Helixi....

[Cajonpassfan]

...  And just to continue the pedantry, the oval version of the helix would more properly be called a nolix....

Actually, no. A nolix in model railroading is a climb to upper level(s) with no helix, round or oval. And its plural would be nolices?
Otto K.

[ednadolski]

... when derailments need to be managed.

In the spirit of ongoing  pedantry, also note the correct usage of 'when', and not 'if' ... 

I would never put a helix this large in the middle of a mainline run

Fair enough, but I would qualify that by adding that there should be no reason to avoid a helix in principle, provided one understands the design tradeoffs and what a helix can and cannot do.  A reasonably well-done implementation is of course presumed

Ed

[3DTrains]

And just to continue the pedantry, the oval version of the helix would more properly be called a nolix....

As Otto pointed out, a "nolix" is simply an exposed spiral to gain elevation. John Armstrong, who coined the term, described it as a long grade out in the open from one level to the next. Think "Spiral Tunnels" on Kicking Horse Pass, the spiral climb near Dunsmuir, CA (Shasta Springs to Mott), or Otto's Cajon Pass from San Berdoo to Summit (IIRC, the nolix on his layout is from Highland Jct to Devore or Keenbrook).

Cheers!
Marc - Riverside

[John]

Actually, no. A nolix in model railroading is a climb to upper level(s) with no helix, round or oval. And its plural would be nolices?
Otto K.

LOL .. so if I have a Nolix going around my walls and gaining elevation, isn't that really a helix 

[peteski]

As Otto pointed out, a "nolix" is simply an exposed spiral to gain elevation. John Armstrong, who coined the term, described it as a long grade out in the open from one level to the next.

That is what my friend, Rand Hoven did on his layout. Except he "stretched" the spiral to be around the room. Check his blog: http://albanysusquehanna.blogspot.com/2008/04/plan.html . He hasn't actively updated it but the premise of why he went with no helix is documented in the early entries.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

I'm not sure which is worse: 3 concealed helices, or an ops concept that relies on backing a TOFC train up a (concealed) helix.  Maybe you could start a Layout Engineering thread with specific track plan proposals and we'll help you figure out a way to avoid at least 2 of the 3 helices.  Until then, I've moved this thread out of the Eng. forum because that board is intended to chronicle member's layout builds, not general layout construction topics.

FWIW, I have a 3-track oval helix that serves as one of my staging yards (I would never put a helix this large in the middle of a mainline run):



The inner track has an 18" minimum radius, a 3.25" deck separation, and a 2.1% grade.  I used 1/4" baltic birch plywood for the roadbed to maximize finger space when derailments need to be managed.  Fortunately, those have been pretty infrequent.  I strongly recommend making the helix at least quasi visible - guests get nervous when there is a lot of hidden track.

I have done two major threads on what I want for the Boston line. The issue is that there are two BIG passenger terminals and FOUR medium to large yards. There is just no room to out this all in. So I decided to use a museum display/picture box layout segments with hidden trackage connecting the scenes. But to make the layout operable (Boston is literally a terminus - the is basically nothing north, east or south), I need hidden return loops behind the false walls between dioramas.

And since we are doing return loops, adding a helix for another level would take the same amount of room behind the false walls and would let me greatly expand areas modeled (P&W interchange under Worcester Yard, Beacon Park Yard under South Station Terminal, Framingham North under Nevins Yard). That means I can keep the room open without the need for islands and view blocks.

The other issue with this location is that these are not linear in an operations sense. Passenger trains bypass Beacon Park to enter South Station. Freight never goes anywhere near South Station. Framingham North is adjacent to Nevins, but located on a wye, away from the mainline. Locals going to Westboro yard and Nevins are made in North, where Nevins simply holds the cuts from though freights.

So the basic issue here is that the parts of the prototype that modelers lob off to make a linear layout are the precise parts I want to model. And the reason why it would be impossible to model as a single, plan.

[GaryHinshaw]

Forgive me, but I've lost touch with your plans for the Boston Line.  From rereading your last thread on this topic, it seems like you have as well.  In my experience, the most useful feedback on topics like this come with sketches and drawings.  I would recommend that you start a new Boston Line thread in the Engineering board (or re-title and restart the last one) and reboot the discussion with your Givens and Druthers, a sketch of the layout space, and any material you have on the shadow box configurations and connections between them.

On the more abstract (and therefore less useful) level, my sense is that you are heading towards a plan that has a very high ratio of hidden track to visible track.  Once the hidden track becomes at all complicated (reverse loops, helices, etc.) you'll find yourself a) spending a lot of time constructing those sections, and not enjoying the process, and b) you'll find them challenging to operate - for you, and especially for your guests.

[Cajonpassfan]

Daniel, I tend to agree with Gary's insight, and also understand your desire to have all these elements represented. But it is a huge undertaking that will take huge amounts of effort, time and money. That's okay, if you truly understand your goals, abilities and limitations; who I'm I to say it's too much for you or anyone to take on. These are very personal questions and challenges only you can answer. But you have to ask yourself some hard questions.

