Input on height between levels

[Cajonpassfan]

Thanks for the advice. I was originally thinking maybe a 12" minimum was doable, and it is probably to a depth of around 12", but using 15-18" as a rage seems to work in my case.

(Attachment Link)

Above is the space I have to work with. With respect to the 30" deep area, the 4' x 9' obstruction necessitates a deep area on the lower level to it's righthand side. This on the one hand gives me a convenient location to place the automobile assembly plant that will be the general focus of operations on the layout (inspiration is GM's once gargantuan three in one assembly plant in Oshawa, Ontario - as late as the 00's the three lines could crank out 3000 cars and trucks a day), however it presents some challenge with the upper level. A sweeping S curve is needed, and I'm trying to keep a broad radius given the number of 86' and 89' cars I'll be running. I should note that my intention has always been to model both CN and CP mainlines side by side on at least half of the layout, further complicating things from a design standpoint.

The left hand side isn't an issue as the main will run straight to the 13' wall and turn to reverse direction and run on the bottom wall towards the next PITA... the door obstacle. The 13' x 4' space to the left of the 4' x 9' obstruction will be used for a spur up into the city to serve a few local customers and an auto parts plant (based one the actual Oshawa Rwy that CN abandoned around 1998... my era is 87-89).

I don't know anything about your prototype, but if it has some grades, I would suggest that you don't think of the design concept as "levels" or "decks", and I would definitely toss any notions of a connecting helix. In my opinion, and I've operated on many helices, including mine, they kill the joy of running trains on the main (beside being space wasters).

I would think of the design as a continuously rising mainline (a nolix). Your room is large and long enough to accommodate that, I think, especially if you could get the door to swing outward, opposite the stairs; I would seriously look at doing that.. A nolix design would then allow for a partial double decking below the top and above the bottom of the linear plan to fit whatever facilities (or staging) your railroad needs.

As to minimum separation (the window) so much depends on the design, scene depth above and below, type of scenery, structures, etc. that any fast rule gets in the way of making good decisions. I have 18" above a deep major yard scene, 13" above another yard with a shallower (14") upper benchwork, and only about 5" at a place where a narrow, 9" wide shelf sits above a wider lower "deck". It all works.
Just some thoughts, YMMV.
Good luck, Otto

[Angus Shops]

I went the nolix route with a steady 2% grade top to bottom in a 19 x 12 foot room (point to point layout schematic without no continuous run option). I placed “flat” sections near the bottom and at the top of the track run for ‘townsites’. I also use manual turnout control and arranged the scenery so that there are no  deep river valleys or other bits (switch controllers etc.) on the upper deck that would interfere with the lower deck. The width of the upper deck fascia can be as narrow as 2”.  This arrangement resulted in a couple of areas on the layout there the deck to deck height was less than ideal, but I compensated by not having the lower deck directly under the upper deck. In the “perfect example”, conceptually the lower deck has a front fascia 18” from the room wall, with the backdrop for the lower deck 6” from the room wall (12” wide deck). Meanwhile, the upper deck has the front fascia 12” from the wall and a backdrop on the wall (also a 12” wide deck). These can vary as needed. I also tried to place most of the lower deck main track so that it wasn’t under the upper deck - in some areas the rail to rail height separation is only 9 or 10”, but with the lower track being towards the front of the deck and not under the deck above it, it feels very “open”. I’m absolutely certain that I’m not the originator of anything that hasn’t been done many times before, but rather grandly I’ve dubbed this the “sports stadium multi deck model”.

My layout actually goes 2 1/2 times around the room, but most of that ‘extra 1/2’ are the two staging yards at either end of the mainline run, but there is a short section where there are 3 sceniced ‘ on stage’ decks. One major drawback from my arrangement is that there is no provision for turning trains at the staging yards, so restaging trains for operating is a major operation, but I really have no problem with this. This was a concession made to maximize running length and to more or less eliminate hidden track. My operating scheme leans toward operating mostly through trains on a single track layout with 4 passing sidings (2 in the ‘townsite’ and 2 isolated ‘in the middle of nowhere”) so most freights only need to have their power and vans repositioned, but the passenger trains need to be repositioned back to their starting points.

I spent a lot of time planning this layout to make sure the deck spacing worked well with the planned scenery and the arrangement of tracks, including mocking up sections of the layout in full size with cardboard mounted on the wall of the room. From previous layouts I was already sure that my operating interests would not be impeded by the limitations imposed imposed by the overall layout scheme, mostly lack of continuous running option, manual switch operation, and turn backs at the staging yards.

[lock4244]

@Cajonpassfan If it's relevant to the design of a nolix layout, I'm building the layout in modules to be easier to relocate as it's a possibility down the road.

