helix Does a helix ever really work?

[t-b-g]

7 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

Was this layout ever published anywhere? Might there be some info about it on the web?

 

 

Sadly no. George Morris, who built it with help from his son, Malcolm, did talk to Railway Modeller about an article but they were not interested because the scenic side was not really good enough for i to photograph well. I have a few more photos I took, no more than snaps to record it, plus I have a track diagram of all three layers and a copy of the magnificent working timetable.

 

If they are of interest I will dig them out , scan and post some more details here.

[DCB]

Whether a smaller radius Helix works or not rather depends on the fixed wheelbase of the stock, wheel profiles, and the amount of play in the bearings.  It also has to be a constant gradient measured from Horizontal not from the baseboard top or your 1 in 36 might well end up as 1 in 24.

The track on a helix twists longitudinally as it climbs. The cross levels are horizontal at right angles to the direction of travel but as you turn there is an angle between the track at one end of the vehicle to the other. I found this while trying to stop a Lima OO long wheelbase CCT derailing on a 1in 36 gradient 3rd radius curve, it lifts an inside wheel so the flange clears the rail. There is no play in the pin point bearings, not one vehicle but several, both ways round. I just had to ban them.   My bed layout has a 2 nd radius helix and even 56mm wheelbase six coupled chassis rock noticeably and enough to seriously harm their pulling power.

 For bogie stock and bogie diesels / electrics helix's are fine.

What I don't like is the time train take to negotiate hidden helix.  I like to watch trains run, I find exhibition layouts where the train spends 80% of its time in the hidden areas frustrating.   Stacking trains on a helix rather than a helix then a fan of loops makes a lot of sense to me even if it means a non circular variant

The American way of having a multi level layout with a constant gradient going all round the room and high level storage and reverse loops above head height is also worth looking at,

[melmoth]

3 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

Sadly no. George Morris, who built it with help from his son, Malcolm, did talk to Railway Modeller about an article but they were not interested because the scenic side was not really good enough for i to photograph well. I have a few more photos I took, no more than snaps to record it, plus I have a track diagram of all three layers and a copy of the magnificent working timetable.

 

If they are of interest I will dig them out , scan and post some more details here.

 

Yes please.

[Philou]

Helii (?) on the British scene have been around for years as I recall the Railway Modeller in the 60s had a competition (I forget the prize) where you had to calculate the amount of Peco Streamline used in a helix for which they supplied the photo. I think it was up to you to guesstimate as I don't recall any dimensions given.

 

@stewartingram If you want a UK prototypical zig-zag railway, then look no further than Dowlais Top near Merthyr Tydfil that took trains from Dowlais and down into the Taff Valley. No sight of it now as the tip on which it was built has been recycled. You'll have to look at the map archive of the National Library of Scotland (I haven't a copy to post up an extract).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

[t-b-g]

4 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

Whether a smaller radius Helix works or not rather depends on the fixed wheelbase of the stock, wheel profiles, and the amount of play in the bearings.  It also has to be a constant gradient measured from Horizontal not from the baseboard top or your 1 in 36 might well end up as 1 in 24.

The track on a helix twists longitudinally as it climbs. The cross levels are horizontal at right angles to the direction of travel but as you turn there is an angle between the track at one end of the vehicle to the other. I found this while trying to stop a Lima OO long wheelbase CCT derailing on a 1in 36 gradient 3rd radius curve, it lifts an inside wheel so the flange clears the rail. There is no play in the pin point bearings, not one vehicle but several, both ways round. I just had to ban them.   My bed layout has a 2 nd radius helix and even 56mm wheelbase six coupled chassis rock noticeably and enough to seriously harm their pulling power.

 For bogie stock and bogie diesels / electrics helix's are fine.

