carl425 I've always liked the car ferry that you load up on one level and move to the other as a way to "connect" the otherwise unconnected levels.
I've always liked the car ferry that you load up on one level and move to the other as a way to "connect" the otherwise unconnected levels.
Might be OK on a one train a day (or session) basis, but I can assure you that running a terminal station at shoulder level with cassette arrival and departure is a royal PITA. The timetable only calls for eighteen train movements per fast-time 'day' (four real-time hours) but I seldom go beyond six - and two require me to run a four wheel rail bus that uses a cassette less than twelve inches long. It might depart trailing one car of priority freight, but always arrives alone.
I don't even want to think about trying to run 146 trains a day across a cassette gap between Tomikawa and the rest of Japan...
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with, reluctantly, cassettes)
dknelsonAnd at the risk of sounding like I've been sampling the gin a little too enthusiastically lately, why feel obligated to connect the two levels at all? You could model two different railroads, perhaps which cross or interchange with each other, or two divisions or subdivisions of the same railroad.
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.
dknelson And at the risk of sounding like I've been sampling the gin a little too enthusiastically lately, why feel obligated to connect the two levels at all? You could model two different railroads, perhaps which cross or interchange with each other, or two divisions or subdivisions of the same railroad. Dave Nelson
And at the risk of sounding like I've been sampling the gin a little too enthusiastically lately, why feel obligated to connect the two levels at all? You could model two different railroads, perhaps which cross or interchange with each other, or two divisions or subdivisions of the same railroad.
Dave Nelson
I don't drink, but I agree with this idea.
Doesn't have to be two railroads . . . could be the exact same one. Same era, same locale, same rolling stock. Twice the amount of real estate, just on two levels.
Whether a train exits a helix or emerges from (hidden) staging, it was gone for a discreet amount of time, and now it is back. Like it never left. Same illusion for multi-level layouts.
Good luck.
Robert
LINK to SNSR Blog
Don't forget John Armstrong's idea of a "vertical turnout" - a plank which when needed could be raised to meet the upper level. Actually it was more than an idea, he actually had one on his layout.
Instead of making the train do the walking, why not consider a train elevator as long as the longest hidden tangent you can arrange. If built with steel stud material the entire business would be about six inches wide. A little inventiveness could provide loop capability on both levels, the 'fixed' tracks pushed out of the way when the moving elevator arrives at that level. It could be possible to hold the elevator between levels, empty or loaded, while operations take place on both levels using the tracks top and bottom as thoroughfares.
Nicest thing about an elevator is that it doesn't require straining locomotive power to move between levels. If the motive power can move the train on level track the elevator will take care of the rest.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with a train elevator)
Since you want to run passenger trains, wide radii curves are a must. Since your space is relatively narrow, fitting a helix into the plan might be difficult. A more satisfying approach would be a "no"lix design where the layout spirals around the perimeter of the entire room. Your trains will never disappear into a helix and you'll be able to employ easier grades and possibly another level(s) for staging. The only difficulty will be designing a lift or swing gate to allow easy access to the interior of the layout room (duckunders get old quick).
Hornblower
For full-length passenger cars in HO, many experienced modelers would suggest 30" or broader radius in a multi-turn helix. With clearances and supports, that would be about 5'8" or so across and would pretty much take up one full end of your 7-foot-wide space.
Personally, I'd want to explore a multi-pass twice-around instead, like this 8'X20' HO design from my article in Model Railroad Planning 2014.
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
19 X 7 is a long narrow space. I would think that a helix in the corner would be the best. Would allow you to have 4 long straight areas to work with.
You need to start sketching and see what works best for you.
Steve
I recently moved and had to downsize from a 22'X11' room to a 19'X 7' room so I have decided to go multilevel (in HO) ... I don't think I have room for a Helix to run passenger trains on (or do I ?) to get between levels! What would be the outside measurement for such a helix? Or would it be best to run a 3 % grade for the full 19' with a single loop in the middle to reach a higher second level! At 2% grade I would only attain a 4" gap between the two levels( according to NMRA) after the 19' (228") and I would like approx. 18"!
Any suggestions?