There are two ways to go about a multiple deck nolix design - set the deck hgeights and try to make the grades work, or work backwards with an acceptable grade and see where you can put the decks. If you are hard set on the benchwork heights for the levels, a helix may be the only option to get reasonable grades, because once you decide on a helix design and climb per turn, the grade is set by the diameter of the helix, and the distance you need to go up or down is determined by how many turns you put in it. You can "tap off" a helix at various levels so one helix can server as the connector between multiple levels, but that does restrict the entry/exit for each level to the helix location.
There's always a compromise in a multi deck design. You usually end up with the lower sceniced deck being lower than the absolute perfect level (and even that is only going to be 'absolutely perfect' for you and someone who is your exact height) and the upper deck usually ends up too high. Add a staging level above and below that and those end up being way off - however access is not needed as frequently and you really don;t have to see - sensors and indicators can show ehen you are int he clear, or CCTV can be used to provide a visual. The key with staging is to be able to reach in and retrieve equipment - so while you many need 18" between decks to be able to put scenery on the lower one, you don't need anywhere near that for staging, just enough room to easily reach your hand in to grab stuff. Same thing up top, you can be relatively sloe to the ceiling as long as you cna stand on a step stool and reach your hand in. There doesn't really have to be a valence for the upper staging, you could hide it with removable fascia panels since it's up above straight viewing height.
By continuing to climb above the yard - if you doa nolix, it's not the same as having a helix and two completely disconnected levels, with the helix connecting the two. When you first start climing above the first level, it is still the first level. All the way around. By the time you've made one circuit of the room, the idea is to have enough vertical clearance that now you start the second level. I've seen it done with each level taking two laps around the room. For that you'd have a flat deack from the yard all the way around back to the yard, then the main would run behind the yard at a grade, on a hill or with a retaining wall sort of arranchement. For the first part of it past the yard, it would still not be high enough to start a true second deck of benchwork, it would just be on hills higher than the first level in the foreground. At some point there will be enough vertical seperation to transition to the upper deck with dedicated benchwork - this is where you need to come up with some sort of scenic transition from it being two tracks in the same scene but at different heights to now the upper deck has its own benchwork. That is not where you have the full 18" seperation between levels, at that point the upper deck will be relatively close to the lower, so this upper deck still must be on a grade and can only level out for good once you reach the desired vertical seperation. You can repeat the whole thing again to go up to a third level for staging, but you really don't have the height in the room to make the third level also 18" over the second one. 2x18 plus the 28" level for the bottom staging plus 12" above that to the first deck puts you at 76" leaving no clearance above the tracks for the trains. So the upper staging either has to be closer to the second deck, or part of it.
A slightly more complex helix would make it possible to use just one staging yard to be both ends of the railroad. Ramp up from one end of the staging yard to the first deck level, run around the entire first level and enter the helix at the base of the penninsula just before starting a second trip around (level 1 continuous run connection could cut across the root of the penninsula to the right of the helix). Up the helix to level 2, also a flat deck. Run around the walls, out the penninsula, and then when it comes back to the base of the penninsula it enters the helix (left turnout could join it to the start of the second level where it exists the helix for a level 2 continous run connection - now you cna have a train looping around on each level for demonstrations) and goes all the way back down to staging level and enters the other end of the staging yard. The only tricky part would be at the top of the helix on the second level where somehow the end of the second level has to cross over the start of the second level to get to the helix down. Unless you don't care if the train on the first deck going left to right becomes a train on the upper deck going right to left. It took me a while but I've accepted that's how it has to be if I want to get the kind of run I want. If you can accept that, the helix design becomes a common 2 track helix except that the starting point for the inner and outer tracks is at different points around the circle. The inner track would be the one connecting deck 1 and deck 2, the outer one would connect the end of deck 2 back down to staging level so they don't ever have to cross over one another.
--Randy
Modeling the Reading Railroad in the 1950's
Visit my web site at www.readingeastpenn.com for construction updates, DCC Info, and more.
Hi Randy,
I'm sorry, I should've included what my deck heights are: lower staging is at 28", main deck at 42" and upper deck at 58".
With the lower staging at 28" it's giving me 14" separation to the main deck at 42", although with the framework thickness etc, actual separation is less than 14".
I could probably get away with 8" spacing or so, but the reason the grade ends up steep is because I levelled up at the left column so there's a longest possible main line run around the main level.
