Multiple Level Layout - Clearance

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Topside Creeper has been on my radar for a while, just haven't pulled the trigger. When I'm gearing up for more layout work at the end of the summer (remote cabin + lawn maintenance at home + new dog park/bar = very little train time) I'll likely invest.

It looks like there are some deals floating around on them if you want to be proactive.

[mmagliaro]

Is it a "must have" that you will have staging or other yards on the lower deck? 
I ask because...

My only experience with this was a very large group layout I operated on back in the 1990s, built by a friend.  It was 3 levels in spots, but mostly it was about 1/2  2-level, and 1/2  one level.  He made it a point to have NO yards with anything above them (except for one... which I'll get to in a minute).   
---
There were some industrial areas where we did switching on the 2nd level, and the large staging yards were on level 1 in areas where it was completely out in the open.
--- Now, that "except for one" I hinted at.  There was a 4-track turn-around at the end of the line, on level one, that he used for storing/staging/parking trains, and for trains to turn around on the main and be ready to head back at the next operating session.   It mostly worked fine because it a was  huge radius curve (like 36" or more) so trains tended to go into the loop and come out with no trouble.  But ugh.   If we ever did have a derailment in there, it was a nightmare to fish the train out.  There was only about 6" clearance to the 2nd level.  And although there were never any malfunctions with the turnouts, the only turnouts in that "buried" section were right out at the front edge - picture a large 4-track reversing loop where the turnout ladder is right up at the front so you can get to it.

So.... I think if I were building a 2-level layout, I would try to keep only mainline on the lower level, and maybe some passing sidings or a spur here and there, but nothing more complicated than that.

[Rossford Yard]

Don't bother buying it.  I can lend you my copy next time we have a train lunch.

I will say that when I bought light fixtures for my expansion the other day at Lowe's they had some very thin flat panel LED light fixtures in various sizes that would reduce the need for a deep upper level valance, and reduce the total distance from that perspective.  If the lower level is "just" staging, the good semi-old LED light strings would also be sufficient.

[Cajonpassfan]

I'm a bit late to the rodeo, but having built a sizeable, partially two-decked layout, perhaps I can contribute a little because I happen to know what the correct answer is.
The answer is, drumroll...it depends

It depends on a lot of things, some of which have already been noted. Multiple decks introduce multiple compromises, with tracks too low, too high, too hard to see and reach etc etc etc. But there are some fundamentals (and some tricks) that were useful to me in the design of my own layout. For whatever it's worth...

Unless you're building a flat as a pancake railroad like Tony Koester, I wouldn't think in terms of layout "decks" or levels. Some of the worst examples of multi-deck designs, imho, involve almost level "levels",  two or three, connected by a helix or umm, helices. I personally think a helix is a train running joy-killer. They have their place, but they are LONG, and BOOORING to get through,  and I'd advise minimizing the number of turns, if any. Put both approaches on a grade and minimize the hidden helix trackage even at the cost of having little separation between the "decks" at the entry points. I have just 5" of clearance between the "levels" at the point of turn, but no helix, just a 180 degree turn. There are no towns or yards at that point, and the upper "deck" is a shallow 9" and the lower deck much deeper, so the mainlines are offset and both clearly visible and accessible.

Where there is a deep lower deck yard, in my case 31" deep San Bernardino, the climbing upper level mainline above it is only a foot deep or so, and separated by about 17" between the lower yard and the bottom edge of the upper framing. Using 1x2" (good quality) lumber for the upper level trackage yields a light, thin fascia in the upper deck. Again, the trick here is the relatively narrow upper shelf over a wider lower deck. Good visibility and access.

And then there's an area where the upper and lower deck framing are flush, and they require much more substantial separation, in my case about 18" between the bottom frame of the upper level and the stagging yard below where good reach is paramount. Of course that staging yard is at sitting height, about 29", and operated by a sitting operator.

My final observation is that the relative trackage elevations and depths need to be comfortable for you and your build and your friends.
I actually built a 6"step to make access to the 65" high Summit area more comfortable.
Hope this provides some food for thought....
Otto K.

[samusi01]

Mine is on the tight end of things - three inches, not including roadbed/track, between lower staging layer and upper layer. This was done principally to limit the grade involved up to the upper layer. The lower layer is a mix of open area, representing the town that the branch line meets the main, and covered staging only areas. The upper layer is selected locations on the branch line. Generally the lower staging layer works OK, but access is required on occasion due to operator error or visitor error. Large panels on the upper layer allow relatively good access to the lower layer when required, although a few areas are problem areas... naturally, things can/do happen in those locations. All turnouts on the staging area are arduino actuated and JMRI controlled, and they work fairly well.

[James Costello]

The Rick Johnson illustration in Model Railroader / Model Railroad Planning always seems like a good guide:
https://www.trains.com/mrr/how-to/expert-tips/5-multideck-layout-design-and-construction-tips/




Otherwise, @GaryHinshaw has some good recent experience but I just can't quickly find what his advice to me was.

