Considerations?

Lighting both levels should be ok with LED strips. The lower level is along the shoreline so need some foam (or whatever) to get up 6-8’ and the background will be fields or cliffs. The 16” width represent only 64’ wide right of way (12” = 48’) so not much scenery here. 

Since the lower level is for watching trains or entertaining visitors I turned off the room lights to see if the museum effect would work:

On the right is my eye level view of the upper deck. This would be essentially a switching layout so reaching in is a concern and it IS rather high even for me. Perhaps the upper deck could be pulled forward to line up with below? Thinking out loud here. 

Any thought? What am I missing?

Deck heights

   Hi Neil , I've never found two double deck benchwork heights I'm comfortable with.  The bottom deck always seems too low and the upper deck too high. I think if I had to build a double deck layout I'd build the lower deck at office chair height and work on it sitting down then build the upper deck at standing height. I've never seen such a layout in person so maybe there's something wrong with the concept that I'm missing? .....DaveB

office chair height

My double deck layout has the lower level at office chair height and the upper deck will be at standing height to address the same issues, an attic space room with sloped walls. It is not as bad as it sounds or I thought it would be, although I do wish I had room to move both levels higher. But by raising my lower deck then I start loosing usable layout space and have a lot of wasted space, so I went with the lower levels. It is what it is and that is what I have for a layout room, beats the alternative of no layout at all. 

Mine is 41" and 60" for the 2

Mine is 41" and 60" for the 2 main decks. Then I have a staging deck 8" under the lower deck.  I have raised roll around office chair to put me at eye level with the lower deck. I think I will have an even shorter chair that will allow for a pull out work place at the deeper lower deck on the one side of the room.

I also have a sloping ceiling something like yours in my shed. I found some very reasonably priced LEDs on amazon.

BTW, what are those 3 set of brackets way up top,...another shelf?

There's more than one way to...

Hi,

it seems you are trying out a concept that I really should have considered more when I designed my layout

Anyway, you said you'd want a lower deck for railfanning and an upper for switching, however the upper height feels uncomfortable. Why not have the switching on the lower deck then? The shallow upper deck would be less of an issue for the railfanning, also?

Going even further, have you considered to run the rail-fan line as an elevated line as part of the main (lower) deck? In Europe, it is rather common to have a main line either in a trench or on a dam. In the city of Berlin, the cross-city main line (both suburban as well as long-distance) is on a viaduct. Outside of cities you'll still find the (earth) dam with the railroad line on top and if you go to the mountains there are some spectacular main lines high up in the rock-face. For example, the Brenner-Main-Line runs high above the valley, climbing up from the switching yards of Innsbruck City.

You'll probably building a Hawaii-themed industrial short line, so Chicago-L-Style elevated running is probably out of place, but having your main line (rail-fan line) along the side of the background hills and on some bridge or trestle viaduct would still seem appropriate. The main line connects the harvesting area with the processing industry. As such it needs to climb out of the valley over into the next one over, or it needs to pass over a swampy region on a trestle?

Just thinking out loud...

Have fun!

I'm short, so....

I'm 5'6" short and building my new layout with a helix in one corner. Lower level is 38" 24" wide around the walls. Upper level is 54" high with 18" around the wall. Even with the 18" depth I still need to do some reaching on the upper level. I mocked this up before I started the build. I learned my lesson on my other layout as I wanted more clearance between levels. My other layout has 12" of clearance. It's strictly for staging trains and I can still get to the switch machines if need be. 

Neal

armpit height

If you want to operate on the upper deck, you probably want it to be below armpit height which seems to be a pretty good guideline for wether you can comfortably reach in to uncouple, flip switches, etc.

A friend of mine has built two layouts, one above the other.  The lower one is On30 representing the quarry operations around Ipswich in the 1920's (He calls it "The Docks and Rocks").  That's at a comfortable height to sit at, and works pretty well if you're sitting.  It's a bit low if you're not sitting.  The upper level is an HO scale layout that's more Boston area industry and yards, same time period.  It's a little below armpit height.  It works out pretty well, although in places where the lower level sticks out significantly more than the upper level it can be a little annoying.  It's also possible to have operating sessions on both layouts at once without getting in each others way too much.

Considerations

Heights - Been discussed.

Viewing angles.  You haven't included any real benchwork thickness.  What happens when you add wiring, switch  linkages, signal connections, car card boxes, throttle plug ins, operating controls, fascia, something to hide the lighting, etc.  What happens when you add a 3"-4" fascia on the upper level for the lower level?  How much fascia will you need on the upper level to keep a normal person from seeing up into the upper level lighting?

Scene depth.  12" on the upper level as a switching area?  On30 probably needs about 3" track centers.  Figure 3' rear track to the backdrop and 3" front track to the fascia, that leaves 6" in the middle, enough for 3 tracks TOTAL on minimum track centers.  Not going to get much switching opportunity in there.

