IYRR

A matter of opinion.... stick with 2 decks. 6-12" clearance just isn't workable in my way of thinking. Joe has been quoted to say it is the quality of the run not the length of the run. Sounds like solid advice.

That is what am looking for...

...what are other people's thoughts on the matter.  Joe's advice is solid, that quality of run is more important than length of run.  I should have noted, I'm also going to be using TT&TO (circa 1953) which does impact on some things. 

I'm leaning towards going to two decks again, though, with what I want to accomplish operationally, the 2 decks just won't accomplish it.  On the other hand, this is the interim P&A, and within the next 5-8 years the building for the Final P&A should be finished.  Unfortunately, it is being delayed because of 1) finances - need to pay off school loans first - the payment is just about the same as a small mortgage!, and 2) need to install a sand filter type septic system, since the leech bed is in the way and needs to be replaced which was an unexpected delay and additional cost.  So if I keep things in perspective, dealing with the shortcomings of the length of run would only be for a short period of time, relative to the big scheme of things.  But there is still a couple weeks before official construction begins so I can sit and wait to see what others might say. 

Ken L.

What kind of ops?

Dear Ken,

What kind of ops do you envisage running?

- If it's all about "blasting the mainline between classification yards, getting thru before your TT/TO warrant expires",
(Think Tony Koester, Bill Darnaby, et al)

then length of run wins, and taken to it's most logical/absurd extreme, simply "track on narrow plank" will suffice.
(Model Railroad Planning 2003 by Kalmbach had an N scale layout which ended up being 12-14 decks around the modeller's "formal dining" room. OK, so it was a smaller scale, but here be an live-fire example where "length of run" took priority over "viewing apeture"/scene height...)

- If it's all about "running the Local out-of the nearest classification yard, focussing on the tasks performed by the engineer/brakeman/conductor, taking your time to replicate the measured cadence of low-speed industrial switching ops"
(Think Lance Mindheim, Jack Hill, David Barrow, et al)

Then access and deck seperation wins.
(better to have a few "switching areas" seperated by a reasonable mainline length, that switch well, and forfill their roll,

than _lots_ of switching areas packed on top of each other, with barely enough room to move, and even less room to see what's happening...)

- If its all about "watching the trains run-thru the scene, with an occasional stop-off to switch something",

then it's almost a dead-heat, with "less deck/more seperation" winning based on the ability to view the scenes you're running thru...

# of simultaneous operators is also a factor to keep in mind,
There is no significant gain achieved by having extra decks,
if you end up putting Deck3/Town 10 and Deck1/Town 2 right above each other vertically,
thus asking the crews working each town to simultaneously occupy the same "operator aisleway" space...

Hope this Helps,

Happy Modelling,
Aim to Improve,
Prof Klyzlr

Triple decker?

I'd recommend against a triple decker unless you can maintain at least 8" of clearance - 12" is even better - and you plan to keep the shelves between towns to 8-12" wide to minimize construction effort.

The key to layout cost and complexity is not the size of the run itself, but the number of turnouts. If you use the extra decks to increase the length of single track run between towns and don't add more turnouts, then the cost in time and resources will be not that much more than a double-decker.

But if you're planning to add a third deck and put in more towns, then you have dramatically increased the scope of the project and my advice is DON'T.

Unless you have a track record of being able to finish projects (and Ken, you don't have a track record of finishing layouts), then increasing the scope of a layout project is not a good idea. In fact, I'd recommend going the other way and looking for ways to cut scope - like going to a sectional layout design and planning it out in phases, which each phase being a place you could decide to stop and not go further.

I'd design a sectional layout that uses portable "aircraft carrier" staging at each end of the sections. Plan a multiple deck design if you like, but make phase 1 a couple towns on a single deck with the portable staging and then *build that to completion* - sort of how Scarpia is doing things.

You can always add more layout later. But downsizing the scope when you've never really completed a layout yet is a good idea and will give you a great sense of accomplishment. Going for a monster triple-decker to get a long run and then never getting even close to finishing it will be a lot less satisfying.