@Angus Shops what is the track height above the floor where staging enters 'the layout'? What is the track height above the floor at the short section where there are 3 sceniced ‘ on stage’ decks?

Layout will be CN and CP in somewhere in southern Ontario. Plan is for a double track CN main and a single track CP running parallel much like they do east of Toronto from the Newcastle to east of Belleville, but I'm not modeling any particular area or line. Operational focus is a large automobile assembly plant patterned after GM's Oshawa complex.

While there are some decent grades in Ontario, there's no sustained mountain type grades. Having had a helix on my last layout (20 years ago) and understand what a track thief they are and the 2.2% grade was an operational issue, but I'm at least familiar with them. To me, design is a lot easier with a helix rather than a nolix. The problem I'm having now is designing anything that works for me, helix or nolix. The room is a bizarre shape and the furnace couldn't have been more poorly located my perspective (and it's too costly to relocate so that's off the table). I'm struggling to design something that works in a way that I'm happy with. To start I think I'd be wise to fill the 18' x 16' area using an around the walls with a peninsula design capable of continuous running while I figure out all the details. DCC is new to me, so I'm starting at zero on that one. And it's been 20 years between layouts, so I'm essentially building one for the first time.

Filling the room, generally speaking I can have a roughly 163' continuous run before there's any overlap, so going the nolix route I can gain 16" in height with a continuous 0.77% grade. That's a pretty tolerable grade, but for the area where the assembly plant is located and a few other places that include small yards and industry sidings I'll need level benchwork, so the if I take 60' and make it flat, grade gets to be a continuous 2.08%. Not great, not terrible. My issue with the nolix is I'd sacrifice the length of run in favor of avoiding the joys and cost of constructing a helix. I get that the room is large and it's already more than I could handle as a lone wolf, but it's conceivable I may find some locals to help operate it some day. I'd like to dedicate up to half of the upper level to a branchline, which would present some design challenges with a nolix in terms of where staging would be located on the upper end.

There's at least four possible places I've identified to locate a helix and all have advantages and disadvantages. I've set 2-3/4" as the height climbed per revolution. One location there could be a round helix with a radius of up to 52", giving a sustained grade of 1.68%. Another location I can fit a helix with a 46" radius that could have straight sections 12" long, giving a sustained grade of 1.63%. Another location could see a 58" radius helix with a sustained grade of 1.51%.

[Angus Shops]

The three deck portion is right next to the entrance to the lower deck staging (west staging) and track height is 44 inches above the floor. It’s a couple of inches higher than I would have preferred, but I have a bunch of cabinets that absolutely need to fit under the layout. The sceniced lower deck in this location is 11” wide with the front fascia 31” from the room all and ‘rear backdrop’ 20” from the wall. The deck above overhangs this level by only 4 1/2”, so most of the scenery, including the track, is not under the deck above - the only part of the scenery that is actually under the 2nd deck is forest - the ‘backdrop’ is not visible due to the trees.

The second deck, which is 1 loop around the room, has a track height at this point 52” above floor and rising at 2%. This deck is 14” wide, withe the front fascia 25” and the back 11” from the room wall. The scenery here is ‘track running parallel to river with forested slope above the track’, with the forest running up to the underside of the top deck and once again obscuring the ‘backdrop’. The track here is under the upper deck but only by 2 or 3”.

The upper deck is the town of Field, BC. This shelf is 21” wide and track is 61” above the ground. It’s a bit too high, but the track is arranged so the most used track (and switches) are toward the front of the deck for relatively easy access. It helps that I’m 6’2”…

[Cajonpassfan]

@Cajonpassfan If it's relevant to the design of a nolix layout, I'm building the layout in modules to be easier to relocate as it's a possibility down the road.
...

Fair enough, it is a consideration. For what it's worth, I built the first phases of my mountainous layout in pieces (sections, not  interchangeable modules) with plywood end profile boards to bolt together. Some survived the moves, some didn't...
Good luck, Otto

[garethashenden]

Fair enough, it is a consideration. For what it's worth, I built the first phases of my mountainous layout in pieces (sections, not  interchangeable modules) with plywood end profile boards to bolt together. Some survived the moves, some didn't...
Good luck, Otto

That sounds like a win to me. Any substantial layout section that can be reused after a house move is better than putting it all in the dumpster because one didn't plan ahead.