Lighting. Been discussed.  Will the inconsistent lighting on the lower deck bother you? (room color/intensity/direction on the front of the lower level, LED color/intensity/direction on the rear of the lower level)

Transition. How are you getting between levels?  Helix? Nolix?  If you are going to have grades on the visible layout that will affect the distance between levels and the view.  Also a grade going down through a shelf at the rear of a scene affects the supports on the shelf or the distance between shelves and the thickness of the benchwork.

A couple of thoughts...

For several reasons I won't go into here I'm not really a fan of double deck layouts with maybe the mushroom design being an exception but I do have a couple of bits of experience to offer.

When it comes to scenery and backdrops I learned a long ago that the horizon line, usually established as where blue sky fades to white, should be set at eye level. I've always tried to follow that and it's served me well. Most definitely a secondary consideration to many other things when setting deck heights but something to keep in mind especially for the scenery guys like me.

One of the single deck pikes  I've built over the years had it's height set so that the above rule was true while sitting in a  very comfy office chair. I also had paid a lot of attention to reach where I could remain in the chair uncoupling and re-railing and I made my lighting valances removable where I didn't have to stoop in under them while building and working on things. I had reasoned that I stood on my feet all day long at work, why stand when operating my railroad? In the end, I found that, for whatever reason, I just wasn't comfortable operating from a chair and actually preferred to stand. I had gone to a lot of trouble for nothing. I actually have a bar stool with my current pike and I sit some and stand some but I mostly stand. My pike is basically along two walls of a 10X12 room though so it's not really that big. All a matter of personal preference of course but it's something you might want to consider.

Thoughts from my experience

Hi Neil,

First off, I like your mockup.  It gives an accurate feel of what you will experience, I think.

I think you're pretty close with your height choices.  My own decks are at 39" and 60".  The track on the upper level has manual switches, and is close to the edge.  The deck varies in width from around 6" to around 14".  I remember Bill Darnaby commenting that he made his decks narrow, 18" to 24" or something.  Then he realized he could have gone much narrower, and all that extra space was just space he had to scenic!  Anyway, creative use of scenery and background will, I think, make 12" very usable.  And I would keep it recessed back from the lower level.

For the lower level, most of mine is at 42", and it drops to 39" where it's double decked, for clearance.  I find I'd rather have the lower level around 46", as I think the viewing would be better, but that's the tradeoff.  Operationally it's fine, as is the 60" upper deck height.  I am 6'1" tall.

Here's an idea what it looks like with an HO scale coal mine on the lower deck.

Here's a wide view to show how the two decks look.  The top is about 8" deep in this area and recessed from the lower.

Whatever you decide, HAPPY RAILROADING!

what about a multi-tiered layout?

i suggest you read Tony Koester's book, Designing and Building Multi-Desc Model Railroad

a multi-deck layout requires enough space (read length) to get from one level to the other if you don't want a helix.   While you may have 20x40' basement and figure you have a 120' of length, which at 2% can rise 28", you will need flat areas for sidings and switching area that will significantly restrict the ability to gain height.  The assumption is that there is some minimum distance (~18") between the levels are any point on the layout

presumably you're real desire is to maximize the distance between two endpoints on the layout.

an alternative is a multi-tiered layout (e.g. Gore & Daphetid) trackage can wind around the layout, gradually increasing in height where possible, but not on separate levels.   Thick depth> 24".  The advantage is that a track doesn't need to rise ~18" after going around the layout, it just rises as much as is can and may be set back a little further than the next lower track.   And if it needs to go over another track, it just needs to clear ~6".

on multi-tiered layouts, trackage may go around the room many times, potentially rising and returning to the same height where there is common hidden staging representing the off layout parts of the RR just past the terminals at the endpoint.

Wow

Far be it for me to argue the point because I'm a fan of all things John Allen and G&D but isn't the prevailing wisdom these days that trains should not pass through a scene more than once?

I have no problem with multi tiered layouts because I think they can be spectacular scenery wise but I'm always hesitant to bring up plans like the G&D for fear of being chastised by modern day track planning proponents.

 On another note, maybe another thing to consider is a plan with a partial upper deck located in an area of the room more suitable for it?

Train elevator

For shortish trains (I'm guessing given On30) a train elevator might work fairly well, and do away with the need for a helix or trying to squish two scenes in front to back on a single deck (O scale scenery is O scale, even if On30 track looks like HO scale).

Some keys

"Model railroads are always built by people, so they should always be built for people."

Ergonomics suggests that the best range of layout heights is between the bottom of a bent elbow and the armpit.  This may seem a difficult goal for double deck layouts.  The key thought here is that the ergonomic range is in relation to the operators, not to the floor. 

