Tom,
Someone just posted this link to the Kalmbach book on helix design in another thead. Looks like it's on 50% off sale this week, but don't know how that applies to foreign sales. Since an ebook, maybe the same deal?
https://kalmbachhobbystore.com/model-trains/digital-downloads/mrpdf032__Guide-to-helix-and-staging-design
Anyway, food for thought if you waver on the nolix design and reconsider the helix. They can seem mysterious, but I don't see them as particualrly difficult, although I;ve never built one. I have built a nolix and that is probably more difficult of a task.
One thing that I highly recommend with a nolix as a tool is a good quality digital level. It should be able to directly read out grades to 0.1 degrees in order to work well on a model layout. Keep checking everything, including side to side, too, as you build. It will save you a lot of headaches later on when you lay track.
Mine is a unit made to be inserted into different level "bodies" so that you can go from long to short easily. It's about 9" long and I use it "naked" on the layout, as that's a very handy length.
Mike Lehman
Urbana, IL
You're welcome. Glad to help. Just be sure to leave level areas between the grades big enough to generally suit your needs.
Also, don't be too hard on the home crowd. I've got an Aussie buddy who makes great and very useful model railroad videos. He's mainly narrowguage, but also works on standard gauge stuff. Many techniques and tips are gauge/scale insensitive, so I can highly recommend Laurie McLean's channel. Much of it is electrical and if you are interested in animation, he's got the goods. He's also a MMR and this is part of how he's dedicated to spreading his wisdom: https://www.youtube.com/user/scoopmmr
OK after much deliberation with the co-designer(the other half) I have decided to go with a nolix as we dont really want to sacrifice the real estate needed to build one. Also It would be my first helix to build and I think its best just to put it off a little longer.
I will go with a no track plan idea and wing it when i get to laying track.
I will start the track laying from the points where the nolix begins and ends and fill in the gaps,placing industries and stations etc as i go.
I want to thank all you wonderful people on here for their invaluable input and I will try to post some pictures as I go along.Its so great to be a part of this forum with so much help available
If there is anything else you think I should know please let me know
you guys are just absolutely AWESOME !!!!!.
Model railroading in the States wins hands down over here in Oz. Im not afraid to say you are the best in the world. All the videos on You Tube gives you all the proof you will ever need.
Love you all
Tom from Down Under
Wider aisles are always a good improvement, even if you need to give up a bit of ROW to do so.
tomcatSomething I was pondering.... How would it work if I make a helix from deck A-B and then a second helix on top of that one to access train from B-C decks. So basically a 2 in 1 helix that will have their own enrty and exit points.?
Actually, that was one of the options I was describing, but with the addition of a second track on the inside of the first that would take trains back to Deck A staging directly from Deck C (and vice versa). If it is low frequency ops, you could get away with a single track version that did exactly as you say.
Wow
Love all the responses. Dave raises some very clever points and ones that I can relate too. I play drums and its like I am sitting down at the kit with a great beat in my head ,know what it sounds like but just cant for the life of me play the damn thing!!!
I do have a fair idea of where certain industries will go and where the RH and TT will be, its just all about the track arrangement . The staging yards I would like on the first level, I am thinking 2 yards one will be for American trains and the other for Australian. Does anyone think it would look funny if I had American and Australian trains together in the same yard?
Keeping in mind that this will not be a prototypical layout in anyway , apart from what the locos will be pulling. (there wont be and Australian Loco pulling freight cars from America, vice versa, Passenger locos pulling a coal train) that sort of thing
I do have the real estate for a larger radius helix say 36-38 which would require around 2mx2m area.
I am also having to consider having having wider than normal aisle width as my better half is in a electric wheelchair which needs room to turn around between the benchwork. I want to go with 900mm width benches
For those who want to know, it will be a freelanced Layout for running passenger trains , frieght, industry and switching.
Something I was pondering.... How would it work if I make a helix from deck A-B and then a second helix on top of that one to access train from B-C decks. So basically a 2 in 1 helix that will have their own enrty and exit points.?
