Layouts with elevated sections

[Brian Emeney]

I've finally got a room to myself for my layout and I'm currently planning the track. I'm thinking about modelling a city scene with a high level and low level line (possible cut & cover LU stock on the low level). I'm looking for examples of layouts with track on two levels in a fairly confined space. I need some ideas and inspiration of how to build the elevated sections in particular. Can anyone point me towards some sources of inspiration? Thanks!

[ITG]

I’m really on my first proper 00 layout, well, after a false start, I guess. It occupies a room approx 3.5m x 2m, and, for a lot of modellers, it would be too busy with track. It contains a twin main line roundy-roundy with storage loops, and a long branch rising up to a fair sized terminus etc on one of the long sides. It’s on 600mm wide boards around all 4 sides, with a diagonal board across the door entry.
I used Woodland Scenics risers to achieve a consistent 2% gradient, which all locos handle with ease. But to get that, the branch has to encircle all 4 sides of the room, starting in top right corner (under the high level station) and curling round, following the path of the main line. Not ideal, but necessary to get it all in.

I wanted to allow plenty of access to the hidden tracks under the high level board, so decided to make that higher surface 150mm above the lower board. In order to avoid losing too much of that  150mm with deep bracing on the upper board, I used square 25 mm section aluminium tube with plug in linking joiners. This allowed plenty of space for hands and tools, but also made it easier to tailor the framework to avoid point motors etc. The higher baseboard is 12mm ply, probably thicker than necessary but available and delivered  locally. It is screwed to the tubing.  This aluminium tubing was ordered cut to size by the supplier, including the 125mm legs on which it stands on the lower board.

All track was laid and wired on the lower boards first, out in the garage and then brought in to join up. Then (also in garage) track on the upper board in two 600mm x approx 1.75m sections was laid and wired. I say approx as the join was designed to avoid points etc, so it’s not exactly in half. The pattern of the tubular framing was worked out in advance to avoid points, and thus is not necessarily a symmetrical grid. It al works perfectly, but I learnt  a lot doing it, and, yes, there are a few things I might do differently next time! But the principle is proven, at least to me.

please ask if you need any further detail, or indeed photos.

ian 

[Dagworth]

Andi

[AndyB]

5 hours ago, Brian Emeney said:

I've finally got a room to myself for my layout and I'm currently planning the track. I'm thinking about modelling a city scene with a high level and low level line (possible cut & cover LU stock on the low level). I'm looking for examples of layouts with track on two levels in a fairly confined space. I need some ideas and inspiration of how to build the elevated sections in particular. Can anyone point me towards some sources of inspiration? Thanks!

 

Hi Brian,

Congratulations on getting a space for your layout.

 

I guess there's a list of questions to ask.

But for starters...

 

How confined a space do you have? 

 

What scale do you plan to use?

 

Are you after an end to end, out and back, roundy roundy?

 

What era are you interested in?

 

Are you interested in passenger or freight operations, or both?

 

Cheers. Andy

[DK123GWR]

I don't know how small you mean by small, but if you watch the latest episode of Hornby: A Model World on Yesterday (catch up on UKTV Play) there is a layout which features a small layout with two levels. It looks to be a rather more rural scene than you are imagining but it might still be useful to you.

Local news report featuring photos

The episode in question

[Kris]

it does not quite fit with your requirements but my sons layout has more than one level and fits in a small space. https://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/142557-kelgh-a-layout-for-the-boys/

[Brian Emeney]

My layout is comprised of two boards linked by a 12 x 54" bridge. Board one is 48 x 48" and board two is 48 x 24". I have the option of adding another bridge to create an oval. I'm modelling in OO, era late 1950s...

[AndyB]

I'd definitely think about adding that second bridge, but keeping it quite narrow so there's a comfortable operating space in the middle. And allow trains to circulate.

 

Without that extra bridge it'd be quite an awkward pair of baseboards to do anything useful, imho; they're not quite large enough to put a turnaround loop on.

 

As for inspiration you mightike to take a look at Graeme Hedge's layout "Stoney Lane Depot". You could dial it back to the 1950s to suit your era.