You asked!

A couple other observations

Ken:

300' of mainline is a lot of railroad - my Siskiyou Line upper deck main is 240 feet, and the lower deck is 120', for a total run of 360' - which is a ton of railroad for one guy to build and maintain.

30-40 cars per train is over-the-top unnecessary in my mind for a typical home layout - you're into the scope of something like La Mesa club with well over 1,000 feet of mainline. With trains that long, plan to spend a lot of time tuning rolling stock and locos to strict standards. If you are confident of your ability to build and operate top-notch equipment then maybe trains that long will work - but going smaller will simplify your layout project.

The key with train length is to get something that when you look at it mid-train, it goes to the edges of your field of view. Generally, something in the 20-25 car range will fill the bill nicely. And keep in mind as long as half your trains are in the 20-25 car range, you can design your sidings for trains that long and the occasional 30+ car train can still pass.

So my recommendation, Ken, is to down-scope your train length and then stick with two decks, max. A 300' mainline is still a ton of railroad for one guy and I challenge you get it operational any time soon.

Golden Spike Ceremony WILL be on October 8, 2012!

Thanks for your comments Joe.  And you are correct, my track record of finishing layouts is ZILCH! This is why I am adamant about meeting the deadline I have set for the Golden Spike (AND First Operating Session) for the Interim P&A is October 8, 2012. 

As for track, the number of turnouts per town will be about 4-4 per town (including the two for the siding).  The only place where there will be more is at the Coal Mine Complex (since there it is a 7 track mine) and the staging yards (which probably will be the only trackwork not completed by tnen, though I would like it to be if possible.

The decks themselves are no more than 18" deep (with the exception of the Mine Complex). 

Length of train will be something I will take another look at.  Here's my issue, I want to have A-B-B-A lash ups and having it pull "short" trains looks ridiculous.  I'm concerned even 25 cars won't look right.  Maybe with the interim P&A Layout I can get away with it because the curves and the mountains  and short aisles (only 18' long) will disguise the shortness of the trains they are pulling. 

Going to two decks would certainly make it much easier to finish by the deadline.  But if I discover that 300' is not enough to accomplish what I would like with TT&TO, especially with only four towns, and no classification yards (all trains orignate and terminate in staging on this "Chainsaw" layout) then I will be up a creek without a paddle, because although several sections will be modular, there will be parts that are more permanent especially the helix loops - one loop helix loops at the end of two blobs to help gain enough elevation to the next deck, needed especially if there are only two decks, increasing deck separation!) and to change them, would be a huge headache.  Once operational, I don't want to have to stop, even when the Final P&A is being built, the modules will literally be relocated, and installed with new modules in place so operations will continue without interruption!

I have much to think about, but little time, as construction begins Oct 1!

Thanks.

Ken L

12" experience on a HO triple decker

Ken:

I am building a HO triple decker and one six foot section has a clearance of 12 inches. It was VERY challenging to build to say the least and if it had not been just a short section I would have rebuilt the decks to get rid of it.

Track laying was a bit tricky because I couldnt sight down the rail like I wanted, so I used a mirror but it wasnt ideal.

The rest of the layout had deck seperation of 16 inches normally and that is MUCH better for building as well as the operations.

There is pros and cons to everything. mock up your deck heights and see if you like them. The more narrow the deck the closer they could be, but there is a balance you must find for yourself between operations, scenic view and practical construction.

For design, I wouldnt suggest anything less than 14 inches, and consider the deck depth and how you will construct it.

Tentative Decsion....going to "try both"... sort of...

I understand all the issues raised with going with three decks, and they were what I expected.  I still am not sure if I want to sacrifice mainline length for the additional space.  I know it's not about length of run, but quality of run, but to have only four towns for TT&TO seems rather ridiculous, and TT&TO is a DEFINITE GIVEN on my list! Even if I shorten the length of each train, there is no practical way of adding additional towns without having them on top of one another, which is something I want to avoid (one of my Druther's that is almost a Given).  I want at least a 2:1 ratio of track between town and town length, so i'm still left with four towns if I go with 2 decks.  But i don't want to build three decks especially with the special single "helix" loops at teh end of the blobs in the benchwork to help get from one deck to the next needing to be build in place, so knowing which configuration will work, 2 decks or 3 needs to be determined before they are built.