If I merged the main past the right column and above, it would shorten the run by more than two full train lengths, normally going above the columns.
I like the idea of extending the right side of the lower staging to a reversing loop in the peninsula as it would enable auto re-staging of trains.
The reason for two A/Ds was purely based on what I read about yards and their sizes. Generally, I belive the idea is to have 3-4 A/Ds on a larger layout, and 2-3 on a mid-size. I'll reduce the roundhouses down - just plain track for storing locos should suffice really.
When I exit the yard (on the right side) I do start climbing - right next to the lower left column, continue below the columns, and go along the right wall not entering the peninsula. That is about 32' coming in-front of the electrical cabinet.If I were to start climbing after I turn out of the yard, it would give me 43' at the same spot. That's about 4.15% and 3.1% grade respectively for 16" height.
I'm not sure how you mean to continue to climb above the yard because the upper deck is there, unless I do it on the inside perimeter of the upper deck, which is what I originally show in the plan above.
If I use up the top portion of the peninsula for upper staging, I won't have any room for potential industries that could be served in the upper level.
I can't put the upper deck at 66" because my ceiling is at ~77", leaving me no room for scenery or the valance. My spouse would also need to use a step stool to operate that high as she couldn't see the upper deck (above her eye level).
YouTube Channel
Website
Why a 10% grade? How much seperation are you putting between the lower staging and the main deck? a 10% grade tells me you are putting the lower staging more than a foot below the first level. You can reduce that a few inches, and also enter the first level down by the right column instead. Or better yet, run the climb out of staging outside the columns, and have it enter the visible part after it makes the turn to point along the right side wall. That gives at least 37' of track, leaving room after the last staging turnout before starting the vertical grade. 12" of deck seperation results in a less than 3% grade.
Now run a slight partial grade around the penninsula - the whole thing doesn;t need to be a continuous climb, just parts of it, although it could all be level for all it matters. In fact, keep it level, see why in the next paragraph. Come around to your yard. Make the roundhouse have fewer stalls andou have room for the service facilities. 3 or 4 stalls is enough to get the idea. And 1 AD track is probably enough as well.
Exit the yard and start climbing. I'm thinking also outside the pillars. Then straight up the right wall. NOT around the penninsula. That's at least 48 feet of track, at a 2.5% grade it puts you 14+" above the yard. You can keep climbing over the yard and be 17" apart by the middle of the yard, or more than 18" by the end of the yard. Now flat all the way around and make the top staging along the top side of the penninsula, with a reverse loop connection back to the main. FOr the bottom level staging, continue the right side of it under the penninsula to a reversing loop. With auto reversers that control the switch motors as well, you have continuous running. Even part of the nolix loop around the room is visible and can represent a mountainous area, and nothing says you can't run some sidings out off the grade at any given level to put a level siding even though the main is on a grade. The end result is nearly 2 full loops around the room including the penninsula, with staging under and at the top. If you put lower staging at 36" off the floor, the yard would be at about 48", and the highest part would be at about 66". Start an inch or two lower, and/or have an inch or 2 less seperation between decks, if the highest levels are too high.
Maybe I should draw out some of these ideas, see what truly fits. If we get the rain we are supposed to get I won't be able to work outside or hit the pool.
Each time I think I'm getting somewhere closer to what I'd like to build, a gotcha moment happens and I'm back to square one.
I went to work on #42 hoping to avoid a helix, and build a no-lix around the wall.
What I'm trying to accomplish is have the trains leave lower staging, go around the layout, enter the main yard, then either continue via the no-lix (around the walls) to the second level. From there again go around the upper deck and enter the yard on the upper level, then either terminate there or continue to the upper staging, somehow.
So, we leave the lower staging climbing up to the main deck. Except that we need to climb at 10%+ grade in order to merge with the deck at the lower left column. "What the !@)^%*#."
Once on the main deck, we go around the entire level, and enter the main yard. We can do whatever there. Except that there's no room for any meaningful engine facilities, of which we need both steam and diesel ones.
After we leave the yard, we head towards the upper level via a no-lix (in yellow), but we cannot start climbing up until the left column. This is because we have to end up below the upper deck benchwork just before the electrical cabinet in order to make a left turn.
We then proceed alongside the upper benchwork on the outside still climbing so we can merge somewhere right after we make the turn downwards.
