I have been reading and reading and reading about building a helix and I can’t figure out what I’m doing wrong. I have enough space to install a 30” radius helix and I only need three levels. I was looking at a helix kit like the one listed here http://www.ashlintrains.com/servlet/the-51/railroad-model-train-ho/Detail , they clam to build a helix with a 20” radius on a 2% grade and get 4” between decks? How?
I’m working with AutoCAD to design the helix. I have a 30” radius circle with a circumference of 15'-8 1/2" on track centerline. 15'-8 1/2" drops 3.77 inches at 2% grade, if I use 1/2” material for the decking that leaves me with only 3.25” from the top of one deck to the bottom of the other and that does not include the track. The only thing fitting in there is my gondola’s! If they can get 4” clearance with a 20” radius why can’t I get 4” of clearance with a 30” radius? Please help before I bang my head on the desk one to many times!
LION gets 2.5" clearance on a 5' diameter helix.
For the lowest turn I made risers each one 1/4" taller than the previous, thus the spacing of the risers controls the grade.
I set the end of the first loop at the elevation that I needed to clear trains on the lower level, and then evened out the risers until I had a secure loop. I have no clue what the grade is. What does it matter? I have so much space (5' diameter) and so much rise required (2.5") between the top of the lower deck to the bottom of the second deck. It is what it is.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
The simple answer may be that the math used for Ashlin's site is incorrect. Using a 2% grade with a 20" radius yields a between level spacing of only about 2.5". To achieve the 4" separation claimed for a 20" radius helix requires a grade of over 3% (actually their spacing between the top surfaces of the roadbed is 4.25" per the photo on Ashlin's site, with a 4" clearance to the bottom surface of the next level, so the grade is around 3.4%).
*EDIT* Looking some more at Ashlin's site, they also claim a 2% grade for their 26"/28" radius HO helix, which is also incorrect. It would appear to me like they did some sloppy cutting and pasting on their text.
Rob Spangler
Yep, their math is wrong - but the deck spacing is right. I have used their kit and it is 4 inch inter-deck spacing (measuring top surface to bottom surface), the deck material is a nominal 1/4 inch (BTW, its actually a MDF product). This makes for a grade around 3.4% for 20 in radii. I also found that 1/2 inch plywood 'glue plates' between sections worked just fine to make the assembly a bit more solid - and it still allowed sub-roadbed and track with my typical HO equipment to pass under without any problem.
Charles
I have designed and been involved in constructing a number of layouts with the famous "helix".
Personaly, I don't recomment anything less than 36" radius and I usually use a 4" rise, rail head to rail head. Built with 1/2" material, that works fine and yields a manageable grade of just under 2%.
You only need 3-5/32" abouve the rail for even the most modern equipment.
Sheldon
Finding how much separation you will get between decks is as simple as figuring out how a straight ramp would work...except that ours will be curved. What that means is, assuming we keep a decent consistency, and don't have sloppy undulating ramps, if you know your maximum acceptable grade, and you then substitute a series of lengths of run, you can find out how far above your starting point, where the first overpassing takes place, your top ramp will be.
If you were dead set on 2%, as I am, how far must your train travel, either in a straight line of tangent track, or curved as in a helix, to get the minimum acceptable clearance you want? That is the key and essential question you need to answer. If you want that 2%, and no more, and can't have greater than 22" radius to lay in your helix, then treat your ramp like a circle and use "twice Pi times the radius", which is the formula for a circle's circumference. Two times Pi times the radius of 22" comes to 140 inches, rounded up nice 'n tidy...it actually is 138" and a quarter.
With a nice long ramp of 140", and rising at a comfy 2%, how far above the lower starting point will the upper ramp be, on average, when it completes the first full circular ramp? Simple math says it is 140 X .02 (2% expressed as a decimal), or about 2.8". Shoot! Some items will just barely clear that, and that's only if the ramps have that beautifully consistent grade...no sags! Double stacks haven't a hope, and the same for some MOW equipment.
Remember, the rails have to get under the top layer, or between any two of those layers. Ideally, you would want some finger room to gather things if an emergency arises. Otherwise, you will have to tip them, and risk breaking details. Or, let them run back down the grade and try to catch them before they derail and fall or run into something.
My current layout build has helix curves at an average of 35" radius with a 2% grade. Doing the calculation, there is plenty of room for the trains and my hand if I have to do a recovery of some sort. The clearance between decks, with tracks in place, is about 4".
Crandell
Reverse engineering Crandell's equation
2% grade =2 inch rise in 100 inches or 4 inches in 200 inches
200 / 2*pi (using 3.14) yields 100/3.14 or 31.847 inch radius (let's round that up to 32)
The 30 inch radius will get you 188.4 or about 2.1% (rounding up); of course that is the physical grade not the effective grade in terms of pulling power.
Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/
Doc
I am wondering if your example is an exact comparison to Crandell's. He states that he has 4" clearance which means, if I understand him correctly, that there is an actual 4" of free space above the track. You don't mention taking the thickness of the sub-roadbed or track into account in your calculation. If that is added in I think your radius will increase. None the less, your mathematics are useful if the thickness of the structure is added into the rise. You also make a good point about the effective grade.
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
tbriney
Welcome to the forums!
As others have said, I think Ashlin Trains math is a bit optimistic.
My current track plan will only allow me about 25" radius for my helix in and out of staging with less than 4" clearance. Based on many others' actual experience the effective grade will severely restrict the length of trains, so much so that I might not even bother with staging, at least on a lower level.
Some of Ashlin's calculations are incorrect (overly optimistic).
I've emailed them twice with specifics, but they have so far not corrected the site.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
hon30critter Doc I am wondering if your example is an exact comparison to Crandell's. He states that he has 4" clearance which means, if I understand him correctly, that there is an actual 4" of free space above the track. You don't mention taking the thickness of the sub-roadbed or track into account in your calculation. If that is added in I think your radius will increase. None the less, your mathematics are useful if the thickness of the structure is added into the rise. You also make a good point about the effective grade. Dave
Dave, you are correct, Crandell's numbers work out to 4.396" from rail head to rail head, allowing 3/8" for support structure.
As I noted you only need a little over three inches for anything, that is why I use 4" rail head to rail head and because of the effects of the curve, insist of grades of less than 2% in the helix.
I know people with 30" radius helixes, they work, but you need lots of loco power to pull any amount of cars.
I also know a guy who built my discribed design, one BLI N&W Class A can pull 70 cars up an eight turn helix on that layout.
The helix is not magic, you will only get the operation you design for.
If you look at their picture, Ashlin is using a very thin material for the decking. The OP said he was using 1/2-inch decks. This will give a lower clearance than using thinner stuff. It may not be enough to account for the entire miscalculation, though.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
Hi mr Beasley,
if you do not understand junior-high math, it might be better not to use phrases like:
"it may not be enough to account for the entire miscalculation." Calculation is very straight forward if you know the radius, needed clearance and sub-roadbed thickness.
A 2 percent grade with a 20" rises 2,5 inch per turn. If this leaves sufficient clearance with 1/4 inch material thickness is not my problem. When a "respected" entrepreneur states this helix has 4" clearance, even after receiving comments, he is way out of line.
BTW the effective grade is about 32/20=1,6 % higher then nominal 2% grade. The curve adds drag equivalent with a 1,6% grade. The resulting grade will effect the length of your train, pulling power or/and string-lining might be causing problems.
Paul
LION has a four track helix. The table is 5' wide, thus the outside diameter of the helix is 60" or a radius of 30" Fortunately, it is the outside two tracks that are going up the hill. Lets call them 28" and 26" radius, after all there is some space between the edge of the helix and the first track. The inside tracks are say 24" and 22" radius, but these are downhill tracks and work just fine. In fact there is a big fat 5.1Ω resistor there so that the trains do not go too fast.
All of my trains are 6 cars (300 scale feet) long, some have one motor, others have two. The single motor trains are treated with Bullfrog Snot on the drive wheels for extra traction.
The math for this is brain-dead simple: 4" divided by 2% gives a result of 200", the lateral distance required to rise 4" on a 2% gradient. Divide that by pi -- 3.14159 or whatever -- and you come up with 63.66", the diameter of the circle required to achieve that 4" rise on that 2% gradient. Divide that by 2 and you come up with 31.83/31 53/64", the radius of the circle required to rise 4" at 2%.
From the far, far reaches of the wild, wild west I am: rtpoteet
I didn't want to go into too long and overwhelming a description of all the considerations, but wanted to provide a rough figuring method so that one's arcs of plywood or whatever comprising the ramps to form the spirals could be cut with side clearances of a couple of inches on either side of the tracks. For a double or quadruple track, such as the Lion's, the ramps will be quite wide in HO scale to avoid sideswping of long cars. In my case, with a double track, I have cookie cutter sections 7" wide. They allow me to drive screws into them to the side of the tracks, to keep the tracks spaced nicely, and to use bits of 1X4 to act as supportes for spacing between the 'decks'.
One important point, touched upon by Dave on the previous page, is the thickness of the sub-roadbed, or the arcs of ply comprising the ramp sections. In my case, they are 1/2" ply with the Code 81 glued directly to the plywood using DAP Alex Plus clear with silicon. Wonderful stuff...it should be a rule in the hobby to use it because it is so easily spread and taken up if you need to remove track elements or roadbed. Try it, you'll agree with me.