[basementcalling]

Two things to add.

1. Planning for maintenance and working space above the track is a must. Yes you can build the lower level first, but can you get in to fix or change things if you need to?   

2. Plan for aging and losing flexibility. Most multi deck layouts are multi decade in our minds for how long we plan to use them. What is comfortable for a reach, duck under, or access in your early 30s may well not be by your early 50s. This can be a problem if the lower deck is too low. Most of us gradually like bending over less and less. And it can be for reach too. If you gain weight in those 20 years, you may find that reaching in to access spots on the back of the upper level less easy or impossible.

[CRL]

Don’t forget changes to your eyesight as you age. Progressive bifocals 🤓 are ok for normal reading in a sitting upright position but are absolutely useless when you’re needing to see something with your head tilted sideways or looking up from underneath the layout, or car, or boat… you get the drift. It’s extremely frustrating.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I'm a bit late to the rodeo, but having built a sizeable, partially two-decked layout, perhaps I can contribute a little because I happen to know what the correct answer is.
The answer is, drumroll...it depends

It depends on a lot of things, some of which have already been noted. Multiple decks introduce multiple compromises, with tracks too low, too high, too hard to see and reach etc etc etc. But there are some fundamentals (and some tricks) that were useful to me in the design of my own layout. For whatever it's worth...

Unless you're building a flat as a pancake railroad like Tony Koester, I wouldn't think in terms of layout "decks" or levels. Some of the worst examples of multi-deck designs, imho, involve almost level "levels",  two or three, connected by a helix or umm, helices. I personally think a helix is a train running joy-killer. They have their place, but they are LONG, and BOOORING to get through,  and I'd advise minimizing the number of turns, if any. Put both approaches on a grade and minimize the hidden helix trackage even at the cost of having little separation between the "decks" at the entry points. I have just 5" of clearance between the "levels" at the point of turn, but no helix, just a 180 degree turn. There are no towns or yards at that point, and the upper "deck" is a shallow 9" and the lower deck much deeper, so the mainlines are offset and both clearly visible and accessible.

Where there is a deep lower deck yard, in my case 31" deep San Bernardino, the climbing upper level mainline above it is only a foot deep or so, and separated by about 17" between the lower yard and the bottom edge of the upper framing. Using 1x2" (good quality) lumber for the upper level trackage yields a light, thin fascia in the upper deck. Again, the trick here is the relatively narrow upper shelf over a wider lower deck. Good visibility and access.

And then there's an area where the upper and lower deck framing are flush, and they require much more substantial separation, in my case about 18" between the bottom frame of the upper level and the stagging yard below where good reach is paramount. Of course that staging yard is at sitting height, about 29", and operated by a sitting operator.

My final observation is that the relative trackage elevations and depths need to be comfortable for you and your build and your friends.
I actually built a 6"step to make access to the 65" high Summit area more comfortable.
Hope this provides some food for thought....
Otto K.

So many great points in there. Thank you for sharing that.

The idea of the pre-helix grade is a really good one.

[Maletrain]

Don’t forget changes to your eyesight as you age. Progressive bifocals 🤓 are ok for normal reading in a sitting upright position but are absolutely useless when you’re needing to see something with your head tilted sideways or looking up from underneath the layout, or car, or boat… you get the drift. It’s extremely frustrating.

[slight thread drift]  Using progressive eyeglass lenses under the layout is a problem unless you are lying on a rolling pad like mechanics use, so that you are looking at the underside straight-on or a little "down" through the shorter focal lengths. 

My solution for just ducking under is to put a wire hook on my head lamp band that hooks under the nose bridge of my glasses, holding the glasses off my nose the right amount to let me see through the close-up portion of the progressive lenses when looking upward at the bottom of the layout from underneath.

[end drift]

[CRL]

[slight thread drift]  Using progressive eyeglass lenses under the layout is a problem unless you are lying on a rolling pad like mechanics use, so that you are looking at the underside straight-on or a little "down" through the shorter focal lengths. 

My solution for just ducking under is to put a wire hook on my head lamp band that hooks under the nose bridge of my glasses, holding the glasses off my nose the right amount to let me see through the close-up portion of the progressive lenses when looking upward at the bottom of the layout from underneath.

[end drift]

Yeah, but then when you’re finished, you have to get up off the floor with your bad knees & hips…. The hits just keep on coming. 😣

[John]

I sit in a chair, and use a large mirror ... takes a little getting used to but no crawling under the layout unless absolutely needed.

[randgust]

I've had a multiple-level layout with lower-level staging since 1983.

It's lived this long because I've had multiple levels before.   This particular layout is also semi-modular, out of a 8' x 5.6" operation it comes apart in six pieces and has been in three houses now.