On the upper deck we make a run through the entire upper level and arrive in the upper deck yard. Except that the yard is right above the main yard. Not really a good thing if we are going to have two different yardmasters rub shoulders there. Another "what the !@)^%*#" moment.
From the upper yard we are to leave on the other side and again make a run (somewhere?) around the upper level to reach the upper staging, which is at 70" or so, basically 8" below the ceiling. Yet another "what the !@)^%*#" moment.
I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about this scenario and how it could be improved (or not). I know it should be possible to do all this but I must be blind to something obvious, and I'm hoping more (experienced) eyes could point it out.
Also, I'd like to know how to deal with, imho the "unruly" no-lix, as I'm trying to avoid going all along the walls because then I have to be avoiding brackets that might hold the upper level, or need some creative upper deck framework to avoid the crosses/joists in it.
I will concurrently work on #40 layout option, putting the helix in the blob around the lower left column. I'll post more when I have it.
Thanks everyone!
Technically I guess it would be 2, but stacked one above the other so it would be just one structurally.
Another simpler option - do the nolix design, but taking an idea from the MR&T, where the second level starts, run an optional route with a steeper than normal grade as a continuous run connector - downhill only. If you've seen any of the videos showing the MR&T staging, or the full track plan from a few months ago, you can see what they did. It's seen in the latest Ask MRVP video as well. That way you can keep a simpler layout design while getting the length of run you want plus have an option for continuous run to show off the layout.
On the previous page at http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/260185.aspx?page=4#2980557 I show layout #40 with a linear elevator below the columns. I kinda liked that concept, though it would require a bit more engineering to accomplish.
Yet, the triple blob E concept wasn't really favoured by some and so I went to work on the around the wall with peninsula layout instead.
@rrinker : your idea means I would have two helices instead of one, no? Although it would be a split-level layout, there would be two large areas that are blocked off by a helix and I'm not sure that compromise is worth the precious little space I have. :)
I'm not sure why does everyone thinks that a 27/28" helix is tight, most people with small to mid-size layout spaces build a 22", 24" or 26" helix and have no problems running trains up or down.
My calculation on a 27/28" helix with 4" rise per turn has a ~2.3% grade. With drag caused by centrifugal force we do 1.1x compensation for this radius and the grade goes up to ~2.53%.
To me that sounds acceptable, as my trains will be ~9 ft long, and occupy 2/3 of a single helix turn, which is 14.6 ft.
But, I will go back and explore the #40 no-lix concept again to save the 25 sq. ft that a helix would eat up. A no-lix would also add more time to running, as trains would traverse a fair distance before they climb up to the next level.
I wouldn;t be too concerned with continuous run having the train run through each scene twice, once in each direction - that's almost a given for any sort of decent length layout unless you do a Nolix and then have a very long helix to connect the uppermost deck with the lowest one. But that ends up with as much hidden in the helix as is visible on the two decks. And real trains don't run around and around in loops always going the same way anyway (please don't post one of those exceptions where the actual prototypical track plan is a loop, I know they exist). My plan is effectively a long dogbone, first layer the helix then second layer then the other end loop. A continuous run will run in one directions through all scenes, then come back the opposite way. Nothing wrong with that at all - it's the standard "engine runs over the division, is turned and comes back" operation though in actual operation I may use the yard as a division yard to change engines from flatland types to mountain types and back.
I'm trying to picture a concept I have in my head with the helix at the penninsula root, meaning it wouldn't take up much more space than the penninsula itself would use - and 27" radius will be a bit tight, and also cause the grade to be fairly steep because regardless of the radius, you need a certain vertical clearance to clear the rolling stock and allow for some sort of subroadbed to support it all. You can cheat a little using thinner subroadbed if you add more supports, but the more supports you add, the more limited the access is in case you need to rescue derailed equipment - anyway I am picturing 4 distinct levels, but no more than 2 decks on either half of the layout. Lowest level will negotiate one half of the layout plus the penninsula, then up a short helix to level 2, which runs around the other half of the layout and back to the penninsula, then p again for level 3 stacked over level 1, and finally helix again to level 4 stacked over level 2. I know I've seen this somewhere before. It's a shorter run than a true double deck but the hidden track on each loop around the room is reduced. This would probably work as a nolix design as well because the verticla distance between 1 and 2, and 2 and 3, and 3 and 4 each do not have to be all that great, you have TWO levels to gain the vertical spacing between stacked levels. Say a 9" climb per trip around instead of the full 18" in one trip.
