Offset Helix?


L

LoudMusic

Member
I like making crazy layout designs. Coming up with ways to push limits or do things that haven't been done before. Provide new ways of looking at layouts.

One of my favorite devices is the helix. But the problem with a helix is it consumes so much space, and doesn't provide any visual quality to the layout. It's an elevator.

But if the layers of the helix were staggered or offset there could be enough room above a layer to provide some visibility or even scenery addition.

The measurements on the helix in the images below are not important, but the concept I think is pretty useful. Every third layer has a larger radius than the others, so that the space above them is three times as high as 'normal'. The outside layers are in green, inside in brown, and the transitional sections are in gray. Every bit of it is an incline. The green is 3/4 of a lap, the gray are 1/4 of a lap, brown are 1 3/4 lap.

If a helix like this were placed at the end of a peninsula section of a layout there could be so much more to look at in regards to the layout.

I don't know, seems like it could work.
 
I have seen a layout in model railroader in the past (1996 or 1997) where part of the helix pokes out into a nice scene with a signal and some trees. I thought it was a great idea. It should work great.

Steve
 
My last layout had a cut out with scenery just to show that the train was indeed still there. I might do the next one with a sight glass similar to a fuel tank.
One problem with leveling a section would be the grade would have to be steeper to compensate... maybe need more room too?
 
It would certainly need more room - you wouldn't want to decrease the radius of the inside loops in order to create this. But the outside loops can be grades as well - the whole thing is still "on grade", just that some of the loops are bigger than others.

I'd like to see some pictures of your helix, Rico. Sounds like a good idea.

And I'll see if I can find that issue of MR at the club library. It would be nice to see a real world example :D
 
That's why, whenever possible, I use a nolix, instead of a helix. The nolix is basically a helix with straight sections in it to provide the elevation needed at a much smaller grade. Because it is longer, much can be left exposed and scenicked as part of the theme of the layout.

Here is my nolix.

Nolix.png


The nolix starts at the lower Rt hand corner, and twists around going up a a 1.7% grade. Where it ends at Jones, (on another level), is 12 inches above the mainline. A helix would have required a much steeper grade, and would have been a nightmare to build. This way, while drawn with more hidden track than has turned out to be the case, I have much of the route exposed for viewing.
 
Cjcrescent said:
That's why, whenever possible, I use a nolix, instead of a helix. The nolix is basically a helix with straight sections in it to provide the elevation needed at a much smaller grade. Because it is longer, much can be left exposed and scenicked as part of the theme of the layout.

Here is my nolix.

<omitted for visual space>

The nolix starts at the lower Rt hand corner, and twists around going up a a 1.7% grade. Where it ends at Jones, (on another level), is 12 inches above the mainline. A helix would have required a much steeper grade, and would have been a nightmare to build. This way, while drawn with more hidden track than has turned out to be the case, I have much of the route exposed for viewing.
Click to expand...

Oh yes, absolutely! That's a superior method for raising trains elegantly and visually. I've created a few designs with compact switchbacks accomplishing similar results. But if you wanted to raise the track level 18 to 24 inches to get to a second deck while not filling a huge area with mountains a helix is likely a more efficient way of getting there. But even stuck with a helixing arrangement I think it's possible to show off the trains a little as they go round and round.

Thanks for sharing your track plan. It's always helpful to see how others are accomplishing similar results.
 
Ya certainly need to extend the area used in the nolix or helix so the train doesn't look like the Polar Express climbing the last mountain.
 
Similar to this is a spiral with every other or every third level exposed. Of course it has a greater diameter at the bottom, but combined with Carey's "no-lix" concept could be quite interesting. It could be all exposed if needed but I think that would detract from the concept.
willie
 
LoudMusic said:
One of my favorite devices is the helix. But the problem with a helix is it consumes so much space, and doesn't provide any visual quality to the layout. It's an elevator.

But if the layers of the helix were staggered or offset there could be enough room above a layer to provide some visibility or even scenery addition.
Click to expand...
Hmmm I could have sworn I saw an article about "offset" helix designs, but now I can't find it. The only "unusual" helix design references I can find are:

The Pyramid Helix
by David Clemens Ted Brandon
from Layout Design Journal/News March 1991 p. 63

Feedback on helix design and operation
by Doug Hughes
from Layout Design Journal/News March 1996 p. 19

Octagonal helixes
easy to lay out, eliminates waste
by Broshears, Mike Kujawa, Roger
from Railroad Model Craftsman December 2004 p. 88

As I recall this was an intersting layout where the helix was the layout.
Union Terminal Ry in HO scale
by Don Mitchell
from Model Railroader October 1997 p. 90
 
Iron Horseman said:
Hmmm I could have sworn I saw an article about "offset" helix designs, but now I can't find it. The only "unusual" helix design references I can find are:

The Pyramid Helix
by David Clemens Ted Brandon
from Layout Design Journal/News March 1991 p. 63

Feedback on helix design and operation
by Doug Hughes
from Layout Design Journal/News March 1996 p. 19

Octagonal helixes
easy to lay out, eliminates waste
by Broshears, Mike Kujawa, Roger
from Railroad Model Craftsman December 2004 p. 88

As I recall this was an intersting layout where the helix was the layout.
Union Terminal Ry in HO scale
by Don Mitchell
from Model Railroader October 1997 p. 90
Click to expand...

I don't have an account but I can look it up in the printed copy next week in the club library. Looking forward to it! I think the other publications are in the library as well. Thanks for the info.
 
LoudMusic said:
... But if you wanted to raise the track level 18 to 24 inches to get to a second deck while not filling a huge area with mountains a helix is likely a more efficient way of getting there...
Click to expand...

While they both accomplish the same thing, I believe the nolix is a better way to gain "altitude", ie, more efficient, for the simple reason it provides breaks in the constant double drag that a helix causes. Since a helix causes no only the drag of curves, there is also the added drag of the grade itself. Sometimes this combination will severely limit what an engine can pull going up that hill. The nolix, by its design, can be drawn to provide breaks in this constant double drag. You can't do that with a helix.

While there are situations that dictate that there is room only for a helix, I believe that there aren't enough of those type situations to warrant not looking at other designs.

When I draw a trackplan for any paying client, I use the helix as a last resort. They are way harder to build and maintain than a nolix, simply because the vast majority of of a helix, has to be hidden, and harder to get "both sides of the track" access. There is also with this, minimal clearance in the turns of the helix. Lets not forget that in a big helix, there can be times when you're not sure that your train is even still moving. These are potential problems not generally encountered with a nolix.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top