The reason for the 2 queen system I described is that it's often found that
comb honey production over 2 brood boxes is not very successful.  By
putting a second queen in the upper b.c. you force the bees up into the
sections rather than letting them sulk and plug up that upper b.c.; they
have no choice.
 
This is in contrast to the "traditional" 2-Q colony as developed and
promoted by Farrar et al..  In those you are supposed to let each queen
have 2 brood boxes, and super above that.  Talk about tall colonies!  I
can't imagine how he and others managed so many considering the labor and
lifting.  I think it was even recommended that you reverse the brood
chambers, above and below;  egad!  Wonder how many tipped over...  Some
folks swear by this plan, tho'.
 
Allen - on your 1-brood chamber comb honey methods - the package method
sounds really decent and straightforward - with a new queen like that
swarming isn't such a probability (if first-year queens are indeed not
likely to swarm even when crowded).  [Question - do you bother with an
excluder?  Brood or pollen end ever end up in the sections?]  I wish I was
still doing sections so I could try it!  Even the Miller/Killion plan
requires supplying a new young queen after destroying swarm cells a couple
of times and crowding down into one b.c.   Labor intensive, that.   Then
you have all these leftover brood boxes/combs and bees and the problem of
what to do with them. Killions just stacked them up on new stands but it
seems kind of haphazard to me.
 
Starting with a new queen/package and letting them expand naturally up into
working the sections sounds less intrusive, (easier!) and more
constructive.  So in your experience all that crowding down (a la Demuth)
isn't always a requirement for sections?  Thanks...  ---------J.