If you're looking for a way to aviod a large helix blob, you could try building a train elevator. Kalmbach has published several articles on building train elevators, and the 12" space outside the columns would be more than large enough. People have also used multiple-deck train elevators for staging. One I remember had 3 tracks per deck and I think 6 decks.
Small elevators can be counterbalanced and manually operated, while larger ones are often motor driven with automatic vertical alignment by counting gear teeth or chain links on the motor drive. My layout plan (if I ever manage to get the basement finished) includes a 5' 4" long manually operated train elevator.
S&S
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
If you are set on having a helix as part of your design, I would first seek advice from experienced builders how best to design that into your layout.
If you want continuous running, then the helix will need to have a double mainline for trains going up and down, unless you have a reversing loop blobs in the top and bottom decks. Of course, that would mean the trains go through a scene twice to make your long continous mainline run...which is the same problem as a double lap donut.
Also, many experienced modelers find that 27 inches is too small for a helix, and if it has a double mainline, one of those tracks will have to be about 24 inches or 30 inches. And, you'll need space for the track to cross over to the other side of the helix.
My personal opinion is that helix's are best for making a point to point layout longer, unless you have a lot of space to devote to the double mainline and to angle the approach and departure tracks.
Edit: You could probably do a nolix with a single track helix in a corner. One part of the helix would have to accommodate the mainline going around the room.
- Douglas
fender777,
Oh sorry, I thought you saw my Givens & Druthers few pages back - it would be a transition era layout thus the turntable.
I do like modern locos as well, but I do not have the space for a modern layout, or it would be a really really short run considering the length of locomotives and cars, and the needed radii to run them. Besides, the transition era has so much more variety and interesting things (to me).
And yes, I am planning to build two decks, and a helix if need be, to maximize the main line run. The problems I am facing are engineering issues related to my layout space (low ceiling, uneven floor, lack of walls to hang things onto), not really my skills.
EDIT: Actually the biggest problem is related to committment to something specific, and making priorities...but I'm getting there. :)
I agree about the lack of long-term experience, I came back to the hobby after 20 years of absence. Though I do believe I have sufficent know-how and the skill set to build (almost) anything. So my problems are not really of practical, but theoretical nature.
The idea is not to build a chainsaw layout as that's wasteful in my mind, and with so many people here having so much experience, all the mistakes and pitfalls should be easilly avoided. That's all in theory, trying to get someone's years of experience into words is not that easy. I think I need a mentor. :)
Choops,
do you mean in the most recent plan I posted above (based on #23)?
If I used that blob in the peninsula for the helix, wouldn't there be much less room left for some largish industry like a papermill or a grain elevator/silos, which could ideally fit in that blob?
TrainzLuvrUnless someone else has a better suggestion for the helix placement?
You are adding a blob for the helix. use the blob that is at the end of the peninsula. this will allow you to make the peninsula about a foot and a half longer also.
Steve
No worries there, it's taking me years to get this all down and this is far from my first layout. But I would agree that if you've NEVER built a layout before, don't try for the ultimate in the first shot. Yeah, we've all read the articles in the magazines where the owner says it is their first layout and all, but that's very much the exception, not the rule. Or you dig a little more and find the person built a bunch of layouts as a kid/teenager, then was our of the hobby for 10 years, got back in and built their 'ultimate' layout.
So it really wouldn't hurt to build a freestanding 'donut' type of layout int he middle of the space to get a handle on techniques and what sort of things you might like, what sort of equipment you want to run, and what sort of track standards that will require. Then go back to designing the full space filling one - salvage what you can - you can always salvage the expensive bits of track like turnouts. Just be prepared to pretty much chop up the rest - there's a reason a layout like this is called a 'chainsaw' layout.
An interesting line from the first post in this thread:
Posted by TrainzLuvr on Friday, December 23, 2016 9:03 AM
That's seven months ago! And it starts with a comment about how this is a continuation of another thread.
No disrespect intended, but...
The reason you can't reconcile all the choices/tradeoffs you need to make is the fact that having never done anything, you don't actually know what your preferences are. I understand that you're afraid you'll end up tearing it all down and starting over if you don't get it right up front, but you can't get it right up front because you don't have the experience to really understand what you want. Catch 22.
