# HELIX SETUP



## HD FLATCAR (Feb 21, 2011)

I am designing a 3 level layout... I am putting a helix at each end. Will be running passenger trains (8-10 cars) & ore/coal drags (50+cars) with 2-10-2 locomotives & helpers. What is a good operating radius curve?? I was looking at 30"R on the helix and 30-36 "R around the layout... hopefully nothing under 28"R.

Any feedback would be welcomed...


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Are you certain your locos can pull the heavy trains you plan up a helix?
Long trains mean a lot of wheels on the rails each adding to the
drag...and especially so on curves and slopes...the wider the curve radius the
less resistance...seems interest but quite a challenge.

Don


----------



## HD FLATCAR (Feb 21, 2011)

Max grade is 2%.


----------



## HD FLATCAR (Feb 21, 2011)

DonR said:


> Are you certain your locos can pull the heavy trains you plan up a helix?
> Long trains mean a lot of wheels on the rails each adding to the
> drag...and especially so on curves and slopes...the wider the curve radius the
> less resistance...seems interest but quite a challenge.
> ...


I can go to 36"R.


----------



## HD FLATCAR (Feb 21, 2011)

I have been playing with a switching level design so that one helix, out side track is 36R, can be used to go to multi-level layouts. I'm wanting to built a 3 level layout and have one helix at each end of layout to access the 3 level, up or/and down... Look at track plan and see if it looks usable...


----------



## HD FLATCAR (Feb 21, 2011)

HD FLATCAR said:


> I have been playing with a switching level design so that one helix, out side track is 36R, can be used to go to multi-level layouts. I'm wanting to built a 3 level layout and have one helix at each end of layout to access the 3 level, up or/and down... Look at track plan and see if it looks usable...
> View attachment 551060


I revised this drawing and got gid off the "cross-over"... I think this plan will work better.


----------



## Mark VerMurlen (Aug 15, 2015)

I was hoping that someone with experience building and running a railroad with a helix would jump into this thread and give you practical real world advice. Seeing that hasn't happened, I'll give you my opinion, which is NOT based on practical experience with a helix. So take this as you wish.

Turnouts are the most likely source of derailments on a layout, so I would not have any turnouts within your helix. Fixing a derailment is going to be hard within the helix because of limited clearances and access. Separated cars are going to want to run downhill. You want the helix track construction to be bulletproof to minimize possible problems. If you go forward with a double helix, I would design it such that which of the 2 tracks is chosen is made outside of the helix before entering it. I would make the inside track go up 2 levels and the outside track go up just 1 to avoid any crossovers.

Just my thoughts.


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

A lot of modelers in Europe use a helix because space is usually small for a layout. A good helix is large, but still takes up less room than trying to get from one level to another, or even a third level.


----------



## T-Man (May 16, 2008)

I would say check them out at you tube. Trial and error would be the best teacher. When you start with a curve and a 2 or 4 degree incline you understand the limitations.


----------



## HD FLATCAR (Feb 21, 2011)

Mark VerMurlen said:


> I was hoping that someone with experience building and running a railroad with a helix would jump into this thread and give you practical real world advice. Seeing that hasn't happened, I'll give you my opinion, which is NOT based on practical experience with a helix. So take this as you wish.
> 
> Turnouts are the most likely source of derailments on a layout, so I would not have any turnouts within your helix. Fixing a derailment is going to be hard within the helix because of limited clearances and access. Separated cars are going to want to run downhill. You want the helix track construction to be bulletproof to minimize possible problems. If you go forward with a double helix, I would design it such that which of the 2 tracks is chosen is made outside of the helix before entering it. I would make the inside track go up 2 levels and the outside track go up just 1 to avoid any crossovers.
> 
> ...


----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

HD FLATCAR said:


> I am designing a 3 level layout... I am putting a helix at each end. Will be running passenger trains (8-10 cars) & ore/coal drags (50+cars) with 2-10-2 locomotives & helpers. What is a good operating radius curve?? I was looking at 30"R on the helix and 30-36 "R around the layout... hopefully nothing under 28"R.
> 
> Any feedback would be welcomed...