This is not as much of an issue as I thought because I realized I'm using wall mounted brackets as part of my benchwork design. Some of the benefits I hope with my benchwork design is to build the "benchwork" and subroadbed, install it and being able to adjust the height of the decks.  This will allow me to see if the 9-12" clearance would work OR if I need to stick with two decks.  I won't be wasting time as I can build the first two decks put them on the wall mount brackets and then lay some track and building mock ups and see how how it goes. 

As far as access, that is the beauty of the benchwork design I have come up with which allows me to take up each 4' wide section to do work on it so I don't need to worry about access. 

Thanks for everyone who commented.  I just wanted to see what others thought about this.  I will keep everyone posted as I begin construction on October 1 THIS YEAR!

Ken L.

Long trains

I know this is heresy, but long trains aren't always such a good idea.

A 40 car train with 4 F units is about 25-26 ft long.  With a 300 ft main track that gives you about 12 train lengths.  lets say the class yard is 3 trains long.  That leaves 9 trains for the main.  If you have 5 sidings, that leaves only 1 train length between sidings..  You  are no better off than the typical 4x8 layout.  Just as soon as the caboose clears on station the engine hits the next.

If you have 24 cars long, that is a train about 17 ft long.  Your main track is now 17 trains long.  Take out 3 trains for the yard, that leaves 14 trains for the 5 sidings, you are close to having 2 train lengths between sidings.  That will create a completely different feel than the one train length.  The train will be completely on single track for one train length.

Two decks and shorter trains.

TT/TO warrant expires

"- If it's all about "blasting the mainline between classification yards, getting thru before your TT/TO warrant expires",
(Think Tony Koester, Bill Darnaby, et al)"

Somehow I think the Professor is unclear on the concept. 

No Classification Yard!

There is only the mainline and towns, no Classification Yard, no room for it for the Interim P&A.  As for siding length, they are between 22-25' long (clearance point to clearance point).  So train length might be closer to 30-35 cars for most trains (except for say coal trains with 55 Ton Hoppers which could fit 40+ cars in that siding length). Hence why in 300' it can only fit four town, which is why I really need 450' to make it works.

As for TT&TO, I believe the term is "authority" as per the Timetable (as ammended by any Train Order(s) of course) expires.  Though with TT&TO, with the exception of Class 1 trains, they practically NEVER run on time according to the Timetable.   At least that is what I have been told by veteran railroaders' who worked on the NYC and NKP.  And on a mountain grade railroad, i don't think any trains are going to be "blasting through"

Ken L.

What about the downhill ones?

What about the ones going downhill that forgot to set the retainers? (ornery grin)

You have already said that this won't be your final layout.

Build something smaller to get your "feet wet," and get it somewhat completed.  If you get the layout done by Oct.1, 2012, how long will you be running it before you have your new building and are able to build the ultimate P&A?  I would suggest that you build something smaller but with 2 decks to have a layout to practice on and see what works and what doesn't.  If you build 2 decks, you will get an idea of how much clearance is needed between decks, which will tell you what is really workable for the "ultimate P&A."  Two decks will also teach you what is the easiest way to build multiple deck layouts without being committed to three decks that is that much harder to finish than 2.

Yep

Dear Dave,

Certainly isn't the first time I've been unclear on a proto RR operating concept, and equally won't be the last. However, have read many of Tony K's writings on the subject, and talked with him personally at the 2009 Aust NMRA National Convention on the subject, I believe the comparison ("running the main" VS "running the local") in the context of the O/P's question is still valid...

Happy Modelling,
Aiming to Improve, Always...
Prof Klyzlr

Interim P&A will Serve Three Primary Purposes..

