disisme, Sorry I missed this thread for a while; I've been extremely busy. I think you've reached a good compromise--you don't have enough space for just a nolix. I've answered a lot of your questions in these three posts--particularly the first one. The scond and third are continuations. It deals with deck separations and other matters, such as stacking loops. http://www.trainboard.com/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/9/t/004090/p/1.html http://www.trainboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/get_topic/f/9/t/004130/p/1.html? http://www.trainboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/ubb/get_topic/f/9/t/004141.html? Sorry I don't have time to address this thread specifically. I don't advocate nolixes--unless you have the room (I did) and you can work out the "disappearing vertical clearance" problem (I sorta did.)
Nice work, I wish I had a garage or basement,My wife is wondering how I am going to keep the bed in the (guest room)train room. Well I guess I can build a nelix over the bed!!
Trip, I'd post a pic, but I have a couple of problems...1) my wifes PC died (went to heaven with MY Pc...dammit), and 2) since we arent sure of the 'landing point' for the nolix part of the solution yet, its a little up in the air (pun intended ) I anticipate the nolix to continue along the wall and only have to descend between 4 and 6 inches... its 12" below the top deck when it pops out of the helix and descends another 2.5-3" crossing the mainline benchwork. That means it should be 'down' somewhere around the top right corner. I actually drew in the trackwork for both upper and lower decks, and I think the layout is absolutely fantastic now... big radius, medium grade, and track going every damn direction without being a spaghetti bowl. As soon as I get the machine working again I'll post something... probably Tuesday or Wednesday.
Jason has decided that 18" seperation will work for him, and I;ve advised him to raise the lower benchwork from 37.5" to around 48". 37.5 is a bit too low, and 48 will put it at about eye level while seated without being too high or too low for operating in a multi deck setup. Tha makes the top deck at 66". Since we wont be doing a full circle on eith er deck, theres nothing to duck under either, otherwise it would have to be at least 2, probably 6, inches higher. 37.5 would be fine if it was single deck.....or he had a 20'x20' room to make the climb to the upper deck, but he hasnt, so 48 is better
Waaaait a minute... you were trying to design a layout for already-built benchwork? That does throw a couple wrenches into the works. I don't think I'd ever have designed a benchwork configuration like that, because I usually plan the track first. I hope modifying the structure isn't too much of a problem. Anyhow, I await your new plan with anticipation.
no no... that was his planned benchwork, which I promptly threw out I havent actually changed his original benchwork plan much at all...pretty much just added the 1.5m balloon on the end of what he initially had, and cut the corner off the left hand side (to give a bit of ass room getting by it). Because the ballloon is rounded, and the corner is cut off, he has 600mm (24") seperation betweeen the left and right sides...he just enters at a 45 degree angle rather than straight in. I think it will be visually pleasing from outside, even with the helix hanging there in plain sight.
Good, because that benchwork was clearly designed by someone with little knowledge of track planning (no offense, Jason - you'll learn.)
well, unfortunately he has a long, very narrow, space, so he only had 2' (600mm) to spare between the 2 legs of the U...which was the truly ugly bit. Fine in your 30's, cramped in your 40's, and painful in your 50's..... OK, we've set the top deck height at 68", and the bottom deck at 48". That gives us 20" seperation (a little more than I;d like, but acceptable). We'll now be coming out of the helix at around 9.5" above the lower deck, and after traversing across the mainline will meet the wall at about 7.5". Thats all from memory until I get the puter with the plans on it up again! Quite a bit higher than I'd like, but its still better than what we had initially with a pure nolix. 7.5" at 3% is going to take us quite a while to get down to the deck proper, but we have 8' to the top right corner to run (so we;re at 4.5" around that point), and I feel that would be a good point to join the lower deck mainline...either there or a little further across to the top left corner. I'm now thinking we can probably manage a quasi twice around on the lower deck. While we cant turn 2 tracks inside the 39" bench width of the legs, there IS room to have 2 tracks side by side in each corner, so what I'm thinking is as follows : 18" radius curve at the bottom of the left leg, run up and onto the cross section, the turns back in the top right corner (where the nolix will rejoin, so the track is elevated), run across to the top left corner, still elevated, turn back towards the right and crosover the other track (the one that came up from the bottom left). Run around the bend and down the right hand wall, reverse at the bottom (BIG turn down here...big benchwork) then run back up to the top, under the mainline, across the top, then down the left to join up with where we started. Of course, there will be spurs n stuff in here. Now, getting the 4.5" elevation will involve climbing on the left leg before we get to where the overpass happens, probably to about an inch at the overpass point. This means the high track will need to be 5-5.5" high. Thats no problem because as we climb through the top right curve and hook up with the nolix track, we'll continue to climb across the top and through the top left curve at about 2%. We then have all the way across the top and down the right hand leg (and back up again for that matter) to get back to ground level. If thats done properly using girder bridges rather than trestles, the sight lines wont be impacted significantly. The Nolix track will be wayyyy high when we cross it (if we arent all the way down already) and WILL be a trestle (just for 'wow' factor). Guess I should discuss that with JAson now, considering I just thought of it.