HD FLATCAR:

I have an N-scale, two level, shelf layout which incorporates a "stretched helix" main line. That is, the entire main line is a continuous grade, and forms a series of narrow ovals that let the train climb between levels. This is not the "classic" helix made up of a stack of circular track layers. I had planned on using a classic circular helix, in fact two of them. Since, like you, I too had originally planned on having three levels. In short, I was demented! 😄

A circular helix is certainly possible to build, many have been built, and operated successfully. However the classic helix has a lot of disadvantages.
It was to avoid, or at least minimize, these disadvantages that I switched to using a stretched oval helix. There are also some alternative means of getting a train from one level of a layout to another, but they share some of the disadvantages of a helix, and have some of their own.

First lets look at the disadvantages of a helix. (or worse, two helixes)

1) A helix is BIG.
It occupies a whole lot of layout space.

2) A helix looks unrealistic
Since helixes are extremely rare on the prototype, (Tehachapi loop, & the spiral tunnels, are the only two I can think of offhand.) we normally hide them, so the layout looks more like a real railroad. Doing this means a lot of hidden track.

3) The hidden track in a helix will need cleaning, and maintenance, and suffer derailments, and unplanned uncouplings, (which, on a grade, means runaway trains!) at least as often as any other track, so you will need access to every inch of track in the helix.
That means making the helix wide enough to fit a human inside it AND he will need enough room in there to bend down and look at, and clean, track which is not very far below the track layer above it. If there is to be anything approaching enough open space inside the helix to do that, read disadvantage #1) again and multiply!

4) An additional "joy" inherent in a helix is that it can only be practically accessed from below. (Climbing up a ladder and jumping in from above is sure to hurt the layout, or you, or most likely both severely!  )
That means crawling under the layout every time anything needs to be done inside the helix. While quite annoying, physically, this isn't too bad when your young, and flexible, but it becomes more painful, and eventually near-impossible, as you get older.

5) Helixes are expensive.
They devour vast amounts of track. In fact, unless you have an exceptionally large layout, there will be more track in the helix than on the rest of your layout! The amount of plywood and wire in a helix is not huge, but it's substantial, and it still needs to be paid for.

6) Helixes are frustrating, and boring.
To climb any significant distance, (such as the height difference between levels of a multi-level layout) a helix needs to have many layers of track. If you maintain a 2% grade in your helix, (Which is about the maximum to end up with anything other than a circular roller coaster) the train is going to spend a whole lot of time inside the helix, and out of your sight. This can be a very frustrating, and long, wait. Unfortunately, waiting for a train to travel through a helix has all the entertainment value of watching paint dry.

7) Helixes are no fun at all to build, and very difficult to build right.
A helix is normally constructed of dozens of pieces of thin plywood cut into segments of a circle. These segments overlap each other, and with many of them glued together, you will (hopefully) form a perfect spiral of plywood. As you build the layers that form the spiral, you need to lay track very, very, carefully (as close to perfect as you can) as you go along. It will be impossible to lay the track after the spiral is complete. You also need to wire the track as you go along. I also recommend low walls be mounted on both sides of the track to prevent trains falling to the floor! These walls will also help prevent warping of the plywood in the helix. That plywood needs to be thin in order to maintain some distance between levels without increasing the grade percentage. I'd use 1/4" thick Luan plywood. With the overlap of adjacent circular segments this will form a 1/2" thick base for the track.
This spiral needs to be supported somehow, The supports need to be kept to a minimum, and placed so as not interfere with track cleaning. The plywood & track spiral needs to end up in a consistent grade. Maintaining a constant percentage of grade through the full length of a helix is no job for a beginner.

My stretched helix means that the train is in sight half the time as it travels through the helix, as opposed to none of the time. I conceal the "return track" that forms one of the long sides of my oval helix, behind removeable backdrops.
[Note: You can see a track plan of my layout in the "Layout Design" section of this forum. It's in a thread called "Here are the layouts of some forum members."]
Thus, all my track is reasonably accessible, though I do have one duck under. I use a short rolling stool to get back there as I am old and partially disabled.


So what are the other methods of getting from level to level?

1) A "train elevator."

