix (adjacent to walls etc) for cleaning, fault finding or dealing with simple derailment (the front layers of the helix get in the way of reaching in towards parts near the wall).

(iii) Consideration needs to be given to how to access underside of upper level baseboards, whilst it may be possible to lean/crawl in during early stages of construction, the presence of scenery, buildings etc on the lower level may make this impracticable once the layout is completed.

Here is a link to one of his early helix videos

 

[Galteemore]

Joe - sounds a great idea all round. What’s your layout building experience thus far? Only asking as this is quite a technical challenge to take on, especially if a lone wolf modeller. If this is your first layout, I’d suggest trying something more conventional first to practice basic skills. As a basic learner myself, I’ve learned at first hand how dispiriting it can be when a grand plan hits a snag. A small first layout will teach you a lot, and the frustrations/disappointments will not be on a titanic scale