Do you have two or even more visible levels with your layout? Which way do you bridge the gap? Helix or not? What's your ruling grade. I think you can have a bilevel layout when your room has a minimum space. A Helix needs space. A continuous spiral needs some length, i.e. room space. Wolfgang
Wolfgang, I've posted on my layout many times on Trainboard. A few searches should bring them up. I used a semi-continuous spiral, as I wanted access to the train room without a duckunder. My grades turned out at 2.5% because so much of the layout (yards and bridges) had to be level. Sorry, I don't have time tonight to find the posts discussing this approach.
Wolfgang, I have a double deck layout and I use a helix. I incorporated my helix into the end of a peninsula. You already have to have the track curve back around, so why not continue it up to another level? Two big things I liked about this, one is the track continues in the same direction on the upper level as on the lower level and two, almost the entire final curve is visible. lower level track comes in at the left side (top of pic) and leaves on the right side (top of pic) -Mike
Mike, superb work on your helix. I'm curious, how has the masonite splice plate held up? Any sag? Did you consider some form of metal reinforcing plate instead? Did you cut the ribbon with a router? Michael
Wolfgang, on the RGW we are using both. We use a transition run (can't stand the term nolix) to go from one staging to the Main level and a helix at the other end of the run to drop down into a second staging area. We did this for a couple of reasons, as you well know, helixes are space eaters and I didn't want to have two eating up valuable room space. But second, I wanted the operator to enjoy a long run unencumbered by numerous stops to avoid the inevitable delays during operating sessions where another operator is fouling the main while performing a setout. In a helix, you just don't get that feeling of a long run. In fact, our experience with other layouts is that the operator tends to speed up the train because he isn't always in visual contact with it and the sight of a train lurching out the helix exit isn't pretty, nor prototypical. The files below are three parts of the layout (north is at the top of the drawing). Starting in Seattle staging, you run out and then back to the west wall. From the wye you turn north and follow the main along the north wall to what we call the "NE blob". At this point "AA" we begin the transition (file 2). It reverses course and run over the top of staging along the peninsula and the ends the transition at Black River before reaching the main level at Renton Yard (file 3). The helix is located on the NW peninsula (see staging file) and is directly under Maltby (file 3). The helix does not enter the visible area (except for planned shadow boxes on two levels) until what we call the upper level which is another plan entirely. IF for some reason the links below are inadequate to follow, go here http://rgwrail.com/layout-design.htm. We are hoping it works. I have a video on my website of the run from lower staging to Renton Yard using the transition level if you'd like to see it in action. Michael.
Michael, thanks for the comment The masonite splice plates are working great. No sag what so ever. I used an ample amount of wood glue and lots of clamps to hold them to the MDF subroadbed. I never even thought about using metal plates, but I don't see the need, the joints are super strong. As to the last question, what do you mean by the ribbon? BTW, you have a nice website and I enjoyed the video -Mike
Thanks back at ya. As for ribbon, I use that term to refer to the subroadbed (I believe you referred to them as "curved pieces"). M
Kinda thought that's what you meant I cut them out with a jig saw. Talk about taking forever! I then cut each end with the table saw to get a nice good fit between each one. -Mike
Wolfgang: I'm modeling in N-scale, and I've used 4 bowl-shaped helixes (continuously increasing radius as the loops rise) to pass between the 65" upper deck and the 48 and 53" high lower decks. The bowl-shaped helixes I use work well for me because of the scale and because I have the luxury of lots of space (35 x 40 feet). Their advantages over a stacked (cylindrical) helix include ease of construction, maximum grade of 2%, and ready access from above for cleaning and repairs. The disadvantage is that each loop of a bowl-shaped helix is 3 inches larger in diameter, so rising more than 6 loops (between 14 and 18 inches depending on the grade and starting/tightest radius) takes about 4.5 to 4.75 foot diameter. In HO, each successive loop would be 6 inches larger in diameter, so rising more than 6 to 8 inches very quickly takes way too much space in a home layout...although it might be workable in a large museum-sized or club-sized space. Look through the albums linked in my signature or check out my blog entries on N-scale helix construction. Cleggie and Hemi also have wonderful threads that contain many posts about their bowl-shaped helix construction. The bowl-shaped helix calculator is stickied at the top of the Layout Design forum. If you get to the point of considering bowl-shaped helix construction, let me know and I'll tweak the helix calculator formulas for HO. (HO might need more supports along the way, especially on the largest diameter loops.) When real estate is limited, then the nolix (no-helix = continual climb around the room, exemplified by Pete Nolan's track plan) is definitely a good way to gain height between 2 decks...and is a lot more workable in an HO scale home layout than bowl-shaped helixes or even some stacked/cylindrical helixes.
Wolfgang, (N Scale) On my previous layout I used a rather large helix to move from one fully visable level to another fully visable level. It was an experience buinding it. I don't remember all the stats, but it was an oval with 18" radius and the rise was about 28" I think. The grade was less then 2%. Fun part is I made it from strait pieces of ply with bisquit joints (except for one joint per loop). I had to tear this one down for a relocation befor it was fully functional, but I did run a few trains up and down it. I still have the helix and if anyone wants it it is in the Sacramento CA area. (smile) On my current layout, the lower level will be staging only and on one end I use a helix and the other a long run. This time the rise is only 9.5" and the grade is a little over 2%. I just cut 5/8" ply circles for this one since I only needed 3 levels and used constant spacer blocks after setting the intitial grade. Not as pretty but it works.
Wolfgang, N-scale, 2 visible decks connected by a Helix, 2.25% grade in the helix (unfortunately my ruling grade on the mainline....) Yes, a Helix is a space eater. But there are ways to get around this, like building scenery on the uppermost level, so the first helix track appears like a turnback curve that dipps into a tunnel. As I wnated to have a substantial separation between my decks (about 50 cm) and my room is quite small a helix was the only way to achieve the deck separation I was after. Cheers Dirk
With my earlier layouts I've had each time a helix. But that's no visible track. Therefore I would like to go another way. The problem is how much line do you need to get to the next level. How much grade makes sense. For a given room size it's a balance act. How can you lengthen your line?? Visible. :angel: This was one of my last European layouts: Wolfgang
RGW, I can't stand "nolix" myself, but it serves as a convenient shorthand, or tag. I designed my layout to use, as much as possible, long 24-foot runs along back walls of shelves. I realized that not everything was going to be "scenic goodness," especially where decks met each other, and just tried to minimize these areas. It worked out just OK: I was shooting for 2% grades, but forgot that long span bridges are 0% grades, as are yards! I find running a helix is like watching grass grow, paint dry, or my new dog decide on where to go potty. I get no experience of distance traveled. It's like watching a barber pole: you'll eventually get to the bottom or top, but there's no sense of traveling. I'll be re-introducing an old way to gain height between decks if I move to Ohio. Allen McClennand (sp? and I'm truly sorry I always get it wrong) used the hidden reversing loop. I'll be doing the same, in a slightly different way.
What about a helix which starts at the bottom with big radius and get smaller with the second tier. This way you can daylight parts of the helix. Wolfgang