Has anyone done this ?
Some observations. First our removalist friend asked a provocative and interesting question and it seems upon reading the responses that there is no one agreed on definition for what a "track plan" even is! To me doodling counts. I would think a very clear mental conception without anything on paper could count as well (after all, classical composers as diverse as Mozart and Bartok would inform friends that a certain composition was "complete" because it was completely composed in their head, with little or nothing on paper). I think a series of marks or indications on the bare benchwork could also count.
Just fastening one piece of sectional track to another like I used to enjoy doing with my Lionel layout as a kid does not, it would seem, count as a track plan.
Before written track plans are held out as the gold standard, remember that sometimes traditional written, even published, track plans can lead you seriously astray because representing track with a simple line can be so seductively simple, making you think you have all sorts of space that you do not have in point of fact. For a time MR had an artist name Baron whose track plans would feature actual drawings of the track (rails and ties) rather than just a line. I tended to regard his plans trustworthy because of that.
Where I think some sort of disciplined, thoughtful planning process is most needed is when thinking of capacity of passing sidings and yard tracks, as well as fouling points in tight situations. The cost of turnouts has become so dear that you really want to know in advance if you are possibly wasting your time or not. Again representing yard tracks with a simple line can make you think you have capacity that just ain't there once the track is in place.
One situation where a written out track plan is really useful is when thinking about wiring -- finding "hidden" reverse loops and such. Maybe that mattered more in DC days than DCC days but it still matters. And a written track plan might reveal more clearly in advance where you are running the risk of creating a doozy of a tight S curve that you will later regret.
Even with DCC at some point it is useful from a troubleshooting standpoint to have a track plan showing what wiring was actually done. But it could be after the fact.
My mom had a saying "Marry in haste; repent at leisure." A modification of that phrase can be used to describe the process of layout planning and creation.
Dave Nelson
I agree with some of the others. I have yet to design a track plan. Basically I am the artist with a blank canvas. I figure out what I sorta want in an area and start putting track down, loosely, to get an idea. Maybe put a building or two around. Move things around, adding and subtracting track and buildings. Sooner or later, the ideas gel, down go the pencil lines, glue and then cork and then track. In one area of my layout, I have had two engine terminals and now I have a grain elevator. Never be afraid to rip stuff up if you are unhappy with it. I do enjoy looking at track plans and layouts in MR to get ideas of what could be possible and then translate them into what pleases me.
Ted
rrebell Unless I missed it, you have never said what you are planing to run. That impacts the track plan more than anything! You can't run a bigboy around my layout, even though I had the space for it because I wanted an effect that I could only get with a smaller radius and since I run 40' or less stuff, this wasn't a problem.
Unless I missed it, you have never said what you are planing to run. That impacts the track plan more than anything! You can't run a bigboy around my layout, even though I had the space for it because I wanted an effect that I could only get with a smaller radius and since I run 40' or less stuff, this wasn't a problem.
That's true, design for the ops you have in mind -- and the equipment.
But if you throw a helix into the mix, that changes things. Even if you run toghter radii elsewhere, you're always well advised to make the helix radius as large are possible. The combination of curve and grade has a significant effect on operations if you make them too small beyond that, too small a radius also affects something unique to a helix -- the spacing between levels.
You want to make the helix radius as large as possible in order minimize the drag effects of the turns combined with grade. In this case, a little over 30" may seem OK, but 36" or larger would be better.
Making the grade less severe also helps with entry and exit from the helix. And it makes turnouts perform better. Using curved turnouts allows a double tracked helix so that the only interfence of one loop with another would be exit and entry to the center line at each level.
Another method would be to use the outer helix between Deck A and Deck B and between Deck B and Deck C. The inner helix coil would be dedicated to a direct connection from Deck A to Deck C. In these cases, you often designate the center coil as either a return coil or as a way to send trains from staging on Deck A back up to the beginning of a run on Deck C.