What I don't like is the time train take to negotiate hidden helix.  I like to watch trains run, I find exhibition layouts where the train spends 80% of its time in the hidden areas frustrating.   Stacking trains on a helix rather than a helix then a fan of loops makes a lot of sense to me even if it means a non circular variant

The American way of having a multi level layout with a constant gradient going all round the room and high level storage and reverse loops above head height is also worth looking at,

 

Again, I can only quote from my experience but that aspect is only a problem if you only have one train moving at a time.

 

On the example above, you were glad to "get rid" of a train onto the spiral for a few minutes. There could easily be 8 or 10 trains moving on the layout at any one time, so losing one for a short while was never an issue.  There were 12 stations (including two big fiddle yards), so there was plenty to see, no matter what direction you looked in.

Edited June 6, 2020 by t-b-g

[gordon s]

.......here's an interesting tale.....

 

 

...plus an update....

 

 

[t-b-g]

 

A few more snaps of George's layout. The room had a dividing wall down the middle, with gaps at each end, one fr the spiral and one for he racks and scenery at he opposite end. Each station was on the opposite side t the next, so a minimum of two operators were needed. o keep up with the clock, you really needed 4 very good operators, who could multitask. and give a decent level of concentration to several stations at once. You couldn't just rely on the "other side" offering you a train at the right time. If the train originated with you, then you had to prepare it and have it ready to go on time. There was a "main line" in the form of a dumb-bell on the centre layer, with a double track line going down t a terminus based loosely on Paddington and another double track going up to a station based on Henley on Thames. Two of the through stations also had junctions with a single track branch line that ran from one junction to the other, via 3 smaller through stations.

 

I was only a regular operator for a few years and even after that, I was still very much a learner.

 

The first snap is an overall view of one side. The three layers on the left are against he centre room divider. Lower level is a big dock complex, where much goods traffic originated. Middle layer is one of the main line dumb-bell fiddle yards and the upper layer has a station on the single track branch.

 

On the right, he lower level is an outer suburban station with a set of carriage sidings, the middle layer is on the main line and has a junction for the double rack going up and the top layer is the end of the line, the Henley terminus. There is a further small station on the top layer at the far end, on the single track branch.

 

 

This view shows the other side. The RH is against the dividing wall. Bottom left is the "Paddington" terminus which has a branch round the far end to the docks. Middle left is the real heart of the layout. two tracks come in at the far end but at the near end there are two tracks round to the fiddle yard seen in the previous view, two that go down through the outer suburban station to "Paddington" plus the start of the single track branch from the bay at the front edge. Top left is a through station on the way to Henley plus the other end of the single track branch, which has gone over to the other side of the room and back.

 

On the right, the lower line is pure scenc, based on Dawlish but generally used as a dump for failed locos! There were hundreds! Some RTR locos running on this sort of layout don't last long and George was happier buying replacements than spending time repairing them. The centre right is the other fiddle yard, with the far end going round the spiral as a dumb-bell. Top right is a station on the single track branch.

 

It was finescale 00 with all the points either from SMP kits or copperclad. 

 

I once asked George how long i took him t design it and how many times did he have to alter i to get all the gradients and clearances (many lines criss cross each other) right. A whole Sunday afternoon was the answer and he didn't have to alter it! They were all OK first time. As I said, a genius!

 

One last snap shows the terminus based on Paddington, which remained unfinished when George sadly passed away a few years ago.

 

[Fat Controller]

57 minutes ago, Philou said:

Helii (?) on the British scene have been around for years as I recall the Railway Modeller in the 60s had a competition (I forget the prize) where you had to calculate the amount of Peco Streamline used in a helix for which they supplied the photo. I think it was up to you to guesstimate as I don't recall any dimensions given.

 

@stewartingram If you want a UK prototypical zig-zag railway, then look no further than Dowlais Top near Merthyr Tydfil that took trains from Dowlais and down into the Taff Valley. No sight of it now as the tip on which it was built has been recycled. You'll have to look at the map archive of the National Library of Scotland (I haven't a copy to post up an extract).

 

Cheers,

 

Philip

The plural of 'Helix' is 'Helices', I believe.

