I just cleaned out a wack of junk out of my trainroom and discovered enough space to extend my layout by about 8’!
Now, this got me thinking about possibly adding a second level to this thing with a nolix instead of a helix. Consider the dimensions first: Along the wall is 13’X11’X15’(adding the 8’ here for the total 15’). The depth runs between 24" to about 35" at the corners.
The question is whether I can possibly run a nolix up to a second level approx 14" higher and by how long. Would I, for example, need to use a curve to get up there given the dimensions mentioned or can I just run the thing up one wall? Any ideas?
The use of a “track spiral” can be employed. The spiral is usually 100% out in the open - as opposed to the helix which is typically enclosed and “highly” vertical.
Corners are great locations for spirals; the spiral can certainly gain some of the needed elevation, and; there can be at least one bridge overpassing the lower track of the spiral to add some scenic possibilities.
To rise 14" with a 2% grade, you need 700 linear inches of track. That’s a LOT of track. You’s won’t be able to loop around in an 8’ area and get that kind of rise out in the open. The general idea of a ‘nolix’ is there’s an almost continuous grade around the entire room. By the time you get back to the starting point, you’ve gained the required vertical seperation without resorting to a couple scale miles of track hidden inside a helix. Now, you could do an actual helix with about 30" radius curves and still have a little extra visible trackage in that extra 8 feet you’ve found. I’ve also seen helixes (heli?) that don;t use concentric circles so that alternating levels are exposed and sceniced. While a helix ‘steals’ a lot of space, the gain is essentially a doubling of the square footage of your layout with the second deck, The fact that you found extra sapce means you can accomplish this without a corresponding reduction of the existing visible layout space.
I think that Randy is right - a nolix basically stretches the helix around the room, disguising it as a more-or-less continuous grade. It sounds as if your layout is “U” shaped, with only the corners (bottom of the “U”) 36" deep. While this will allow you a nice wide curve around those corners, it won’t allow a loop of even 18" radius, so you have no place to turn the track back on itself in order to gain extra length for the grade.
I was limited in my layout room, too, and decided to only partially double-deck the layout. I resorted to a peninsula to gain altitude, while at the same time allowing the rest of the mainline to continue down grade, increasing the vertical separation. The latter grade is at 2.5% and about 18’ long, while the peninsula track is about 45’ of curving 2.8% grade.
In this view, the 2.5% down grade is on the lower bridge, with the uphill climb crossing the high bridge and coming towards the viewer at the end of the peninsula:
The same area, as seen from further back. The track splits at the far end of the town on the left, with one track rising towards the peninsula, while the other drops, entering a tunnel to re-emerge on the opposite side of the peninsula:
Here’s the peninsula track looking in the opposite direction - you can see how it curves around as it rises:
Here’s the lower track where it emerges from the tunnel - layout height here is 38.5". Barely visible above the tunnel portal is a section of plywood sub-roadbed, hanging out over the scenery - this is the top of the peninsula grade, which is at about 59" above the floor. The second level, which will cov
I like the idea that you have, but I’m also thinking about possibly ‘blobbing’ one of the ends to do a kind of sceniked helix(?), or even taking one of the corners to do the same, and if one can, drop the height of the second level to 13"—I also forgot to mention that I’m in N scale.
As for ciruiting up/down, I’m thinking point to point—do I need to go both ways or just do the one incline and do a ptp wherein both trips involve one incline?
My layout room is 11’ wide—can I jam in a peninsula into the space to do that sceniked helix as well? Who knows—but this is giving me some ideas here----thanks for the input[swg]
Sorry, Barry, I didn’t realise that you were working in N scale.
I’m not sure about adding a peninsula within that area - aisle width requirements don’t change with the modelling scale, nor, for that matter, do the separation distances between levels, at least not appreciably. You also don’t need a grade up to the second level and another back down to the first, unless you require continuous running. Mine operates as a point-to-point (with an additional point), with a grade up to one of the points (the upper level) and a grade down, to the lowest level. The portion of the layout not double-decked could, I suppose, be called the middle level.
Blobbing one of the ends will certainly help, and you could also add a sceniced partial helix at one or both internal corners of the “U”. This will have the track doubling back on itself, but at a higher level, and your lower line may have to pass under these areas in a short tunnel, but you should be able to include at least one spiral in each corner without it looking too busy. Trees, rock cuts, and structures can be useful for disguising such things. My peninsula avoids having the track pass through the same scene at a higher level, but I traded to get that by having the lower line disappear into a tunnel, re-appearing on the opposite side of the peninsula - not exactly convenient for an operator to have to walk around the peninsula while his train is unseen in a tunnel. Since I usually operate solo, it’s not a huge problem (I stop the train after it enters the tunnel, walk around, and re-start it) but with two or three operators, aisle widths may dictate that trains are “scheduled” so that there’s only one operator in the aisle at South Cayuga at any one time. With the second level as yet un-built, this problem has yet to arise.