Several modelers have built elevators that a train can run onto, and then the track, & supporting lumber, are moved vertically, using drawer guides and a chain drive & motor. Not exactly easy to build, but if done right, they work.
However, they are not the least bit realistic looking, and consequently are usually hidden. Their big disadvantage, besides the cost, & complexity of their construction, is restricted train length. Any train longer than the elevator's track, won't fit, at least not in one piece.

2) A "Vertical turnout"

This odd contraption was invented by master track planner John Armstrong. His book "Track planning for realistic operation" explains it better than I can, but I'll outline the basic idea. Its a long, section of wood, with track laid on it, hinged at one end to let it tilt up and down. The train enters the movable track when it is in the "down" position. That track is at a grade, which the train climbs. Then the plank is tilted upward to the level of a higher, (non-moving) track. Then the train backs off the plank, again climbing a grade, but now in the opposite direction. The idea is to gain more height by splitting the grade. However, the overall height to be gained with this gadget is limited and probably not enough to get between layout levels.

3) A "Switchback"

This one was actually used on several prototype railroads. A train runs forward up a grade to a conventional turnout. The turnout is switched, and the train backs up onto another grade & climbs higher to another turnout. That turnout is switched and the train runs forward up still another grade, to another turnout. Repeat as many times as it takes to get up the hill.
This looks realistic, if your model railroad company had to resort to switchbacks, so it needn't be hidden, but it does limit train length to the shortest of the switchback tracks.

4) A "Fiddle track" or "Cassete"

This is simply a long wooden box containing a track. It can be laid on a fixed shelf, with the rails lined up with a track on one level. The entire box, including train, is then carefully lifted, by hand, and placed on another fixed shelf on the next level of the layout. Easy, and cheap to build. A bit hard to use without derailing a train,(this is why the box should have train-high walls) but practice will help.



Why two levels instead of three?

For a multi level layout to work, there needs to be enough height difference between levels to allow for some scenery, and to get your "twelve inch to the foot scale" head & shoulders between levels to work on anything that needs it.

My levels are sixteen inches apart, and I would consider that the bare minimum.
I'm quite tall, (6'-6") and I mounted my layout with the top level's track about at my standing eye level. That put the lower level too far down to comfortably work on it while standing, and still too high to see it well while seated. I now wish I had mounted it lower, since I do a lot more sitting than standing at age 72, with feet that don't work normally anymore. If I had built a third, top, level, I would have to stand on a ladder, or raised platform, to see it. Since my balance now stinks, and my doctor says I should stay off ladders, I'm glad I never built a third level.
Conversely, If all three levels were mounted low enough to see the top one standing up and maybe even see the middle one sitting down, how would you see the bottom level? Lying on the floor? How would you get under that low level to somehow get yourself standing up inside your lower-level-to middle-level helix?

I recommend a major re-thinking about the "three level two helix plan."
However, It's your railroad, and your life, so if you really, really, want to put your self through all that, well, good luck.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)




----------



## traction fan (Oct 5, 2014)

MichaelE said:


>


 Michael;

Beautiful picture! If your intent was to show me that there are more real life helixes outside North America, point taken. However, they are still very rare, at least on the North American railroads that most of us model.

Traction Fan 🙂


----------



## MichaelE (Mar 7, 2018)

They are rare even in the Alps. This is the only one I'm aware of on the Rhätische Bahn.


----------



## HD FLATCAR (Feb 21, 2011)

traction fan said:


> HD FLATCAR:
> 
> I have an N-scale, two level, shelf layout which incorporates a "stretched helix" main line. That is, the entire main line is a continuous grade, and forms a series of narrow ovals that let the train climb between levels. This is not the "classic" helix made up of a stack of circular track layers. I had planned on using a classic circular helix, in fact two of them. Since, like you, I too had originally planned on having three levels. In short, I was demented! 😄
> 
> ...


Thanks for your input...I relies age will catch up to me (65 now) & trying to plan ahead...Hence the elevator to get upstairs to the layout. I'm trying to get this thing down to 2 levels, still believe I'll "need" 2 helixes. If you want to look over my "plans", they're in the "LAYOUT DESIGN FORUM/ B&LE GREENVILLE SHOPS LAYOUT


----------