[lock4244]

The three deck portion is right next to the entrance to the lower deck staging (west staging) and track height is 44 inches above the floor. It’s a couple of inches higher than I would have preferred, but I have a bunch of cabinets that absolutely need to fit under the layout. The sceniced lower deck in this location is 11” wide with the front fascia 31” from the room all and ‘rear backdrop’ 20” from the wall. The deck above overhangs this level by only 4 1/2”, so most of the scenery, including the track, is not under the deck above - the only part of the scenery that is actually under the 2nd deck is forest - the ‘backdrop’ is not visible due to the trees.

The second deck, which is 1 loop around the room, has a track height at this point 52” above floor and rising at 2%. This deck is 14” wide, withe the front fascia 25” and the back 11” from the room wall. The scenery here is ‘track running parallel to river with forested slope above the track’, with the forest running up to the underside of the top deck and once again obscuring the ‘backdrop’. The track here is under the upper deck but only by 2 or 3”.

The upper deck is the town of Field, BC. This shelf is 21” wide and track is 61” above the ground. It’s a bit too high, but the track is arranged so the most used track (and switches) are toward the front of the deck for relatively easy access. It helps that I’m 6’2”…

Now that's a clever design to maximize space. For me the issue with a helix isn't so much it's size but rather it's placement, and I think I've found a good spot for it at the end of a peninsula. It's not going to rob me of much of my available space. I couldn't pull off what you have there with three levels, even if only for a short distance, having to fir both CN and CP main into each level.

Nice RS-10's there, btw 

[lock4244]

Fair enough, it is a consideration. For what it's worth, I built the first phases of my mountainous layout in pieces (sections, not  interchangeable modules) with plywood end profile boards to bolt together. Some survived the moves, some didn't...
Good luck, Otto

My modules won't be interchangeable either, just to make for easier disassembly... and not with an eye to be reassembled in a new home but rather just to be broken down and cleared out faster. Certainly with the idea to reuse what may be reused later of course.

[basementcalling]

Deck height considerations need to factor 3 measurements for layout design. Miss on this aspect of a multilevel layout and it will never be satisfying to build or operate.

1. Height above the floor. Be sure you are comfortable with the lowest and highest points. Too low and you'll struggle to see the lower deck or stoop to operate and have back issues. Too high and you cannot see well enough to rerail cars or operate switch points. Be sure you can get under the lower deck for wiring access.

2. Level separation. It can vary from area to area, especially with a Nolix design. If you use a helix and have no other grades, this is simple. Be sure you can get into the space to do construction. Don't just consider how the lower deck looks "framed" by the facias. Also, vertical scenery on the lower deck will be truncated by the upper benchwork. I goofed on that on one scene on my lower deck and it was enough to screw with the entire layout.

3. Deck width. Can you reach the back of the lower deck with a roof over it? Can you see it from a normal viewing angle? If deck separation is compromised, it's manageable if the upper deck is narrower than the lower. Both edges of the layout DO NOT have to come to the same location. If you can cut foreground scenery on the upper level - think tracks in a river canyon scene - it allows a deeper lower level where you can see to the backdrop. This can also allow a wider upper deck in pinch spots if above shoulder height, as you only need to have width for a neck or head, but see number two.

If I had to do it again, I'd consider the lower level height set friendly for seated operators. That can help us vertically challenged folks keep the upper level from being set at eye level or higher.

[Angus Shops]

I agree that your intended layout scheme probably is incompatible with the limitations of my nolix shenanigans - your parallel mains will require wider shelves and more level to level space for optimal visibility of both mains.

My planning process included investigating helix options, maintaining my mainline minimum radius of 24”, but I couldn’t find one that didn’t seriously compromise the running scheme.

I noted that one of your posts noted that you had space for a helix with either a 52 or 58” RADIUS - wow, that’s enormous.

[lock4244]

Deck height considerations need to factor 3 measurements for layout design. Miss on this aspect of a multilevel layout and it will never be satisfying to build or operate.

1. Height above the floor. Be sure you are comfortable with the lowest and highest points. Too low and you'll struggle to see the lower deck or stoop to operate and have back issues. Too high and you cannot see well enough to rerail cars or operate switch points. Be sure you can get under the lower deck for wiring access.

2. Level separation. It can vary from area to area, especially with a Nolix design. If you use a helix and have no other grades, this is simple. Be sure you can get into the space to do construction. Don't just consider how the lower deck looks "framed" by the facias. Also, vertical scenery on the lower deck will be truncated by the upper benchwork. I goofed on that on one scene on my lower deck and it was enough to screw with the entire layout.

3. Deck width. Can you reach the back of the lower deck with a roof over it? Can you see it from a normal viewing angle? If deck separation is compromised, it's manageable if the upper deck is narrower than the lower. Both edges of the layout DO NOT have to come to the same location. If you can cut foreground scenery on the upper level - think tracks in a river canyon scene - it allows a deeper lower level where you can see to the backdrop. This can also allow a wider upper deck in pinch spots if above shoulder height, as you only need to have width for a neck or head, but see number two.