Get over the fear of failure and do something. Get some actual first hand experience. If it makes you feel any better, don't worry about having to start over because of a bad plan because you're going to start over anyway as you learn what it is you really like. Even if you get lucky and have the "right" plan, you'll still end up trashing the layout and starting over because of the rookie mistakes you'll make in the construction. It has happened to all of us - most of us more than once. Welcome to the hobby.
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
I'm not sure I can squeeze a double main line, and have a no-lix though. But I'd love to be able to look around the room and know where industries would be.
Is there some specific order people put them on, like larger industries further away, or just where they could fit basically?
I worked on another plan, this time based on #23 and added a 27" helix to it. I included a (more correct) yard and staging below the columns.
Everthing else like that wharf scene between the columns, the oil tanks and platform right of the columns, the grain elevator on the right wall, and structures in the aisleway below the yard are just there for me to see how big objects end up.
Looking at this layout, the space I have looks so small and when I actually go downstairs and measure that 5x5' area for the helix, I realize how big the helix would actually be (a monster).
I wish I had some extra space outside this area for the helix. But then again, I think that corner there might be the least useful for anything else, in the space I have.
Unless someone else has a better suggestion for the helix placement?
I'm really sold on the idea of trains coming from somewhere and going somewhere, as I've realized early on that I'm well past watching the trains run in circles. So, I'm trying to come up with some meaningful layout that will continue to keep the interest after it's built e.g. operations instead rail fanning.
My problem is logistics now, where should trains come from and where should they go, physically in my space that is.
I'd like a train to leave lower staging and traverse as much of a lower deck before going into the yard. And then on the upper deck, again traverse as much of it before entering staging there.
I have been trying to incorporate items I see in other layouts, but every layout is unique and it feels like I'm squeezing a square peg through a round hole. :)
You are trying to come up with a benchwork shape that will fit your space then fit a layout to it. While a valid and very common method it is not the only way.
Try looking for layouts and even prototype track arangements that have features you like.
Fit the layout(s) or portions of them into your space and see where the benchwork goes. Modify the elements and move them around to get something you like and ensure good access. This can be done on paper, but a track planning program allows easier manipulation of the elements and modifications.
I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.
I don't have a leg to stand on.
TrainzLuvr I still can't see how G shape would fit well into my space. As S&S mentioned earlier, there is a very long stretch of hidden track - we are talking about 30 feet of it. And, I've tried flipping and rotating the G around, and in every position there is the issue of the hidden track, or an access to some area, or something else that does not fit. The way I see it, G would work if *all* of the space around it was accessible with an aisle so it's a true walk around and an engineer can follow the train all the way. I think losing the train inside a hidden track is worse than waiting for it to climb the helix. At least some people make their helices open so you can see the trains go around the spiral, or put light indicators announcing each stage as it climbs/descends.
I still can't see how G shape would fit well into my space. As S&S mentioned earlier, there is a very long stretch of hidden track - we are talking about 30 feet of it.
And, I've tried flipping and rotating the G around, and in every position there is the issue of the hidden track, or an access to some area, or something else that does not fit.
The way I see it, G would work if *all* of the space around it was accessible with an aisle so it's a true walk around and an engineer can follow the train all the way.
I think losing the train inside a hidden track is worse than waiting for it to climb the helix. At least some people make their helices open so you can see the trains go around the spiral, or put light indicators announcing each stage as it climbs/descends.
As you mention, there are drawbacks with a G, but you get the longest mainline run through different scenes. It would work if you didn't care about hidden track.
Every shape has its advantages and drawbacks. Only you can determine which ones matter more than others.
A walk in plan will have tight radii on the turnback blobs, but it doesn't have a duckunder.
An around the walls shape needs a duckunder/lift out and it has probably the shortest mainline run, but the advantage is lots of space in the middle and broad curves.
Anything with a helix creates a carpentry/construction issue, and the helix itself takes up a lot of space, but people tend to fit in most everything they want.
Personally, my favorite shape for a layout is an around the walls plan without a peninsula, because a long mainline run is not that important to me and I can live with the duckunder if the layout is over 50 inches high, and I like the wide open space in the middle. And, they are generally the simplest to build. With the width of your room, I'd consider making a narrow peninsula in the center to hold a switching area, yard, or staging.