 

Edited November 9, 2021 by AndyB

[ITG]

The gradient that is workable depends on two main things, the trains and locos you plan to run, and the nature of the track plan, ie is the gradient significantly curved or largely straight. Curves introduce increased friction and thus act as resistance on loco pulling power.

my previous attempt at a layout (never did finish) had 3% gradient on 2nd radius curves. Some loco and train combinations didn’t like it; hence the new layout has 2% with at least 3rd radius. Result - all is well.

An additional consideration is the transition from level to rise, which needs to be gradual , not suddenly from 0% to 2%.

You  can comfortably get away with approx 75mm height clearance , which in 00 would need almost 4 metres length at 2% or 2.5 metres at 3%. 
I should also add I did lay DCC Concepts Powerbase plates under my current gradient, in case I needed the extra adhesion they should provide. But as locos negotiated it well, I never did add the magnets beneath locos.  But that may be an option for you.

[AndyB]

In the proposed layout do the high and low level tracks actually need to be joined?

 

Personally I'd keep them as separate entities.

[RobinofLoxley]

Can you get all round the 48 inch square board, as if not you wont be able to reach the back corner. Comfortable reach is much less than you think, test it out.

 

One thing about gradients and levels is that you can go down as well as up, if your planning allows it. For example, you have a certain level on one side, but on the other, a line has risen by 4 cm and another has dropped by 4cm. Gets the clearance another way. But this doesnt work with fixed boards.

[Brian Emeney]

I'm not planning on linking the two track levels, as I plan to model different operators, so no need for a gradient, thank goodness! 

[AndyB]

I was wondering if the LUL bit could look a bit like Baker St with a view down into an urbanised canyon. You could allow a couple of underground trains to go back and forth, maybe on a shuttle timer?

The elevated section could be on a traditional viaduct with perhaps a "bitsa" station treatment?

 

On the larger board you could add carriage sidings to allow services to ve started and finished from that station. 

 

If feeling adventurous you might even allow for some kind of graded flyover as is seen west of Ilford? 

[DCB]

 

18 hours ago, Brian Emeney said:

My layout is comprised of two boards linked by a 12 x 54" bridge. Board one is 48 x 48" and board two is 48 x 24". I have the option of adding another bridge to create an oval. I'm modelling in OO, era late 1950s...

Looks like an interesting concept.  I never start with a baseboard.  I don't like baseboards, I think track bases and supports and try to design for a space rather than to fit boards.  Can you get to all sides.  I guess the link to make it a rectangle will have  to be a lifting or lift out section, on two levels  We have that wo level lifting section, it needs a lot of engineering but now it works well, one track crosses the other and it has a station on the lower level  The 4X4 has room for an R3 spiral. 

Access to the lower level will be a challenge.   We haven't had our upper level off for something like seven years relying on a Relco and track cleaning rubbers mounted under heavy wagons.  However there is about 6" clearance over most of it, Its 30" wide and has uninterrupted access along one side.    If you compromise maybe single track the hidden bits you could have a nice little layout here. See doodle.

Don't worry. I expect Harlequin will be along soon with something less weird

 

Edited November 10, 2021 by DCB

[AndyB]

This is an out and back scheme.

I recall a CJF small city terminus plan on a curve which I've placed on the RHS.

You could expand that out to be a larger to cater for additional stock, either each train doing the circuit in turn according to a timetable.

This parades round the layout ( double track if younliek) and drops down on the removable board to a turnaround loop under the terminus.

I've put a canyon underground station on the LHS.

I'd use view blockers to break things up and disguise any tight curves.

 

This is obviously just meant to be a general schematic not a complete plan. 

 

 

[Mol_PMB]

Looks good. One thing to think about with multiple levels is that you need access to the underside of the track on each level (for wiring, point motors etc). So if the main layout is the upper level then you don’t want a board surface across the whole of the lower level - only where it is actually needed. 

For the multi-level layout I once built, I used L-girder construction which was ideal for this sort of thing (as long as you don’t need to move it!). 

