Rick Nicholson has been pretty much the sole flag waver for the nolix in this forum, but I'm entertaining the idea of building one anyway The main problem I see is, the space required to attain the 'altitude' to have the Nolix actually work. I'm designing a layout, in HO to make things worse, Thats a U shape.... All benchwork is 36"...10' up the left, 2' across, then 10' down the right. Thats the measurement INSIDE the benchwork... around the walls that measurement is 13' - 8' - 13'. Now, this will only be running trains about 15 cars long...almost 6'. Would we get away with 4%, or even steeper for the nolix? The maximum seperation between levels using the outside walls is 16"..hmm.... thats not too bad actually. Whats the recommended seperation between levels? Should I aim at more than 16". OK, now, the purpose of a Nolix is to have it visible most of the way. At what point should it become invisible so it doesnt look like 'the train to heaven'? How do I achieve that 'invisibility? The bottom section presents a great opportunity to build a huge Trestle that 'disappears' into a tunnel (the hiding point). How do I then get up to the next level while remaining hidden from view?
jeez...here I was thinking I'd get some good advice here.....Seems a Nolix isnt a well supported principle. Heres a track plan of a layout I designed, in HO, for a room 13' x 9'. The nolix is in blue. Halfway up the right wall, the mainline track curves back and runs beneath the nolix track before emerging again at the top right corner (in case you get confused). The info I'm after is, at what point should my nolix go from a visible part of the bottom layout, to 'invisible', and how should I do the transition? There are NO mountains on this layout, just maybe a couple of hills at the far bottom of the right hand leg. I estimate that the track will be about 6-7" up at the center of the curve in the top right corner. By the time it disappears in the top left, its at about 14-15". Its expected to emerge and be level on the top deck (16" seperation deck - deck) about 6' down from the top left corner). So..questions.. How do I transition from the mainline to the 'vanishing point' by way of scenery (big trestle?) ?? At what point should I go from 'supported' to 'suspended' trackwork? (ie, when should I stop 'holding it up' from the bottom and start 'hanging it' from the top deck) Whats are your suggestions on how I should make the track vanish? Anybody??? Theres no 'silly' suggestions here.. I am totally clueless. [ June 12, 2005, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: disisme ]
I think a nolix is only supposed to be used if you're modelling mountains. You have to justify lots of long visible grades. The general idea is, if the landscape's flat, you're better off with a helix. Then it doesn't have to be scenically justified. Sorry to burst your bubble. Can someone who knows more about nolixes offer some advice?
Oh, and a couple more things: Are you sure about the access to those top corners? And since when are 15 HO cars with an engine only six feet long? If that's a steamer with tender, 15 40' cars and a caboose, say 9'. If that's a diesel with 15 50' cars and a caboose, say 10'. If that's a modern diesel with 15 60' cars and no caboose, about 12'.
A nolix, or "no helix," is a long grade, up or down, that allows multiple levels of railroad in the same room. It is true that mountains would be an easy way to disguise the grade changes. I have seen level type layouts done the same way by dividing the grades into "scenes" where each vista is 6 to 12 feet long. It is like putting lateral, instead of horizontal, view blocks along the layout. The total length of the grade may allow 16-18 inches of vertical change, but in any 10 foot section crerated by the view blocks, the change will be only 5-6 inches. Thus a managable level change for industry, fields, etc. Maybe someone has some pictures? Hope this helps some.
Thats a good idea Flash, but unfortunately we dont have the room to 'stage' the climb out'. I'm using almost all the available wall space to make the direct climb at 4%. Your probably right Triplex... A switcher with 5 40' cars will actually fit inside a single piece of flex track. 15 cars are going to run close to 3 lengths, just under 9'... plus loco.... I think 9' is adequate for a 40' consist. The 'builder' is actually running predominantly ore cars and tankers, all of which run under 40'. He DOES, however, intend to run some steamers which will go almost 1' long on their own (god knows how they make those curves!). Rick Nicholson (rsn48) has been blowing the nolix bugle for a while.. I thought he might have some insights for me.
