No Good Helix is---Hummmm?

[SpaceMouse]

I've heard that the current trend is away from Helices, and that the trend if you want a second level is the NOLIX. I'm also seeing very few designs using second levels.

Can any one tell me the reason for the loss of favor of the Helix for level transition? It seems to me they are easy enough to hide.

What's wrong with multi-tier layouts. It seems a good way to maximize layout operations in a smaller spaces.

[rrinker]

I think it's dislike for all the hidden running. A 4-turn 36" radius helix is a LOT of track, with your train hidden for a LONG time. This is why I'm now working on a design that, although the staging is hidden behind the main, it will appear every now and then in the scene so during those continuous run times, I won't have trains going the length of my basement completely hidden. One of those spots will likely represent a branch junction - so for operating I can actually have a train come from the hidden part and appear on that trackage for an actual purpose. I think I finally hit on an idea that will get everyone what they want in this layout.
As for multi-deck - remember I was going to do that. I started thinking though, and every multi-deck design is a compromise in good viewing height. I was going to go with deck heighs of about 36" and 54", giving me 18" clearance. While 54" is great for me, 36" means running from a chair and/or a lot of back pain while building it. And I couldn't really raise the 54" level any more, that's already pushing it for my father-in-law who is quite a bit shorter than I am. That's when I decided to simplify and go wth a single-deck layout.

--Randy

[Pruitt]

I've got a four-track, four-turn helix with the inside helix at 36 inch radius. Trains going around the entire mainline will travel the helix twice. One track is the connection between the interchange and staging yards, and the fourth track is part of a long branchline.

The rather substantial amount of time the trains will be hidden is a concern, but I'm going to place a cheap camera or two inside the helix so that operators can see their trains on a television, and I'm thinking of putting a window in the side of the fascia that will cover the helix.

Time will tell if this is all a mistake or not....

[jrbernier]

A Helix needs to be a very large radius for clearance/grade reasons. They take up a lot of space and several boxes of track. The big problem is going down the helix! Careful engine control many times is needed so that the train does not get dumped in the center of the helix.
That said, it still is the space 'saving-est' way to climb to a second level. One of the problems with many multi-level layouts is that it is hard to get both levels at 'optimum' height for viewing/operation. My club has 'staging' at a 24" level, and a 5 turn helix up to the 'on stage' level which will be at a base benchwork level of 48". Some folks at the club want another 3rd level, but that would be so high, it would be impossible to really see what you are doing.
The 24" high staging is just about complete, and the helix is about 2 turns up right now(5 turns total need to be built). As soon as all the DCC 'power districts' are wired, we plan to just let the folks 'run' on the lower staging track level for the rest of the summer. The 'fun' starts this fall when folks start using the helix and have to learn to control their trains on the decent.....

Jim Bernier

[orsonroy]

A helix is generally considered to be a badly-accessed space eater. For optimal performance in an operations-based layout, 30"-36" radius curves are about the minimum you want to design for, meaning that a helix will eat up a rough square area between 5.3'-6.3'. That's a lot of real estate, especially in a medium-sized layout (12x25, like mine). Many op-based layouts with helixes have as much track laid in their helixes as are on the sceniced parts of the mainline!

As for multilevel layouts, they've only really ever been popular with op-based modelers, and even then many don't like them. I think it's mostly because most modelers are weirded out by the "shadowbox" effect that multilevels create, thinking that the space above the tracks should be reserved for open sky. Many modelers also complain about the most typical feature of multilevels: the lower level is too low, the upper level is too high.

Personally, I love multilevels, even badly designed ones. The space above the tracks is almost always just wasted space, and one of the primary goals of my layout-building efforts is always trying to figure out how to get a really long mainline. Of course, I dislike helixes because they east up floorspace, and because I want to see my trains run through the countryside. That's why I designed my layout to be a corkscrew (what others call Nolix). Three laps around the walls of my 12x25 layout room gives me just over 3 scale miles of mainline.

Is my layout perfect? Nope, not by a long shot. The lower level starts at 36" and the upper ends at 58", meaning that only the middle level is anywhere near optimal height, and that's the level with the least activity on it. My decks are CLOSE together, ranging between 8" to 15", with 10" being average. My grades are pretty steep to, ranging between 1% and 3%, which limits my maximum uphill train length to about 15 cars. But the layout gives me what I was designing for: two endpoints, several towns at least 1/2 scale mile apart, a long mainline, and a sense that my trains "go someplace".

