Check out Marcus Neubacher's fantastic NS N layout here ===== http://home.att.net/~kntower/CRE.htm ===== eN(S)joy
Great layout, and very well planned. What the author has created without realizing the name for it, is what John Armstrong jokingly called a Nolix (no helix). I am in the process of building something along the same idea. I am thrilled to see I am on the right track. Folks, a nolix is an area where trains gain elevation and are as visible as possible, usually gaining the height in a variety of creative loops. The url for this idea can be seen on this person's layout at: http://home.att.net/~kntower/layout.htm Also http://home.att.net/~kntower/tour4.htm [ 02. September 2002, 04:41: Message edited by: rsn48 ]
Dave, For my Nolix area, I have designed a 6 1/2 feet by 6 1/2 feet L shaped area. I plan to have two mountains of sligthly differing heights and designed, joined in a low saddle arrangement in the middle. I need to gain 20 inches of elevation, which I can do in three loops. However, I am toying with hiding the first loop, and making only the remaining two visible. We have an area in British Columbia created by two rivers joining, along which the CP runs on one side, and the CN on the other (not quite true now, but that is another story). With two loops I can mimic the Fraser and Thompson canyon, with track on either side, divided by a river (with of course a bridge or two). What's great about this area is that in one location (the Cisco Bridges) the CN and CP swap sides. I am hoping to capture this in the nolix area. But it has been frustrating not to have something to show people when I talk about Nolix's. Now I have bookmarked Marcus's layout.
Looks like a great layout. I had never heard of the NOLIX concept before. That is a great idea. Much better than a helix. Almost makes me want to reconsider a double deck layout.
Very nice! I was immediately impressed by the ratio of scenery to the train, shown in the opening page photo. BoxcabE50
The negative of a nolix (as Rob points out in the layout design forum here - Yankinoz) is that too many loops make the train appear unprototypical, going to many times through the same scene. However, helix or nolix, compromise is involved. The compromise for a helix is a disappearing train for too long, and a big blob that may or may not look like to much of a mountain. If you can find an area where you can incorporate loops and some how conform to all or parts of a prototypical area, all the more power to you. Most people using a nolix will probably be in N scale, and room will be an issue. I have 120 feet of main line in a room, 9 by 13 - not too bad.
Have any of you ever seen or heard of a prototyhpical area in the real world (I mean) that is double decked? The so called "nolix" has been around for years. We all have had more time, ambition, and money than space to put it all; at some time in our railroading lives. Back in the late 1930's early 1940's when double decks first started, they were usually fashioned like a "U" above and below. The room door was always in the open area between the two legs at the top of the "U", and mountains at the bottom. Using tunnels, cuts, bridges, and curves around mountains, was how the upper levels were reached. Towns or at least yards were usually at all four ends of the 4 legs. This was intended for point-to-point operation, but as you got older, you wanted more railroad. Those who had enough room, sometimes achieved continuous running by having return loops at the end of two or more legs. The Helix idea came along about the 50's I think, and was really intended for short trains because it required at least five feet to make even a modest loop in HO that wouldn't stringline the cars going up or buff them coming down using a 30" radius. Under tests, it took 60" radius loops to actually pull a long string of cars successfully up a 1-1/2% helix if you even had engines enough to keep the train going. We are having to "play-like" our layout is "real" anyway, so who is to criticize us if we happen to have to see our train go by six times inorder to get up to the top "Prototype" upper level? I say to a visitor that doesn't like my layout, "AND DON'T LET THE DOOR HIT YOU IN YOUR FAT END ON THE WAY OUT!" (Well words to that effect anyway)
I have known Marcus for sometime and have run trains on his layout twice. Not only does it good, but its just plain fun to operate. Dan
Watash, What about the early elevated trains in the Chicago Loop? They ran above ground and often crossed railroad lines below...seems double decked to me? BTW, those early elevated trains ran steam engines at times. Jeff