There was another zig-zag that ran down the cliff behind Dover Eastern Dock:- https://doverhistorian.com/2013/11/07/dover-st-margarets-and-martin-mill-railway-line/

Edited June 6, 2020 by Fat Controller

[TonyMay]

1 hour ago, Philou said:

Helii

 

Helices.  It's Greek. 

[JDW]

38 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

 

 

I find this fascinating and yet at the same time it looks like my idea of model railway hell! I love the fact that it's a proper long run, that trains go somewhere and do something, and that it's complicated enough to need thinking about. But it looks so complicated there's no way I could just sit and enjoy it, run a few trains, because its so intense you'd have to focus 100% on your own 'little' bit, and you'd only be able to use it when everyone is free to come over and help you. 

Of course, the hobby can be all things to all men, and each will get their own form of enjoyment from different aspects of it.

[Harlequin]

49 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

A few more snaps of George's layout. The room had a dividing wall down the middle, with gaps at each end, one fr the spiral and one for he racks and scenery at he opposite end. Each station was on the opposite side t the next, so a minimum of two operators were needed. o keep up with the clock, you really needed 4 very good operators, who could multitask. and give a decent level of concentration to several stations at once. You couldn't just rely on the "other side" offering you a train at the right time. If the train originated with you, then you had to prepare it and have it ready to go on time. There was a "main line" in the form of a dumb-bell on the centre layer, with a double track line going down t a terminus based loosely on Paddington and another double track going up to a station based on Henley on Thames. Two of the through stations also had junctions with a single track branch line that ran from one junction to the other, via 3 smaller through stations.

 

I was only a regular operator for a few years and even after that, I was still very much a learner.

 

The first snap is an overall view of one side. The three layers on the left are against he centre room divider. Lower level is a big dock complex, where much goods traffic originated. Middle layer is one of the main line dumb-bell fiddle yards and the upper layer has a station on the single track branch.

 

On the right, he lower level is an outer suburban station with a set of carriage sidings, the middle layer is on the main line and has a junction for the double rack going up and the top layer is the end of the line, the Henley terminus. There is a further small station on the top layer at the far end, on the single track branch.

 

 

This view shows the other side. The RH is against the dividing wall. Bottom left is the "Paddington" terminus which has a branch round the far end to the docks. Middle left is the real heart of the layout. two tracks come in at the far end but at the near end there are two tracks round to the fiddle yard seen in the previous view, two that go down through the outer suburban station to "Paddington" plus the start of the single track branch from the bay at the front edge. Top left is a through station on the way to Henley plus the other end of the single track branch, which has gone over to the other side of the room and back.

 

On the right, the lower line is pure scenc, based on Dawlish but generally used as a dump for failed locos! There were hundreds! Some RTR locos running on this sort of layout don't last long and George was happier buying replacements than spending time repairing them. The centre right is the other fiddle yard, with the far end going round the spiral as a dumb-bell. Top right is a station on the single track branch.

 

It was finescale 00 with all the points either from SMP kits or copperclad. 

 

I once asked George how long i took him t design it and how many times did he have to alter i to get all the gradients and clearances (many lines criss cross each other) right. A whole Sunday afternoon was the answer and he didn't have to alter it! They were all OK first time. As I said, a genius!

 

One last snap shows the terminus based on Paddington, which remained unfinished when George sadly passed away a few years ago.

 

 

Thanks! It was clearly an operator's layout with scenery playing a minor role. It's interesting to see the designer really thinking in 3D and utilising the full volume of the room.

 

[t-b-g]

36 minutes ago, JDW said:

 

I find this fascinating and yet at the same time it looks like my idea of model railway hell! I love the fact that it's a proper long run, that trains go somewhere and do something, and that it's complicated enough to need thinking about. But it looks so complicated there's no way I could just sit and enjoy it, run a few trains, because its so intense you'd have to focus 100% on your own 'little' bit, and you'd only be able to use it when everyone is free to come over and help you. 