Therefore, a pertinent solution is to establish the lower deck height within the ergonomic range and then elevate the operators as necessary to operate on the upper deck.  There have been several suggested methods published; mine is to use lightweight Rubbermaid stools that can easily be moved around with one foot.

Another key in designing multiple deck or multiple tier layouts is not to have operating locations one above the other.  This is pertinent to the proposed branch interchange.  The design of operator positions is as important to the enjoyment of the layout as is the design of the track plan per se.

Note that this also speaks to access space and timing.  Operators can function in the same area if there is enough space for them to move around freely.  Think of operators as distributed intelligence systems that can learn how to work together.

Timing plays a lesser role.  If two operating locations are in close proximity to each other, scheduling arranged so that only one location is occupied at a time can provide an alternative solution.

Quick response!

I got up early to get in 30 minutes exercise and headed out to the train room before making the 107 mile drive to our East Hawaii office. Everyone's comments has gotten me thinking again (not good). 

First, thank you all! The question of how high is too high or low is too low is certainly a personal preference and, duh, based on our own height. This layout was to be a single deck but the idea of a branch "up country" is where this got me looking at the possibility of adding another level via a helix.

My standing eye height is 70" and sitting on a bar stool is 42". Armpit is 60" so, yeah, 62" will be too high to comfortably switch cars or manually throw turnouts (without breaking something). Right now my right arm is still in a sling so all this is left handed anyway! Argh.

Dave - you hit the sore point. A 12" wide deck doesn't leave much room for track and scenery. I was inspired by Joe F's thought of narrow (6"?) scenes and Michael A's logging branch line. (Darn you guys!)

In O scale, even narrow gauge, structures and scenery can get pretty deep so i gave up on the track within the same scene (although G&D is one of my favorites, but I digress) so found a place for a 36" radius helix above the carport which is just outside and below the train room. Following Peter's example of building and testing this before closing it in would be key but that is a separate subject - or blog - for later. In short, 2-1/2 loops will do 'er.

Michael T - I always considered myself a scenery guy and when listening to AML Kelly Questions I answer that question with Scenery because trackwork, benchwork, and structures are ALL scenery!! Ok. 'nuff said. I'm not worried about the horizon because it will never been clearly there on an island from the ocean pov.

Lastly, a small rant. I recommend a book called "Scared Sitless" on Amazon (really cheap). All of us model builders need to pay attention to our health if we are going to raise average age of our community ;- )

P.S. Double Deck Lighting

Brian: The brackets on the very top are to support a curved backdrop and valance with concealed LED strip lighting. That's idea anyway.

Just as a point of interest

I'm sure I kind of knew this but I double checked. With my horizon line set as I described, my "main level" of benchwork and trackage is armpit high.

Touching on the subject of narrow shelves meaning less scenery to build, scenery is my favorite part of the hobby so in my case, the thought has always been, why limit my opportunity to build it? My pike is mostly two feet wide and the brunt of the trackage is toward the front foot of it. The back area was specifically set aside for deep 3D mountain scenery. I have a single track serial staging area that is only a little over 2" wide and it's tongue in cheek name is "Koester's Kove" because of TK's advocacy of ever narrower shelves for model railroads. The name of the planned "closet staging" is "Fugate" but that has no hidden meaning. It's just a small way to honor our good friend Joe. One of my dislikes of double deck layouts is the need for narrower shelves which take away scenery depth. It's true enough that a longer mainline run equals more scenery to build on the two levels but there are other things I consider drawbacks that I think would keep me from considering anything but maybe a mushroom design.

I've become pretty content with my spare bedroom size pike and don't think I'd go much bigger even with more space. If given more space, I might go to On30 with the same plan but proportionately larger because of the bigger scale. I might also add a decent sized workable yard which I don't have now but that's probably about it.

Scenery depth

Michael - I haven't posted a plan yet as this will be greatly determined if I can do a second deck. Much of the layout is narrow but will also have a single track with occasional passing siding. Where the junction to the upper deck occurs, the layout will bump out to about four feet deep with the track in the first couple feet of the front. The idea of expansive fields and waterfront are too appealing to ignore.

The idea of an upper deck, almost as a second layout, has grown on me. Rob Clark's layout has certainly been inspirational and his photos never give away the idea that it is too high or low. 

My space is unusual so the visible layout will occupy only a 14'x15' space. In On30 this leaves little room for much track unless I "blob" into the open space where I enjoy a couch, coffee table (that's what we call our beverages btw), and space to play guitar while enjoying the trains.

"As a point of interest", my last layout had "Make Kane Gulch"  (dead man gulch) where diesel salesmen would be interviewed. Other tongue-in-cheek names were used but no dinosaurs (yet) as these became tiresome and the real life names have just as much appeal. Not judging. The hobby is fun and should be enjoyed anyway you want!

