Thanks Dave I don't have a helix to test on, but I suspect you are right. I have Atlas Trainmasters that might have sufficient pulling power, but was thinking consisting. Would be an interesting, and delaying operation, to add a helper for the upgrade if needs be. I see the siding constraint constraint is at Stirling, I could get more length elsewhere. What do you think of a standard delay in the helix? I presume would be easy to program for the computer run. What do you think of the inside out helix idea?
I am NOT a fan of the inside-out (wedding cake) helix. As the loops get closer to the underside of the upper level, you will have less and less space to access the track from above. And even if you place the helix at the end of a peninsula instead of in an alcove, corner, or along a wall, there will still be about a quarter of the second highest loop that has only 2 inches clearance, 4.5 inches clearance on the third loop,etc, which makes all track cleaning into a body-contorting, knuckle-bruising experience, and any future helix repairs impossible without removing the entire upper deck around the top of the helix for at least the outside radius of the largest helix loop. The bowl shaped helix allows full access to all track except where the track passes into the helix at the bottom of the bowl...just like passing under any bridge on the layout, except you have to be on the inside or outside of the helix to work on opposite ends of track under the second lowest loop. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Great, good to know. I'm working on the last version with only 2 - 2.5 loops. Another problem with the inside out helix is if there's upper level staging on the outside it blocks access to the bottom level, outside track, of the helix. With fewer loops I can widen the helix and create more access space, in spite of the two posts. Thanks.
Not sure I understand your plan... With 2.5 loops you only have about 6 or 7 inches separation between decks. How will you solder wires on the lower deck or attempt any repairs or revisions on the lower deck without removing the entire upper deck in that area? And if you plan to have the lower tracks located to the front of the shelf and upper tracks to the back (so no upper deck overlap), then why have two decks...your mainline may be longer but you still only have the square footage of a single deck (minus the 6 to 8 inches wasted transitioning from low front level scenery to high back level scenery. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I was thinking 11" didn't give enough separation between decks, and (using decks as to mean two separate levels of scenery, levels meaning track at two different levels within the same scene) - pipe on the left constrains any decks below 45" - there's enough width at Stirling and Seaforth for 28" on each side, without two decks. - so the only advantage with two decks is along the north wall. Given you suggested it, you don't see any problem with 11" between shelves? Even with just homasote and LED strip lighting, still leaves only about 10", and what about switch machines and anything else below the upper deck? I can definitely see the advantages of two decks so interested in your thoughts. One thing I didn't understand, if I was reading your descriptions right, was having Seaforth lead off the helix to come off the right, i.e. Stirling side, and vice versa for Stirling lead, necessitating they cross over each other. I guess if you're thinking the two decks would overlap some, that would work. How much would you have them overlap, and how wide would they both be? Cheers from BC, on this sunny morning.
I took a closer look at the pipe in the left corner and if I built up from there I could probably get the helix to start at 45" or maybe a bit less. So the lower deck could be at 45" and the upper then would be 56". Seems feasible, esp. if I use manual switching, i.e. no switch motors hanging underneath.
DD99 wrote: "....using decks as to mean two separate levels of scenery, levels meaning track at two different levels within the same scene." Oops, Sorry. Thanks for clarifying that for me. Eleven or 12 inches is about the minimum separation between decks that is workable, and only when a thin upper deck is used (meaning 11 or 12 inches from lower level railheads to the underside of the 2" thick upper deck, or 13 to 14 inches from lower level railheads to the upper level railheads. By setting your deck levels carefully (positioning for optimum viewing for someone who is exactly your height), it is possible to see scenery and trackwork even when deck separation is down to only 8 or 9 inches, but the problem with this amount of separation is that it is VERY inconvenient to make any lower level repairs or (Gasp!) changes, because soldering guns and wands can't be angled correctly without constantly bumping the underside of the upper deck, it is not possible to see nail holes in track ties unless the track is very close to the front of the lower deck, and because it is impossible to get your head between decks to properly align tracks by sighting down a track.
Thanks Dave. Given your points and not being sure about being able to finish that much more scenery, I'm leaning to the "same level" solution. It wouldn't be a totally irrevocable decision. If I get everything built and finished and then decide I want more to do, I could revise the helices and add the second shelf then.
Been out of commission for a couple of weeks with a nasty cold, did get a bit of planning time... Here's the latest. I"m thinking there's a former mainline from Kingston that crosses Indian Arm and into industrial switching along the waterfront. This got congested so a double mainline was put in around Indian Arm with a 2% upgrade to the passenger station siding rising at .5% to the helix. The south east helix is 1.5 turns with an 18" starting radius, from 2.13" to Stirling at 6.44. 6.44 around to Butedale and the western helix, 16" starting r, 2 5/8 turns down to Kingston. I wasn't looking for a double mainline on the lower level, but by the time I had the yard lead long enough from Kingston it was already halfway around Indian Arm anyway. Dave, I took the elevations from you helix tables, I think I got the numbers right... I think next iteration I'll angle Kingston Yard closer to the front on the west and work out the S curves at Indian Arm...
Maybe there should be a CAD caution of, "just because you can design it, doesn't mean you should"... One of the criteria for each station is keeping an operator busy for 3 hours.
This has just about all my givens and druthers but wondering if there are any fundamental mistakes? A lot of dense trackage, will I regret not having more open running? I"m thinking the helices represent the countryside and when the computer is running the trains, there'll be a wait period on the helix and sometimes a coffee break when a human ;-) esp. on the Kingston helix so the train doesn't immediately reappear.to I'm just tiling the bathroom next to the train room, which is the last major project before getting in here. Yay! I figure on starting with Stirling, and since I'm planning on building sectional, I could start it before the walls and electrical are finished as long as I'm confident in the mainline positioning at the top and bottom of Stirling. This represents 2.5 years of research and some significant design versioning. Challenge at this point is I've only had the opportunity to be an operator on a full layout about 5 times, so it's a huge uncertainty of how this will be in operations. I'm thinking an operator at Kingston, Seaforth and Stirling with a possible 4th running trains and assisting at Kingston. I figure the next steps are: 1. hopefully get some feedback and incorporate changes. 2. further define the industries at Stirling. The coal mine is kind of odd amongst everything else, but the coal mine that was a few blocks from my house (buildings torn down in 1957) in Nanaimo was here first and Nanaimo essentially built up around it so it's not totally unprototypical. 3. Sketch up what an operating session would be like and tweak. Just looking at Stirling from this overview perspective, to narrow the benchwork I see I could squeeze the two right industries at the bottom a couple of inches to the left, and squeeze the coal mine and two industries at the top left 4-6". Would reduce the long reach to the yard throat at the top left... Thanks everyone for your input, hoping for some more! Cheers.
I compressed the width of Stirling to reduce the reach to 24", esp. important for reaching the yard throat on the top end and reaching the warehouse track on the backdrop.
