goscrewyourselves
I'm the one
Is it possible to create a track plan that covers 2 levels without using one of those spiral thingy's? Sorry gone blank regards the technical name for the spiral thingy.
Question re levels
- Thread starter goscrewyourselves
- Start date
Yes it is, not quite so easy on a layout that is small and is only seen in entirety from one side, but generally it relies on having a high line and a low line. I was looking at your latest layout rendition and thinking that it leant itself to that proposal. Usually accomplished by having the roles of each track swapped as necessary, or combined to the same level e.g. interchanges to maintain viewer line of sight contact.
Yes, you can do more than one level with out a helix. The design term is a Nolix. Basically the track has to work it's way upgrade to a higher or lower level and it does require some space to do it without the grade getting overly steep. My layout in a 10x18 room does exactly that. There is sizable staging yard on the lower level and a 2.9% grade takes the track across a scenic'd part of the layout up to a yard which is over the staging area. There are photo's here at the Atlas Rescue forum in my layout progress topic:
http://atlasrescueforum.proboards.com/thread/3737/jims-layout-progress
http://atlasrescueforum.proboards.com/thread/3737/jims-layout-progress
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
The museum layout is a true two level plan (scenery on both levels) without a helix, the catch is that it is huge. We have 5500 square feet where we can get the trains up to the 2nd level with 5 scale miles of non-helix track. So I believe the short answer is no. Without massive amount of space to do an around the room hill climb, it is impossible.
However if you don't mind having two separate tracks. That is have one level with one set of trains and another level with a different set of trains that do not connect you could do it.
Another however, is if you only want to get the trains high enough to have a hidden staging area it might be possible since you only need to get an extra hand's width height over the trains, not a whole eye's width. wink.
Last edited by a moderator:
goscrewyourselves
I'm the one
One of these? A Helix
You can just use something like this if you have enough space.
Bachmann HO 44471 EZ Track Graduated Pier Set
Louis,
Duh, I knew it was called a Helix - was just testin' you all
Thanks mate, appreciate the input.
Rico,
Hi mate and thanks, the more I read the replies the more I am convinced I was confusing myself about what "levels" are. I guess I call them elevations rather than levels. For what ever eason, I thought a "level" was different to an elevation.
Cheers mate and what you are describing is what I call elevations rather than levels, although I didn't know they were called a Nolix. As aid, I think I may be talking about the same thing under a different name.
Horseman,
Is that a hint by any chance
If so, with the larger bench work, a staging area is a very real possibility I think.Thanks guys and obviously I need to reevaluate my terminology
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
No, no hint intended. Just babbling information as I see it.Is that a hint by any chance
But you are right this is another area of the hobby we need to come up with and standardize on some terminology.
Last edited by a moderator:
goscrewyourselves
I'm the one
Standardizing terminology could be hard when you consider different countries call different things different names, ie turnouts, switches, points - all of them are right depending on the country. Maybe a Model Railway Dictionary might be the way to go?
Cheers back atcha. Yes, Nolix is a term basically for a "ramp" so the mainline brings the train steadily up or down so it arrives at a new level, or elevation, or deck, whatever you want to call it. Most folks here in the US call a part of the layout where trains operate at a totally different elevation than the other parts of the layout, a level by convention. It doesn't matter. So I suppose if we can get on the same page terminology-wise, we won't have the old US vs UK dilemma (two people separated by a common language! hah hah). Just so you know, I'm an American married to a Brit, so I've been fully indoctrinated. I suppose the Aussies, who are kind of ex-Brits who too, are gonna have similar language issues. BTW, since I am trained as a geologist and have worked a lot with civil engineers, I'm totally fine with the term elevation - since it describes very accurately the level of the layout above the floor (or sea level if you really want! )
Anywho - if you look at the photo's of my layout, you'll see how there is storage/staging yard underneath a regular RR yard which is above. The trains travel around the walls of the room going up or down to get to the other "elevation" or level.
There are other model railroads which employ a Nolix. For example Bill Darnaby's Maumee Route, featured in Model Railroader magazine, is a fairly large home layout which the mainline gradually gains elevation as it runs along a shelf so that it reaches a second elevation/level without a helix. The whole line is senicked and lighted which is ideal really so there are not trains spending a lot of time hidden in a helix winding all the way to the next elevation/level.
Here is a link to Santa Fe Sammy's Pbase - he has posted video's and photo's on the Atlas Rescue Forum.
http://www.pbase.com/sammy1974/santa_fe_hereford_sub&page=all
Take a cab ride and see how the trains go from one deck to the other without a helix! He uses a Nolix.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vq-0TiSLdbs
Hi Tony,
As others said the choice is either helix or nolix. Being reading heavily on the topic lately for designing another (future) layout (using helix solution for getting to lower level staging, not a double deck layout with scenery on both decks). I haven't built a helix, so i am far from being an expert on the topic (have built a small nolix-like ramp in a previous layout that went to lower level staging) As far as i see, choosing one solution or the other depends on (non exhaustive list):
1. Type of scenery - geo-characteristics of your layout (flatland / urban / mountainous). For example, a mountain scenery favors a nolix as well as a helix. I for one, could not come up with how to use a nolix solution given urban / flatland scenery.