P.S. I can lower both decks about 2" so armpit height, sitting or standing, seems possible without restricting access to my doors. Much lower and I can't get out over the rafters for the helix. Is it worth it?

Experiment with uncoupling on the upper deck

If you can mock up some elements you imagine might be in the foreground on the upper deck where you may need to reach in to uncouple or whatever, then you can play around a little and see if the ease of reaching in to do that without knocking over cows or cars or people improves enough that you think it's worth it.  Your mockup there should make it easy to try at both heights.

" the 107 mile drive to our

  Don't you live on the east side? Is the road to Hilo a helix? .....DaveB 

In my 10X12 room I also have

In my 10X12 room I also have my computer/ham radio desk (which is why I'm seemingly constantly on this forum) and a 75 gallon marine aquarium that I can only afford two fish for. Makes it easy to keep clean though but I also digress... My workbench is attached to the front of a portion of the pike but is removable and can be shoved under it. That's the plan anyway, it mostly stays attached while under construction. My lone guitar got moved to the bedroom because I kept bumping into it with stuff. I have no room for a helix even if I wanted one because the closet isn't big enough and so I can't imagine doing anything bigger than HO or double deck in here. As I said, I'd love to have the space to go to On30 with my same plan and concept and maybe someday I will.

No worries on judging, the only real tongue in cheek stuff is the aforementioned reference to TK and "Blackwater and Blue Ridge" comes out to "The Ole Black N' Blue". The rest of the places on my line are after family names and honoring the old masters except for I'm not calling Joe old. My pike actually has somewhat of  an "after the fact prototype" that I found after I'd worked out most of it's concept in my head but I digress again...

Give careful consideration to the curve radius of your helix as I'm sure you know that the friction of the trains on the curve can reduce pulling power and add to the effective percentage of your grade. It's another reason why a helix is not possible in my closet as the curve radius, probably even back when I was in N-scale, is a deal breaker.

Multi-deck

Neil,

You've received a lot of good replies and advice, so there's not much more for me to add. I'll simply say being rather short, my deck heights are adjusted accordingly. Staging: 23", Main deck 39', Upper deck 56.25", with a branch on the upper deck that goes a couple inches higher.

Building a mock up first though, as you are doing, is good. The heights I originally planned were different than these. They looked good on paper, but once I threw together a mock up I quickly realized things needed to be adjusted, and did so before final construction began. So you're on the right track there.

In my experience the relation of the upper deck edge to the lower deck edge is something to consider very carefully. A lot depends on how deep lower deck is. If both decks are fairly narrow, the upper deck edge can be in line with the lower deck, because the viewing angle still allows you to see the back of the lower deck. I have this situation in a couple places on my layout, and it works fine.

The wider the lower deck grows however, the more you want to have the upper deck edge set back further in relation to it. In the area of my yard the main deck is 30" wide. The upper deck there is only 16" wide. When I stand close to the layout edge, I can still see the back deck. Operators who are taller than me would have to stand a little further back from the edge to see the back though. That being said, I have a lot of operators who run on my layout that are 6' 4" ish. My layout may not be perfect for them, but I haven't had any complaints on being able to see the trains. (Maybe they are just being kind.) 

Hope that gives you a little helpful food for thought as your plans progress!

Scenery

Its plenty if you want the running part of the layout on the upper level.  It will be a challenge on the switching areas.

Another consideration.  Very thin benchwork like you have shown on the upper level means you don't have any space to go down with scenery.  Depending on what your scenery concepts are and where the railroad is located, if you are modeling a logging line in Kansas, you will be in luck.  Other places than Kansas, it might be worth considering a deeper upper deck just to get a few drainage ditches or a suggestion of an embankment in the scene.

Slow day ...

Nearly caught up here in West Hawaii (and yes, it is a helix - or more like a spiral but I seldom go up to the summit!). 

Ken: You read my mind. I looked a some heavy duty shelf brackets at Lowes today that are 16" - 20" deep. For now I may just TOMA this area and give some switching a try. Watch for a sequel on "Dole Siding"!

Dave: I've cycled around the island a couple of times but it took two days each time. 

Michael: The helix is planned to be a 3% grade or equivalent of 4% but should be fine for my shay :- )

Paul: I'm 6'-4" tall as well so am concerned about hitting my head on the upper deck more than the visibility. The lower deck will be a feeder to the branch line and, more likely, a parade route for my "K's". The 16" depth may be better than the 12" deep shelf as pictured in the mock-up. I haven't spent any time on a track plan but have the prototype track layout so will try to emulate that and the cannery. 

All good thoughts - thank you all! I got some 1" pink extruded foam today so will look at a shallow deck idea tonight if I have the energy as I still have to drive home.