What I'd suggest based on my experience is figure out where to put your main yard and where to locate your main line.Then figure out at least a couple passing siding locations.Exact locations and types of industries, however, you can indeed "wing it." I laid an entire industrial park in one afternoon with no real track plan... just a mess of track and turnouts. Worked fine, reliable, fun to switch. I knew where the entry track came in, and just built from there.
Disclaimer: This post may contain humor, sarcasm, and/or flatulence.
Michael Mornard
Bringing the North Woods to South Dakota!
Tomcat:
I have never built or operated on a two deck layout. Turnouts on hidden track can be a real problem.
You have a large space (I'm jealous) for a home layout.
Depending on where the door or doors are you could build a open ended E shaped layout, with good sized aisles and either one or two double sided peninsulas.
The have one helix going up to a second level. Forget the third level.
Calculate the modeling space this would give you.
What you call a removalist I would call a mover, and company a moving company.
These were omly ideas to get you thinking again.
Dave
Hi Dave
A Removalist ,If you need to move to a different house I come to your place and put all your furniture and boxes and stuff into a truck and take it to their new house, instead of you having to do it.
Thanks for the reply Dave and the radius you suggested are about what i have in mind . Its just the track arrangements going into and coming out of the helix im not sure on how they will work. I need an entry as well as an exit for the middle level and im confused as to how the track are going to cross ver
Also Ive been told that having turnouts in a helix is a bad idea, more chances of derailments and mounting switch machines.
What do you think.
Tomcat
I would suggest 30 and 32.5 inch radii. Prevents sideswiping problems.
You need space outside and track for subraod bed to be supported, say 3 inches.
This gives a a footprint of 71-72 inches.
Rember to install one circle of roadbed, and install track on it before installing second circle.
What is a removalists??? I understand Canadian and American, but Aussie is a truly foreign tongue.
Is this another one of those topics where the original poster tossed a grenade and then ran off and went missing in action? LOL. I see topics like this all the time. Like where to they go? Seriously?!
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
Dave,
No, I think I just misread your correct math and assumed that was the total rise. If it's that much rise there will either be much more back and forth on a single level to get that much rise -- or there will be a helix.
Personally, if a fellow is worried about keeping his options open, the helix works better with numbers like that, because it leaves you much more room for going places on reasonable grades on each deck vs needing to devote that run to gaining altitide
Mike
Again unless I messed up the math I meant 67 feet from level A to level B and 67 more feet to level C. Quick check at 2% eight foot run rise 2 inches, 8 eight foot runs rises 16 inch. Eight times eight equals 64, and that is at 2.1% rise.
If I blew this calulation somebody please correct me.
For starters as this is your first layout I'd suggest you start with one level and not let the size of it overwhelm you. Later you can add to it.
In my case I had a general idea of what I wanted so I bought a bunch of flex track and the number of turnouts I'd be needing to get started. Then bought more as needed. My base was foam so this made it very easy to lay the track and change it as needed. For my first try I'm real pleased with how it turned out. I included at one end of the layout, track which leads to a possible layout extension if the BH ever gets rid of some of chairs we never use.
Don't over think this and let that keep you from laying some track and get the trains rolling. Procrastination can be a problem for the best of us.
Good luck
Bob
Don't Ever Give Up
Thanks for doing the math. It matches pretty well what I surmised from my off-the-cuff quick mental imaging of what the likely run over rise scenario would be.
It should be noted that with three levels, 67 linear feet of rise can be spread around so that only about 34 feet at a time need be included in one spot, Deck A to Deck B, then Deck B to Deck C. Since it's a nolix, some planning for this is highly suggested.
I'm fairly sure the OP's room varies from your assumed dimensions, but it's easy enough to make your numbers apply. The middle deck's arrangement is the key here, since it both receives track coming up from Deck A and serves as a launching point to Deck C. Thus it will have to accommodate the 67 feet of rise in some form or fashion within it's ~96 feet of run. This will leave less room on Deck B for other things.