FWIW, disisme, I didn't mean any hidden track, if that is what you thought. No staging or hidden track for a nolix. Maybe I am confused.
no no...I mean doing the climb in stages, not through staging Climb a bit, level a bit, climb a bit, level a bit..... Dont have space for that. We have to start the grade and keep slogging away at it till we get there I'm doing a nolix in N scale for a guy at the moment. Theres a peninsula that juts out into the center of his room. We've got the track doing 3 circles of a mountain on that peninsula at 2% grade (each circle is smaller than the last), crossing trestles across ravines in the mountain all the way up. We then cross a huge trestle to the second deck across the mainline till we are against the wall. We've got 42' of track on that peninsula at 2%, so our altitude increase is some 10.25" above the benchwork. By my calculations thats just under 150 scale feet, and around 1000' scale feet in length. We've planned the ravine so you can get a photo of 3 levels of trestle, all going in different directions, from one spot. Gonna be most dramatic. Glad I dont have to build the trestles though
How long of trains does the builder want to run? If he has steamers as big as you say (big steam and ore cars... hmmm.... NP Yellowstones?) then 9' trains would look short (to me anyway). And are those 18" curves? Beginner books often show plans with 18" curves and 4% grades, but you'll often be advised against them. I mean, how much will an engine pull up that? You might need to think about helper service. Does the builder want that? If you could give me his givens and druthers (including prototype/era/locale, governing locomotives/rolling stock, desired types of operation) I could be more helpful.
Trip, I advised him most vociferously against a) 4% and b) 18" curves, let alone a combination of both, but he is persistant, if nothing else. His layout is to be totally freelance. The only thing he has at this stage is a Thomas and Percy (LMAO). Actually, I think Thomas probably wouldnt have much trouble hauling a 10' train up that grade, but who'd do it in case anyone SAW you His primary interest is British locos. I feel that the average tank loco is going to struggle, so he's going to have to keep those on the bottom deck and only use very specific stuff for hauling up that nolix... Something like a P2K switcher would do it fairly comfortably. There arent too many steamers that are going to do it quite so well, especially british stuff. I tried my hardest to get him to move to N scale so the turn radius wouldnt be so critical, nor would there be a requirement to run the nolix above the mainline like we do, but his heart is set on the 'big stuff'.
British setting? That changes some things. First, it explains how a 15-car train could be 6 feet - those two-axle cars they have there! Does this guy aspire to any distinctly British modelling practices that I should be aware of? If British steam models are worse on grades than American steam (which is inferior to American diesel power) - I'll trust you on that - then you really can't have that grade. As for the curves, I'm not sure how they build models over there. I know many Continental models are designed for sharper curves than similar-sized American models. If not, is it possible to do a "doughnut" with a swinging gate or somesuch? Not exactly ideal, but it's the only way to get decent curves in this scale and space. I would go for N in that space. Then again, I'd go for N in anything less than Northlandz... Oh, what is that almost-1-foot steamer he has? (You do mean excluding tender, right?) Assuming it's OO rather than HO, then it's ~70 scale feet long... what kind of British loco is that size?
Like I said...he's freelance so there ARE no rules. He's also an Aussie who loves brit railways (strange bloke..j/k). I think he wants to cut loose with a big boy every now and then, which I told him simply wasnt going to happen in the space he has...unless he doesnt mind picking it up at regular intervals. He's gonna be running lots of short stuff, so there shouldnt even be much weight to consider in tiny wee trains. I know it goes against a lot of good practice, but hey...if he knows the risks, and accepts them, he hasta fix the derailments / stalled locos
I'm sorry, but I don't know if I can help. These requirements aren't making any sense anymore - they're unreasonable. Still, I'll try. What's the minimum radius his Big Boy will take? There's a big difference between a plastic one that runs on 30" and a brass import that needs 44" - wait a minute, he doesn't have it yet, does he? And what kind of mainline configuration should I consider? That will define how the decks must connect. Incidentally, what was the top deck that went with your original plan?
