OO Gauge Helix

[GEOEng03]

I am currently weighing up using two helix structures at either end of the layout, to give me a under layout storage area and allow trains to do a circuit around the layout.  Has anyone got experience of the following eBay product

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/282382269004?var=581510936472

 

This product provides a considerable saving over the Modelrailwaysolutions and appears on the face of it to be a very similar solution (6mm MDF and screws to hold in place).  I have toyed with the idea of doing this myself, but the price is similar when weighing up the price of MDF panels (i suppose bulk could be cheaper).  

 

Anyway, i'd be interested to hear of anyone has used this product. 

Cheers

[Joseph_Pestell]

I am currently weighing up using two helix structures at either end of the layout, to give me a under layout storage area and allow trains to do a circuit around the layout.  Has anyone got experience of the following eBay product

 

http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/282382269004?var=581510936472

 

This product provides a considerable saving over the Modelrailwaysolutions and appears on the face of it to be a very similar solution (6mm MDF and screws to hold in place).  I have toyed with the idea of doing this myself, but the price is similar when weighing up the price of MDF panels (i suppose bulk could be cheaper).  

 

Anyway, i'd be interested to hear of anyone has used this product. 

Cheers

 

That is really very cheap!

 

What sort of trains do you plan to run? A 1:40 gradient with curves that tight is going to put a lot of strain on your locos if trains are at all long. Modern models of steam prototype will probably not cope at all.

 

Take a look at the Dent layout thread on here. He did a lot of research on helices.

[Campaman]

Once you start adding up the parts its not that cheap, £45 for the first circle then £36 for each level, what's pictured looks to be costing around £130-£140.

 

The model railway solutions kit is only slightly more expensive.

[DCB]

So what is the price?  it looks around £ 100 for a foot rise. 

 

I know form bitter experience and a failed spiral that there are two big problems with spirals, one which can be addressed by the manufacturer is the twist on the road bed and hence track but there doesn't appear to be anything to hold the upper inner corner of the road bed down in this kit unless the track bed is pre formed with a twist.

 

The other issue is gradients have to be measured from true horizontal and not from baseboard datum, a 1 in 50 spiral gradient sitting on a baseboard sloping at 1 in 100 will vary between 1 in 33 and 1 in 100 if my maths are right.   UK spirals should climb on a right hand curve to give the climbing train the easier gradient and reduce the twist on the ascending track which will leave some long wheelbase steam locos running on 3 wheels on a 2nd radius curve. US and foreign types drive on the wrong side so their spirals should go t'other way.

[GEOEng03]

Hi all,

thanks for the comments. Tbh, i haven't taken the plunge because i feel the quality doesn't look quite the same. Agreed that there isn't a lot between them, but it amounts to nearly £80 if two are purchased, which is why i have asked about anyone else using them. 

 

I am still reading up on the several posts i have found on here and am hoping to see one in action, but they never seem to make the circuit in the SW.  As my Mum always said, if there is doubt, then walkaway and that should still ring true. 

 

This thread has been very useful and shows the proven quality of the modelrailwaysolutions package. http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/95686-parkway-modern-image-layout/

 

Cheers

Edited July 27, 2017 by GEOEng03

[GEOEng03]

That is really very cheap!

 

What sort of trains do you plan to run? A 1:40 gradient with curves that tight is going to put a lot of strain on your locos if trains are at all long. Modern models of steam prototype will probably not cope at all.

 

Take a look at the Dent layout thread on here. He did a lot of research on helices.

Hi Joseph,

 

Thanks for the feedback. Most trains are likely to be modern diesels, so not quite as bad and they will be of a fair weight.

 

I'll grab a look at that thread - Thanks 

[GEOEng03]

Thanks both for replying. Have gone for the easier route of taking the door off, swapping it round and having a tailchaser layout. 

 

Decided that this saved the hassle and cost of adopting this route. 

 

Cheers

[Alan Kettlewell]

Hi,

 

Just spotted your posts about helix construction. I have some on my continental HO layout 'Hufeisental' that I constructed myself - it's not as daunting once you get into it. The link to my layout thread is in the signature block below if you want to find the pages showing the helix construction. I use 6mm MDF supported by nuts on threaded rods - it's quite inexpensive for the parts and it's great as it gives you infinite adjustment. Just be sure to work out your gradients - some basic maths is all that's required. Diesels handle steeper gradients much better than steam locos, mine are around 1 in 40 if I recall correctly.

 

Anyway, this might be all academic now if you've decided not to do them, but you never know it might come in handy another time.

 

Good luck with your project.

 

Cheers ... Alan

[Satan's Goldfish]

Asking for info from the experienced (and rather than start a new thread I hope you Don't mind if I hijack this one), using modern diesel and electrics, what's the general train length limitations on helixs? Would a 6ft diameter vastly boost train length at 1-40 or 1-50 gradients? And does it all scale down nicely by half for n gauge? (2ft or 3ft diameter).