None taken Triplex I had started the benchwork (as I did have a bad plan), but there is still much to do, like screwing in the legs, removing the clamps, adding the mdf. So it is still at a point where it is very easy to change it. Regards, Jason
there was nothing wrong with the bechwork, per se Jason. It was just the overall size of the room associated with the scale you insist on running There simply wasnt enough room from several perspectives...1) your nolix didnt have room to allow adequate seperation between decks. 2) the width of the bechwork was not terribly condusive to double mainline running (and still isnt, really) 3) even with the benchwork you have, there isnt really enough manouvering room for people between the 2 legs (600mm wont let you turn sideway comfortably without risking booking in for a hip replacement ) This isnt something you can 'learn', per se.... Its simply the restriction of the space you have. Compared to a lot of others, you have a huge area. There are a lot of people running HO on a single door
I haven't read all the posts in this thread. I will tell you what I did with mine. The reason "nolix's" aren't populuar other than most people haven't heard of one, is that there is no "standardized" set up. Each nolix stands on its own as the space utilized will be different for each person. I have an L shaped nolix with the idea of most track being visible that I can, without it being to unbelievable. So imagine an L shaped layout, that once around gives me just slightly over twenty feet of L shaped track. I have twenty inches of seperation between my decks (lower and upper). If I could have gotten away with less I would have. So a 2 % grade, using 2 inches to every 8 feet of track (this is slightly over 2% but just barely), I need 80 feet of track going up and up to reach my upper deck. For me, that's three times around my L shaped layout. But in my opinion, three times around would be too visible and track on top of track - looking to spagetti'ish. So the first time round won't be visible, not visible like a typical helix, but the second and third time around will be visible. Now the L shaped layout is against the wall, so when the train goes "round back" it won't be visible on any of the the runs and thats okay; and, I've decided a good place to put some staging (a tv camera back there to see it). I will have a "river" seperating the second and third visible runs to simulate the Fraser canyon in British Columbia. I haven't read the entire thread, but ask your questions - even if repeated and I will follow this thread for the next week. In working with your nolix, first you need to determine seperation between decks, remember to take into account your valance on your upper deck which will probably go below the top deck an inch or two to hide lighting, wiring, etc. So take that blocked view into account when determining seperation. I have two large wide areas, reversing loops under and over each other - one on the lower deck and one on the upper deck. The loops come out quite far, I think the maximum radius I used was 17 1/2 inches, so the deck there is around 36 inches wide or wider. This doubling of wide decks can lead to a "tunnel" effect, so to see into that area, I decided on 20 inches of seperation. Your nolix area may need to make more turns than mine. Lets say it needs to make five turns. In this case, I might make three of the tracks visible and two not visible. The idea is to get as much track as is believable visible so that your mainline seems "extended." So ask your questions. My apologises, I bought a Catalina 27 sailboat which is structurally sound but has and still does need some TLC, lots of sanding and painting, etc. I will look for your questions.
indeed I have! It needs tweaking on the yard I put in though..... Lower deck Upper deck [ June 23, 2005, 10:44 PM: Message edited by: disisme ]
So, the nolix is the track that branches off the top of the lower deck plan, goes down the right side, climbs the helix going counterclockwise, and joins the upper deck main near the top of the right side? I'm also guessing that the lower deck main is supposed to be double track all the way around - appropriate for Britain - and that gap is just an error. Efficient use of space with those branches; lots of switching. Turnouts kept away from inaccessible top corners: good, so long as that access opening works in three dimensions. The yard really needs some work: those two throats will make it a nightmare to switch. The tracks aren't very long, either - can it be extended further along the wall? Despite what you said, it looks like you still have an 18" minimum radius.
the radii have been kept well out there. The track work itself is quite good, but I hate the yard....and have advertised the fact. The thing that irritates me most about the yard is the fact that there is no switching lead, but also that anything that enters on the left, must leave on the left. I did another plan for someone else that had a double entry yard, but with a long switching lead, and that yard is fabulous...pity he doesnt actually want it.... The yard either needs work, or needs to go..simple as that.
oh yeah...your right about the nolix start and end points, and yes, I did leave that bit of track out... LMAO. oops
Yes, the helix may be 27.5" radius, and the curves at top right. But what about the turnaround on the left on either deck? Or the curves at the end of the aisle?
Ahh, yes... The outer radius ia about 19.5, the inner 17.250" HAd to siden the centers a little in case he decides to run any 80+ foot stuff.