Just a couple points. It takes just as much space to get an N-scale train up 14" as is does and HO train.
I haven’t calculated for your space, but the thing that most people don’t take into consideration when planning a nolix is that while you are climbing, you really can’t do much of anything else. You can’t switch off of it without creating a flat spot, so the whole climb is layout dedicated to climb.
With N scale certainly you can have part of the lower layout–the front part–used to switch. But the higher the track is above the lower level, the more scenery is required to make the grade look reasonable. This does not take into consideration the aesthetics of having a second track in every single scene.
So the question always becomes “Is the cost of the the upper level and climb, both in dollars and loss of lower level functionality and space, worth the space gained?”
In other words, does it add to your dream or subtract from it and at what cost?
No one’s brought up the idea of using a elevator type lift to transfer the train from the lower level to the upper level. It only takes up as much space as your longest train and the height between levels doesn’t change the grade needed between them. While it would be a little bit of a more difficult design to create, it wouldn’t be nearly as much as a helix would. One disadvantage would be the starting and stopping required to get the train into position, then lifting it to the desired level and restarting the train again. Jason
You’re correct, Chip. In my case, the layout is designed as a branchline, with plenty of switching in each town for most trains. My “nolix” serves as the longest uninterrupted run, and I have spent considerable effort ensuring that my locos can handle the trains which I wish to run - I wish that the grade wasn’t so steep, but there’s only so much room with which to work. I could’ve built a single-deck layout on the same benchwork, with little or no grades and had no operating challenges and less layout. Learning how to upgrade my motive power was, in my opinion, worth as much as the layout area gained with the partial second level. Of course, in my case, I didn’t lose any of the lower level’s functionality, either. [swg]
I’ve seen some great layouts that were nolix in design. In fact, I’m a regular operator on one
On the other hand, the smaller the space is you have to work with, the harder it is to accomplish. I’ve seen plans that totally wasted a lower deck in order to put in a second deck.
This seems to be more where I’m headed on this one—I ran this by a couple of guys that I know down here—My layout represents a portion of the layout that resides in a MUCH LARGER basement. This portion is a branchline that eventually would end at a potash processing plant, which would be the first up there to be swiched–I’m lookng at maybe 6-10 cars max going up/down–we’re pretty light duty up there, maybe[:-,]—there are 3 other sites to be switched on the second level.
I’ve also found that I could reduce elevation by dropping down to 11"–with 2" to spare—
Having said this–any good ideas as to how one can achieve said mutated helix/nolix/lix?[swg]
I used the nolix approach to change elevation 10 inches with an approximate 2% grade. It required almost 70 feet. I reviewed several helix plans, weighed them against my selection of tools and my carpentry skill set and said, Nope. Thanks for asking but I’ll do the nolix…
I have a couple questions, Spacemouse, you said that with the nolix that there cannot be any switching without creating a flatspot. Why? I had planned some turnouts on an incline and having them level off shortly after the switch. The inclining track would be made to look as it was on fill and the diverging track in a little bit of a cut. Overall the spur is only 10ft. Is there impending doom awaiting by doing something like this?
DoctorWayne, that looks pretty creative and interesting. Have you had any “what was I thinking” moments yet and had a prized loco lawn-dart into the lower level yet?
Thanks. I’ve not yet had any “what was I thinking moments” (about this, anyway [swg]), although there has been one “major” derailment on this big hill - nothing all the way down to the floor, though:
One of the cars lying in the river bed had some clearance issues with truck swing (as I discovered later), and when it derailed on the bridge, the wheels caught in the guardrails. With the car unable to move forward, but the locos still pulling, the cars between the two which were still on the curved bridge were stringlined into the gorge below.
The layout is DC control, with walk-around throttles, so all train crews follow their train as it climbs up and around the peninsula. I was walking beside the locomotives (four SW1200RSs, as shown below)
when the incident occurred. Normally, my trains are fairly short (about two dozen cars is the maximum, with most trains much shorter), but on this particular occasion I was running 71 cars behind the four locos - a sort of “I wonder how this would work” moment. [:-^] Of course, a train that long on my layout is wound around several curves and is on several grades, with some parts of the train going uphill while other sections are moving downhill at the same time. After th
Doctorwayne…ouch! At least that tan sedan came out unscathed, maybe not the drawers of the occupants tho. Those are some nice pictures of not only the scenery but the application of the idea as well. The scenery and bridges hide the true purpose of the grades well.
Barry, you should have enough room to do a narrow peninsula in your 11’ span. You can do a credible scene with a reasonably broad curve on a 36" wide peninsula in N scale. That leaves you with 8’ remaining space. If you can function with 24 to 30" aisles, that leaves room for two 18 -24" wide shelves down the sides of the room, which is plenty for N scale scenery, particularly on an around the room design.