 

Just curious....

 

Thanks chaps.

[Alan Kettlewell]

Asking for info from the experienced (and rather than start a new thread I hope you Don't mind if I hijack this one), using modern diesel and electrics, what's the general train length limitations on helixs? Would a 6ft diameter vastly boost train length at 1-40 or 1-50 gradients? And does it all scale down nicely by half for n gauge? (2ft or 3ft diameter).

Just curious....

Thanks chaps.

Hi,

I've done a story on building the helixes on my multi level layout - please visit the link below to my layout thread. Generally I've used Peco radius 2 and 3 for double track helixes. My trains handle 8 coaches quite ably.

 

Edited to say I think you are already following my layout thread ...

Edited October 18, 2017 by Alan Kettlewell

[Alan Kettlewell]

I have a spreadsheet with calculations for Helices using Peco Set-Track for the 'circles'.  If anyone wants a copy (it's Excel) I'll be glad to accommodate - this is for 00/H0.

 

For interest, here's a sample from my calculations for Peco radius 3 Set-track:

 

To make a rise of 90mm over a single circle:  Dia = 1010mm, Circumference (length of track) = 3173mm, Rise 1 in 35.26 or 2.8%.

 

A lot depends on whether you'd use an underlay under the track (not really needed IMO), if you need to allow for a fully raised pantograph, the thickness of the baseboard and of course the length of trains to want to run.  For double track I try to design it so the tighter(inner) radius is on the 'downhill' track.

 

This rise may seem steep to some but my diesels and electrics are easily hauling 8 coaches up these on my H0 layout.  Steam locos, not so good, I only put 5 coaches on my steam locos.  Adding a straight bit each side to make an oval is a good way of easing the gradient.  I use the Peco set-track as I find it's a better option than trying to get flexi-track to join on the curves without kinking.

 

For construction of my helices I use 6mm MDF boards cut into 'doughnuts' and for the risers I use threaded bar with nuts and washers - I find this works well as the threaded bar provides infinite vertical adjustment.

 

I can't comment as to whether this scales down to N gauge or not as I've never tried it with N.  

 

I hope that helps, happy to provide further info if anyone is interested, and pictures can be found in my layout thread - link in the footer.

 

Here's one I prepared earlier:

 

Cheers .. Alan

Edited October 19, 2017 by Alan Kettlewell

[Satan's Goldfish]

Thanks Alan,

 

Good point on using set track, I'll have to see what the radius options are. Got a growing collection of Swiss n gauge now (on top of everything else!) and if I can get 10ft of freight up a helix that opens up a lot of layout options.

 

And yes, already following your layout you may be partly to blame...

[Alan Kettlewell]

Thanks Alan,

 

Good point on using set track, I'll have to see what the radius options are. Got a growing collection of Swiss n gauge now (on top of everything else!) and if I can get 10ft of freight up a helix that opens up a lot of layout options.

 

And yes, already following your layout you may be partly to blame...

 

Worth bearing in mind that if you plan a roundy-roundy type layout then you need two helices or an 'out and back' arrangement ...

..Blame fully accepted ..  

 

Cheers ... Alan 

[Satan's Goldfish]

Was thinking Helix at one end, and a constant scenic gradient of railway climbing mountain for the layout. Old Gotthard style with the occasional spiral. Something 'simple' to watch trains travel through scenery.

 

But, a constant 1 in 50 gradient raising 2ft in height is still 100ft long. So much for simple! A corresponding helix with 2in* between levels would need 12 full 360 turns. Hence thinking larger diameter (equivalent of 6ft diameter if it were HO (3ft in N)) for longer trains might be a plan.

 

*I need to properly measure loco height with pantographs up, that number is a guesstimate.

[Alan Kettlewell]

Was thinking Helix at one end, and a constant scenic gradient of railway climbing mountain for the layout. Old Gotthard style with the occasional spiral. Something 'simple' to watch trains travel through scenery.

 

But, a constant 1 in 50 gradient raising 2ft in height is still 100ft long. So much for simple! A corresponding helix with 2in* between levels would need 12 full 360 turns. Hence thinking larger diameter (equivalent of 6ft diameter if it were HO (3ft in N)) for longer trains might be a plan.

 

*I need to properly measure loco height with pantographs up, that number is a guesstimate.

 

Sounds good to me.  The layout at Lucerne Transport Museum is a bit like that if I recall correctly.  I reckon you're thinking the whole length of the scenic part of your layout is a spiral.  I like that design.  2ft high is a fair old rise - I wouldn't fancy getting my digits in between the levels on an N gauge spiral to rescue anything...lol.  

 

Regarding pantographs - you can of course suppress the pantos in your helix by building in an overhead rail of some sort to keep them down.  I've seen suggestions to use a piece of track rail.