Of course, the hobby can be all things to all men, and each will get their own form of enjoyment from different aspects of it.

 

I thought exactly the same the first time I saw it. Too much to take in, too complicated, too intense.

 

I got broken in very gently, working one of the simpler stations which only had a line going each way. A few sessions later I was put on one of the junctions. At that time, there would normally be 3 operators on each side, who would have their own station plus cover on a couple more, so if one operator was busy, another could deal with a train.

 

As time went by, several operators fell by the wayside for various reasons, not the least of which was the need to crawl through tiny tunnels to get in!

 

By the time it all ended, we were down to two or maybe three operators and we pretty much abandoned the clocks and worked it as a sequence, with an hours worth of timetable maybe taking us two hours.

 

It isn't the sort of layout I would ever want to have. In a way, Buckingham is like one layer of that layout and that is more than adequate for two, three or even four operators.

 

Against all that, the sheer "buzz" that it gave, the mental simulation and the sense of satisfaction on the odd times when we did an hour to the clock with a full set of operators is something that mere words cannot convey. Getting through an hour with everything in the right place at the right time on a layout like that gives you a huge sense of achievement unlike any other model railway experience I have had. Plus it was a great way to spend an evening with a very good bunch of people and the chat and tea before and after the intense running was a lovely "social" time.

 

So I can fully appreciate why some people would never want to go near anything like it but for me, I learned a huge amount about timetabling, operating and how to design a layout and they were very happy times. 

[Zomboid]

2 hours ago, t-b-g said:

 

Sadly no. George Morris, who built it with help from his son, Malcolm, did talk to Railway Modeller about an article but they were not interested because the scenic side was not really good enough for i to photograph well. I have a few more photos I took, no more than snaps to record it, plus I have a track diagram of all three layers and a copy of the magnificent working timetable.

That's a shame. It does look hard to photograph, but the idea that a layout is only of value if it looks a certain way is a bit sad. To my mind at least there's a lot more to this hobby than just making something visually accurate; personally I get more from an operationally interesting railway with ropey scenics than a gloriously accurate model without much play value.

 

Of course it's harder to share operational interest in a magazine (or on a forum for that matter), but I bet the article on how he ran his railway could have been fascinating.

[t-b-g]

50 minutes ago, Harlequin said:

 

Thanks! It was clearly an operator's layout with scenery playing a minor role. It's interesting to see the designer really thinking in 3D and utilising the full volume of the room.

 

 

George broke almost everything in life down to numbers and patterns. He did carriage working diagrams and had the most complex system for the freight trains, which relied on sticky labels with colours or dots being applied to the wagons. So when you were at a station and a goods came in, you would have "attach blue" or "detach 7" and that was all it needed. He explained it to me at least half a dozen times but my brain wouldn't take it in. There was a 24 hour working timetable, seen on one of the stools in the photo. At the end of 24 hours, everything was back where it started. He had platform occupancy charts, fiddle yard occupancy charts and many times, he could remember exactly where each train should be at a particular time. All the carriage sets were numbers, with the second digit being the number of carriages, so the two coach trains were 12,22,32 etc. 32v was set 32 with a 4 wheel van attached and 32V was set 32 with a bogie van attached. h meant a horse box, m a milk van and s or S a 4 wheel or bogie sausage van.

 

Just to think of doing it and then designing it, building it and making work, much of it as a one man band was a significant achievement.

 

 

Edited June 6, 2020 by t-b-g

[t-b-g]

9 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

That's a shame. It does look hard to photograph, but the idea that a layout is only of value if it looks a certain way is a bit sad. To my mind at least there's a lot more to this hobby than just making something visually accurate; personally I get more from an operationally interesting railway with ropey scenics than a gloriously accurate model without much play value.

 

Of course it's harder to share operational interest in a magazine (or on a forum for that matter), but I bet the article on how he ran his railway could have been fascinating.