Basically open grid, cookie-cutter, so that means that I can get to almost anything from underneath.   And it's NOT tight against the wall, so I can get in from the back and front at any point.   But N came about purely due to space limitations, I've never had more than an 8x12 spot for a layout in my entire lifetime.

There are basically three levels, the lower staging yard, the second level reverse loops, and the third level.   The staging yard really had to be thought out as I've done this before:

1)  ALL turnouts were placed as far out to the outer edge as humanly possible.
2)  The entire staging yard was one-directional (one end in, other end out) so that switch machines were only at one end and the other end is free-floating.    And as DC, diodes in the track so that it was humanly impossible to accidentally reverse unless you held down on a PANIC button to bypass the diodes.
3)  With three levels, that gave me essentially 4" above the staging yard at most places.   The 'nolix' grades were out at the front edge so they could be easily accessed.
4)   When I really had an access problem, I made the scenery ABOVE the section (including a couple turnouts at the second level) pop-out removable to get in there.   This proved to be a prediction, I've had two turnouts fail and have to be replaced and managed to.
5)   There's a relationship between height and depth.  You can do 2" if the track is right up front of the lower level.
6)    Solder feeders to EVERYTHING, rail joiners, over time, will corrode and fail.
7)    For regular track cleaning, pads on long sticks seem to work well, I only have done it maybe every two years or so.

Now, I'll admit that when I have derailment in the 8-track staging yard packed in solid on the lower level, which happens maybe once a year, it's an evacuation drill of the entire yard so that I can get in to reach the offender.     And most time, it's clearly human error, or not paying attention. rather than a direct design problem.    It's really worked well, but if you go through a hidden locked trailing-point turnout despite warning lights and track signals, well, you're still gonna derail.

Would I want more vertical clearance?  Of course.  But what I have resulted in the 2.5% grade to get up the two levels, in a Nolix wrapping around the modules.  That 2.5% grade with typical 30 car trains has created the significant issues of tractive effort on power, testing routines, and my reputation for sticking with DC and somewhat older and heavier power just to run the hill reliably.  I'll run DCC on my T-trak modules, but lightweight poor pullers need not apply to the ATSF layout. 

And while I've seen some WONDERFUL helixes, on the layouts I've seen they dominate the entire operation.   I didn't know what I was designing would later get christened a Nolix, but that's what it is.   A train leaving the staging tracks will loop around a full lap before becoming visible.

Edit:  Oh, and one more epic little detail.   In the room I'm in now, it's so small and tight that I do have the  layout back right against an interior wall.  I built the wall when the adjacent room was a playroom, but I still had to get into the hidden staging yard.   So the wall features a big bookshelf inset into the wall from the other side, with a removable panel to the layout room - if I lift out the bookshelf, and pop the hidden panel, I have full access to the staging yard from the rear,  at track level.   I'll admit it's only for emergency access, and the only time I've actually used it is for heavy track cleaning every couple of years.  But that's one more way in.   Every other room it was in at least had 18" across the back for access.  I'm looking at moving that wall, but only to jam in more track!

[Cajonpassfan]

The Rick Johnson illustration in Model Railroader / Model Railroad Planning always seems like a good guide:
https://www.trains.com/mrr/how-to/expert-tips/5-multideck-layout-design-and-construction-tips/




Otherwise, @GaryHinshaw has some good recent experience but I just can't quickly find what his advice to me was.

Well, intending no disrespect, the MR illustration above is exactly the kind of multi-deck concept I was advising against earlier, in Reply #18: three-level "decks", presumably connected by helices, with flush front fascias. I'm 6'-1, or used to be, and find 60" elevation kind of high for anything but open running and close to the front edge at that. Yards at that elevation tend to be hard to reach and switching cars is very uncomfortable. The 50" middle deck would be just fine, except the upper deck interferes with the visibility of anything beyond the first few inches. One can duck a bit, but it quickly stops being enjoyable when one's neck starts aching😬 At 40", the low deck is a bit low for a standing operator and the upper decks inhibit visibility no access as well. It may work well for staging, or even a major yard, provided the operator can be in a caster equipped chair, and provided there's adequate clearance above it. 10" track to track, with maybe a 7" "window" allowing for framing and limited scenery is just too tight imho.
But, to each his own...
Otto K.

[Maletrain]

Not every operator is 6 feet tall.  Our club has kids, short women, tall women, short men, tall men.  What is easy for the tall folks is hard for the short folks and vice versa.  Slide out platforms for short folks to work upper levels get in the way of all folks working the lower levels.  But, tall folks working lower levels are OK with visibility, because the level separation is large and the upper levels are all set back more than the lower levels.  We do tend to run the two levels in different operating sessions simply because of the interferences among people trying to do switching in the same floor space on what are essentially two different layouts in the same location - not the same as 2 person crews on the same level.