Hi,
I have space for a small L-shaped shelf layout; one leg will be about 8.5 feet long and the other will be about 10.5 feet long. The short leg can be no wider than 2 feet except in the corner of the leg (where it can be wider, perhaps curving the corner) and the long leg can be no wider than about 4 feet - but I don't want to make it so deep that I can't reach to the back relatively easily.
I was thinking of making this layout a double deck. (Bonus: I have small kids, so I can put the less detailed -- breakable -- stuff on the bottom deck for them to "learn" on.)
What I would like to do - and this may be a case of wishful thinking - is to somehow link the two decks so that they can act, in effect, as one layout twice as long as the linear space I have.
I've considered:
Of course, a helix appeals to me the most because the train can continue without any manual intervention and the time in the helix can actually simulate the point A to point B feeling somewhat.
The elevator isn't quite as appealing because the train will end up facing "backwards" once it makes it to the other deck.
Manual linkage also isn't quite as appealing because of the danger I'll drop a train, loco or car on the floor, and staging take away from the operation somewhat.
I have already decided to limit myself to four-axle (diesel) locomotives and shorter rolling stock. (I'm modeling the early 80's.) And trains won't be longer than 4-6 cars (plus the loco and caboose), so they shouldn't be heavy.
Here's my specific question: Is a helix practical? How tight of a curve can I use with this size locos/cars and some sort of reasonable deck spacing?
But more generally, any advice is welcome...
Thanks in advance!Peter
Peter A. Kazmir - Leander, TexasMopac isn't just a freeway in Austin!
It would be helpful to know what scale you're working with. Assuming you're in HO scale, the four-foot-wide section is suitable for a helix. You can fit a 22" radius or slightly less helix there. This will require about a 3 percent grade (one inch rise for every 33 inches), a relatively steep but practical grade.
Mark
What about a nolix along the back wall that could connect the two decks? Put some buildings in front of it to hide it if you choose.
"What about a nolix along the back wall that could connect the two decks? Put some buildings in front of it to hide it if you choose."
Mike (MPRR), wouldn't a nolix (no helix) result in a rather long run (based on Mark's quick calculation) of about 36 feet for a tight 12" rail to rail height? I don't think Peter has the run space for that.
(I've thought about a nolix to get track from a main level to hidden staging/return loop and find that it involves grades with curves to get just 4 inches in a 15ft wide space.)
Alan
PS Older discussion of N-trak helix on Atlas Forum
Co-owner of the proposed CT River Valley RR (HO scale) http://home.comcast.net/~docinct/CTRiverValleyRR/
The choice of N Scale or HO Scale will have a much greater impact on helix construction than one would think at first glance. However, regardless of scale, a grade is a grade is a grade is a grade.
Under N Scale, due to "half-height" rolling stock, the grade can be slightly reduced, meaning more spirals in the same vertical space, and; HO Scale also reduces "by half" the ease of + the amount of overhang on curves from longer cars. HO Scale will demand much tighter helix planning than N Scale.
There is also that track-on-center space between two or more helix tracks if you are using more than one track in your spiral climb. For example, the inner track on a 2-track mainline helix is more important to plan for just because it is a tighter fit for engines and rolling stock.
Conemaugh Road & Traction circa 1956
markpierce Assuming you're in HO scale, the four-foot-wide section is suitable for a helix. You can fit a 22" radius or slightly less helix there.
Assuming you're in HO scale, the four-foot-wide section is suitable for a helix. You can fit a 22" radius or slightly less helix there.
A couple of accomplished modelers have found that helixes below 26" R did not work in HO and tore them out to rebuild them larger. You might be the one who can make it work reliably, but the odds are against you. If it's N scale, of course, it's more do-able, but you'll need to figure out how you get derailed cars out of the tighter layer-to-layer spacing.
Helixes don't suspend the laws of physics. Tight curves add substantially to the effective grade and create a danger of stringlining (derailing by pulling straight across the curve).
ByronModel RR Blog Layout Design Gallery
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
cuyama A couple of accomplished modelers have found that helixes below 26" R did not work in HO and tore them out to rebuild them larger. You might be the one who can make it work reliably, but the odds are against you. If it's N scale, of course, it's more do-able, but you'll need to figure out how you get derailed cars out of the tighter layer-to-layer spacing. Helixes don't suspend the laws of physics. Tight curves add substantially to the effective grade and create a danger of stringlining (derailing by pulling straight across the curve). Byron
Byron
Byron, the inquirer was planning on operating short trains with a maximum length of 7 cars. I'd think that would work OK with the 22-inch curves.
Speaking of stringlining, don't superelevate the outside rail on curves on a helix or other long-arc curves on steep grades.
markpierce Byron, the inquirer was planning on operating short trains with a maximum length of 7 cars. I'd think that would work OK with the 22-inch curves.
I guess there's a chance it could work in HO -- and a good chance it won't. Especially if this is the first large layout project for the builder, which we don't know. Or even the scale, at that.
