Thoughts on a Stacked Layout?

Probably better suited for walk around operations. You can get more RR in a given space.  I’ve always been intrigued by a Mushroom designed layout. Multiple levels using the same benchwork. Each level is viewed separately from opposite sides. Just google mushroom model rr layout. The pictures can probably explain it better than I can.

@Dave_C posted:

Probably better suited for walk around operations. You can get more RR in a given space.  I’ve always been intrigued by a Mushroom designed layout. Multiple levels using the same benchwork. Each level is viewed separately from opposite sides. Just google mushroom model rr layout. The pictures can probably explain it better than I can.

Looked in Google images, and I have never heard of the mushroom layout but that is a brilliant way to do things and gets at the idea of what I want to do. Thanks!

in the google search about 10 hits down  is

https://ogrforum.com/...pt-a-mushroom-layout

A multi-level layout is certainly feasible, but can be a lot of work.  I did one in the 80s / 90s and am currently building one.  In each case the goal was to get more RR into a given space.

Easiest case is if each level is a standalone layout.  If they are connected together then a ramp or helix is needed.  These can get very complicated.  Rule of thumb is that the grade should be under 3%, though you will find people here who exceed that.  As the distance between levels increases, the run on the ramp can get very long.  Design of this is more challenging than first appears.  You mentioned a ramp in a tunnel behind the layout.  You have to have access somehow to clean track, deal with derailments, etc.  May have to leave open.

You are concerned with visibility of detail.  Distance between the levels is a factor, as is the set back of the upper level.  Also, there has to be some thickness to the upper level for framing and also to run the wiring for the upper level.  Also, consider lights under the upper level to light the detail of the lower level.  Upper level ends up being 1 – 2” thick or more.  To compensate for this thickness one is tempted to increase the distance between levels which increases the length of the helix or ramp.

If you agree that you wont climb on the upper level, (google/search top climber) the supports in the front don’t have to be very thick and I don’t think they hurt visibility that much. (personal taste).  The issues in the previous paragraph are more significant than these supports.  Supports for the upper level at the back of the layout can be heavier duty.

I am building a three-level layout right now.  Sounds like you scenic with more detail than me, but I have done just what you said with different scenes at different levels.  I spent really a long time on design with help from forum members.  I am now very bogged down in building complex benchwork.

@0-Gauge CJ posted:

While looking for a home, I have been thinking about what I would like my permanent layout to look like, particularly within the space constraints I am expecting to have as I search. I have been spending a lot of time in SCARM mocking up different ideas for a layout, trying to find ways to squeeze in every detail and structure I would like to have (coal tipple, roundhouse, industrial switching, etc etc - I won't elaborate heavily on details here as that is not the point of this post).

One idea I had to accomplish everything was to build one layout on top of another. In traditional multi-level layouts I see, the upper level occupies a smaller footprint than the lower level, and if track from the lower level goes under the upper level, it is in the form of a tunnel, hidden reverse loop or yard, etc. My thought is to build one layer being more urban and industrial, and the other being more rural and scenic. The key difference between traditional layouts and this idea is that both levels share a similar footprint (upper level occupies maybe 18-30" away from a wall, bottom level occupies 30-36"), and both levels would be fully detailed. The two levels would be connected by a hidden tunnel hugging the walls behind the rest of the track. For enough scenery to be on the bottom layer to be to my liking, I would probably want at least 12" between the top and bottom layers. With a long enough connecting tunnel, the grade could be about 2%-2.5%.

Has anyone tried something like this? Is this even feasible? My first thought is that there will probably be issues with structurally supporting the upper layer. I am assuming some "support columns" will be needed throughout the lower layer to support the upper layer, and that may render the entire idea pointless since I want to have fully-detailed scenese on the lower level. I'm curious how practical this is before I get to designing a layout and get attached to it. There are also other questions (eg, lighting). What do you think?

Thanks for reading

Random thoughts...

Multi-level layouts are common in the scale world.  Lots of info in Model Railroader, and Kalmbach recently published a "bookzine" on the topic that was written by Tony Koester.  Suggest looking for that book to see some ideas, along with info on supports.

Whether the lower or upper level is deeper and the degree of scenery on each depends on how they are being used - it varies.  Also, part of the decision is going to depend on the height at which you build the levels.

A few years ago, there was a thread by @Big_Boy_4005 about his ambitious multi-level layout.  Unfortunately, he has been inactive for quite awhile due to health problems, so progress stalled.  I was fortunate to see it in person before he stopped working on it - very impressive.  https://ogrforum.com/...ne-in-54-days?page=1