She’ll be comin’ round the mountain, or will she?

not seeing it. i’m trying

Maybe you’re suggesting that by reducing the grade on the prior to last turn the grade would be less because the circumderences is less and more of the train ould be on the prior turn with no grade. but regardless, that last turn needs to clear that prior turn and the grade would be substantial because the radius is so small

again, not seeing it.

that last turn can’t increase in radius or become more oval because the prior turn is horizontal to it.

this is what is looks like from above with adjacent tracks less than the clearance height required

i plan on doing a vertical cliff with trestles. i am using a Proses Smart Hobbey. i choose the Marklin C4/C5 for the largest turn. I plan on using a big boy and passenger train line on it.

1 Like

It looks like starting with a 29” radius, 3” rise (including deck) and reducing 2.5” per level I can only get 4 loops equaling 12” rise before the inline hits 2.2%. If I expand the diameter to 6’ I think I can get 2 more loops totaling 18” rise.
No wonder you don’t see folks doing these.


1 Like

are you accounting ofor the effective grade due to curvature, which for N-scale is ~17.5/rad?

 rad  eff-gr
  29   0.60
  24   0.73
  19   0.92
  14   1.25
1 Like

what do you think the required clearance is between tracks?

from RP-7.1 the recommended height is 1.28". Add to that the height of the track and benchwork. And don’t forget the thickness of fingers when rerailing cars. I assumed 2.8"

1 Like

And the required clearance will change, perhaps dramatically, with sharper curvature toward the top.

I can see why the ‘window into tunnel’ approach with a more conventional helix geometry is used instead. It occurs to me that there are stretches of Swiss mountain railroad that are built in galleries carved in vertical mountain faces – that might be an interesting thing to adopt.

There may be an interesting approach in Creon Farr’s ‘switchback’ railroad that was built from the rim of the ‘Grand Canyon of Pennsylvania’ down to Tiadaghton… steep and curving enough that people didn’t want to ride it.

1 Like

Gregc - the answer to your first question is no, that is beyond me.
As for clearance, it doesn’t matter here as each loop will be open above.

1 Like

until when you want to leave the spiral at the top

1 Like

True, but that would only be as wide as a bridge, maybe 2”. If there were a derail on the loop below it would be easy to pull the car out.

look at your drawing. how far above the previous turn does the exit track need to be above that track?

1 Like

Each loop has a 3” rise including roadbed, so 2.5”.

It’s going to require a steeper grade on the last turn, independent of exit direction, to get out of the helix.

to exit the loop at the top, it needs to clear the 3 previous turns. Please look at the diagram. The black line represents that trackage exiting the helix and the blue line the clearance require any tracks it crosses

1 Like

13.00" rad
81.68" circumeference
2.50" clearance
3.06% grade
1.35% grade due to curvature (17.5/rad)
4.41% tot-gr <<<<<<<<<

3 Likes

This is more what I will be doing. I have bought 2 prebuilt HO Proses Helixes and which limits what I can do. I was thinking to do it like the Chinese villagers did and “carve” out a space. I will be doing a canyon type bridge to connect the two.

2 Likes

There is a Christmas tree display
Here is the Helix planner but with ever decreasing levels flex track would be great to utilize.

1 Like