Will I ever build another multilevel? You bet! Unless I'm stuck with an 9x11 spare bedroom, I'll always build multilevels, simply because I like watching trains roll a LONG way. I might only build two level layouts given enough room, but I'll always like long shelf layouts.

[tstage]

Chip,

It seems that folks are designing more and more layouts that are around the room - and use grades to get up and down to different levels. Unless you have a large basement with adequate space (strike 2 on both counts for me), a small helix is still going to take up an awful lotta precious space - of which I don't even have the adequacy to give up. Even an 18" radius (36" diameter) helix is going to need at least a minimum of 42" to hide it sufficiently. Small basements sure make it a challange.

Tom

[SpaceMouse]

So what I'm reading is that a helix may or may not be the lesser of two evils. By that I mean if you want a long man/increased operations, you need to go two levels. If you go two levels, you either

a) pass a train through the same scene more than once.
b) use a helix
c) Have a lot of hidden track
d) a combination of the above.

[cuyama]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SpaceMouse

I've heard that the current trend is away from Helices, and that the trend if you want a second level is the NOLIX. I'm also seeing very few designs using second levels.

In my experience of designing layouts for others, I would say that neither of those statements is true -- at least not for the people with whom I am working.

It certainly is true that people are looking at alternatives to the traditional helix and that multi-deck is not considered the "standard". But I am not sure that was ever true.

When it comes to multi-decks, there are a number of different options that avoid a long hidden helix between decks. Some people want to avoid the hidden helix to eliminate the long hidden run, others because they don't want the concomitant grade. But many of my clients are still asking for and building designs with hidden helices.

Popular alternatives to the hidden helix include:
- "herniating" one or more loops of the helix so the train can be seen mid-route
- the "nolix": a long visible out and back climbing through a turnback curve to gain enough elevation so that a separate deck may begin.
- the around-the-room-helix wherein the track wraps all the way around the space, climbing as it goes.
- separate decks that are linked by operations and staging, but have no physical connection
- mechanical or manual train elevators to move trains between decks
- manual movement of cars with simulated car floats/ferries or staging cassettes

The term "Nolix" is often mis-used (IMHO) to represent any alternative to the hidden helix. In fact, this term comes from a tongue-in-cheek place-name John Armstrong used on one layout where the long turnback peninsula scheme was used instead of a hidden helix. Although this was part of the Athabaska layout described in the 1998 issue of Model Railroad Planning (Kalmbach), this was actually a very old idea for John (1963 or earlier). It also appears (unnamed) in Track Planning for Realistic Operation (Kalmbach) as Figure 6-9 in the first and second editions. (It's probably in the third edition as well, but I think there is an extra chapter in there somewhere).

The ops-and-staging linked decks are another idea that allows complete freedom of deck heights. One example might be using it for a branch line. The branch track diverges on the main deck, running into staging. Thus, the staging track represents the branch on this deck. On the separate branch deck, staging represents the main line. Similar-looking trains emerge from this staging and do their work on the modeled branch.

Although engines and cars don't actually move from deck to deck, their travels are represented by staging and the ops scheme. I described my plans for such a branch track in the Layout Design Journal (LDJ #28, Spring 2003) published by the Layout Design SIG. This same idea could be used for two sections of a main line as well, as I described in the article.

Bottom line, hidden helices are still being used. There may be a little less of a tendency lately for people to apply them to every layout, which is doubtless a good trend. And the emergence of thoughtful alternatives offers helpful options to those who want more railroad than their space will allow in a single deck.

Regards,

Byron
http://www.modelrail.us

[pcarrell]

I too am in the process of a multi-decked layout that uses a helix to get around. The helix will be built into a corner and it will be a 15 inch radius turn (N scale with very thin roadbed) which is tight, I know. I run trains that are from the teen's mostly and only short ones at that so I don't think this will be too much of an issue for me. I can see how if you were modeling the forties with articulated steam and long passenger cars that this would really be an isuue of contention. Because of this I think that the deciding factors are not only how much space, but what do you want it to do? For the giant articulated to get through the helix it will indeed be out of site for a long time and the helix will have to eat up a huge amount of real estate. I'm just guessing here but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say that probably most of the people out there that are running huge steam and long passenger cars aren't quite so limited by space. I don't know, I could be wrong.

