Why not?

When I'm faced with a decision I make a "T" list with a "+" on the top left, a "-" on the top right and a vertical line between them.  I start listing the positive reasons on the "+" side and the negative reasons on the "-".  When I'm done listing every item I can think of I review the list, throw it away, and then do what I want.

All decisions contain both rational and emotional components.  We generally make decisions by using the rational part to collect and weigh the facts, but when it comes down to it we use our emotions to make the final choice.  If I were you I would try the T list and then try visualizing what your railroad would look like with the upper deck and you interacting with it.  Can you see yourself enjoying it more with the upper deck?

Rick

In a word, no

I'm blessed with inside information, and you and I have discussed this at length, with both of us going back and forth in our opinions.  It will be interesting to see what others have to say.

I really don't think the return on the investment of both time and money is there.  If all you want is scenery, build an N scale top deck and let a smaller train run through more scenery.  You could probably buy the rolling stock for what you'd spend on a helix or elevator, especially when you factor in your time.  I also think that your layout is a bit too high for a top deck to be at an optimal height.  You can get away with high track for scenery only, but it pretty much rules out most switching.

Since you don't want any more operation, it stands to reason that what you really want is to watch the train go through nice scenery.  In that case, I think you would be better off bringing the existing layout up to a higher standard, so that you have the nice scenery one the layout that you already have.

Of course, if the real reason for wanting to build a top deck is that you just need to build something, then build it and enjoy!

Double deck considerations

I too am building a double deck. Be advised it is a series of trade offs to gain the run length. Make sure you can live with these before beginning:

• Both decks can't be at optimum viewing height, a) neither at optimum;b) one optimum and other is way off
• Deck to deck spacing is a precious measurement, plan well, do a mock-up
• Lighting lower deck requires some ingenuity else the upper deck benchwork becomes excessively thick
• Lower deck structure/scenery height limitations (can't put a tall structure on lower deck)
• Upper deck scenery drop limitations (can't put a deep ravine in the upper deck)
• Underside work/maintenance on upper deck no fun once lower deck in place
• Gadgets and mechanisms are unsightly if they hang below upper deck fascia
• Generally forces you to use at least one helix and those buggers are huge in diameter
• Double the railroad - double the cost

yeah but

Lost in translation

Definitely the case here.  What I'm saying is that if you want to watch the train go through nice scenery, what's wrong with doing that on the bottom deck?  If you want more scenery (I assume, since that's the visual aspect of a top deck), can you get more scenery into the bottom deck instead?  The longer main line run thing doesn't make a lot of sense to me personally, since it's at the end of the run.  You would do all of your operation, and then just let it go a little longer than you do now.  Hence, I assume what you want to do is watch the train go through some pretty scenery.  Could you get the same satisfaction by running a little slower over all, and having more of whatever it is that you like (I'm thinking trees - time consuming and expensive, but you're making some nice ones)?

You know me better than to think I'd try to insult you or your layout. I wouldn't have asked to borrow it as a photo backdrop if I didn't think highly of it.

true

Oh I knew that it wasn't an insult,I was just trying to figure out what you meant! Basically what you said is true. All the top deck would be is scenery. Which is why i'm wondering if its really worth it to double the size of the layout. Its alot of work with very little gain. But it would look cool! And I can always get more scenery and more details on the bottom deck....working on that now. Thanks for the compliment on the trees. My plan is to post a blog here and show how I make them!!!! Slowing down train speeds to lengthen out the main line run is something that I have thought about but never tried.

Rick, I like your idea of

Do you use dcc?

"Slowing down train speeds to lengthen out the main line run is something that I have thought about but never tried."

If you use dcc for control, you can go into JMRI and re-calibrate both your starting speed and your top speed for your locomotives.  If you set your top speed low, you don't need to consciously slow your trains.  They will not be capable of running too fast.

I am going to model the Los Angeles Junction Railway on a switching layout in a spare bedroom.  The LAJ has such bad track work and operates through a dense urban environment so that the maximum speed allowed is 10 mph.  I will calibrate my Cf7 to start at 3 mph and have a top speed of 10-15 mph.  There is no need for it to run faster.

No DCC yet

Unfortunately at this time the layout is DC Cab Control.  I have been tossing around the idea of switching to DCC, but I'm still on the fence about making the change.  Slowing down train speeds is a likely solution for my need of a longer mainline run.  Plus its cheap and easy!  Just gotta keep my go fast fingers off the throttle knob......

The prototype speed on the railroad that I model has varied over the years and locations.  I have been running at speeds around 40 mph, so i may try to back that up to around 25 or 30 mph.