A helix in my situation (see prior post) was rejected because the layout's minimum radius of 30 inches, a must-have, would cause a helix to take too much of the available space.
Mark
Raised on the Erie Lackawanna Mainline- Supt. of the Black River Transfer & Terminal R.R.
Capt. Grimek wrote: Byron is it possible to get an emailed copy of the article(s) you wrote? Do you have them scanned?How long does it take to get things from the design group?
Kalmbach owns the copyright on the MRP 2008 article, you can still buy the magazine directly from our hosts on-line. Might even still be in hobby shops.
The LDSIG usually ships back issues reasonably quickly. It's an all-volunteer organization, so occasionally things take a few weeks. Someone in the NMRA region may be an LDSIG member and have a copy you could look at.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
Johnnny_reb wrote: I'm designing a train lift now, it's in the concept stage. Basically it's a drawer set on it's end with the face frame up and uses a threaded rod to raise and lower the drawer driven by a bicycle chain and sprocket attached to the threaded rod and a 1/2 inch drill attached to another threaded rod and sprocket to power it. I'm planning to use drawer slides to help guide it. And a counter weight system of weights and pulleys to off set the weight of the drawer or lift assemble. I still need to work out the safety issues to stop the train from falling if the platform is not in place on that level when the train comes along or to stop the train for falling off the lift if it should tilt while lifting or lowering a train. I'll post my plans once I get a little further along. But here's a quick gif of the concept.
I'm designing a train lift now, it's in the concept stage. Basically it's a drawer set on it's end with the face frame up and uses a threaded rod to raise and lower the drawer driven by a bicycle chain and sprocket attached to the threaded rod and a 1/2 inch drill attached to another threaded rod and sprocket to power it. I'm planning to use drawer slides to help guide it. And a counter weight system of weights and pulleys to off set the weight of the drawer or lift assemble. I still need to work out the safety issues to stop the train from falling if the platform is not in place on that level when the train comes along or to stop the train for falling off the lift if it should tilt while lifting or lowering a train.
I'll post my plans once I get a little further along. But here's a quick gif of the concept.
Just to add to what johnny_reb has already mentioned: There is a great article in the 1997 Model Railroad Planning annual written by Don Smith that goes into great detail about the concepts, designs and realities and of using an elevator.
I used that article to build a semi-circle elevator on my 8X19 layout. I use a simple manual pulley and counter-weight system with a window latch at the top and bottom to lock it into place. I had enough room for the helix but with a 22" rise, it would have required almost 7 turns and close to 75' feet of track in the helix.
The secret to a smooth operating elevator is to use ball-bearing drawer guides attached to your elevator and benchwork. You attach them vertically to guide the elevator up and down.
Scott
Johnnny_reb Once a word is spoken it can not be unspoken!
My Train Page My Photobucket Page My YouTube Channel
That's pretty much how I'm going to do it. 1/2 of it will be seen & 1/2 is hidden.
The lower deck will represent a short section of a class 1 main with staging on each end. The upper deck is a branchline/shortline, which makes the 4% grade more acceptable.
I've tested the full length of the transition from one end to the other and I've found that a 4% grade is palatable. My U30C can haul 14 cars without causing the wheels to spin.
Sorry to repeat myself from earlier threads, but there's no need to actually have the two decks physically connect. I wrote about a layout design of this type in Model Railroad Planning 2008 and discussed the concept in detail in Layout Design Journal #28, Spring 2003, published by the Layout Design SIG.Basically, the multiple decks are linked by operations concepts and staging. A train drives into staging on one deck representing the connection to the other deck. On that other deck, at the same or different time, a similar train emerges from staging (representing the first deck) to continue its run. This works very well for branches, as I described in the MRP 2008 article.Especially when the desire is for a large minimum radius, an adequate helix often does not fit in a small-to-midsize room. And the around-the-room helix in a smaller space often requires multiple crossings of the room entrance to gain the necessary height between decks. (Although the around-the-room-helix is not a bad idea in and of itself). Another benefit is that the multiple decks can be at any elevation to one another, since there is no need to physically connect them.One of the interesting aspects of this kind of layout is that it can represent different eras on the different decks. This allows folks to "scratch the itch" of an interest in a different era without the sometimes challenging task of exchanging all the anachronistic elements on the layout. Byron
After looking at the photos unless you want to engage in moving tracks on the lower level to provide space for the upgrade around the wall loop (plan on atleast a 60 foot run to keep grades somewhat reasonable), the elevator might be something to really seriously consider. Here's an article of someone who DIY:
http://www.aglasshalffull.org/article-logging-train.html
Take note of the very substantial lumber used. There's also a commercial product available that while not exactly cheap, seems to take all the fussy work out of the process:
http://www.ro-ro.net/
My room is 11 x 20, BUT I'm only using 16 x 11 for the layout...
Two decks, about 14" apart from the top of the rails of the bottom deck to the bottom of the board on the top deck.
Instead of a helix, I'm running a combination of straight trackage with a decent sized loop in order to reach the top deck using a 4% grade-- It figures out to about a 30' run.
The bottom deck is flat. The top deck is flat. The only grade on the layout will be the connecting trackage between the decks.