1) To actually BUILD something and get it operational which is a goal I have never really accomplished.  I have begun construction of many layouts, but have torn them down for something different. 

2) To test certain "new" ideas of construction to see if they are practical and will work.

3) The Interim P&A is going to be the primary tool to teach fellow model railroaders in the area Timetable and Train Order operations and THIS is the reason why I am reluctant to go with only two decks.  The Interim P&A will be used for at least 4 most likely 5-7 years before the finances are available to build the Ultimate P&A.  But until that time, I want the Interim P&A to be able to function to teach Timetable and Train Order operations and make it appealing to use such a system. For the way I hope to have it work, length of run is fairly critical. 

If the Interim P&A was just to do #1 and #2, then I would agree and would stick with two decks.  But  with purpose #3, it pushes me towards the 3 decks.  Though I really do no want to do that.  Even the Ultimate P&A needs a small portion of the layout to be 3 decks in order to get the mainline passed a certain section of mainline, while maintaining "scenic sincerity".  But that's another matter.

Ken L

Have your cake and eat it too

There are ways of increasing mainline length without increasing layout footprint on each level while still maintaining sincerity.  Since you are modelling a mountain road, you have a lot of options.  I know some people don't like helices, but strategic single turn helices, especially at the end of peninsulas can be used as stalling tactics to slow the train's progress around the room.  Similarly, you can divert a track at the base of a peninsula to do a hidden return curve under adjacent scenes before re-emerging right beside where it disappeared.  With relatively long trains, there should be virtually no "gone time", as the head end would reappear before the tail end disappears.  The advantage of this arrangement is that you can move sidings somewhat closer together while maintaining travel time and distance between them.  This way you may be able to avoid the third deck, which would likely be a visual nightmare.

I've found you need to be careful to balance train length (and therefore siding length,) mainline length and room size.  If the trains are too long, they will stretch throughout the room and be everywhere at once, losing any feeling of going someplace.  Similarly, if there is no distance between sidings, you lose the sense of different places on the layout.  You want it to really matter whether you go for the next siding or hold here when you are doing TTTO ops, so significant travel time between sidings is a real plus--but there's no rule that says all the travel has to be on visible trackage.  If you can get more running distance out of each aisle, you can have it both ways.

Decks

More decks = more work = more maintenance = more crowded aisles if using operating crews (size matters here).

Do your math and find your own comfort level.

True except more crowded aisles...

I plan on keeping the SAME Timetable (i.e. same number of trains in same time frame) so I won't be increasing the number of trains operating.

The more work part is a factor I have to consider.  But it would be much MORE work if I discover 2 decks is insufficient and I have to tear out the 1 loop helices to rebuild them for either going from 2 decks to 3 or 3 decks to 2.  As for maintenance, I don't plan on jamming these towns with a ton of turnouts (except for the Coal Mine Complex which already is incorporated in the plan, that's a Given!) so maintenance will be only slightly increased.

I much prefer going with two decks, but I am not confident if 4 towns will accomplish my third purpose for the layout.  That is the nagging concern i have.

Ken L

go ahead and build it with 3 decks

Since you're just making this thing a chainsaw layout anyway, this is the time to make mistakes.  Go ahead and build it with 3 decks, and you can judge for yourself if it works or not.  I think other than looking bad, the only other major drawback is that your crews will orbit the room 3 times rather than 2 with a two deck layout, which means they will encounter crews going the opposite direction at least 50% more often versus a two deck layout.  As long as you have enough aisle space to make that fairly painless, it may not be an issue, but if things are tight the crews having to meet more often could be a pain for those concerned.

Yep

You are contrasting industrial switching district operations versus main track operations.  Local and main track operation can be the same thing.  TT&TO or Track warrant and local operation can be the same thing.

The reference to a train rushing before its TT&TO warrants expired was somewhat muddled.  Track warrants and train orders are mutually exclusive.  Timetables and track warrants are mostly mutually exclusive.  Neither train orders or track warrants "expire".  Timetable schedules are in effect for 12 hours, so the vast majority of the time they don't "expire".  Operating by TT&TO or mainline operation doesn't mean you have to rush.