My experience with large layouts (and more so large real-world projects) tells me that in the planning stages, people rarely focus on and truly understand the core and the very essence of the final product: what is it, how is it used, by whom and how? How does it all function when done? The aesthetics vs. functionality vs. the infrastructure? In your case, is it a series of life-like dioramas where things magically happen for you to observe? Or is it operations based? How is it operated and by how many? Where are the operators located? Are there fixed positions for large yards? Walkaround operators? Can they stay out of each others way? Other than you, who are the others and how many can you expect to participate? How's many competent operators does it need to come to life?

I wouldn't even attempt a track plan without knowing these things, and then I would start with a schematic diagram to test the concept and its "bones". No point building the thing if the core concept has fatal flaws (as many layouts, even ones that are beautiful to look at, do). I suspect this process will help you narrow down your choices considerably so you can focus your efforts on the "art of the possible".

Looking forward to your progress.
Otto K.

[daniel_leavitt2000]

You guys have made some valid points. And I guess the issue I'm having with this is that I see a picture in my mind, but it's not really attached to anything.

Some notes...
I model and would operate alone, but the small isles at the club I belonged to made me claustrophobic. Hence wanting an open floor plan.

I like operations, but deathly afraid I'm "doing it wrong". Even with reading books and research, there is always a nagging feeling it's not correct. That I'm wrong and everyone would know.

Planning is not a character trait.

The basement has been ready for three years now and I can't seem to decide on a single plan and move forward.

Honestly, I just get sick to my stomach thinking about it.

[ednadolski]

Honestly, I just get sick to my stomach thinking about it.

Yes, that's the point when I start saying to myself, "hey dude (yes I call myself "dude") isn't this supposed to be fun?!?" 

Best input I can offer is, take a step back and do something else that is small and simple and a little bit different (and possibly even fun!).   Let the larger stuff sort itself out over time, and even if you never get there then at least you are doing something that you enjoy  -- which ultimately is the real point to the whole thing anyway.

And never worry about "doing it wrong"...  it is a hobby after all, and there really is no such thing as "wrong" (other than to persist in getting ill over it).

Ed

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Honestly, I just get sick to my stomach thinking about it.

Then don't! This is supposed to be fun.

I think you're falling into the planning trap.

I'd HIGHLY recommend doing something simpler first. Go build ONE of the scenes (ideally one of the easier) and focus on that for a while. Use it as a lab to work out concepts, refine interests, and prepare to scale up for the next sprint.

One thing I would HIGHLY caution you about: if you're going to be doing this on your own, biting off a big project (in scope, complexity, etc...) is going to cause you lots of future heartburn.

Here's a simple example: I can't just pop down into the basement and run my layout right now. I'm having track cleanliness issues. It's not that big of a layout, but the cleaning the track I need just to run loops is a pain in the a$$.

If you're going to build something big and complex, you're going to have to keep something big and complex CLEAN.

It wouldn't take much to replicate this scene:
http://conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/Images/Tortoise-and-the-hare-on-71897-4

Or this:
http://conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/Images/CR-6570-leads-MBSEY-upgrade-near-Bancroft-MA-June-1987

Or this beautiful scene:
http://conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/Images/An-autumnal-day-on-the-BA10893-04

Or any of these:
http://conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/Images/1-BOEL-at-North-Becket-MA-on-71881
http://conrailphotos.thecrhs.org/Images/CR-2673-at-Westfield-MA


If you decide to do something modular (think Free-mo style), you can just build pieces and string them together as they get done.

But most importantly, if something in your hobby is stressing you out, don't do that.

[mark dance]

whenever project management just gets too much for me...

md

[mighalpern]

Daniel:
here is a crazy thought about the helix,  Don't use one, nor a nolex.  As a friend did on his layout he built a vertical lift section out of drawer sliders and made the cassette section about 3 feet long ( enough to hold small train ) and then just uses that.  He uses slide latches to lock the cassette in place and has some weights hidden in the back to make it go up and down very smoothly.  Train goes around his room, enters the cassette, he lifts it and then does the next go around.  His is a large layout so it takes awhile before your back to the lift.  It is in a very small closet and enters/ exit  thru holes in the sheet rock.  Might simplify your plans and certainly lower the derailment/access issues.
My 2 cents

Miguel
   

[wm3798]

If you are going to be the owner/operator of the layout, treat yourself to a simple layout.  If you want to see long trains stretch their legs out, you don't want any more helix blobs than are absolutely necessary. 

Don't trick yourself into thinking you need some elaborate plan, especially one with a lot of hidden running... staging, yes.  Make it accessible, but it can be below decks somewhere.

Build a behemoth that you have to build, maintain, and once in a while actually operate by your self, will quickly have you feeling overwhelmed and not having any fun.

Been there, done that, I can mail you the T-shirt if you like.

Next time I have room to build a reasonably sized layout, it's either going to be a long main with staging at each end so I can model the Potomac Bends, or it will be a thread bare Penn Central branch line serving a handful of industries.  Too much of a good thing often makes it a bad thing...

Lee

[nscaler711]

I'm going to throw a wrench into this thread about helices;
What about some type of elevator?
Or would that be harder to do or just completely impractical?