Interesting point, mine

Interesting point, mine differs. My club layout has a continuous running layout. I would often be running a train to railfan it as it came into view. While doing this I would sometimes be at a table in the back building another model. Do to the size of the layout my train could be out of sight for a lot longer than two minutes. You just need to have faith in your equipment. I have been one of the guys talking with visitors during an open house and will be involved with showing them around the different layouts and the club while one of my 100 car plus trains is running on the layout in another room. Invariably one of the guests that is a model railroader will ask "is your train still running in the other room?" the response is yes and it should keep doing that as long as we choose to have it run. There are always shocked looks when I say this.

Joe is writing a series of books called run like a dream. I have the first one and will have the other two when they are finished. The first one is great. I would suggest that if one builds his equipment to the proper standards for good operation there will be no worries about is my train running?

So for me a helix can allow one to have multiple grade free levels if desired, a fairly compact way to get to staging under or over an existing layout if desired. One can many times drastically reduce the square footage required for a given plan by doing a double deck or more layout and get that longer main line or bigger city or what have you by using a helix. Like all things they have pros and cons. I think your train should run well if you are watching or not.

Evil genius

While I don’t disagre with Rob, to a point, the issues raised by Joe are valid, to a point. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, it seems as though those building helix seem to lack the imagination needed to enjoy running the train accros this “black hole”.

Several member of this forum have shown that there are multiple ways of allowing a train to be visible all or in part along the, admirably, large percentage of the mainline. A spiral, herniated version, or offset layers will allow a train to peek and duck in and out of a climb. A nolix, all or in part, will allow a more realistic climb as part of the visible layout as well. Granted that these designs portray mountainous railroads and would seem inappropriate for a granger line such as Tony Koester’s Midland Route where the line climbs continuously around the room to gain the separation between decks. Few of us have that much space (or ambition) to build a layout of that size. 

For a real contrary thought consider scenicing the inside of a helix along with the other methods of exposing the route along the way as Rob Clark did successfully with his helix.  To my knowledge no one has tried making the inside of a helix accessible to view as part of the right of way but, with the advent of inexpensive security cameras, it would be entirely possible to view the train from a monitor or cell phone as it progresses up the line. Grade crossings and station stops would even be possible. LED lighting takes very little space and a ribbon of backdrop could be printed and attached to the outside of the framing. 

Think out of the box and be an evil genius. A multi-level layout has much to offer and using some ideas to enhance the operation will take you from a bystander to active participant in making the grade even when the train is technically out of sight.  

I know the answer

Timely Article

What a timely article,..... just as I am building my first helix....ha...ha

https://forum.mrhmag.com/post/multiple-staging-areas-access-to-them-perhaps-subloop-in-the-helix-12209513

Worse...

The only thing worse than having a helix is not having the extra levels made possible by the helix. 

Randy

Funny, but my crews never seem to have a problem with my helix

Maybe the close proximity to the snack table has something to do with it. 

Well, I'll say this when it comes to this column. The information value I got out of this column was directly proportional to the amount of money I paid to read it. 

Multiple Helices

At our club we have three helices...  in this one spot alone:

Helix stations

Brian Pate installed detectors in his helix which lighted LEDs in a diagram on the fascia.  Each LED represented a station in the timetable.  Engineers had to watch the LEDs, the clock, and the timetable to control the unseen, but active, train.

From an engineering standpoint, the LEDs provided the feedback that is normally provided by our eyes during model rr operations.  Anyone going this route might consider using optical detectors, as they would flicker due to the gaps between cars.  The rate of flicker would provide feedback about train speed.

The LD SIG

With sound one can tell if it

With sound one can tell if it is running. Also if one is modeling a rather flat area like a water level urban area there is not space for lots of grades, or the realistic option of having them climb between 20 and 24 inches.

To use a standard grade of 1.5 % and the required easement at each end according to Joe's track work book you would add 6 feet in ho scale for the transition. 24 inches divided by 1.5 is 16, multiply that times 100 inches which is the run needed for each of the 1.5% grade sections and you have 1600 inches for the run. 1600 divided by 12 is 133.33 feet. That is a serious long climb figure 6 inches of depth for track and scenery front and rear and you have 66.66 square feet of grade all abound the layout room, likely forcing the tracks to pass through the scene more than once.

