My name is Montag, and I’m addicted to the idea of a helix.
So I’m designing a 4 deck 80’ x 15’ N Scale layout, unfortunatly I need to come to grips that I only have a 12’ x 10’ bedroom to build it in, I am in denial.
So at first I thought I would do a three deck around the walls shelf layout, with a helix to connect the staging deck to the top two decks.
I’m starting to think this might be more work than I can handle unless I keep it really simple. Helix? Simple?
Should I stick to my dream layout or should I comprimise with something that is more practical but not what I want.
See I like the helix because the train being dispatched from staging and taking a long time to get to its destination even though it’s hidden is a very attractive paradigm for me.
The Helix or Helixessss (sp?) would be complicated expensive, but the rest of the layout would be pretty simple, just a 12"-18" shelf.
A helix in any scale, takes up a lot of space. It also keeps your trains tied up going in circles just to get to the next level. When I was doing N-scale back some years ago (mid 80’s?), I used simple grades of 1.4 to 2% to connect upper and lower levels. I could run the grade in the background and also work it into the scenery. A helix, unless you put it inside a mountain or behind something that will hide it from view, is huge, clunky and can be a scenery nightmare. Nowhere on real railroads have I ever seen a helix. The engineering problems would make it nearly impossible, though some engineers will try to tackle anything. You can try it, like I once did. I ended up regretting it later and had to tear it out, in favor of a grade that would do the same job and looked better. It was also believable. If you take pictures of your layout, scenery looking beautiful and very realistic, the effect is going to be ruined when they see the helix. But that’s just my viewpoint on it. The only time I didn’t use a grade to connect levels was when I used a trainlift, basically an elevator for trains. Just try to picture a section of side track that is lifted on a string and pulley system to the next level, where it is driven off onto the new track.
If you are addicted to the helix, then by all means, go for it! Make the helix the central feature of your layout with double, or even triple tracks. Use scenic effects to expose parts of the helix. With double tracks, you can have lines branching out from the helix in different directions and at different levels. It would be quite an engineering marvel and a lot of fun to build! Remember, a helix doesn’t HAVE to be ROUND!
Of course, it wouldn’t do much for operating pleasure. The helix would have to be fairly large, leaving you with not much else to operate. Perhaps a super-huge helix going completely around the room would perform the same function, yet introduce more modeling opportunities. The entire helix could be scenicked as a “layout”!
I, too, have a 10 x 12’ room to work with. A helix was my first consideration for multiple level-operation, but I quickly abandoned that idea, as it consumed too much precious space. I got the idea that an oval-shaped helix might work for me. It had possibilities, but it soon became apparent to me that the helix would have to be built in an “L” shape to accommodate the length of run I needed. Then the light bulb went off! If the helix needed to be long and bent around a corner, why not just make it larger and go around MORE corners? I struggled with that idea for a while, until I realized that I didn’t need to go all around the room. I could run around three walls and have the tracks loop back on themselves on each side of the room, and I could repeat the loops as many times as I needed to gain elevation. So now the plan is essentially stacked loops on either side of the room with layout running space in between on each level. I suck at using ANY of the CAD software, so I don’t have a plan I can publish. When I finish my hand-drawn plan, I intend to build a scale model of the layout first, then start construction using the model as a reference.
Just some thoughts for you to consider. Most model r
Where was this 6 months ago!! We built a NO-Lix and it works fine BUT. “No LIX is a HELIX that is not all curves.
If you use a decreasing radius you gain some scenery area. Our goes from 38” R down to 32" at the end. It is single track and ws a pain till we took extra time to trace the pattern on the sub roadbed and then cut. The LESS pieces to make the helix the better.
Take Care
George P.
If your into a helix then build one. I built a five turn helix and I love it, gives me a fantastic opertunityu top model the keddie wye and the hiway 70 (road on top of train trestle) lake Oroville bridge.
Similar in construction to the one our club has been running for about 10 - 12 years. We added a cross piece of plywood below the roadbed that the threaded rods pass through. One thing I can’t see in those pictures is how you joined the ends of the plywood roadbed.
I add a splice plate underneath that runs all the way from one of the semi-circles to the next, with the 24" straight laying on top of that. I started with short splices between the sections, but discovered that it was difficult to get a smooth track surface over the splices that way (plywood doesn’t come flat anymore!). The single long splice plate reduces the number of discontinuities in the grade, and allows them to be worked out by adjusting the suspension nuts on the rods. In the straights, some of the rod lengths between levels are in compression rather than tension, because the plywood bowed up at some locations.
We didn’t use splice plates, we used a double layer of plywood for the base and staggered the joints. Ours is 4 tracks wide and 5 loops connecting the upper and lower levels of a mushroom. We left the three sides of it open, the first year we had it finished, we didn’t have time to enclose it before the show. It turned out to be such a crowd draw that we left it that way, even added lights inside it.