Agreed, the important thing is get started

Ken:

I agree, the most important thing right now is to get started building something. Try the triple decker if you like, and in order to learn the most, pick one wall and build out all three decks for a couple train lengths.

Since this is a chainsaw layout, you might as well get some real value out of it and see if you're gonna like a triple decker.

You'll learn more in a month of building than in a year of online discussion, I will bet.

Agreed, and the important thing is not to get started...

...BUT TO FINISH IT! Well, by Finish I mean get it operational.  This will be the fifth version of the P&A Layout that I am building myself and the most operation I ever got out of any one was the 50' of mainline track I did and test run a short work train on.  You might even remember seeing a video of it at the 1994 Convention in the LDSIG Room! I want to get past that stage.  I want to have something built and operational, period! I want it to work as well, because although it is a "chainsaw" layout, the modules are being built with the idea or relocating them in the Ultimate P&A Master Plan as well.  But if I "goof" with this one, it won't be the same if I make the same type of mistakes on the Ultimate P&A Layout when it starts getting built. 

The "good news" is, I have plenty of experience working with the building materials and with construction, though I am using a new type of design, the learning curve should not be as steep as with those who have never built anything before so once I get going, I should be able to go at Run-8 speed!

Can't wait to post something in the P&A Blog with actual progress!

Ken L.

My triple decker experience

Hello everybody,

my layout is in a 9 by 11 room.  The hidden storage yard which is 4 tracks wide is at 29 inches above ground.  The first main deck is 24 inches wide and at a elevation of 37 inches.  The second deck is at 50 inches high and 18 inches wide and the third deck sits at 63 inches of elevation and 12 inches wide.  It is all connected with a double track helix, the outside track goes from level to level and the inside loop takes the train down, the outside radius is 30 inches.  Here is what I learned:

1 A helix is to a locomotives pulling ability is like Kryptonite is to Superman.   It has cut the pulling ability of my diesels by a third when compared to what they would pull on the level.  Mind you my rolling stock all has steel wheels and I have tinkered with it to improve how easily it rolls.

2 63  inches above ground is quite high for wanting to do any kind of switching, and I am 6 foot 1.  So I have  a little step stool in the middle of the room to make things a little easier and see the alignment of the switches better.

3 There is 13 inches of separation between the rail heads.  I used 15/8 steel studs with 1/2 inch plywood over top of it to make the shelves.  This only gives me 10 inches of space between the shelves for scenery.  This is very limiting, for example if you wish to use the coal mines or grain elevators from Walthers you might have clearance issues.  I did.  Also if you wish to have a bridge over a river, there will not be a lot of clearance between the bridge and the water.

4 Lighting of the lower levels.  At 12 inches of clearance it gets dark on the lower main deck.  So I installed LED strip lighting.   It works pretty good.

5 One of my design flaws is that I have a S curve at the top of my helix going onto the top level.  Pulling a 20 car freight up the helix with two locomotives is a reliable operation, so is a 25 car freight but at this length I use 3 diesels already.  Anything above that requires my attention.  When I pull a 40 car freight I have to be extremely careful about the placement of the freight cars due to string lining. 

6 The trains spend a lot of time in the helix

7 Make sure you have Kadee couplers on all your locomotives and cars, otherwise if your couplers are plastic you will have some realistic pull aparts.

8 A lot of great advice has been given on this posting.   Also look at the web site from this club: http://www.wrmrc.ca  

They are masters at building a helix.  I have been to their open houses and am amazed each time I go at the quality of the modeling, the complexity of the layout and what they have achieved.  

Hope it helps

Frank

Multi-decker question

I would like to ask this question to those that have layouts with multiple decks, Is it really comfortable to run/operate trains in a multi-level layouts ? All of the multi-layouts that I have seen personally the top level is a bit high and the bottom level is too low. Too many blind sights on both levels and some time, inconvenient to do some of the operations. Is this true or is it just me ?