A nolix is an alternative to a helix in which the climb to the next elevation occurs visibly, as opposed to the helix where the climb is hidden inside a set of rising loops (a spiral). Okay, so when the elevation-- say from a first deck climbing up to a second-- starts getting close to the second, doesn’t it get a little akward visually? How do people manage that last bit where the climb and the deck come together-- it seems like it would be visually “cramped” as it reaches the upper elevation? If anybody is using a nolix, can you post some pictures of the area around where the nolix meets the upper deck? How are you blending them together to minimize the effect?
It depends on the situation, whether the climbing track is in front of or behind the other track on the upper deck, for example. The specific arrangment of the tracks dictates the scenic treatment.
But often the best approach for the climbing track in the rear is to simply screen the climbing track for a short distance as it approaches and joins the upper deck with trees, a hillside, structures, etc. It just goes out of sight for a short distance and reappears on the upper deck.
If the climbing track is in the front, at some point it can join the upper level as a lower track in the same scene.
My suggestion would be: don’t over-think it in the abstract. (Of course, that could be applied to a majority of the discussions on this forum!)
With an actual plan in place, the best approach will probably be apparent.
It would be the same regardless if visible or not, you would have to have a vertical easement transitioning from grade to level or level to grade. It doesn’t matter if this is on scene or not as long as it is gradual. It’s up to you where you want the change to be. John
You have to ease out of the vertical curve, but other than that, I don’t see the problem. If you wish, place a berm between the viewer and the ‘event’, or put a tunnel portal there.
Are you concerned more about the appearance of the terrain, say the slope broadsided and how realistic it will seem?
As for scenic treatment, the upper end of the grade can simply be worked into the scenery of the upper level on a shelf separating its upper end from the lower level below. For an example of how this can be done, find the John Armstrong article on the Hardscrabble and Golconda, written up as, To Hardscrabble, the Hard Way.
My own lower level disappears into a pair of tunnel portals (double track) and vanishes into the netherworld, leaving the scene clear for the mountain goat track with rails on it that leads upgrade to the big colliery at the top end of the valley. Given more space along the north wall of my layout room, I could have pushed the lower level tunnel portals farther along and had a greater vertical separation between them and the grade. Or, when I reached sufficient vertical separation, I could have simply brought the grade forward as a permanent overcast above those lower level tracks and carried them clear around the peninsula. That would have created havoc with the hidden staging arrangements, but you can’t have it all.
Chuck (Modeling the steeply-graded railroads of Central Japan in September, 1964)
Yes, as I think it through, as well as mock-up the scene, there always comes a point along the climb to the upper deck where the upper deck seems more like a ceiling and the appearance seems “cramped”, for lack of a better word-- like the trains and everything in the scene should be ducking. As I’ve been thinking about it, I can’t recall ever seeing how anybody else handles the transition in order to have any additional perspective.
I like the suggestions to use a tunnel or a berm or something similar, and to have it come up at the back of the scene. I’m guessing though that there comes a point where there must be a “glob” where the two come together. Although you guys have given me some ideas to think about. Also I like Byron’s advice not to overthink it I’m trying to decide if I can do with the helix, which I’d really like to do because of its huge footprint.
The Greeley Frieght Station Musuem in Greeley, CO is Nolix type layout. There is about 8’ (feet) in elevation gain on the layout. here is an example of them trasistioning to their upper level.
I would check out the rest of their site at http://www.gfsm.org. They have a lot of photos their layout that could give you ideas (its a great layout, all 5600 square feet of it)
The best transition I have seen from the nolix to the top deck was/is a grade out and back on a peninsula that joins the upper deck at the top of the climb. It is a very clean look.
RE Nolix vs helix: A couple of factors to keep in mind:
Do you want to run through the same scene more than once??
How big is the space and How long is the run around the room ??