[Brian Emeney]

So many suggestions! Thanks everyone! I'm definitely thinking that the upper sections will be removable for access to the underside and access to any track below. I'm thinking about putting the upper section about six inches above the lower section, so that the highest part of the layout is 36" above the floor. That seemed a comfortable access height. Still thinking about how to support the elevated sections - maybe wooden blocks? 

 

[ITG]

Just now, Brian Emeney said:

So many suggestions! Thanks everyone! I'm definitely thinking that the upper sections will be removable for access to the underside and access to any track below. I'm thinking about putting the upper section about six inches above the lower section, so that the highest part of the layout is 36" above the floor. That seemed a comfortable access height. Still thinking about how to support the elevated sections - maybe wooden blocks? 

 

As I described earlier in this thread, you also need to consider if the upper section needs bracing, of course how much dependent on how big it is. As I said, mine is 6” (150mm) above the lower board, and I used legs and bracing of 25mm square section aluminium tubing, specifically so I only obstructed 25mm of the 150mm.

[AndyB]

Hi Brian,

 

I stumbled across the terminus plan that I mentioned the other day. 

 

It was actually designed for an area 4'x4' plus fiddle yard. I'd envisage that where CJF had the fiddle yard your layout would head across the bridge on raised arches. You might want to put carriage sidings or a carriage shed on the linking bridge or even on the left-hand board.

 

It's worth remembering that track has changed a bit since these plans were drawn up. So you may want to see if it's still achievable by sketching it up in Anyrail.

 

One of the advantages of this plan is it allows for quite busy operations, so you'd not get bored.

 

[DCB]

22 hours ago, ITG said:

As I described earlier in this thread, you also need to consider if the upper section needs bracing, of course how much dependent on how big it is. As I said, mine is 6” (150mm) above the lower board, and I used legs and bracing of 25mm square section aluminium tubing, specifically so I only obstructed 25mm of the 150mm.

Aluminium angle or box section is an excellent way of bracing layouts but it expands and contracts at a different rate to wood which swells and contracts with moisture as well as temperature  so make allowances, leave scope for expansion.

For thin baseboards I have used 2 X 1 thin side vertical at the edge away from the wall and even slotted 2 X 1 to take 3mm MDF to make a baseboard only 1" or so thick as a lift out. If you want some lip to stop stock falling from a layout then project the framing above track level. and finally platforms cut from solid wood 1/2" thick are nice and rigid and can brace flimsy boards from above just as well as supports under the baseboard. Just keep the height above rail down to 3ft/  12mm

17 hours ago, AndyB said:

Hi Brian,

 

I stumbled across the terminus plan that I mentioned the other day. 

 

It was actually designed for an area 4'x4' plus fiddle yard. I'd envisage that where CJF had the fiddle yard your layout would head across the bridge on raised arches. You might want to put carriage sidings or a carriage shed on the linking bridge or even on the left-hand board.

 

It's worth remembering that track has changed a bit since these plans were drawn up. So you may want to see if it's still achievable by sketching it up in Anyrail.

 

One of the advantages of this plan is it allows for quite busy operations, so you'd not get bored.

 

Its a nice plan but as sketched the approach point work is impossibly tight even for set track, and the platforms very short.  A Hornby Dublo N2 Tank and three 50ft Suburbans looks about the limit if the board is 4ft long.  CJF had flexible POINTS available from Farish etc in his early career, and loved using a curved diamond which I have never ever seen in Ready to Lay track, maybe the Formoway short diamond would distort enough, but i have never seen one.   Check the track CJF used is still available. Many Peco points retain the geometry from the 1960s but many are now 5mm or so longer which all adds up and can make 4ft layouts need 4ft 2" or more, and that's the width of a siding.

[Crewlisle]

Brian,

 

On Page 3 of this forum, look at 'Crewlisle - From Baseboards to DCC & Overhead Catenary'.  The dates of my comments are April 29 (2 posts), May 4th,19th, 20th & July 2nd.

 

I am sure some of them will answer your query.  If not ask away!  Enter 'Crewlisle' on line & you will get lots of photos, plans, advice & comments.

 

Peter

Edited November 14, 2021 by Crewlisle
Poor English in first paragrah!