In the Helix with 6 inches of width you have approximately 12.5 square feet to the grade change plus the transition of 3 feet top and bottom. Those dimensions will also allow one to scenic the top of the helix for something other than the climb. A great place to put in a turntable or large industry. Also in the helix I compared the around the layout grade to you get an easier grade of 1.38 %

The big advantage to the helix is the grade is in one smaller area of the room and it allows one to have most of the available layout space for the operating portion of the layout. With the two level portion of the layout occuping the same foot print twice and using the same walk ways you end up with a great deal of layout in the same square footage.

The helix offers a lot and can be managed in several different ways.

No where does it say that a helix must not be viewed, that is an option just like staging.

Lots of options to choose from find the one that works for you.

Maybe the oldest...

In Switserland (next to Europe): Saint Gothard 

A piece of civil engineering from the days of our grand grand fathers. I do not see any evil !

Those are spirals, not a helix

Those are spirals -- one time around and climbing as you go. A helix is two or more times around -- show me one of those on a prototype mainline and not in an amusement park and then I'll grant they exist in the prototype.

The Hiwassee Loop

The Hiwassee Loop is close enough to two loops and a great excursion trip.

What??

Joe, can you tell us where that definition came from? Mathematically, a helix is simply a curve for which the tangent makes a constant angle with a fixed line. It can be of any length, and does not have to be any specific number of turns. Any constant curve on a constant grade is a helix. 

The general use of "helix" in model railroad terms is, I think, used for many track arrangements that climb over the same plan view projection more than once. Often it isn't even a constant radius curve, like my own Behemoth Helix, where the curves were constant radius, broken every 180 degrees by 24" straight sections to reduce grade. 

But two times around to be called a helix? By that definition, Joe, you don't even have one. Your constant-grade-to-gain-elevation-between-decks curve appears to be less then 720 degrees - somewhere around 675 degrees, give or take. You have two tiers, but somewhat less than about 1 7/8 times around, from looking at your video "2.3: Siskiyou Line - Multiple decks."

What am I missing?

But I do agree with most of your evils of the helix, though most of those can be mitigated fairly effectively.

Let's not split hairs over this

Let's not split hairs over this. I'm speaking in railroading terms -- especially as it relates to the model.

Two times around with any amount of second tier directly over the other is NOT a prototype construct (all you need is something just over 360 degrees to start getting a second track directly over the first -- you do not need a full 720 degrees).

Even more tiers just makes it all the harder to disguise. You can offset the tiers on the prototype and get two times around in one or maybe two actual cases, but it's extremely rare on the prototype. Most examples are not class one railroads in the US.

The general guideline to getting a realistic model railroad is to model the typical, not the unusual. The more unusual and rare things you elect to model, the less realistic your model railroad starts to seem. It begins to feel "strained" -- as in bordering on having a caricature feel rather than a realistic feel.

There are ways to make a helix -- something you look at with two or more tracks directly over each other -- less onerous but there's no way to make it completely painless running unless you simply eliminate it all together.

Fair enough, but...

...almost as a matter of necessity we have to model the unusual, at least in terms total degrees of curvature on almost any kind of layout (small, straight shelf layouts would be an exception), in terms of length of total run, and especially in terms of radius of curvature. 

So to reduce the "unusualness" of our length of run, many of us choose the evil of the helix. We trade one unusual feature to somewhat mitigate another unusual feature. The choice is not a great solution for operations, perhaps, but it is often the best solution available (and to be fair is often not).

..

I'm still not seeing where there's any issue with a one turn helix...IT is indeed a single loop and you do have the benefit of full scenery potential, but the loop serves the same function as a helix.

Honestly

A helix is a design tool and there are ways to incorporate them, as needed, without destroying the integrity of the railroad. 

Case in point: Our railroad depicts a line that was surveyed and partially built. It follows a river canyon and the east end of it is at a substantially higher elevation than the west end. To connect the two, our railroad incorporates s sxi-turn helix that connects the east and west ends of staging. Road crews only see the staging on an eastbound trip and it is not part of the scenicked railroad. It does give a real feeling of finishing the run and arriving somewhere.