It takes 50 feet of run (plus transitions) to gain one foot of vertical rise at a steady 2%. This can become a factor if you need to climb say 20" in a small room. You may end up running through the scene more than once to achieve the necessary gain. This can create lots of scenic headaches, depending on the circumstances. If the room is large, the nolix seems like a better option, but then again the helix footprint shrinks to a more manageable percentage of the total in a larger space…
In my own situation, I chose a helix in a 13’ X 22’ space because the numbers didn’t look favorable for the nolix and a climb of 20" between railheads/decks. I didn’t want to run thought he same scene more than once…
Although the No-lix solution in the picture above is nicely executed - it still looks unrealistic to my eye. If you extended that green piece of facia forward, those trees and bushes would not exist like that in nature. I understand where you’re coming from, John, when you say the scene gets cramped. It’s like as you gain elevation the sky magically disappears - odd. I think the helix is a cleaner solution if you can stand your train being out of site for a bit.
I don’t think you will ever have perfection here, one scene area may have multiple tracks involved with nolix, the pop into a tunnel and on the exits they are on their separate levels, the tunnels may be only a foot in length.
One classic version of the nolix is an around the wall version where the whole thing is on a continuous grade so the upper deck just keeps climbing and is at a constant elevation above the lower deck so you avoid the problem you posed.
Figure 6-9 in John Armstrong’s classic book “Track Planning for Realistic Operations” was the inspiration for my approach. On my layout the upper deck is basically level, but only three walls (east, south and west) have two decks. The north wall has a single deck that is close to the height of the upper deck and has track on two levels. The uphill grade heads north (clockwise) along the west wall, gets “close” under the upper deck, then turns east, going parallel to the north wall and then loops back west close to the north wall (now going counterclockwise) to reach the upper deck that starts along the west wall. The back of the loop along the north wall is in a cut-tunnel-cut. To get more seperation in the “close” end of the 2 deck area, I put a one turn helix inside the turn-back loop on the north wall hidden inside a mountain, so my cut-tunnel-cut sequence has a one turn helix in the tunnel.
I’m in the benchwork phase, but my idea for the scenic treatment of the “close” area is not to try for the big sky distant mountain vista here, rather take advantage of the “close” scene and use wooded hillsides and cliffs behind the track with no sky backdrop. It helps that the track in the close area is in the very back of my lower deck so that the fascia of the upper deck tends to block the sight lines for the area above the track in the close region.
I still wish I could find some photos that illustrate some of these ideas-- I went googling last night for several hours and again this morning and could not find much. I found lots of stuff about Nolixes in general, but nothing that really showed various methods for dealing with how they come together.
I like the suggestion earlier about simply building everything as an upward spiral around the walls at the same relative heights. But that won’t work in my situation because I can only double-deck one half of the space. (I can put an ‘upper deck’ though around the whole space).
Of course my layout is still in progress, but here are a couple of photos on my nolix.
It starts along the wall on the left, and scenery will be worked in to it from the lower level.
At the back wall, the shelf goes free standing (on wall brackets). The face will have some type of scenery skirt. maybe a block wall or a stone cliff. The depth of this scenery skirt will probably be 4 to 6 inches starting at track level. Once it hits the second door (on the right), the track then goes out on a bridge. Long stone pillars will be completed that reach down to the lower layout level.
Once past the door, the track crosses a very long trestle then goes into the top level.
The long trestle is a deck girder type complete with girder sides, bridge track, guard rails, and water barrel set outs.
While not a photo, Figure 6-9 in John Armstrong’s book “Track Planning for Realistic Operations” is an artist’s rendering of an idea for the transition to the upper deck. I consider that book a “must have” for model railroaders, lots of ideas and good information, well worth $15.00 (or the $3.50 it cost back in the olden days when I bought a first edition).
I’ve been interested in this for awhile as I may build another layout someday in a spare bedroom and I want it double decked. Fig. 6.9 is on pg. 57 of my 1st edition of Track Planning Realistic Oper. and is a good illustration of how to do it. I would like to avoid a train dissapearing for as long as several minutes in a helix. Thanks.
I’m trying to decide if I can do with the helix, which I’d really like to do because of its huge footprint.