An around the walls plan can be double-lapped. The advantage is a long mainline run but the disadvantage is the train tends to go through each scene twice unless there is some creative.....and more importantly, successful...scenery design. To avoid that, it needs lots of hidden track. I don't like tricky scenery, so I would never build a double-lapped around the walls layout.
Its seeme like you have a long mainline run and a big yard as your first priorities. Priorities differ from person to person, and nobody can really gauge how much something matters to another. Only you can sort out the conflicts.
TrainzLuvrI really do not know, and have been trying to understand, the process of deciding where one locates a town or an industry on their layout. I suppose if one goes off of a prototype it makes the task somewhat easier, but still...when one looks at their layout shape, how/where do they see space for a town vs space for an industry vs scenic space?
towns and industries switching area main yards will fit best on the long straight sections on a layout. placing these things around a curve is possible but uncoupling/ coupling on curves is difficult, trackwork is more complex, and square buildings are more difficult to place.
TrainzLuvr rrinker, I wish I had your space, I would've made the basement layout ready myself without the contractors long ago. Then again, maybe there are other factors involved so I guess everyone has their own path to follow, towards a railroad. :) Doughless, when you say to settle on priorities, what do you mean exactly? I thought that a long and diverse main line, and lots of industries are synonymous. A long main line would support a few towns (compressed of course) and along the way spurs and sidings for the industries. I really do not know, and have been trying to understand, the process of deciding where one locates a town or an industry on their layout. I suppose if one goes off of a prototype it makes the task somewhat easier, but still...when one looks at their layout shape, how/where do they see space for a town vs space for an industry vs scenic space? I've seen a number of layouts in person, and many more in videos and on paper. How did their owners locate their towns and industries right where they are. Or even the track arrangements for that matter...
rrinker, I wish I had your space, I would've made the basement layout ready myself without the contractors long ago. Then again, maybe there are other factors involved so I guess everyone has their own path to follow, towards a railroad. :)
Doughless, when you say to settle on priorities, what do you mean exactly? I thought that a long and diverse main line, and lots of industries are synonymous. A long main line would support a few towns (compressed of course) and along the way spurs and sidings for the industries.
I really do not know, and have been trying to understand, the process of deciding where one locates a town or an industry on their layout. I suppose if one goes off of a prototype it makes the task somewhat easier, but still...when one looks at their layout shape, how/where do they see space for a town vs space for an industry vs scenic space?
I've seen a number of layouts in person, and many more in videos and on paper. How did their owners locate their towns and industries right where they are. Or even the track arrangements for that matter...
I was feeding off of your concern about the G shaped plan not allowing for industries or switching...since the backdrops divide the peninsula into narrow shelves, essentially.
So if you wanted plenty of space for 3 dimensional structures/industries, the G shape migh not afford you enough depth between the backdrops and the edges of the benchwork.
You could use building flats or three sided buildings shoved against the backdrop. That would provide the scenic effect and switching possibilities while still fitting into the shallow depths of each scene.
Which is probably the way I would go. If you want a long mainline run without getting into nolix's and helix's the G shape is proably the best. After 30 years in the hobby, I still wouldn't want to rely upon my carpentry skills to build a helix.
To see how to scenic the shallow scenes and build towns, you can research "shelf layouts". While technically the G shape has pensinulas and not really shelves, the shallow depth between the backdrops and the edge is similar.
For inspiration about what you can do to scenic narrow shelves, google "Tom Johnson INRAIL".
After reading your last post, and that you are considering a helix, you obviously want a lot of mainline run...with the mainline going through different scenes, not running laps around a big loop (BTW which is an effective way to build mileage between towns. A couple of towns could represent many different towns every time the train passes through each, but it does remind us of the 4x8 train set)
Then, you are concerned about not having enough space for industries and switching if the G shape is built.
My observation is: you want it all, but, frankly, you'll probably need to use the entire basement to get it. I don't think your space supports having everything. I think you're going to have to decide if you prefer the long diverse mainline or "plenty" of room for "lots" of industries. Once that is settled..going back to theme here...I think planning the space will be easier since it will eliminate some choices.
If you build a helix, that might give you enough run to provide most everything. But then that is a bit of a tight space to use a helix, so there's that issue.
Once you take some time to really settle on the priorities and what you're willing to sacrifice, I think the forum will be in a better position to offer more specific suggestions.