 

I found that with a tall vertical helix it can be challenging to cover it with realistic scenery without making it look like a top-hat shaped hill, vertical rocks and a flat top.  So to me, to get a more realistic mountain shape, you'd need to plan so your scenery extends further upwards and then away out to the sides quite some distance to avoid that look.

 

Just my tuppenerth ...

 

Cheers ... Alan   

[Satan's Goldfish]

Sounds good to me.  The layout at Lucerne Transport Museum is a bit like that if I recall correctly.  I reckon you're thinking the whole length of the scenic part of your layout is a spiral.  I like that design.  2ft high is a fair old rise - I wouldn't fancy getting my digits in between the levels on an N gauge spiral to rescue anything...lol.  

 

Regarding pantographs - you can of course suppress the pantos in your helix by building in an overhead rail of some sort to keep them down.  I've seen suggestions to use a piece of track rail.

 

I found that with a tall vertical helix it can be challenging to cover it with realistic scenery without making it look like a top-hat shaped hill, vertical rocks and a flat top.  So to me, to get a more realistic mountain shape, you'd need to plan so your scenery extends further upwards and then away out to the sides quite some distance to avoid that look.

 

Just my tuppenerth ...

 

Cheers ... Alan

 

You are recalling correctly, the current layout covers from Erstfeld up to past Wassen. Saw it earlier this year. I can vaguely remember the old layout, it seemed much bigger than the current layout, but then that may be because I was only 7!

 

Once I've found some suitable set track curves (fleischmann have something approaching 3ft diameter I think) I'll have to start a test helix and just keep adding to it over time.

 

I toyed with having a helix hidden in a mountain, but like you say one that size is difficult to hide. So my mental planning now has it to the side 'off scene' which makes it much easier to see and access. The visible layout could then just be the side of a valley with line looping and switching back from top to bottom. I haven't drawn anything up yet but probably should as I suspect there's lots of flaws!

[bimble]

 

Regarding pantographs - you can of course suppress the pantos in your helix by building in an overhead rail of some sort to keep them down.  I've seen suggestions to use a piece of track rail.

 

This what I've done with my N gauge helix so the pantographs are run up, but not fully extended

 

 

 

[Satan's Goldfish]

Is the overhead rail fitted directly to the underside of the boards for the lower levels?

[bimble]

Is the overhead rail fitted directly to the underside of the boards for the lower levels?

 

yes, I only needed the gantries on the top loop as there was nothing above the tracks to attach the rail to. I just don't have any photos of lower down the helix

[Satan's Goldfish]

Can anyone comment on whether camber is helpful ('banked' curve style or adverse camber) with reducing the derailment risk?

[Alan Kettlewell]

Can anyone comment on whether camber is helpful ('banked' curve style or adverse camber) with reducing the derailment risk?

 

I've made several helices that have all worked fine without a camber either way.  Haven't tried it with one but then I don't race locos down at great speed - relying on the (DCC) back EMF to control the speed during decent.

 

Cheers ... Alan 

[DCB]

I've made several helices that have all worked fine without a camber either way.  Haven't tried it with one but then I don't race locos down at great speed - relying on the (DCC) back EMF to control the speed during decent.

 

Cheers ...

Getting locos especially old direct worm drive locos to run smoothly downhill is a problem, hunting and slowing randomly causes (annoyance on my layouts and Spectacular) derailments on other people's layouts where they don't use Peco  H/D style couplings. PWM works better than smooth DC but I run locos Half wave which makes the gears rattle and stops the worm winding up, flat out on half wave works well for most of my old locos.   Getting up again is a bigger issue, there is a lot of twist in sharp radius spirals in the 2nd Radius range and old fashioned long wheelbase steam locos even Pacifics only have 3 wheel tyres on the track with the 4th guided only by he flange, It is less of a problem as the radius increases or track gauge decreases but always have the uphill track on the outside if at all possible.  Notable the train on the Pecorama spiral goes downhill never up...

[bimble]

Can anyone comment on whether camber is helpful ('banked' curve style or adverse camber) with reducing the derailment risk?

 

I did put an adverse camber on my big helix. I did have an issue with my class 103 electric (a CoCo), that despite being heavy, and with a good pulling power, it couldn't haul anything (literally, nothing) up the helix. I think the adverse camber was causing the loco to just rise up onto only the middle axles of the two bogies, causing a loss of pulling power.

 

But on the shorter spiral I didn't put any shims in leaving the track flat and it has no problems going up.

 

I am as yet undecided whether to only run the 103 in one direction, or to try to pull out all the glued shims over 4 1/2 loops of helix so I can run it in both directions.

 

We live and learn!

[newbryford]

It may be worth considering the likes of DCCconcepts powerbase to aid with gradients - especially for a helix where the drag of the train is increased by the curve.

 

 

 

Remembering to lay the powerbase plates on the flat bit at the top as the train clears the gradient.

 

Cheers,

Mick

[Alan Kettlewell]

Haven't seen the powerbase idea before - interesting.