 

I agree. I think George was quite disappointed at the response and didn't try again. I did try to get him to make a video of it in operation but by that time, he was getting too old to look after it properly and it really was looking a bit tatty, so he never went ahead.  

[Philou]

Helix -helii - helices? I did Latin in school - it was all Greek to me then!!!!!

 

[JDW]

54 minutes ago, Philou said:

Helix -helii - helices? I did Latin in school - it was all Greek to me then!!!!!

 

 

Maybe you could explain what the best radiuses or radii are to use on helixes or helii then 

[DCB]

6 hours ago, t-b-g said:

Short answer! Yes!

 

 

Edit to add that I didn't build it but it was a layout I used to have great fun operating built by a good friend. Sadly, the friend and the layout are no longer around.

That is fantastic, exactly what I used to dream of when I was 6 years old, except all I got was a 6X4...

However it does illustrate just how much the helix can dominate the layout and at around a second / foot for 45 mph or 2 seconds / ft 25 ish mph in OO it can take what seems like a long time to get round.  I find the 30 seconds or so it takes the Hornby 42XX to crawl into our hidden sidings and clear the main lines with 20 wagons  interminable.  For me that visible helix spoils the illusion of being in a separate world,  I like the works kept secret, the famous Gorre and Dapheteid in the US had helix's etc but was 100% scenic, as is Pendon, despite very extensive storage.  Having the visible layout 100% scenic would be my ideal.  But having the helix in another room or outside in its own shed. Now that's my kind of solution.

[t-b-g]

3 minutes ago, DavidCBroad said:

That is fantastic, exactly what I used to dream of when I was 6 years old, except all I got was a 6X4...

However it does illustrate just how much the helix can dominate the layout and at around a second / foot for 45 mph or 2 seconds / ft 25 ish mph in OO it can take what seems like a long time to get round.  I find the 30 seconds or so it takes the Hornby 42XX to crawl into our hidden sidings and clear the main lines with 20 wagons  interminable.  For me that visible helix spoils the illusion of being in a separate world,  I like the works kept secret, the famous Gorre and Dapheteid in the US had helix's etc but was 100% scenic, as is Pendon, despite very extensive storage.  Having the visible layout 100% scenic would be my ideal.  But having the helix in another room or outside in its own shed. Now that's my kind of solution.

 

I would agree but when operating the layout, it was behind your back, so didn't dominate. Plus, as the years went by, the timbers warped a bit and you did get the odd derailment. Having it there you could usually hear a wheel bumping before the train hit an obstruction and came off. I say usually as there were a few times when a happy half hour was spent grovelling under the layout for bits of loco or carriage that had done a 6ft dive!

 

It could get quite comical when an operator accepted a train on the block instrument and then got distracted. The movement to get back to the right spot to stop it was very rapid for middle aged and older folk. There was a special bell code as the last person to see a train before it arrived at your station was the person who sent it. They came off the spiral and ran along the room before they emerged. 1-2-1 on the bells meant "train nearly with you". As I have said elsewhere, there was no element of sitting waiting for several minutes. You were shunting or getting the next train ready to go and you were glad of the 4 minutes (passenger) or 6 minutes (goods) that the spiral gave you. Often you might try to sneakily slow the train on the spiral down to give you more time but George usually spotted you cheating!

[JDW]

13 minutes ago, t-b-g said:

 

I would agree but when operating the layout, it was behind your back, so didn't dominate. Plus, as the years went by, the timbers warped a bit and you did get the odd derailment. Having it there you could usually hear a wheel bumping before the train hit an obstruction and came off. I say usually as there were a few times when a happy half hour was spent grovelling under the layout for bits of loco or carriage that had done a 6ft dive!

 

 

I can't help but think if I'd spent all that money and time on building it, I'd have maybe spend a few quid and few minutes and installed some kind of net (something like net curtain material on elastic supports) across the centre of the helix, maybe at the bottom and half way up, to catch anything that tried to escape! Of course, hindsight and experience are wonderful, and no one ever thinks (or admits!) that it might happen to them.