There are so many better choices, from moveable cassettes to leaving the decks physically unconnected but linked via operations and staging. I don't see that the benefit of the helix is necessarily worth using up a big chunk of the layout footprint. But people are enamored with using a helix.
John Armstrong made some layout plans with sharp-curved helixes, but I suppose there hadn't been a lot of experience with helixes back then. Armstrong had a habit of planning too-narrow aisles also.
markpierce John Armstrong made some layout plans with sharp-curved helixes, but I suppose there hadn't been a lot of experience with helixes back then. Armstrong had a habit of planning too-narrow aisles also.
Surprisingly few of Armstrong's plans have been built as drawn, so it's unknown how some of those more demanding features would have worked in real life. For example, Armstrong's otherwise interesting "Atlantic and White Mountains RR" HO track plan (Model Railroader, May 1991; also in 20 Custom Designed Track Plans; Kalmbach; 1994) is made impractical, IMHO, by a 20" R 3-turn helix. I just don't think the typical modeler would make this work reliably. I'm sure it's possible, I just don't believe it's likely.
When a builder as experienced as Joe Fugate discovers that a 24" radius helix doesn't work for him in HO scale (Layout Design Journal #14, Spring, 1996), I pay attention.
Since I'm building a layout that has both helices and an elevator, I question why the OP dismissed the elevator rather abruptly. The one featured in MR (curved, powered by a garage door opener) allowed forward-on/forward off operation. There's no reason why a straight elevator can't do the same.
My objection to the usual multi-turn helix is the big bite its footprint takes out of the lower level's useful area. The upper level isn't hit as hard - you can build roadbed over the top of a helix, but that could cause a problem with access unless the hatch is readily removeable. (My two helices are single-turn affairs, approached by trackwork on steep grades, and allow plenty of clearance below for other tracks. The only thing between the helix and the ceiling will be scenery.)
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with 2 helices and an elevator)
Wow, I'm (happily) overwhelmed by all of the responses! Thanks so far!\
First, a couple pieces of information I left out (sorry!):- It's HO- This isn't my first layout, but certainly my first in a while, and it would be my first double-deck layout. I would say I'm not an expert but I'm not a beginner, either
Sounds like a tight radius helix - even with the shorter trains - might or might not be reliable. I certainly don't want to spend hours tweaking it, and I haven't built one before.
I forgot about the curved elevator, I vaguely remember reading about it. Was it a half-circle (i.e. I'd still need 3-4' on one end to get 18-24" radius around it)? If I can get that to work, it might be a way to go...
-Peter
Peter,
just let me add my worth to the issue.
Both, a helix or a train elevator, are very ambitious projects that require a high degree of craftsmanship and are potential sources for a lot of headache, if not executed properly. A friend of mine had been building his layout for 7 years only to find out that the helix he built did not work reliable enough. After trying to fix it for some time, he finally tore down the entire layout to start a new one without the helix! The helix had a radius of 20" - to small for long passenger cars - they all de-railed somewhere in the middle of the helix.
There is a company in Germany that offers ready-made helices, maybe that is an idea.
The elevator is a good thing - if you don´t see it.
Personally, I would not dare to attempt to build either one, although I have build 7 layouts so far.
What about a hybrid of the "nolix" and the elevator?
You could have a 180 degree turn at one end of the layout to get the train to the back wall like you would with a nolix, but instead of a long grade along the wall, build the elevator against the wall. The train then would rise to the upper level, pull off the elevator in the forward direction.
Anyone who thinks that a train elevator would be a challenge should spend some time working on landing gear retraction mechanisms. To this ex-aircraft maintenance type, a simple, 'Lift it straight up,' device is nirvana compared to the multiplicity of cams, levers and arms used to get wheels under a Twin Cessna.
The simplest curved elevator, 22 inch radius, 1/2 circle, would have just about 69 inches of track and could safely handle a train five feet long. It would eat up a space the full width of your 4 foot wide layout and two feet long. By putting two tunnel portals on each level, you could use the track on the elevator as part of a reverse loop on whichever level it happens to be at. OTOH, to prevent running a train onto an elevator that isn't there, some dependable train-stop circuitry would definitely be in order.
In my experience, the radius of a helix becomes more critical as trains grow longer. My two have 350mm radii - a touch less than 14 inches - and uncompensated 4% grades. The trains are only a few cars long, and the cars are about the size of ore jimmies. Motive power ranges from 0-6-0T (two or three on a single train) to 2-6-6-2T (cosmetically modified Mantua, capable of handling a 300mm curve.) I wouldn't dare try to take a 35 car train of 50-60 foot cars up (or down) either of them!
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - in 1:80 scale, aka HOj)
Sir Madog Both, a helix or a train elevator, are very ambitious projects that require a high degree of craftsmanship and are potential sources for a lot of headache, if not executed properly. A friend of mine had been building his layout for 7 years only to find out that the helix he built did not work reliable enough. After trying to fix it for some time, he finally tore down the entire layout to start a new one without the helix! The helix had a radius of 20" - to small for long passenger cars - they all de-railed somewhere in the middle of the helix.
