What is the Difference between a nolix and a helix?

[ghonz711]

I have heard a lot about nolixes in this forum and havn't really seen the point in using one to substitute for a helix, which i thought was a much more space saving idea than a nolix. What are the pros and cons to each structure?

[Anonymous]

A helix is what it is, a stacked set of loops, that almost certainly has to be hidden in a blob. A nolix is a climb from one level to another through the normal progression of the layout, around the walls, wherever, and can probably be substantially in the open, and doesn't take a blob. There really isn't a structure to a nolix, it is just another way to get to the next level.

[cuyama]

There are a few different ways to climb between levels on a layout, each with their pluses and minuses.

The helix is relatively compact in footprint, but adds a substantial grade, which is usually hidden. This long hidden run is the reason many people look for alternatives.

The around-the-room-helix allows the track to climb as it circles around the room, eventually reaching a new elevation. This takes a lot of room, in a sense, because it often wraps around the whole space, but you can see the train the whole way and it's possible to add passing sidings or towns along the way in some cases.

The term "Nolix" comes from a single witty place name in John Armstrong's design for Jim Money's Athabaska railroad. It's a track that climbs through a turnback "horseshoe" curve and back on itself to reach a higher deck. That configuration replaced a helix in an earlier version, so John named the location "Nolix". This was described in the 1998 issue of Kalmbach's Model Railroad Planning, but its origins date back at least to the '60s, since John shows it in his pioneering Track Planning for Realistic Operation. (althought the configuration carried no snappy name at that time).

The Nolix again allows more of the climb to be visible and it resembles the actual horseshoe curves real railroads often use to climb from one elevation to another ... but it does take up a bit of space and it's appearance may not be appropriate for granger or other flatlands railroads.

There are also a variety of engineering-intensive solutions which can be used to lift a train from one deck to another, including train elevators and vertical turnouts (which angle from one deck to the next and span a lesser distance than some of the other solutions).

In my humble opinion, many people create confusion by calling any method for moving trains between decks without a helix a "nolix" when "around-the-room-helix" (for example) would be more descriptive and clearer. So far as I know, John never used the term "nolix "generically to decribe a non-helix solution, ony as a place-name on one plan.

Bottom line, the traditional helix is relatively compact in footprint but adds significant grades and usually a lot of hidden running. If you are trying to duplicate a prototype that did not have a visible steep grade, a hidden helix might be a good choice. But if it's the ruling (steepest) grade ont he layotu, it can create other problems. It's also usually a little harder to build than the around-the-room-helix or climbing turnback curve.

The around-the-room-helix or climbing-through-a-horseshoe ("nolix") schemes extend the climbing track across more of the layout, but trains are more visible and these tracks can represent real portions of a railroad, with passing sidings and other layout elements that add operational interest. It's also often possible to make the grades less in these configurations.

Regards,

Byron
http://www.modelrail.us

[dinwitty]

why mountain railroading is popular because it makes everything make sense. But of course you make something of a spaghetti bowl anless you work it out, but then the hobby is for the fun of it.

I scrutinize track plans and many are designed with one operator at a track panel while the tracks are designed to turn and curve in the scene in view mostly of the operator, and may go up and down thru mountains. creating a little of a spaghetti, but whatevahs fun.

But with walkaround you travel with the train. You may have different levels of trains and going a long distance, that makes it more prototypical.
So you work out designs that get length of travel.

Thats the issue I bugger with and I've done hidden track blah blah, I prefere to keep everything as visible as possible.
So I I dont plan on a helix, I like it better when you can twist and turn it around the layout. You design it so it makes sense.
Plan I know has what I call semi-levels, the main operatring track is in front witrh switching, but higher in the rear is simply running track.
It may expand out for a scenicked switching area while the front may narrow for running distance.

I will be making shelf modulars and I will using any and every layout trick possible to make it work and be fun.

[TBat55]

I have been seriously considering a train elevator for staging like the RO-RO. My trains are all relatively short. Has anybody tried one of these? I am looking for info on alignment precision, overall reliability, and movement speed.

http://www.ro-ro.net/

[chateauricher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cuyama
The helix is relatively compact in footprint, but adds a substantial grade, which is usually hidden. This long hidden run is the reason many people look for alternatives.

To make the grade more reasonable within a helix (under 2%), one must use a large radius. This makes the helix a large chunk of real estate that is largely wasted since the area within the helix cannot be used for anything. A helix with a radius of 24" is 48" across or 4 feet. If you add an extra 3" to the 24" radius (to allow for clearance and the structure of the helix), the helix will take up almost 16 square feet . If you have a large room (basement, garage, wharehouse), then you can afford to devote such a large chunk to a helix. However, if space is limited, you'll be looking for a way to avoid having such a large unusable space.

QUOTE: The around-the-room-helix allows the track to climb as it circles around the room, eventually reaching a new elevation. This takes a lot of room, in a sense, because it often wraps around the whole space, but you can see the train the whole way and it's possible to add passing sidings or towns along the way in some cases.

In a sense, this type of "helix" (commonly known as a no-lix) allows you to put the layout in the otherwise unusable centre area of the helix. Essentially, the length and width of your layout room become the diameter of your helix. The curve radii can be more reasonable; and you can add terrain and other layout elements (as Cuyama suggests). If you do not want to see the train the entire time, then you can incorporate tunnels or use buildings or terrain to block the view so the train appears to disappear and re-appear. By being able to see the train much of the time, you can more easily react to or prevent accidents and/or derailments.

[Anonymous]

what i don't understand is with all the work that goes into a helix, why would anyone want to hide it?

[ghonz711]

WOW thanks a lot guys... My layout room is relitivly small, so a "no-lix" would not be a opption... but now all i need to do is persuade my parents (being 15) to let me have the whole room for a helix and a second level instead of the tiniest and most difficult area for a layout that (after 3 difficult years) I have finaly found a plan for. Thanks a lot once again... if anyone wants to see my current layout plan, please check out my website at http://www.freewebs.com/ghonzish/index.htm

[Anonymous]

Simple answer for me is this: A nolix is realistic. A helix is not.