I needed a different solution as I have the aformentioned 9x11 (OK, actually it's 9x9) spare bedroom. If I built a singe decked layout it would look more like a train chasing it's caboose kind of deal. By going with the helix I can have two end points and even though the helix eats up some of my real estate I still end up with 50 or 60% more because of the second deck.

These are the things that I had to wrestle with when I was designing my "empire".

[Anonymous]

Chip,

The debate rages!!! The problem is the if you want to keep the grade at a reasonable percentage saay 2%, it takes many horizontal feet of run to climb enough distance to get decent deck separation (say, 18"). For example, to climb one foot at 2% will take fifty feet of run. Most of us don't have rooms that are that big. So you can stuff the climb into a helix in the corner or you can use a continous grade around the room (nolix). The disadvantages of the helix are: long run time that is hidden and big amount of space eaten up running between levels (5.5' square for 30" radius). The nolix has a couple of drawbacks as well. One is that unlesss the room is large, every scene will have track running through it at a grade and most rooms will require a double back throught the scene because once around will not have enough run to climb high enough.

There are lots of ways to soften the effects of each of these compomises.

Helix: One is to use a single or maybe double turn helix in combination with a grade. Another is to pop a track out of the helix so that it is visible for a second to the operator. A step can be put next to the helix and a scene can be put on top.

Nolix: The nolix can be helped by hiding some of the track in tunnels (that are accessible) and by having less separation between decks, thus making the need for steep grades and multiple passes through a scene less urgent.

In either case, the larger the room , the less pronounced the drawbacks to each option will be. The helix will take up less of hte total space and the nolix will be gentler.

Another solution is the mushroom design. See Joe Fugates web site for a description of that option.

While double deck layouts can be a compromise scenically, they offer much longer runs in the same space. If you like to get the feeling that your train has been somewhere, double deck is the way to go.

My new layout is double deck with a lower straging area so it is actually triple decked.!!!

[johncolley]

Orsonroy, IMHO it would seem to me that in planning the next one it would be prudent to put most of the activity on the best viewing level and use the top and bottom levels for staging. Also generally speaking, what's wrong with following prototype practice and doing a one turn helix (they call them loops as at Williams or Tehachapi) to gain more height on a rather continuous grade around the room and peninsula, with greater or lesser slope up to the ruling grade. One really only needs to level off where multiple turnouts are located.

[selector]

I'll make by lack of experience clear by wondering, in your eyeshot, why a helix of length X and a height-to-deck disparity of Y" can't be engineered to suit anyone's tastes or space limitations. I don't have two decks, but I do have a semi-helical graded spiral that lies inside my rather large mountain. This helix, or spiral, affords my little 0-6-0 access to a coal mine perched about 8" off the main deck, on the side of the mountain.

Clearly to me, if a person limits themselves to two decks that are, say, a foot or more disparate, getting trains up and down from those decks is going to be a substantial construction project and a major eater of $, track, and space, not to mention humming-along trains that you never see....and hope are moving, not just humming.

I would immediatley decide, were I to be forced into such a 'corner', to have the helix meander enough to place the trains in view for some of the trip by having them enter and emerge from a series of tunnels.

Chip, could you live with a deck that was only a few inches higher than the lower, and use a well-placed spiral inside a hill?

[orsonroy]

QUOTE: Originally posted by johncolley

Orsonroy, IMHO it would seem to me that in planning the next one it would be prudent to put most of the activity on the best viewing level and use the top and bottom levels for staging.

That works fine for a freelanced layout, but not for a proto-based layout like what I prefer. And long runs usually dictate that a yard (a run interrupter) be situated on the ends of a layout, making them either too high or too low.
But my current layout has the lower level mega-yard at 36", which is fine for operators in chairs with rollers. The upper level, at 58", is mostly a train register station for all through trains, with the local switch engines crewed by people with easy access to stepstools. It doesn't hurt that all the upper level switches are within 8" of the layout edge for easy access.

QUOTE:
Also generally speaking, what's wrong with following prototype practice and doing a one turn helix (they call them loops as at Williams or Tehachapi) to gain more height on a rather continuous grade around the room and peninsula, with greater or lesser slope up to the ruling grade.

