Input on height between levels

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Agree 100% on the book.

Also, I highly recommend prototyping things yourself.

I had some old modules floating around and I rigged them up at different heights until I was happy.

[lock4244]

Agree 100% on the book.

Also, I highly recommend prototyping things yourself.

I had some old modules floating around and I rigged them up at different heights until I was happy.

I'll be first building a few legless modules to play around with height wise. I also have to incorporate storage under the modules, some type of floating shelving that fits under but not attached to the legs.

[spr1955]

I would have to add an addendum to my post to be more clear.  The railhead on the main level was 51" and me being 6'2" the second level that I had put in risers for were set at 66" rail height with some risers to 69" railhead.  I planned on all turnouts to be manual slide switches which kept the shelf thickness to a minimum. Led lighting strips were applied to the underframe on lathe strips.

[Bill H]

Get find any adjustable shelf bookcase in your house - and take two shelves and see what heights and separation works best for you. Also recommend the Koester book.

[lock4244]

Get find any adjustable shelf bookcase in your house - and take two shelves and see what heights and separation works best for you. Also recommend the Koester book.

I have six bookcases outside of the train room, never thought of this... pretty good idea.

[Bill H]

I have six bookcases outside of the train room, never thought of this... pretty good idea.

The original idea came from the Koester book, if memory serves, or perhaps an old MR. I only have a single level, but I used the same technique to see what level I would be most comfortable with while still giving a good viewing angle.

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I have six bookcases outside of the train room, never thought of this... pretty good idea.

When I did mine I just piled crap up to get to different levels. It worked just fine.

[lock4244]

The original idea came from the Koester book, if memory serves, or perhaps an old MR. I only have a single level, but I used the same technique to see what level I would be most comfortable with while still giving a good viewing angle.

This worked out quite well, thank you. I'm thinking 48" and 61"work for me. Thirteen inches between levels may not be optimal, but I think if I limit the upper level to 12-14" deep it'll be fine. The main yard serving the automobile assembly plant, the plant itself, a few other larger customers, and the city spur will be located on the lower level, while the upper will be more for running. Given the space I have, I might use half the upper for mainline and the other half to model and branchline.

[John]

This worked out quite well, thank you. I'm thinking 48" and 61"work for me. Thirteen inches between levels may not be optimal, but I think if I limit the upper level to 12-14" deep it'll be fine. The main yard serving the automobile assembly plant, the plant itself, a few other larger customers, and the city spur will be located on the lower level, while the upper will be more for running. Given the space I have, I might use half the upper for mainline and the other half to model and branchline.

One of the mistakes of my first layout - I had the lower level around 40" and used a 15"-18" spread between the top of the track and the bottom of the upper level benchwork. The bench work was up to 24" wide in spots, which completely limited access to the upper level

This go around - i'm around 45" for the lower level track height with a width of around 15" on the lower level .. a couple of areas will be a wider, but only if I need it for industry space.  The rest of the time the goal will be 12" for the lower level, and around 9" for the upper (if I decide to build one)

[Rivet Miscounter]

Sort of the same players and answers but here was a similar post I made last year, in case there might be something of value from it....
https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=54429

[Specter3]

This was where I was playing with deck heights and spacing.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[lock4244]

One of the mistakes of my first layout - I had the lower level around 40" and used a 15"-18" spread between the top of the track and the bottom of the upper level benchwork. The bench work was up to 24" wide in spots, which completely limited access to the upper level

This go around - i'm around 45" for the lower level track height with a width of around 15" on the lower level .. a couple of areas will be a wider, but only if I need it for industry space.  The rest of the time the goal will be 12" for the lower level, and around 9" for the upper (if I decide to build one)

Because I insist on having separate CN and CP mainlines I can't get away with 12" deep in a good chunk of the lower level where anything more than open running in concerned. I'm basing the operation of the automobile assembly plant on a fleet of 105 autoracks and similar number of parts boxes, so there's a minimum amount of space necessary to accommodate everything. Plant is to be served by two yards, one for each road, with the CN yard being noticeably larger than the CP (again, mirroring the situation in Oshawa, Ontario), and a section of joint in-plant trackage accessing both the plant itself and the automobile loading compound, as well as an interchange between the two roads. Once I get some benchwork up I'll do a mock up of the trackage and get a better idea of how things fit.

Since my benchwork for the lower level will be modules it would theoretically be easy to increase or decrease the height some point down the road if I find I don't like it. Legs are bolted onto the benchwork and could be changed out relatively quickly. I wouldn't want to have to do that with a functional layout, but could if need be.

[nickelplate759]

I like the idea of a multi-level layout giving more running space, but in a small room it seems to me that the transition between levels would eat up a huge proportion of the available space.   Am I over-thinking it?

[John]

All model railroading is an exercise in compromise - you're doing the right thing by asking for opinions, but ultimately its your layout and you will live with your decisions (like I did with mine) - one thing about this place, we have a huge variety of modeling styles, and layouts .. so you can certainly get lots of ideas .. looking forward to seeing what you come up with ..

[John]

I like the idea of a multi-level layout giving more running space, but in a small room it seems to me that the transition between levels would eat up a huge proportion of the available space.   Am I over-thinking it?

If you don't use a helix, it will take some room - but if you have the space it looks awesome to see it climb .. the layout I am building is a variation of this ..

https://www.bobstrackplans.com/single-post/2011/09/07/maryland-midland

It's a 12x20 give or take nolix- but I have quite a bit more space .. so it will fit on 2 levels easily . so far, I have a 1x4 module built to fit into our FREEMO layout (MIDDLEBURG) and the benchwork is complete from EMORY GROVE to FINKSBURG ..