If I had to do it again, I'd consider the lower level height set friendly for seated operators. That can help us vertically challenged folks keep the upper level from being set at eye level or higher.

Thanks Peter, this is good insight.

My lower level height will be based on sitting on a chair while operating, which should allow both levels to be comfortably in reach... I'm no giant but 44-48" seems far too low for standing. While I'm trying to maintain 3' aisles, I can see an issue if two seated operators need to pass one another. I'm going to build storage under part the layout, so regardless of height I'm going to have at least some degree of built in access problems right out of the gate. I remember well the joy of getting under my old layout to do pretty much anything, was 12" of vertical access under a section that was 30" deep. The old man built the layout for the most part in a plan as you go type deal... it was interesting to say the least.

I'm going to keep each level as gradeless as possible, though there will be some changes in elevation where one main has to pass over the other. Obviously as things progress there's going to be changes, but maintaining a constant height between levels is one of my goals. My enjoyment comes from running trains, scenery isn't a big concern of mine. That's not to say that I won't be building scenery, but at the same time there's few areas of southern Ontario that scream out dramatic scenery. Originally I was thinking 48" and 61" respectively for the lower and upper levels, however I'm now looking to at 15-16" between top of the rails, so may go with 45" and 61" respectively. Though a linear design, there one area where a foundation wall juts 54" out into the room. My plan here is to have the main industry on the layout, an automobile assembly plant, located here, which will potentially have some of the sidings for autoparts unloading deeper than I'd like. Once I have the modules built there I'm going to rough in the two yards that will serve the plant to see if there's room along the wall to represent the plant with building flats and avoid having to put much of anything there.

Generally deck width will be 18-24" with the exception of the previously mentioned automobile assembly plant, which will be 30" deep on the first level, with the second level kept to 12-15" deep, though possibly 4-6" off the wall. Since most of the upper is just going to be two mains running through farm country I have the ability to keep it fairly narrow.

I have Tony Koesters's Multideck Design for Model RR's book, as recommended by John earlier, in the mail. Looking forward to reading it.

[lock4244]

I agree that your intended layout scheme probably is incompatible with the limitations of my nolix shenanigans - your parallel mains will require wider shelves and more level to level space for optimal visibility of both mains.

My planning process included investigating helix options, maintaining my mainline minimum radius of 24”, but I couldn’t find one that didn’t seriously compromise the running scheme.

I noted that one of your posts noted that you had space for a helix with either a 52 or 58” RADIUS - wow, that’s enormous.

At the end of my one peninsula there's room for it. It's the spot in the room that ticks the most boxes.

[lock4244]

Spend $21 on this  .. I did - it helps a lot

https://www.amazon.com/Multideck-Design-Model-Railroadsd-Doubling/dp/1627008705

Was pretty sure I was going with 45" and 61" for the two levels, but having gotten into this book I'm thinking of lowering it. I've spent some amount of time cobbling together a general plan for the lower level, and the crappy drawing below is what I have thus far. I was going to locate the helix at the end of the peninsula, however it gobbles up roughly half of the peninsula, which isn't so much of an issue on the lower level, however it really interferes with my plans on the second level. It's back into my preferred location and out of the way behind the furnace.

The only reason I put the helix in the peninsula was difficulty in exiting it on the staging level as both the staging and lower level need to exit towards the post, which was only possible on one level since they're going to be turning in opposite directions; one or the other would face an extremely tight curve off the helix. By routing the exit to the lower level around the furnace it solves that problem, and now trains going down to staging exit on an easy curve and head towards the post and peninsula. The entrance to the lower level from staging being routed around the furnace has the added advantage of paralleling the track exiting the opposite end of the lower level on it's way to the upper level, making installing a connector easy and allowing continuous running should I feel so inclined. Also can connect the two allowing trains to head down to staging should I never get around to building the upper level or (hopefully) allow me to run on the lower level while the upper is under construction.

Need to rehang that door, too.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Lemosteam]

Do you have access to put in a pocket door there? That would prevent the door from being open at the landing of the staircase. You only need one unfinished side to install one. Especially if that wall is not load bearing.

[lock4244]

Do you have access to put in a pocket door there? That would prevent the door from being open at the landing of the staircase. You only need one unfinished side to install one. Especially if that wall is not lad bearing.

I thought about a pocket door as the best solution, but rather not get into that amount of work or expense. I think I'll locate the hinges on the opposite side so that it won't be an issue with the stairs.