I don't know if you put them together to make up 18feet you can get a pretty long train I would suspect. Maybe a pretty good idea originally intended for going from level to level but how about using it for hidden staging>
Allegheny2-6-6-6 I think it's a pretty neat idea if you just don't have the room for a helix, but if I am not mistaken he replaced a helix with an elevator not something I would ever consider. The main reason is I like continuous operation so to me that wouldn't be possible with an elevator. Also as mentioned you would have to be running very short trains, Ideal for a logging railroad on the upper level of a layout perhaps would be a good application for an elevator
I think it's a pretty neat idea if you just don't have the room for a helix, but if I am not mistaken he replaced a helix with an elevator not something I would ever consider. The main reason is I like continuous operation so to me that wouldn't be possible with an elevator. Also as mentioned you would have to be running very short trains, Ideal for a logging railroad on the upper level of a layout perhaps would be a good application for an elevator
Mainly a matter of engineering. Here is a link to a company that sells elevators with 8 floors, in four and six foot lengths, which can be combined up to an 18-foot length elevator: http://www.ro-ro.net/
By all means - an elevator does not allow train length longer than elevator length (unless you want to do something like simulating "doubling" your train up a hill (ie taking it up in two sections).
But a single 6-foot long 8-shelf elevator can contain staging for for 8 H0 scale train consisting of one engine, ten 40-foot cars and a caboose, or eight N scale trains of two engines, eighteen or so 40-foot cars and a caboose, or just transport such trains between two or three layout levels. A combined 18-foot elevator could lift a train three times as long, if the engineering is good enough.
Pretty much anything can be done in some way, if you want it bad enough and have a little imagination.
If you don't want it, you don't want it - then you just do something you want instead. No sweat.
Grin, Stein
jrcBozeI think I will still go with the helix. It actually takes less space than an elevator in my constricted basement, even with a 30 inch radius (HO). As well, I hope to get a longer train up and down than could be handled by an elevator in my setup. The elevator is probably best for shorter trains, as the author mentions.
I am not quite as sure as you that an elevator would take more space than a helix - what takes space in a helix is the big hole in the middle to get an acceptable radius and access.
In an elevator, you don't need to use much space outside the actual footprint of the track on each level. The supports for the lift mechanism take very little space, and mostly vertical space.
But certainly, expected max train length is an important design parameter when choosing the mechanism to take trains from one level to the next. A helix is in principle unlimited in length, while an elevator has a max train length that will fit on the elevator.
What is most important on your layout depends on the layout and design goals.
Smile, Stein
Thanks for the replies. Both got me thinking a bit more realistically. It's certainly true that one could pause the train on the elevator after lifting (or after descending).
I think I will still go with the helix. It actually takes less space than an elevator in my constricted basement, even with a 30 inch radius (HO). As well, I hope to get a longer train up and down than could be handled by an elevator in my setup. The elevator is probably best for shorter trains, as the author mentions.
This will be a challenge for me, since it will require excellent trackwork, interior access, well-adjusted rolling stock, weighting, and couplers, and properly programmed 'helpers' (DCC).
Thanks for the perspective - jrc Bozeman
I have a train elevator planned to overcome the mismatch in vertical height between the two ends of a unit train's route from mine to seaport. The elevator will be straight and the car will be a length of steel stud comparable to the cassettes I use for swapping excess rolling stock off the layout.
The operating design is one of John Armstrong's - the, "Dehydrated canal lock." His was planned to carry an O scale 16 car plus Y6b coal train, and included conterweights. Mine is intended to handle a 1:80 scale train of kitbashed hoppers and a miniature 0-8-0T, but I will still use counterweights since I want the elevator to remain in the UP position except when cycling to exchange the uphill empty train for the downhill loads. Operation will be 'Armstrong' (no pun intended - refers to a long handle for the end-of-a human-arm elevator motor.)
As for the time it takes to move from one level to the other, nobody says you can't leave a train standing on the elevator until the timetable or other operating scheme says it's time for it to return to the visible world.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - one elevator planned, others possible)
jrcBozeWondering about this approach - see the reference article, which describes a helix-replacing 'elevator' to move an entire train - albeit a short one - between two levels. Steve Harris has done an excellent job with what must be a challenging design, using an electronically controlled garage-door opener mechanism.I am going to use a double-deck design. I'm not interested in the single-deck vs. double-deck debate.My question is this: How many folks actually think of the time a train spends in the helix as 'too long' - or think that is a justification for this kind of elevator as an alternative?I also wonder about the sound made by the 'elevator'. MY garage door opener - or at least the door itself - makes an unbelievable racket in operation.As well, I wonder about the effect of seeing a train 'instantly' ( maybe a minute or so) appearing on another level. My preference is for the delay (helix) while the train may be wandering about behind the 'hills'.What do others think?
Wondering about this approach - see the reference article, which describes a helix-replacing 'elevator' to move an entire train - albeit a short one - between two levels. Steve Harris has done an excellent job with what must be a challenging design, using an electronically controlled garage-door opener mechanism.
I am going to use a double-deck design. I'm not interested in the single-deck vs. double-deck debate.
My question is this: How many folks actually think of the time a train spends in the helix as 'too long' - or think that is a justification for this kind of elevator as an alternative?
I also wonder about the sound made by the 'elevator'. MY garage door opener - or at least the door itself - makes an unbelievable racket in operation.
As well, I wonder about the effect of seeing a train 'instantly' ( maybe a minute or so) appearing on another level. My preference is for the delay (helix) while the train may be wandering about behind the 'hills'.
What do others think?
I think different people have different preferences, and you should go with your preferences.
If you like a helix, and you have room for a helix, then build a helix.
If you don't have room for a helix, and still want a double deck layout, figure out some other solution - like an elevator.
Or just link the layers by using a manual cassette to transfer trains from one level to another.
Or just link the layers operationally - an engine shoves some cars into staging on one deck - a little while later another engine pulls some very similar looking cars out of staging on the other deck.
Whatever floats your boat.
Thanks - jrc Bozeman