[t-b-g]

Just now, JDW said:

 

I can't help but think if I'd spent all that money and time on building it, I'd have maybe spend a few quid and few minutes and installed some kind of net (something like net curtain material on elastic supports) across the centre of the helix, maybe at the bottom and half way up, to catch anything that tried to escape! Of course, hindsight and experience are wonderful, and no one ever thinks (or admits!) that it might happen to them.

 

I suggested it to George the first time I saw it! He just laughed and said that if something fell off and couldn't be repaired, he could always buy a new one. He ranked easy access to all parts of the layout as more important. You could climb inside the spiral and stand on a stool to reach points on the top level. Any safety net would have to removed to allow that to happen and he didn't think it worthwhile. It was all, apart from a tiny handful of items, RTR and George used to buy locos by the dozen.

[Nearholmer]

Fascinating thread.

 

Not sure if its been mentioned, but certainly in the format that I follow, coarse 0, modern r-t-r locos vary hugely in their effective hauling power, and I have heard that the same applies with modern r-t-r 00.

 

One of my fellow coarse-scalers has been keeping us entertained in lock-down by running "The Great UK Incline Challenge" on his layout, which has a 42" radius (yes, in 0) curve leading into a long straight 1:60 gradient, and that has proven that superficially similar locos can have significantly different tractive-efforts, principally because the materials used for wheel tyres vary (different metals, not rubber tyres). 

 

That sort of variability could well affect the viability of a helix in operation.

[gordon s]

16 hours ago, JDW said:

 

Maybe you could explain what the best radiuses or radii are to use on helixes or helii then 

The starting point has to be the separation between each layer plus the thickness of the board material. To keep things simple, let’s use 70mm separation and 10mm board thickness, so that’s a total of 80mm.

 

You then need to decide what gradient you want to use as that has a bearing on the radius of the circle. I’m not going to say what stock is suitable, but suppose you have decided on 1:50.

 

To rise 80mm at a 1:50 gradient, you will need 80mm x 50 = 4000mm.

 

That in essence is the circumference of the circle of the helix and to calculate the circumference of a circle, the formulae is 2 x Pi x r where r is the radius of the circle. Apologies, I haven’t found the Pi symbol on my iPad yet.....:-)

 

If you have the circumference at 4000mm, the radius calculation will be r = C/2xPi.....

 

.....or 4000/2 x 3.142.  or you can do it here...:-)

 

https://www.calculator.net/circle-calculator.html
 

The answer is a radius of 637mm.....

 

All you need do is decide on the thickness of the track bed, the separation height and what gradient is the best for your stock and then follow the formulae. One word of warning though, I would always err on the cautious side as you are not only dealing with a gradient, but a gradient on a curve/twist that introduces additional frictional forces.

 

Make it too tight and you may even have stringlining where long trains may try to go in a straight line and pull themselves of the track towards the centre of the helix.

 

Have fun....:-)

Edited June 7, 2020 by gordon s

[Trog]

I had an oval helix of 3rd and 4th radius with a couple of feet of straight track between each 180' curve on my layout with a gradient of 1 in 37. The outer track was ascending and I used steel rail track. It caused no problems and I was able to run reasonable length trains on it. The limiting factor was a nickel steel crossover on one of the straights, well loaded ascending locos would sometimes slip to a stand on this having successfully rounded the curved section on the steel rails.

[Harlequin]

1 minute ago, Trog said:

I had an oval helix of 3rd and 4th radius with a couple of feet of straight track between each 180' curve on my layout with a gradient of 1 in 37. The outer track was ascending and I used steel rail track. It caused no problems and I was able to run reasonable length trains on it. The limiting factor was a nickel steel crossover on one of the straights, well loaded ascending locos would sometimes slip to a stand on this having successfully rounded the curved section on the steel rails.

Was that using modern RTR locos? Steam locos? How long were the trains?