I am Dumb. I've just taken 300 panadol to stop my headaching. I'm trying to work something as simple as a 2% Grade out.... Is 2 in 100 Correct? 2 what?? What are the units? EG: 2ft in 100ft Correct? 2in in 100in Correct? 2mtr in 100mtr Correct? 2cm in 100cm Correct? Cause they are massively different Heights.. Which should I use for N Scale?? The figures I have make me need to have a 30mile long board to get a 2% grade - depending on which format of measurement I use.. How does one do this without commiting suicide? [ February 27, 2005, 12:05 AM: Message edited by: virtual-bird ]
"2ft in 100ft Correct? 2in in 100in Correct? 2mtr in 100mtr Correct? 2cm in 100cm Correct? Cause they are massively different grades.." Nope, they are all the same grade. And yes, that is 2% grade, a rise of 2 units in a horizontal run of 100 of the same unit. Doesn't matter if it's N, HO, or 1:1. Regards
VB: I don't understand. 2cm in 100cm is steeper than 2inch in 100 inch The inch measurement is longer, but I don't believe it is steeper. 50 feet is 50 percent of 100 feet. 50 cm is 50 percent of 100 cm. But, the feet measurement is longer than the cm measurement. If you take a yard (meter) stick and raise it one inch (2.54 cm) on the end, you have a grade of a certain amount. Turn the yard stick over and read the cm side. It is a different number of units, but the same length and the same grade.
I want to go up 2inches, at 2%... So, its going to take me 8ft 3inch (100in) to go up that 2inches - correct..?? Seems insanely otta wack to me. The board is only 7ft long. To go up and back down again, is nearly 2 loops of board. My brain has fried, I cant think, been here 6 hours have done nothing. Not 1micron of track has been laid.
So, its going to take me 8ft 3inch (100in) to go up that 2inches - correct..?? Well, actually 8 feet, 4 inches is 100 inches. To climb 2 inches in 7 feet is about a 2.3 percent grade. What size is the layout? Is the 7 feet just one side? Why climb 2 inches? For double stacks, the standard above the rails is 1.75 inches. OTOH, 2 inches is probably about right to get the 1.75 inches above the rails.
The board is 7ft5inx4ft. Same one I've been trying to do something with for nearly 12 mths I'm just freelancing as I go, I've given up trying to find a simple-to-build plan I like, which is more than roundy roundy. I have a design in my mind that is around the Tupper Lake and Faust Junction style of thing I posted last October.. How I came to 2inches, I put on a piece of cork down, then length of flexy rail then my highest car and loco, and measured it. 2inch is as you say is lots more clearance than required, but allows for 'other things' or higher cars later. Just seems a long way to go in distance for such a small rise.. I put a length of 6ft board and raised one end 2in and it didnt look 'too bad', but looks can be decieving. Thanks anyway.. Another weekend gone, nothing achieved. another 5% of CBF's happening. Take ya time painting there Jason, its going to be 2050 before i get anywhere.
Grades are unitless: it is a ratio of length to length. As long as the same units of length are used, a 2% grade measured in inches is the same as a 2% grade measured in miles. Length divided by length.
Yes it does take a depressingly long distance to climb a 2% grade; especially when your layout is small. For another reference: Woodland Scenics SubTerrain 2% foam risers gain 1/2inch in 2ft. (about 12.5mm rise in 600mm along) My NMRA gauge is about 42mm high, so 2" is a good vertical seperation. Helps allow for roadbed and track At 2%, that 2" will cost you 8'4" along. If you go to 4% grade, you're down to 4'2", but your engine can only haul about a quarter the number of cars. Mmm... more locos! I guess this is another reason why small layouts with up-and-overs end up turning into spaghetti-bowls. So they can get the linear track required to get up and down again.
ATSF.. I used the foam on my last attempt on this board last year, but as soon as you lean on them at all, they turn to a roller coaster the idea rocks, but the material doesnt thanks everyone. 4 weeks until another free weekend... Bruce
Bruce, take a deeeeep breath. In with the good air, out with the bad air. Even though on paper 8' 4" sounds like a like, it really isn't if you consider the curves in your layout. You'll get 8' 4" in no time if you start your incline (or decline) around curves. I'm planning a 7' x 30" layout and my cross overs will run 1.75" high and I don't seem to have any problems, at least on paper. You should get and try using XTrkCAD. It's free and it allows you to experiment where you need to start the incline as it calculates the % grade and physical height of the inclined track. It's a great "what if" tool. Don't worry about free weekends. MRR is suppose to be fun. Until your next free weekend, read some MRR magazines or surf the for MRR sites (like here!).
I might get some flack for this but on a small layout I think you can push the grade to 3% and still be OK. It's true that your pulling power goes way down as the grade goes up but on a small layout your not going to be running very long trains anyway. I used the woodland scenics risers to make a 2% grade on my layout and one engine can pull a train about 17 feet long without much problem. If I were to run a train this long I would want to use two engines anyway for appearence. On a layout your size I think a train half that length would be pushing it. If you have a basement empire this would be a bigger issue but then again you would have the room for the smaller grade.
Being one who has a. amply demonstrated an inability to perform even simple mathematical tasks, and b. a winding, 9 3/4" radius curve blessed layout, and c. a obsession for steam it is my said duty to report to you that 3% will be tough going for the following, which will slip - 1. MP Pacific pulling more than itself and a tender. 2. MP Mikado with more than itself, a tender, one box car and a caboose. 3. Kato Mikado without traction wheelset installed. 4. Lifelike 2-6-6-2 and its tender. I have found no issues with any diesel units, either singly or paired with a decent number of cars behind it.
I should have stated that my test was with an older Kato F3. My other deisel engines also have not had problems with much shorter trains more in line with the size of my layout. I don't have any steam. Didn't know there was such a big difference in pulling power. My curves are also in the 14" range which I know also makes a difference.
I haven't read all the posts, but the lazy method is to gain two inches in 8 feet. So if you need a 20 inch gain, you'll be running 80 feet of track. If you do the math on this method, the actual grade is something between 2.0 % and 2.02 %, close enough for government work.
I have used it on the Version 1 layout.. Its hideous stuff. But thanks anyway.. 2 long weekends in a row comin up! But goin campin the first one.
Just out of curiosity, why do you not like the WS foam risers? I've used them in the past. They're solid and firm and great for their intended use. The ONLY reason I didn't use them on my last attempt at a layout (see link in sig) was because much of it was going to be elevated and I didn't want to get a bank loan to buy the stuff. I'm with Rick....2 inches in 8 feet is close enough and an easy way to remember how to get a 2% grade. Basically figure on 1/4" rise for every foot of track.