Hi, It's me the aussie who is very new to model trains and doesn't have a clue at the moment.... Basically I would like to run the hornby ews class 60 (280mm), bachmann or lima class 37 (someone just told me they are around 250mm long) hoppers are hornby mgr hga hopper (118mm). and some passenger cars. As disisme said most trains will be coal/freight type cars. The longest i may run is the bachmann class 40 (which someone just told me is around 400mm) I am listing hornby stock as their websites give lengths and haven't been able to find bachmann lengths. And the big boys I would like to use is the hornby 4472 Flying Scotsman (293mm) and the hornby lner class a4 mallard (291mm). The website indicates that the minimum radius for the mallard is 2nd radius. I am not set to one particular era, and in fact my son may have Thomas and Percy running on it (I dont believe I just said that lol). Eventually if I see something I really like it'll probably end up the layout. There is a small amount of room to move, if need be the right hand can be extended to 4.5m and the left side possibly to 3.5m. Thanks, Jason
Dis - my 2 cents: I think that in this situation, your "railway to heaven" is probably your safest option - although probably not the MOST pleseing to the eye. No sight = no access for derailments/etc... If anything, you can design a "lip" to hide the trackage.... so you still have access from the top, but a sideways look does not reveal the trackage. Hope that makes sense. What height is the bottom level at? Top level? And FWIW, if you're "forcing" the 4% climb, then it's probably not a good idea - go with the helix if you MUST have connected levels. Second thought that just occured to me... can you reverse the entry point to the 2nd tier (right vs left side)? That way you can go 2% up, make a turnaround "plateau" then reverse direction and finish the climb at 2% going the opposite direction. So your entry point to level 2 would be directly over where the climb started. Doulbe wide track required until you get the clearance for single wide. I hope this makes sense, otherwise I can draw it out later. Also what is the elevation of the lower green spurs? Level with the red lines? [ June 15, 2005, 11:35 AM: Message edited by: nscale_lover ]
Jason, I have no idea what "2nd radius" is. Such terms are unique to each manufacturer, and no American firm uses them. Can you give a measurement? Now, looking back at what I said about the Big Boy... I'm laughing at myself. On this side of the Atlantic, a Big Boy (both words capitalized) is the term for a specific class of engine: the Union Pacific 4-8-8-4. I wasn't aware anyone used the term more generically. Now I see that sharp curves may be acceptable, as the Mallard is only a 4-6-2. However, do be aware that often the stated minimum radius is sub-optimal for a given engine or car. But, now that I think about it, you passenger cars may be long. As for your diesels, I don't know what a Class 40 is, but 400 mm long! That sounds like it needs 30" (that's 762 mm) or more to look good by our standards. If I sound weird, it's just that I'm used to North American trains and North American models. For example, we're more likely to say the length of a model in scale feet.
And since you don't have any "real" Big Boys, then this variant on disisme's plan I whipped up is probably no use: http://www.maj.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=178017 This is badly drawn, and probably a bad plan anyway. The mainline arrangement is not what I would ever choose. I have no idea if it would work, and access is terrible. I tried to base it on disisme's plan (this message is really for him). Anyway, I'll explain it: The track in color on the upper level has a 30" minimum radius and restrained grades for operating that nonexistent 4-8-8-4 or any other large equipment. The huge turntable and long enginehouse are there to show off those monster engines - disisme did say you liked your engines. The sidings and engine terminal can be viewed and operated more easily from the long step. The rest of the layout has an 18" minimum radius, and the nolix is 4% - I'd operate it as a helper grade. The return cutoffs on each level allow loop-to-loop operation up and down the nolix. The one on the upper level is for this use only; it is 18" radius and cannot handle the upper-deck-only trains. The bridge over the entrance is almost a walkunder - railheads at 6 feet, bottom of the bridge a couple inches less. This bridge is what forced the broad curves to the upper level: I knew the 30" radius line had to be a "doughnut" configuration, so I kept it high up to make access easy. I'll explain the (thin) scenic justification for the nolix. To allow the two closely parallel tracks at significantly different elevations, I put both on bridges and put water underneath. The viewblock is probably a tall building, running right into the underside of the upper deck. It hides the disappearance of the nolix track. Disappearance? Yes, it's hidden in the sky somehow; I'm not sure how it's accessed. It runs through the structure of the upper deck, only being hidden for about five feet, before rising into view behind the mainline. The branch can be whatever you want; the rest of the plan doesn't depend on it. A crazy plan, but what can you do if you want large HO (or, in your case, OO) engines in 13' x 9'? This room is about the minimum practical size for double-decking, regardless of N or HO/OO, but a helix should be an expected necessity at this size. Otherwise, you get what I showed you.