I am starting to work on a two-level layout, but the upper section is only along two walls, with a no-lix to reach the upper level. My room is 9 by 24. I plan on using either a 1x2 or 1x3 mounted on the wall for most of the grade, like a narrow shelf. The top of the shelf will be sceniced and there will be a facia on the front to hide the feeder wires. The facia may be part of the scenery to the lower level. It will be in the form of a vertical rock wall or a stone wall, or both at different places, so it doesn't take up too much room. The lower level will be around 18 to 24 inches wide, so I don't think that the narrow shelf will take up that much room. (I may be wrong when I get into it though.) Some of my no-lix will be disguised as a long deck girder bridge. That will be made similar to the 1x2 shelf, but narrower and with girder plates glued to the one side facing the room, and the track on that. There may be one or two bridge supports near the bottom part, but there will be a long section with no visible support. It's just going to look like it is floating in the air.
I also think that you could have an upper level all around the room. If you pulled the layout away from the wall about four inches along one wall, it should allow the no-lix shelf to come up onto the upper level between it and the wall. Of course that means that you will have to build that upper section in one length so it can be supported from the ends only with maybe one or two supports that won't interfere with the track and train.
For some of the things that I do on or with a layout, I tend to build samples or examples in order to prove a new concept before I actually build and install the final version on my layout. That way, if something doesn't work quite the way I think that it should, I can modify or make changes to the sample or example that may fix it or work better.
One thing to remember is that a model railroad layout is mostly an illusion. So the goal is to make things work the way you need them to work, but hide the actual mechanics and make it look like scenery or something other than what it actually is.
Hope this helps.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
I assume that you're modelling in HO scale, so, in my opinion, Chuck's suggestion of an elevator is the best choice to have a second level that's of any use. The space "wasted" by the elevator would be less than that "wasted" by a helix.
With a no-lix, you could gain about a foot of elevation for every circumnavigation of the room, perhaps simulating the mountain division of a railroad, but there'd be no useful layout area at the top or bottom of the grade. I have a no-lix on my layout, but in a larger area - I felt that the scenic and operating possibilities were better than with a helix. Still, there's room for a second level over only part of the layout due to the odd shape of the room.
Wayne
Chip
Building the Rock Ridge Railroad with the slowest construction crew west of the Pecos.
To get from one level to another, all you need is a tangent as long as the longest train you intend to transfer from one level to the other. Rig that piece of track as an elevator. Viola, transposition from one level to another, separate the levels as far as you want, no hideous grade between.
Actually, when the peninsula I'm working on is finished, I'll have both an elevator and a long 40:1000 (4%) grade. The colliery is at the top of the climb. To get the loaded unit trains back behind the tipple and the empties down to staging, I'll be using a John Armstrong style, "Dehydrated canal lock." Other variants use shelf slide hardware to guide a purely vertical movement.
If I run out of things to do (in 25 years or so) I might add some upper level narrow gauge scenes, connected to the main level by elevators since there isn't room for connecting grades.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in Septmeber, 1964)
With an 8 x 16 room, I estimated that your simple once around the room layout mainline would be about 40 feet long. That means with one trip around the room, to climb just one foot, you'll need a 2.5% grade.
You'll probably want more than one foot between decks, so let's say you have 15 inches between decks. Then you'll have 480 inches to climb 15 or a 3.2% grade.
That doesn't give you any flat place for switching though.
I think you have a few options. Maybe your modeling mountains where two tracks per scene doesn't look out of place and the railroad can go around the room twice per level to make the climb. You can hide the climb behind a false backdrop and use the previously mentioned 2.5% grade plus more grade leading into and out of the around the wall climb, leaving each deck flat for switching.
Of course assuming you can go away from the room walls, you do have room for a helix in your space.
Capt. Grimek wrote:thanks Mark. Is there any feasible way to have a double decker on top of all of the layout? It doesn't seem so...Did you go back down to the lower lever by the same (return) path or did you come up in one place and back down in another, on the top deck?Thanks for your response. Do you have any pics from your old layout? What percentage of grade will you end up with on your new one? I'd really like to consider doubling up my mainline run in this skinny long room.
Sorry, no photos. That was two college degrees, two wives, and two cross-country moves ago.
The schematic of both plans was a continuous mainline on the lower level with a branch terminating on the upper deck. Trains on the upper track returned on the same route.
A grade of 3% is enough on the current plan on the last grade segment (grades are considerably lower elsewhere) because there are only two wall lengths to achieve the last grade separation. The upper deck is essentially level. That last bit of grade will be a good excuse for helping locomotives or doubling the hill. Without looking back, I believe you have a bigger space, so for you the grades should be even less. Edit: guess not, your room is slightly smaller.
Present plans for my 10x15-foot bedroom call for a double-decked layout without a helix. The upper deck is along only two walls while the lower level is along all four walls. Twice around the lower level with moderate grades is sufficient to reach the upper deck which is about 23" above the lower. The steepest grade is from where the track comes from under the upper deck to the upper deck itself. The climb here must be sufficient to clear the thickness of the upper deck and the height of the trains.
I did the same thing in the early 1960s, but that time it was a 5x10-foot, donut-shaped layout and the upper deck covered slightly more than 2x10.