On the other hand, Decks A and C will have to deal with only ~34 feet of the nolix rise, allowing the other ~62' to be wide open for other construction.
What might work best is to have Deck B represent a shortline, branch, or maybe a narrowgauge connection. The last might be especially useful, as it could be more plausibly interleaved with parts of the nolix going up and down expanding the space available to ut in Deck B. The main line for the bigger part of the line could stretch from Deck A to Deck C, with an interchange or transfer facilities located on Deck B. Or that interchange or transfer could be on one of the other two decks, with the secondary line following on a slightly different route but basically paralleling the main until it gets to Deck B where it spreads its wings.
Also, Deck height and what goes on will be crucial. Unless one does the "mushroom" thing, things can esily end up too low and hard to see or get under for maintenance or too high making it hard to reach in for uncoupling, etc. Sometimes staging goes on Deck A and is out of sight. But you could also do staging on Deck B with its relatively limited level run and the lower overhead space to reach in may not be so much of a obstruction as limited deck height down low could be tough to deal with. Having the shorter deack height between B and C would allow more space above Deck A. Often Deck C has compressed overhead space anyway, so no loss there and you might even be able to make "reach in" space more accessible and the mountains taller.
Of course, just some things to think about. None of this requires set-in-stone planning for the rest of what goes on with each deck. But it does suggest the need for some minimal planning in order to best take advantage of multidecking in the space.
Unless my mathematics have deserted me your area is 29.5 ft by 19.6 ft. This give a length around the room of 96 ft.
For a 16 inch railhead to railhead rise of 16 inch at 2% would require 67 feet, or 2/3 of the way around. A 12 inch rise would require 50 ft, or more than half way around.
You had best plan exactly were these runs will be and how to get on and off them as desired.
This an ambitious project. I hope you are young, patient and determined.
My layout is 20' by 30' single level. Did I have a plan? Yes and no, knew the basics of what I wanted but I am no good at drawing stuff like that. It has come out very well, runs good etc. Thayt said you need to be prepaired to tear stuff out that does not work and redo it until it does. Then again you and others may be different in what you may be comfortable doing. I have built a lot of furniture from an idea in my head as well as a lot of remodeling. I also can sight read music but prefer playing by ear. It really depends on how ones mind works. Have a plan, whether you put it on paper or not is only a call you can make.
I would make the comment that the amount of track planning required before benchwork construction depends a lot on the complexity of the layout. A folded dogbone on 8'x4' actually requires more detailed planning than say a round the walls 9m x 6m shelf layout.
I wonder what the OP means by "3 level around the walls shelf layout, no-lix"? A nolix doesn't really have levels, it would just be a three times around continuous grade point to point with perhaps some level sections for industry etc. A quick calculation suggests he could achieve adequate separation and reasonable grades in the space he has so he could go ahead and build benchwork as long as he allows adequate shelf width for his industry and desiree curve radius.
A three level layout with levels connected by nolix would also not require any detailed planning either.
My own experience is with a 10m x 6m U shaped layout with turnback blobs at the end of each leg. Apart from the general concept of a double track continuous main we didn't do any detailed planning, rather things evolved as we went along. The challenge of fitting things in as we go has been quite fun and I doubt that what we have ended up with would have been true to any detailed initial plan anyway.
Bill
For a solid table top layout, you can just built the table and start laying track on it until you have something you like. But when you get to filling the room, you probably should a some idea of what you want.
I build my layouts with stand alone sections that I bolt together. On my current layout, I used the sections from 2 prior layouts that I arranged and rearranged to get something I liked. But I had a general idea of what the layout would be like. I also modified/rebuilt a couple of sections and added filler where needed.
Same with the trackwork. I have a rough plan then put the track down and rearrange it until I get something I like.
But my layout is intentionally flat. Both so I can modify stuff as I go and because I think the the trains operate better.
In your case with 3 levels and a rising grade, I think you need more planning - you can still modify as you build, but you don't want to end up with a 10% grade somewhere.