The G to me seems to give the most runnign room for a single deck layout - though even mine is essentially a G with an extra tail goign to the staging loops. A helix is a space eater but I can't think of any other way to handle it on my plan. And even if I didn;t have a helix there, I would need a turnback loop anyway, occupying the same space, so why not go up? In that case, a G shape works well, if the one lobe can be a helix.
On the other hand, the E shape, while having a partially unusable wall at the base of the center penninsula, well, that otherwise unusable wall could be part of the climb for the no-lix.
I had considered switching the staging to 3rd and 4th decks and putting my helix in the otherwise unusable laundry room, but then I don't knwo how to handle the other end of the layout. I want a continuus run option, and the helix as going to be in teh middle of the run - if I have staging come in from either direction at the middle of the layout ti changes the whole concept. And of course there is tht small part of me that wants to make it all single track - but my prototype was double track, even back when they laid the first rails in 1840 or so. I suppose I could split the diffeerence and make one deck double and the other deck single. Seeing as how at the base of the helix is a major yard.
ANd I've been working on this for 3 years now - so don;t get discouraged, it can be a long process to get what you want and can live with. Granted I have not been designing continuously for 3 years - I've barely looked at it in the past year and a half, just starting again now that I have contractors lined up to redo the basement and make it layout ready.
Thanks everyone for your replies...I'll take it from the top.
My current Givens and Druthers are on page 3: http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/260185.aspx?page=3#2973314
~~~
When it comes to train lengths I am not a fan of long trains. And I'd like to concept of selective compression, applied on train lengths as well.
I read somewhere that for my size of space/sq.footage/mainline length, trains should be average 12-15 cars long, and I'm kinda leaning towards the lower number, or even 10-12, plus the engine(s) and the caboose.
I'd like to follow the rule to have 2-2.5 train lengths separation between populated areas/towns, if that's possible in my space. At 11-12 cars, plus engine, plus caboose, we are looking at 8.5-9' for 50' box cars.
This is all based on Bob Sprague's Curve and Grade Calculator from https://docs.wixstatic.com/ugd/fce877_c65b63916d8f4742bebdfdcfb6ab882a.xlsx
I like the idea of staging below the columns as it doesn't take space inside the layout nor does it require a layout sub-level. Since the hallway space is open and can be accessed if/when needed, someone could potentially work the staging as a "hostler" (I believe is the term).Also, there could be upper and lower staging in the same space of 12", potentially providing 5-6 tracks, 14-15' long.
Now regarding the layout shape, what if I was to put a helix into #40 turnback at the upper-left?
It would be a pretty big waste of space (28 sq.ft) but I could put something ontop of that helix, on the upper level: turntable+roundhouses+engine facilities; some kind of a mine or a quarry; etc.
Sadly, I have to contend with a ~6'5"-6'7" ceiling height which does not leave much room for upper level scenery/structures.
I don't like duck unders (and neither does my SO - I've been explicitly told against them) so there would have to be a swing gate on #42, probably in the lower-left, on the diagonal portion. By the way, csxmad on YouTube made an awesome swing gate:
There would also be some removable section in the upper-right for the electrical panel, unless someone here has a suggestion/idea how to go around it (mine is in a closet behind a full height door). I'd love to get rid of it, but I need electricity in the house, and for the trains.
Armstrong's Hardscrabble design looks more like an E to me not G.
Why do some of you feel that the G shape is more preferable?
Byron (cuyama) suggested it:
And so did Bob Sprague (to whom I've been talking to on and off past couple of months):
The G shape just does not appear, at least to me, to offer as much room for industries, towns, etc. There are many narrow sections, all I see are scenic areas. And as S&S said, building a no-lix into it would make a lot of hidden track.
G shape? I'd say that layout is more of an E than a G. A G shape would either the top or bottom leg around towards the middle, not have an extra (though somewhat short) leg in the middle. That, my friends, is an E. With seriphs on the upper and lower leg.
carl425 When John Armstrong first used the no-lix, it was on a G shaped layout.
When John Armstrong first used the no-lix, it was on a G shaped layout.
Looks like I need to brush up on my John Armstrong plans. Do you recall the article title or what the layout was called?
EDIT: Found it. "To Hardscrabble the Hard Way" For those who looked and said TLDR, Armstrong doubles the track back through scenes and uses one peninsula as a transition between the lower and upper decks.