2. Size / shape of layout , as others said, in small layouts a nolix might not work unless the track plan goes around the room many times. A helix will work and i suppose if one scenics the top of the helix in a way it fits his/hers purpose then it can work without being just an area where trains change levels (ie something to occupy the top deck of the helix as scenery).
When having a helix as a solution for getting to a lower staging level, i had to find how to incorporate / blend-in the top of the helix to the top-deck of a layout (the one with scenic elements). That is how to hide the first top deck loop effectively especially when having urban scenery. If a layout has mountains then it becomes easier to hide this.
Having said the above, one has to see if the whatever benefits of having a 2nd deck (be it for staging or an extra scenery deck) outweigh the drawbacks of having either a helix or a nolix built and present on the layout.
You could cheat I suppose but it does help if the territory had grades. The D&RGW actually has very little flat running track since it goes from the mile high city (Denver) up to the continental divide at the Moffatt tunnel and down and across a roller coaster of territory all the way to Salt Lake City.
2) is the biggest factor in determining helix vs. nolix. Helixes are major space hogs assuming you make them large enough to not have a steep grade with sharp radius's - even 30-inch radius is iffy according to some with real world experience. BTW, my nolix doesn't go around the room many times, it goes around once to get to the top level/elevation and around the room once more to get back to the bottom level/elevation. My grade is 2.9% which is manageable to run 20 or 25 car trains which is about all I can realistically manage on this smallish layout.
The benefit of a 2nd deck is add capacity to have a longer run and/or store entire trains in staging. Lets face it, most of us end up collecting lots of trains and yes, I've heard the mantra "less is more" but that ain't my bag so ...
Such a cool layout! Thanks for the cab ride!
goscrewyourselves
I'm the one
Thanks Gents for all of the explanations. As Riogrande and Horseman have said, seems we are all talking about the same thing only using different methods/vocabulary to achieve/describe it.
Rio ... Aussies are ex-Brits???? Them there are fightin' words! It is funny, I suppose, how we all speak the same language (by name if nothing else) yet still can't seem to understand one another. I know when I first moved to the US (my wife is a Yank) I had a hellavu time understanding some of the things Americans were saying, as did they with me. Even after being here for almost 10 years, there are times when I have to have my wife "interpret" for me.
Rio ... Aussies are ex-Brits???? Them there are fightin' words!
It is funny, I suppose, how we all speak the same language (by name if nothing else) yet still can't seem to understand one another. I know when I first moved to the US (my wife is a Yank) I had a hellavu time understanding some of the things Americans were saying, as did they with me. Even after being here for almost 10 years, there are times when I have to have my wife "interpret" for me.
jdetray
Well-Known Member
Here's a much smaller example: my own little N-scale layout. It's only 32" x 48".
The mainline goes twice around and climbs to the upper level. The last bit of the climb to the upper level is a 3% grade; not ideal but it works for my small trains. Tracks on both levels exit the layout on the left, where eventual expansion can be added.
You may recognize the track plan as being inspired by John Allen's original Gorre & Daphetid.
- Jeff
The mainline goes twice around and climbs to the upper level. The last bit of the climb to the upper level is a 3% grade; not ideal but it works for my small trains. Tracks on both levels exit the layout on the left, where eventual expansion can be added.
You may recognize the track plan as being inspired by John Allen's original Gorre & Daphetid.
- Jeff
goscrewyourselves
I'm the one
jdetray,
Nice little layout and a good example too.
Nice little layout and a good example too.
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
Well the benefit of having a 2nd deck is almost doubling the size of the layout. When people take pictures at the museum they usually try to hide the fact that there are two levels of layout. But I found one were one can see the two levels. The picture is focused on the town below, but at the upper right one can see the signals of a passing siding on the deck above. The scenery is just forest in this case. The green fascia board hides the lighting for the lower deck.
The really hard part is the scenery for the transition from one level to the next. In the museum's case on side was fairly easy, because we have so much space there is an island that is only single deck. The train enters on the lower deck and a couple miles later is on the top deck.
Last edited by a moderator:
Having mentioned weighting the benefits of having a 2nd level maybe i was not clear. There are a few i suppose cases where one could avoid a 2nd deck (for staging) if he/she could place the staging conveniently lets say with tracks behind a back drop / building / forest, etc. IF the layout was suitable to do so. So you can get away with having staging without having a 2nd deck for staging.
In most cases (as in mine) i would prefer having a 2nd deck even for staging. Accessibility to the staging tracks with a 2nd deck appears to be much improved in my eyes.
Very nice picture Iron Horseman, thanks for posting it.
In most cases (as in mine) i would prefer having a 2nd deck even for staging. Accessibility to the staging tracks with a 2nd deck appears to be much improved in my eyes.
Very nice picture Iron Horseman, thanks for posting it.