So, back to the thickness of the plywood. For the lower onset of the first level of ramp, clearance is usually not a problem.. It is only when the ramp crosses itself, and in most cases continues atop its first deck with the same curvature for yet another layer that you must remember to account for four (4) things between the two:, your roadbed thickness if any, the height of the tracks themselves, the tallest rolling stock you intend to use, and then a way to get at least a forefinger between the plywood above and the tops of the cars/engine that you have to remove due to problems. When I was asking myself how much clearanc I would need, I measured the height of my MOW crane, the worst offender, and I also measured my GG1 with pantograph extended. The figure I came to was 3" with a bit of a buffer. I immediately added 1/8" to that figure due to random errors in building the helix...I didn't want any jams, not even on my first trial run!
To conclude, the 4-and-a-bit inch clearance figure I calculated for my helix was a deck to deck clearance since I would be buliding the helix and adding 'stuff' to the ramp surfaces afterwards. I do have the 4" deck-to-deck height, and feel I have done a decent enough job in keeping it consistent for a first timer. But, below the top deck is always 1/2" of plywood that is the deck material itself! Below that deck are also the tracks running on the top of the deck below it. They have a height. When all is said and done, I have better than 3.5" clearance at the tightest points along the helix, most often close to 4", enough to slip a finger under the upper deck and wrap it around the roof of something I would like to remove.
I think one of the discussion points was whether or not the thickness of the sub-roadbed had an impact on the radius needed for given incline. So, does it? Ashline uses 1/4" , Crandell 1/2 in. Does it make a difference?
There has been some mention in this discussion of the spacing of side by side tracks. It should be noted that at or above 36" radius, 2" spacing is fine for most all equipment, but as you get down into the 30" range or below, a spacing of as much as 2-1/2" may be required for the largest equipment.
Considering the effects of curvature, grade, clearence issues, etc, a helix with a radius below 30" is suiteable only for the the shortest trains and/or "old time" modeling.
As we have been over several times now, 32" is about the practiacal minimum radius for a reasonable working helix and 36" or larger provides much better operation.
Doc in CT I think one of the discussion points was whether or not the thickness of the sub-roadbed had an impact on the radius needed for given incline. So, does it? Ashline uses 1/4" , Crandell 1/2 in. Does it make a difference?
Thicker is better in my view. I don't know any wood product I would use as a subroadbed in a helix that is only 1/4" thick. It would require too many/frequent supports. I don't what Ashline uses, but 1/4" anything is too thin in my book.
Paulus Jas Hi mr Beasley, if you do not understand junior-high math, it might be better not to use phrases like: "it may not be enough to account for the entire miscalculation." Calculation is very straight forward if you know the radius, needed clearance and sub-roadbed thickness. Paul
And there in lies the problem, we have done away with Junior High in favor of "Middle School". One of the great undoings of public education in America if you ask me.
Yes, it does. As I mentioned in my post just above, our operating surface on roadbed matters not whether it is on tangent track out in the open, on curved track out in the open, or on spiral ramps in a helix enclosed...EXCEPT that overhead clearances have a bearing. Once you add the rails, plus wheels and axles, then the frames, then the bodies, and finally roof-mounted anything (chimneys, pantrographs, air conditioners, vents, skyline viewing such as domes, clerestory, hatches for cables as on a wrecker crane, etc.), they all take up available height below whatever you need to pass under. In the case of the helix, you must pass under the upper level, deck, whatever you want to call it if the thing has more than a single turn, as mine does. But in either case, multiple decks or a single overpass, you still have to clear that lowest point hanging below the operating surface above. In most cases, it is a bridge girder, a truss if you wanted a deck truss (huge clearance required there!), or in the case of a helix, just the thickness of the plywood ramp the upper level tracks are using for support.
Look at it this way: imagine a paper thin plane cut out cookie-cutter style to make a complete circle wide enough to support one curve of HO track of any code and make. You cut it tranversely at some point, at 90 degrees to its long curved center line. Lift one end (this is exceedingly stiff paper, so it will support itself rigidly as you lift the one cut end) and you anchor the one end at 4" of clearance over the surface end below. That is your first level of spiral ramp. Now back to the real world. You have than wonderful operating surface, but it is now made of 1/2" plywood, and no longer this magic thin material. The distances between the operating surface where the cut ends now are (still are) is now encroached on above the lover cut end by the thickness of the plywood. And that happens all the way around another spiral to get yet another deck, and so on, and so on... Plus, we have to place tracks on our wonderful surfaces, be they the magic thin material or the plywood. How high is Code 83 track of a given make with their varying tie thicknesses? Can't forget that!