EnjoyPaul
I would recommend you have a basic plan of the main line. You dont need to design every siding on the layout but the main line needs to be planned out as much as possible. You dont want to end up with an extreme grade or a sharp curve. you can fill in the sidings and industries later.
Steve
My layout was built without a trackplan because I lost about half the space I was supposed to have. What was left didn't suit the pencil sketch I had for the larger space, so I marked out the aisle space, then filled the rest with open grid table tops around the oddly-shaped room - there are 7 inside and 3 outside corners in the room. I decided that double-decking part of it might allow me to have almost as long a run as the original, and once I had calculated the heights needed to keep grades at about a 2.5% maximum, I began laying roadbed. This was arcs cut from 3/4" plywood: a couple at 30", a couple more at 32", a bunch at 34", and a couple each at 36" and larger. These were tried, in various combinations, in the corners of the room, and most on the mainline are 34" or larger. All that was left was to connect the curves with straight-ish roadbed, then attach risers to it all and jack it up to the required levels. I added passing sidings where I thought the towns would fit, then added industrial spurs. I'm very pleased with the results - much better than the original sketch for operation and scenic possibilities, it's basically a point-to-point-to-point...a "Y", with the arms stacked one above the other. I'm still laying track on the upper level, but when it's all in place, I'll have 5 staging yards to keep operations interesting.
Wayne
Ok you asked so I will give my personal beliefs.
Its pretty hard for a layout to have purpose without having a track plan on some sort of guide to hint you along. A layout without purpose would generally be a layout that is perhaps simply scenic and filled in with building here and there. If you want a layout that will simply have some scenery bridges waterways and simply run a train around that is fine but if you want the total package of a sceniced layout that is for simply watching trains but also used for ops sessions once in a while well then you will need a trackplan for not only giving an indication of industries serving industries but also a well structures railline with proper length sidings etc.
Lynn
Present Layout progress
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/p/290127/3372174.aspx#3372174
I have a little more than half your space - and places with a lot more levels! Of the five visible stations, five staging arrangements and three special purpose hidden single track spurs only two [both for Down (catenary) freight staging] are on the same level.
My 'track plan' started as a straight line, one end labeled Minamijima and one end labeled Takami. About half way along I drew a rectangle and labeled it Tomikawa. Other rectangles at appropriate positions along the line got other names (all of which date back half a century.)
Then I took this string and started bending it along what I felt would be a nice, efficient benchwork system - a long dogbone rolled up into a double-G shape, kind of like a piece of pastry. Exactly what went into each rectangle was determined when construction reached it - designed full size on cardstock that became a permanent part of the track/roadbed/subgrade sandwich. A couple of them are still ??? - a single track through the site of something more complex.
As things worked out, Takami/Minamijima (aka passenger staging) ended up as a double-ended yard with access to a return loop. The two ends of the string knotted together.
Even now, the 'track plan' is actually a bunch of track schematics. No need to stamp them, Do not scale this drawing. Nobody would ever try.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - freehand)
I would suggest you read Tony Koester's book Designing and Building Multi-deck Model Railroads to see his track plan. It is more or less just a multi-loop single-track mainline with appropriately located sidings and terminals at either end. Tony discusses the need for steadily rising long runs, but with flat areas around sidings, in order to achieve the height separation between decks.
But, you don't need to have a multi-deck layout in order to have a multi-level level layout. Consider the Gore & Daphetid. The track runs around the layout multiple times, gaining height as it goes.
Lower level tracks can becloser to the front edge of the layout and move toward the back as height increases. Consider the photo below showing tracks at three levels.
greg - Philadelphia & Reading / Reading
I think the important thing about planning is how will potential changes to the track arrangement impact benchwork, if at all. If it won't require tearing it up and rebuilding portions of it, then track planning isn't really critical.
A Nolix usually requires flat areas for towns and switching, so you'd probably want to know where those will be before you build the benchwork, although some use methods to hold cars in place on slanted terrain so flat areas may not be needed.
- Douglas