Got it.
So the difference (between your idea, and my vision of your idea) is long 1/8" spokes off a central rod versus essentially track tie width plates and more (thinner?) threaded rods. Hmm…
runtime
You can get by with an 0-42 helix if you are running modern trains (with traction tires) that are not too long. I like longer trains, so I used the wider curves to keep the grade down a little. In one of my videos, I was pulling 12 modern passenger cars up it. Some engines would not pull it, others acted like they could do a bunch more
You can also build it with just one track (which I seriously thought about). You could have a switch track on the top and bottom loops that would automatically change directions (non-derailing feature) when the train approached it. It would make it extra interesting, because the trains would alternate directions on each pass. The reason I decided against it, was I wanted to minimize possible problems in a very hard to reach area at the top. I figured there would be much less chance dropping an engine 7 feet if it was just one continuous loop (outside one going up, inside one coming down for best operation).
My helix is located on top of a fairly high table against the wall, so has very limited access from the outside in some areas. I designed mine to be open as much as possible in the middle. I have had a step ladder in it many times working on the track above it. Had I used a center pole, I would have to climb on the layout to reach some areas.
It seems that the thinner your sub-roadbed (plywood) can be without sacrificing too much stiffness the more clearance you will get with everything else being equal.
That’s true, Ed. That’s why I suggested supporting O27 track directly at the rails with steel plates no thicker than the ties. That gets the total track thickness down to 7/16 inch, which is about as far as you can easily go. One support every 12 inches is about as light as you would want to build it. That what I use for my high-up around-the-walls track. I tested it with my Rail King Big Boy before building; but I actually run much lighter stuff up there.
Flexing at the rail joints is a possible source of trouble with this kind of construction. I think this might be handled by replacing each track pin with a couple of inches of (suitably curved) 3/32-inch brass rod, perhaps soldered into place.
I am rebuilding my O-scale layout. It will be a double-track mainline in a rural setting. I have decided to scale down the size of the layout and put it around the ceiling of my train building. I originally wanted to make it the height of the entrance door (about six feet), but have thought about running it at eye level except where the entrance door is. I wonder if I could put a twelve-inch rise helix on either side of the door in order to get the consist past said door. I typically use 72 inch curves and would like to do that with the helix. I could put shelves below each helix for storage.
There is also the matter of the double-track mainline as it meets the helix. Is there room to have both tracks continue in the helix? I note that some n-scale modelers have used this method. I don’t know if there would be room with the O-scale layout.
Bill - Welcome to trains.com! [C):-)]
if you download the free track planning program from Atlas it does the calculations for you. use the largest diameter curve you can to keep the grade % low.
WOW! That’s incredible [Y] I just love the tall city buildings in the middle . I have never thought about that, but that just really ties it all together. Fantastic.
Welcome! I tried to d something similar but the helix took up so much space that I just could not afford the space for two (1 one each side), so I built a double track lift. I got sidetracked and just too busy to complete it.
Bob, I like your idea of the plates. How about putting a twist in the plates so they match the angle of the track. Also, depending on how close together the plates are, you might need some thin nuts and some washers to get the vertical spacing correct.
Love the buildings. Was planning on putting some tall buildings on another part of my layout. Do you have a thread describing how you made yours ?
Tks
Rick
some are scratch built, some are stacked mth building add on floors and some are made of layers mat board.
I’m working on the design of a helix as well. Mine will be oval with some straight sections on the sides and O42 curves at the ends. The inner track will be O31, it may end up being mostly used for coming down, depending on how well the trains do on it.
The ceiling track will have switching to allow me to enter and exit from either direction on either track. All of the helix and ceiling track will be tubular track.
I’m going to use 1/4" plywood overlapped in U shaped pieces to make a 1/2" laminate for the base. This eliminates the joint issue of using a single thickness. The helix will be supported from the edge on the inside and outside with vertical stringers. Each level will be 6" higher than the previous level.
Assuming a plate every 12 inches and a grade of 3 percent, the vertical spacing of the plates at the center rod is about 3/8 inch. This would indeed make it difficult to clamp each plate between two standard nuts.
But consider the long lever arm between the center and the track. Any vertical errors at the center will be attenuated by an order of magnitude at the track. So all that is really important at the center is to avoid any cumulative error. The deviations of a small fraction of an inch up and down needed to accommodate the thickness of nuts will have no practical effect out at the periphery, where the track is.
You could twist the plates, but I don’t think it’s necessary. A 3 percent twist across a 1-inch plate (which is rather wider than needed) is only a 1/32-inch height difference from side to side. I think a piece of pasteboard between the plate and the rails, needed anyway for electrical insulation, might have almost enough resilience to handle that slope that small. In any case, supporting the track on one edge of the plate shouldn’t be a problem.
Just noticed this reply Bob, but I’m not sure what point you’re getting at. [?]
I was just responding to the comments above, about twisting the plates and using thin nuts. The twisting seemed to me to be so slight that it could be neglected. And ordinary nuts can be used on the center rod simply by leaving out a nut when the space for it is too small, without any significant effect out at the track.
OK, thanks. [:)]