trip, I see one potential problem with your derivative of my plan, and its exactly the thing I tried my hardest to avoid. By starting the incline that far back on the lower deck, you effectively remove the entire right hand side deck level track from sight...all your going to see from inside the layout is the elevated track. Thats why I started the incline so late...to let the right hand side of the layout be more usable. Its simply no good if you cant see it well. Now, if Jason was prepared to put up with either ducking his head a little to get under the bridge, or start with his lower deck 4" higher, the start of your incline could be 4" later...ie, down towards the bottom curve, and then your derivative is fantastic considering the rather significant restrictions of the layout size. I dont think 68" elevation is anything LIKE a duck under, in the true sense of the word. btw, I REALLY like that step...nice feature. You could even give that a hinged top and use it for storage I actually just did a (HO multi deck) plan for someone in significantly less room than Jason has, and I went with a helix. Thats in even WORSE shape than jasons layout (HO helix at 4% grade!!). Helpers are mandatory on his layout, and most certainly should be used on Jason's.
I said my plan had flaws. But there are actually things about it you like? Specifically, do you like the way I chose to handle the climb scenically? Anyway, I had more than one reason for moving the upper deck so high - or at least making the nolix so long. The other was to get significant separation between decks. (Remember the 4"+ needed for deck structure.) They are quite deep, and I wanted this configuration to improve visibility. I guess it wouldn't achieve that. But are you forgetting that your eye level is well above the beginning section of the grade? That should make things a bit better. In the end, the plan is probably unnecessary, as Jason has no articulated steam - the sole rationale for the upper deck plan. I got the idea for the restricted routing from a John Armstrong plan, BTW.
Well triplex, you'll be pleased to know that I;ve convinced Jason that a total nolix isnt really going to get him what he wants, and we've now made it a helix / nolix combination. This involved changing his benchwork a bit. The benchwork now continues down 4.5m on the right hand side. The trains start a descent at 3% grade in the top right corner of the upper deck and enter a helix at 3%, 27.5" radius at the bottom right. This means his benchwork down there is 1.5m x 1.5m (5'x 5'), which is ok, because its accessible from all sides. The helix does 1.75 rotations at 3% (almost 1.75...), then emerges 12" below the upper deck and cuts across the mainline to the wall, which it then hugs up to the top right corner. The track hits the right hand wall around 2m (6') before the top right corner, and is around 13.5" below the top deck. I'm not referring to height above the lower deck at this point, because the deck seperation is yet to be determined. I think this is actually a good compromise. The helix itself is going to be 'high', so lower deck scenery area and trackwork wont be compromised. Because the helix is also at the end of the layout, operating sight lines from inside the U wont be compromised. The transition from helix to nolix can be onto a high and long trestle where it arcs across the lower deck. Hiding the helix...well, unfortunately that wont be realistically possible, so I've advised Jason to go with a thin perspex covering around it, in 3' sections attached with wingnuts, so the trains can actually be SEEN going down or up the loop...make it a feature.... I feel the radius and grade are a vast improvement on what we had...its nice and wide so his steamers can make the turns comfortably, and the grade isnt TOO bad. Most things should be able to make the ascent unassisted. What do you think? At this stage I've only put together the helix and transitions. Once I get the rest done, I'll post a pic.