Again, it's all based on the prototype. I'm modelling central Illinois, which is notorious for it's flatness (it isn't really, which I'll get to in a minute). Midwestern railroading is personified by one characteristic: long, straight, relatively flat, single track mainlines, intersected at grade. Yes, there are exceptions, but for every exception I can show you 30 that match my description.
And a turnback loop takes up as much space as a helix, something I patently wanted to avoid.

QUOTE:
One really only needs to level off where multiple turnouts are located.

Not true at all. Even with VERY free rolling cars (which I have) you only need to keep the grade under .5% in towns. The rest of the mainline (where no cars are parked) can be pure grade. And if a car does tend to roll along the gentle town grades, I keep a handy stock of blue-headed quilting pins handy to act as wheel chocks.
And in a strange twist of geology, my prototype mainline runs through two river valleys. On the NKP, the Peoria line had the second steepest grades for the entire railroad, after the Wheeling Division in West Virginia! Ruling grade for the line was 1.28% and the NKP ran single engines lugging 68 car freights. My ruling grade is 2.5%, with single engines pulling 20 cars. It's a decent tradeoff, especially considering longer trains dwarg the mainline (a 68-car freight pulled by three Geeps takes up half a deck!)

[SpaceMouse]

Just to clarify some points and be more specific about my space, etc.

I am running 1890's steam and my largest rolling stock will be a 50' Overland Passenger car. So I could do with a 26" radius at 2% grade 3" clearance helix. Depending how I set it up, I could possibly put this under a stairwell.

Utilizing all of my layout space, I can climb 16" using a 2% grade, but that means that all of the lower level sections will have both a operational area and a portion of the climb to the second level--the train passes twice through the area on the grade, both up and down. Much of this can be disguised, but in some places like the big yard, there will be an elevated section in the back, that will look out of place.

[howmus]

Interesting topic! I have been considering a multi-tiered addition to my layout (moving out into a new room yet to be built in the basement). I can see some pros and cons to it and I am not sure I want to give up space to a Helix. I am now thinking that instead of having two seperate tiers, I will do what I have been doing and just double back and have some switching industries in the back elevated from the mains and yard in the front of the layout. ??????? Who knows!

[exPalaceDog]

1) It would appear to the Old Dog that use of a helix almost forces one into a island design. One probably would need EASY access to at least two opposite sides. Access by sliding on the floor to the bottom of the helix then trying to stand up in side it is for people who are a good deal younger then the Old Dog. Burying a helix in a back corner of a layout is asking for disaster. It needs to be where you access it by simply removing a panel (mounted on two nails at the top) or moving a curtain.

2) To the Old Dog, the helix is not only usefull for allowing multiple levels, it is useful to provide addition track between stations. It is nice if the cabin for a train leaves station A before the engine reaches station B, the next station. The holding the train for the appropriate period, any distance between stations can be slimulated.

Hvae fun

[pcarrell]

Trainnut1250,

I'm doing much the same thing. My layout that is currently under construction is three levels, but the bottom two share the same benchwork. It is in N scale and so since the bottom level is basically a hidden staging yard and reverse loop all in one it is at ground zero and the deck above it is at 3 inches and the way its laid out I can get to anywhere on the very bottom deck from under the layout (I'm only 39 and in good shape). The helix is unfortunately tucked in the back corner but I can get in there pretty good too.

How's your's setup as I'd like to learn how others have handled similar problems. [8D]

[Anonymous]

PCarrell,

The design is a bit hard to explain, but here goes. My room is 12' x22' and I'm in HO. The basic design is around the room with a center pennisula, duck under at the door. Minimum radius is 30". Max grade is 2%.

Staging occurs in several places on the layout. There are three decks total. One is 7" below the penninsula (bottom deck) and is used for staging. There is a stub end staging yard and a couple of passing tracks on the deck. One end of the passing tracks run around the helix in the corner (withoout entering it) and climb a wall around the room, eventually appearing on the bottom deck. The other end of the passing tracks end up as a single track climbing the helix and arriving on the bottom deck from the opposite direction as the tracks climbing the wall. This makes it possible to enter staging from either direction.

The second part of the helix leaves the bottom deck as a double track and climbs to the top deck. The second track in the helix is used for staging. There is one long hidden siding on the bottom deck that is also used for staging. There is a reversing loop on the lower level as well that makes it posible to turn trains. I have finished basic track work in the staging deck, the lower deck mainline and yard and the helix . Am hoping to have upper deck operational by the end of the year.

I hope that this is't too confusing. I could post a photo or two if you are interested.