Some drawbacks of multi-level layouts...

[doctorwayne]

For anyone thinking about a double-deck layout, one of the drawbacks can be the limitations for on-layout photography.

For example, this nondescript view at Elfrida is made even worse by the threatening sky...



...as is this one at Lowbanks:



Photoshop, which I don't have, might improve them, but my alternative is to crop-out the stuff which doesn't belong, leaving...well, a picture, but not really something all that worthwhile:





Some views are beyond redemption, though:





This lower level photo is as-taken, but the scene is very near the edge of the layout:



The upper level, barely started, at least offers opportunities for Barney to take to the skies, as seen here, but I suspect that the ceiling and overhead lights will intrude on any ground-level photos.
This is the upper (North) staging yard. It's fully operational, but not connected by track to the rest of the layout.



Working this yard requires that the liftout at the room's entrance be in place, not really a big deal.

Wayne

[doctorwayne]

Another consideration on the lower level is operation. While the running of through trains is not affected, most trains are required to "work" the industries in the towns through which they pass. With manually-operated turnouts and manual uncoupling, it won't take long for loose clothing or misplaced elbows to remove trees, telephone poles and structure details.
I'll need to re-work four turnouts in Elfrida and nine in Lowbanks for remote operation (probably manual), and will need to add uncoupling magnets, too.

While much of that can be done under the layout, I'll probably need to remove the fascia from the upper level for better access when doing the on-layout changes. Should be fun, as it's a continuous piece, about 46' long.





Wayne

[MasonJar]

Barney's never been intimidated by tight clearances before.

What about painting everything neon green so as to help the photoshopping?

Seriously, I've seen a couple of layouts like this, and the trade off is in the photography. THe upper decks were all painted black underneath, but still...

Andrew

[doctorwayne]

I'd thought about painting the underside white for better light reflection, but I really didn't want to expend the effort. Now, with the upper level in place, doing a Michaelangelo would probably be a little rough on the scenery.

Wayne

[Tyson Rayles]

Maybe you could take something lightweight like foam board, paint it a light sky blue and pin it to the underside of the upper deck.

[teejay]

Hmmm , nice rafters !

[Steve]

Wayne.....Photoshop does have some advantages That took me 10 minutes and I stink at it

[ak-milw]

Now that's an excellent picture!

[doctorwayne]

That looks a lot better, Steve. Thanks.

Wayne

[cn nutbar]

Excellent job on the photo-shopping Steve .Knowing you Wayne,I'll bet you come up with a solution---sounds like Mike has a good idea

[Green_Elite_Cab]

I saw one solution, in which the layout owner used a background that appears to continuously curve from the side to the "ceiling", in order to make the corner invisible in pictures. In theory, you could do something like this beneath the upper decks of your layout.

the only complication i can see is if you needed access to beneath the upper decks, but I'm sure there is a way to make this removable.

[sailormatlac]

The main thing to learn from you experiment is that we underestimate the sky's role in scene composition. We put a lot of effort on scene and backdrops, but don't really care about empty blue sky expanse above it, cropping it as if it were unimportant.

In the end, your photographs tell us something about the importance of sky. We tend to overlook that critical aspect too often. For us, it's just useless empty space, but in fact, I feel it is truly define a space and can modulate our perception of vastness. This is a key point in model railroading where selective compression and very limited horizontal space make us take a lot of shortcuts. If we are now cutting the sky, what is left than can carry the impression of distance? Once again, I think we go for the obvious and cherry pick what feels extraordinary and suits our fancy. As if sky, which makes a huge portion of our visible horizon was mundane and not worth modelling to create a realistic space.

I feel sad to see those wonderful scenes I loved to watch become sandwiched by two bulky plank of MDF. I salute your courage and willingness to share your observation. I think many of us were aware of that shortcoming, but didn't fully grasp how it can be determining for the future operation, maintenance and photography of a layout. At least, knowing you, I'm sure you'll find a smart way to minimize the impact. And, I'll be honest, I'm curious to see these new scenes take shape on the newly built deck in the future!

A suggestion: wouldn't it be easier to install blue sky panels (or white) under the deck? It will hide the frame, will be amovible for maintenance and will help enhancing the light reflection. All that without destroying the fine scenery under.

Good luck and keep us updated.

Matt

[doctorwayne]

The underside of the upper level doesn't pose much of a problem until the camera is placed on the layout, looking at scenes unavailable to a person standing (or seated) in the aisle. That's one reason why I let the upper fascia extend so low. I've posted lots of single-level photos where the ceiling was visible, too.
If I correct the operational drawbacks (turnout control and uncoupling), then I'll have more incentive to make the upper level more photogenic. Any work on that is quite a way off, though, and work on the upper level, maybe a year or more away. There's a chance that the whole thing could be taken out, too.

Wayne