Well, like I said, since this would be a small shelf layout, I'm not going to be able to run trains longer than 6 or 7 cars, and they'll be 50 (scale) feet or shorter, including only 4-axle locomotives, so I *was* thinking that I'd have less problems with a helix than I would on my "dream" layout.
I have to admit, the continuous rail (as composed to gaps that have to be sync'd up for the elevator) is appealing, and it sounds like it will take just about the same amount of space either way...
Well...wow...I'm still undecided what to do!
I think I've boiled down to one of three options:
1. Helix (still). 2. Curved elevator.3. Straight elevator against the back of one "leg" of the layout.
I have to say, I'm leaning towards the helix after hearing what tomikawaTT just said. I won't have trains longer than 4 or 5 feet long, with short cars. If he can do that with a *14"* helix (standard gauge HO???) then I'm thinking an 18" or 21" helix would work just fine, no? (And that is an interesting point about the pre-fab helixes). The big thing for me with the helix is continuous running.
If I were to take the helix aside, what are your thoughts on the curved elevator vs. straight elevator? Seems like the curved would be (slightly) more complex.
MPRR What about a nolix along the back wall that could connect the two decks? Put some buildings in front of it to hide it if you choose.
Given the approximate dimensions of the layout (8.5ft x 10.5ft, 2ft deep), the maximum run along the backdrop (wall) would be about 19ft (a curve at each end would provide access to the no-lix).
With a "run" of 19ft (228"), you can achieve a "rise" of 4.56" (at 2% grade); or 6.84" (at 3% grade). That is not nearly enough, so you would have to loop back; however, that is not possible with an L-shaped layout.
By definition, a no-lix is an around-the-walls construction, meaning that the operators stand in the centre of the "doughnut" as the trains go around them. Therefore, a no-lix really is only feasible for a walk-in/around-the-walls type of layout. With an L-shaped layout (as Peter (Pkazmir), the OP, plans to build), there is no way to have a no-lix without the no-lix creating a physical barrier to the layout itself -- it would be like looking through bars spaced ≈4.5" apart (he'd have to go around at least twice to get enough height).
The other options: helix or elevator...
I don't envy Peter his decision. But if I were in his shoes, I would either forget a second level, or try to find a way to add some more usable real estate to the ≈34sq.ft he has now.
In building an L-shaped layout, I wouldn't get too wide. You could have a "blob" at one end of 4' so that trains could turn around on a 22" radius curve (or do a helix) but I would keep the rest of the benchwork to 2'...assuming the layout is up against a wall/backdrop on both legs of the L. I currently have an L-shaped layout about the size you describe, only the benchwork is all 16" wide shelving.
Eventually this will be the first part of a larger layout. I'm also doing it as a two-deck layout, but I decided the space / time / expense of trying to connect the two didn't justify connecting them - plus it actually worked out better, I'm modelling in effect two different divisions of the same railroad, one in summer and one in winter. You could even model two different railroads, different states, even two different countries if you felt like it.
chateauricher By definition, a no-lix is an around-the-walls construction, meaning that the operators stand in the centre of the "doughnut" as the trains go around them.
By definition, a no-lix is an around-the-walls construction, meaning that the operators stand in the centre of the "doughnut" as the trains go around them.
Not stricly correct, although the term is often used that way. John Armstrong actually coined the term, but it was only a place-name in a plan called the Athabaska (see "Working with John Armstrong", Model Railroad Planning 1998). John used the name to identify a place where he had used a long climbing peninsula with turnback curve to replace a helx -- thus, "Nolix". The term was not used for an around-the-room helix.
Since Armstrong coined the term, people have appropriated it for the around-the-room helix. That's the way meanings of words shift, but certainly the original use did not require around-the-room construction. And so a long climbing peninsula could still be a "Nolix", in my view (in fact, that's the most apt use of the term).
cuyama Not stricly correct, although the term is often used that way. John Armstrong actually coined the term, but it was only a place-name in a plan called the Athabaska (see "Working with John Armstrong", Model Railroad Planning 1998). John used the name to identify a place where he had used a long climbing peninsula with turnback curve to replace a helx -- thus, "Nolix". The term was not used for an around-the-room helix. Since Armstrong coined the term, people have appropriated it for the around-the-room helix. That's the way meanings of words shift, but certainly the original use did not require around-the-room construction. And so a long climbing peninsula could still be a "Nolix", in my view (in fact, that's the most apt use of the term).
John Armstrong's 1960s article of a double-deck HO/HOn3 layout using a long peninsula to gain altitude for the second deck inspired me in 1967 to double-deck my 5by10 free-standing, donut-shaped layout. The track circled 1.5 times around the donut to gain necessary altitude. This was before the model railroad terms "nolix" and "helix" were created.