All of these tools and techniques we have need to be considered when planning a railroad. We shortchange ourselves if a concept is rejected out of hand.

I know Reverse Running is written to be intentionally provocative, but you must remember an important principle of persuasive arguing: "Absolute statements are always wrong." Think about that one.

Absolute statements

Your statement, is of course, an absolute statement, so it’s logically inconsistent, which makes it false.

Reminds me of another logically inconsistent statement: everything is relative. This also is an absolute statement, and as such is logically inconsistent, which makes it false.

Anyhow, regarding the helix, yes this column is always written a bit tongue-in-cheek ... note the cheesy cartoon used to depict the evil inventor of the helix, complete with “nyah ah ah!” mustache and rubbing his hands together. Get it? (Wink wink)

Still, the little-discussed truth remains — helix running is long and boring. I personally feel disappointed when I see photos of some huge helix being proudly displayed. The operator in me cringes and I feel sorry for any operators who will be subjected to running trains through the thing.

Still, the little-discussed

Well Joe, these two are for you.  Welcome to Helix Hell:

My helix under construction on the Easy Helix LLC site.  It still had four more levels to go up.

How it integrated into the upper level of my triple deck island style layout.

A crew roster of over 25 people don't seem to mind attending my TT&TO sessions.  As stated earlier, maybe the snack table has something to do with it.

The cringing you feel is akin to what I feel every time I see the acronyn TOMA.  To paraphrase von Clauswitz:

"TOMA is modular railroading by other means............."

Jerry

3rd Shift laborer

Spokane Southern Railroad

You say tomato, I say tomato

As a member of the Welsh Highland Railway Society, I'm familiar with a bit of track on it's sister line, the Ffestiniog Railway. It was built for the express purpose of gaining altitude so that the line could go through a new tunnel that was bored higher up than the original right-of-way which was flooded by a new reservoir. So, is this a helix?

The upper level track doesn't sit on top of the lower level, but it does make a 360 degree turn. (I think it does look a little more like a "nolix".) Here's a link to a description of the loop/helix:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dduallt_railway_station#The_Deviation

It's interesting that the author of the Wikipedia article calls this type of track arrangement a "spiral" and lists quite a few similar locations:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spiral_(railway)

Now I'm not a civil engineer so I'll have to ask the audience if the term "spiral" is a UK or European engineering term or is it used here in the US as well.

Just curious

I'm just curious why we get such a reaction to the TOMA concept. We've said over and over the modular/sectional part is nothing new. But creating a deep and broad library of knowledge around using modular/sectional methods to build home layouts is something that's never been very well fleshed out.

And as we dig deeper into this kind of home layout construction, we're uncovering some potentially new and innovative takes on layout construction that have huge implications for changing how layouts are built in the hobby. We're just getting started on this and as we begin to unpack what we have in mind, we expect the "wow, I never thought of that" moments to increase.

Don't you want us to explore new territory -- to take a lot of basic concepts that we freely admit are decades old now and expand on them in potentially clever new ways?

If you think TOMA is just marketing spin and been-there-done-that concepts, then you don't understand what we mean when we use the term TOMA.

Back to the history lesson

So... who DID invent the helix for layout planning? Everybody seems to be trying to find a real life helix or compare it to something totally different. 

I want to see the first known mention or drawing of a helix. Was it John Armstrong? Was it Jim Heidiger? 

Lets see who can produce that track plan! 

The model railroad helix dates from at least 1937

I found an article in the September 1942 edition of MR written by Lynn Wescott that describes an O gauge model railroad in the UK that uses a helix to connect four levels. The railroad about which he wrote was mentioned in yet an older publication, "The Craft Of Modelling Railways: In All Gauges, All Countries And All Systems Of Motive Power" by Edward Beal dating from 1937. The model railroad belonged to one R.A. Dalton and what Wescott called the "helix" was actually the entire mainline which used roughly five laps on a maximum 3% grade to pass through two intermediate stations, each on their own level, before reaching it's terminus on the top level.

So, although this track arrangement was called a helix, I don't think that it's what most of us consider as a helix these days.

More research to do!