I'd like to make a 1" change in elevation with 17" of track. Is that too agressive of an elevation change for the locos to climb? The locos will only be pulling less than 10 cars. I am not trying to be prototypical since this is a freelance layout and not striving for 100% realism.
About a 6% grade. I think that's fine given the short distance and the short trains that will be run.
There are a few variables: Type of loco Steam Diesel Number of powered axles Weight of loco Traction tires present Type of cars - 40' or 85'? Momentum - if the train is moving when it hits the grade Definitely: Two 4 axle diesels with more than ten 50' boxcars A 4 axle "wagon" body diesel such as FTs will do ten 50' from stand still. Probable: A 6 axle diesel with ten 50' boxcars from a stand still A 4 axle diesel with ten 50' boxcars with momentum Improbable: 4-4-0 with five 40' box cars with a running start Bachman MDC three axle diesel with five 40' box cars Hope this helps.
You won't be happy either with the pulling power and possibly the transitions at the bottom of the hill. 4% is max, 3% is better, and for anything over ten cars 2.5% or lower is much, much better, or a max of 1" in 25", 1" in 33", 1" in 40 inches or less. There has to be a way to achieve that by moving the start or finish of your grade back a bit.
Perhaps if you posted your track plan, either here or in the layout design forum, we could give more insightful answers and help find alternatives.
Thanks for all of the feedback. This is an add-on to an existing layout. The main layout is basically a roundy-roundy and I want another roundy-roundy with some switching action. I would like to raise the level of the industrial area 1" for visual effect. I have approximately 17.5" between switches (see lower right corner where I hand-written). I will be running a switcher and 4-axle diesels with 40' and 50' box cars (no more than 10). The second picture shows the entire layout. The green rectangles are scaled footprint represenations of the structures that I cut out and see how they look and fit. Sorry for the bad pics since I do not have a scanner at work and took pics of the actual work paper.
If you really want the grade, start it in the rear of the layout at the first switch. You then have twice the trackage to gain some height. Just level out the spurs as you go along ....Mike
Ditto. I would think hard about reducing the grade or dropping it all together. Even a 3% grade (beginning at the back of the layout as Mike C suggests) on those sharp curves will drastically reduce pulling power to the point that operations may be severely impaired. I have three suggestions: Begin the grade at the back of the layout as Mike C suggested. Only rise 1/2 or 2/3 of an inch instead of a full inch. Try to mock it up with snap track using the same radii and grades and see how your locomotives perform. That's your best bet of determining if what you have in mind will work or not.
PRR's Madison Hill in Indiana was 5.89% and was operated by specially built SD7's with extra weight which were limited to 15 cars. http://broadway.pennsyrr.com/Rail/Prr/Fan/madison_br.html
You might consider something like this... I think this will give you the longest possible runs for your grades.
Thanks for all the feedback and plan (Mark W.). I think the simplest is to get rid of the spur on the east side so I can use a 4% incline from Woodland Scenics or even a 3% since that would leave me with enough track to do so. Or If I keep the spur on the east, I would have to start it at the swtichover like others have said. The switch at the east spur would level at half an inch and from there it continues up to 1" using a 4% grade.
Don't neglect the vertical curves (one each top and bottom) required to transition into and out of the grade. You may lose 18"-20". Try mocking it up on a temporary plank. Otherwise, you risk digging your locomotive pilot into the railhead and non-intentional uncoupling. Good luck!
consider this....2.5% is considered a steep grade by real railroads, and what you are lookingat is a grade that geared steam locos crawled up at under 15mph. I remember watching 10 locos drag a train over the 2.25% Tehatchapi grade on the SP. I could watch a train go arround the horseshoe curve at Calente, drive to the loop, make a sandwich, find the perfect spot to shoot a train, see 2 go downgrade, one go upgrade, and then see the one from Calente.....and they are less than 30 miles apart.
The grade is just up to the industrial area. I don't see any siding that can handle more than a couple cars anyhow so I think the grade would be fine. I wouldn't get stuck on 1" height though. For simplicity, start with a woodland scenics 2% riser at the crossover at the top of the plan. Install the next turnout at whatever level it falls and raise up the siding to match. There is nothing that says a turnout can't be installed on a grade. Continue with the 2% riser until you get to the industrial level than match that height for the rest of the industrial area.
I have some very steep grades on my layout. Based on my experience, the biggest issue will be the grade transitions - the transitions from areas of level track to areas of track at a grade. I believe this is what National Mallets is saying re "vertical curves". Certain locomotives will derail at grade transitions that are too sudden, and I find that freight cars and passenger cars can have unintended uncouplings at the grade transitions at the top. The fact that you have turnouts at the top and bottom of the area where you want to put the steep grade makes this situation worse, since the turnouts really should be absolutely level. To avoid these problems you need to ease into and out of the steep grade at each end. That you will need to put these "Vertical Curves" on a section having curved track makes it a little trickier as well. Even some 8 wheeled F-unit diesels may be unhappy with grade transitions that are too sudden - the front truck of my Kato F3 A-unit is my problem child - it has less flexibility than the rear truck, or than either truck on the corresponding Kato F3 B-unit. My trackwork is not perfect, as my Kato F3 A-unit reminds me all the time. I don't know the best way remedy your layout design, but I would encourage you to use the suggestions by the others here to minimize your grades in your layout addition - not because of how many cars you will be able to pull, but because the grade transitions will be tricky to make in a way that will give you reliable operations.
The 6% you originally planned is going to behave more like 10% since it looks like it is on a curve. How about lowering the benchwork on the entire add on section or skimming a bit from the surface. Are you using plywood, foamboard or both? You are going to need straight transition sections going into and out of the turn when attached the turnouts, otherwise your locomotive's leading whells are going to be leaning one way or the another which will cause derailments and frustration. I know this from personal experience. You will also probably have a vertical kink which won't be good and give you the same problems. Please also remember that one engine might do fine on the grade and ten others won't. Lay it out and run every engine you have which is still no guaranty that ones you may purchase in the future might not "make the grade", so to say.
If I begin the incline on the first curved piece at the upper right turnout, I should have 30" going up a 4% incline and have about 7" of flat on the top of the incline for the first switch. That isn't enough track? I thought I read that the 4% WS inclines go up 1" vertical for every 24" of track? I am using a "ladder-type" frame (1 x 2 to keep weight down) and 1" foam on top. The original layout was built with portability in mind and sits on top of the pool table. Now, I have an itch for some switching action and also able to mindlessly (sp?) run 2 trains on basically 2 roundy-roundys.
Re-did track plan for a little more variation in scenery and elevation. Instead of 2 roundy-roundys, it is now one. My concern now (train runs clockwise) is that after the bridge, I need to start the down grade and end it at the frist switch near the northwest corner. Will the down grade be too aggressive given the short length?
