Distances between levels?

[chateauricher]

GMT,

While Orsonroy makes some good points, he doesn't mention the second option for linking multiple decks -- the "no-lix".

A no-lix is very similar to a helix in its function and basic design -- going in a spiral to gain elevation. However, instead of being a relatively compact circular shape like a helix, a no-lix circles the perimeter of the room -- along the walls, if you will -- so its effective diameter would be almost the same as the width of your room. In a room the size of yours, that makes for a huge diameter which, in turn, means you can stick to a more realistic grade (2% or even 1%).

The benefits of using a no-lix are (to name a few) ...

you can see all of the track (great for removing derailments and for track maintenance;

you use less space (none is wasted like in the centre of a helix); and

simpler construction.

I am planning a 2 deck N-scale layout in a much smaller room -- roughly 6½ft x 8ft. The decks will be 15" (top to top). To connect them, I will be using a "no-lix" at 2% with 18" radius curves. It takes about 2½ turns of the room to reach the upper deck, including a long passing track about 1/3 of the way up. I'm working on figuring out how to build a swing-away section carrying 4 levels of track (both decks and the 2 turns of the no-lix).

Something for you to consider.

[orsonroy]

My layout's a three level around-the-walls design in a 12x25 area in my basement (well, the layout is really 7x25 with a 6x8 blob on one end). I eliminated the helix and had the shelves crawl up the walls in a constant grade. Seperation between levels isn't constant due to flat areas for switching areas, and runs anywhere between 4" and 16", with 10"-13" being average. Is it perfect? Nope, but it gets the job done and allows me to have a 3 scale mile long mainline in a room that would normally have barely one mile. And since the center level (the area with the most shadowboxing) is mostly flatlands running with two towns, and given the fact that most operators stare at the train, not the scenery, the relatively narrow space isn't all that noticeable.

You're in an interesting design situation: a helix is a huge space waster, and it'll kill off fully a ninth of your layout area (and I'm only talking about a 24" radius helix). But with only a 12x12 room, you'll end up with crazy steep grades just to achieve a minimum 10" deck seperation (almost 6%!). You'll have to go with a helix, or else rethink your whole layout and stick with a less ambitious single deck design.

Let me know if you'd like to see a few pics of my layout's levels, and I'll email them out to ya!

[rrinker]

Get yourself some cardboard boxes. Cut some open to have flat pieces, and use the others to stack things up. Mock up various configurations before you even attempt to actually build anything. 4" allows the equipment to pass (in HO), but there'd be no room for scenery. 12" to 16" is more like it, but climbing that far in a 12x12 room without having insane grades might be tough.

--Randy

[GMTRacing]

The view block idea with buildings (and perhaps some tunnels/hills) sounds good. Because on my limited space the helix in my first attempt came out looking like a fallen cake. A two percent incline uses 16 feet to rise 4" plus some more to level it out and switch it, plus level where it curves (longest wall is just over 12' here so it will curve,)and i can just make the two levels. I think the drop from the raised double main to the sidings/switching can be steeper, but not the yard. This might work nicely again with buildings and view blocks. The alternative was to do the same mining/logging RR as everyone else, but I really like the old passenger cars and early diesels especially as used around here. Thanks for the opinions. [^] J.R.

[dinwitty]

I am making 16 inches between levels on my shelf modulars.
I am keeping width max at 18 inches to 12 inches.
This makes 4 inches below for framework support and semi-hidden track,
its being supports solely on wall mounted adjustable shelves. It makes 12 inches height for the viewable scene. Thats pretty narrow but consider that I want the modeler to be up close to their train in action.
This allows me about 3-4 levels for operations.
But my expectation is to cram the action in.
Others may want a larger height difference.

[ndbprr]

As long as you have 4" from the top of the railhead on one level to the BOTTOM of the support for the next level you have more than enough clearance. The way I would make it is to have numerous tall scene blocks like buildings or hills where the top line could appear for awhile and look like a line that is a different route so it would cross the next lower level and return to the outside behind a view block. What ever you do don't make it look like a tiered wedding cake. Been there done that and it looks terrible after awhile.

[GMTRacing]

I know I need about 4" between levels for clearance, but I am going to have two or three levels of track in a 12x12 room and I need some opinions as to what looks good for height seperation between the levels. The uppermost level will be for a mainline with the largest radius I can manage without just making a circle to allow some passanger running. The top level will also be fairly narrow and single tracked. The second level will have more depth and detail with industries and sidings plus a yard. The main for the second level would be double tracked and modeled along the raised main of the New Haven here in Connecticut which averages 3 scale inches above grade and would most often be modelled at 4" just to keep from going crazy making underpasses, thus the three levels. Of course the lowest level or grade would have all the sidings and at grade runs to spurs and the yard.Having not done anything this complicated before, and knowing I will do it in stages, how far above the second level should I try to make the top line? I can hide the incline between levels behind an embankment between levels, but with an easy grade that limits things as well. I already have a helix for my present layout, but i would prefer to do away with it next try. So now what? thanks, J.R.