In trying to work a logging branch into my new trackplan, I'm up against the same question I had on the last layout - whether or not to try switchbacks on the incline. On the previous one I opted for a tightly-curving incline with a lone switchback at the very top of the grade. I had a wider swath of benchwork to work with with no trackwork below to design around. Anybody have any caveats, warnings or success stories to pass along? Aside from "include long enough tail tracks" I don't know much about the "how-to's" of building them as a means to get some elevation along a shorter run.
Hey Jim - I'm in N scale - are there different considerations between scales? On the logging line I run 20-40 ft. log cars pulled (or pushed) by an Atlas 2-truck Shay. That consist had no problem with the unrealistic 8% grade I threw at it before.
A friend of mine had - years ago - built following a prototype narrow gauge line with a switchback. There was even a switch back at the 3' narrow gauge line at the Monarch branch, Monarch Branch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia I think many logging railroads had switchbacks too. Wolfgang
What is your approximate are of modeling (e.g., Pacific NW, South...)? If you are modeling Pacific Northwest, there were quite a few switchbacks on logging roads and that would also give a lot of visual and operational interest. I would go with the switchback.
Wolfgang - interesting Wikipedia stub - the 4.5% grade was worked by both steam and diesel locos. 4 -6% is probably the grade I'll shoot for this time. Steamdonkey - I'm modeling generic Pacific Northwest. I hope to work in a switchback or two; found some earlier posts that mention vertical transition. My previous layout want from 0% grade to 8% within very short span. I will try to include something a bit more realistic this time.
RWC, I'm also contemplating a logging area on my layout. In the space I'm visualizing on my layout I have about a 3.5'x 4' area to build a hill. I'm leaning toward a rising track curving around to near the top. This climb will be about 4.5-5 degrees. Because of the limited space I'm thinking that for my purposes switchbacks may become a more dominate feature of the landscape than I want. Most logging railroads had a combination of swithbacks and rising curves so there is no 'wrong' way to build you logging section. If you have a bigger spot than I have then switchbacks may be the way to go. Remember turnouts must be level side to side. They can be on an incline front to back. Jim
I've also been taken by the switchback idea and found this beautiful prototype, the Cass Scenic Railway...
You beat me to it! :tb-biggrin: I was going to mention the Cass Railroad as a good example of doing switchbacks. The OP indicated 8% as being unrealistic, but there are sections of Cass that hit 7%.
I'm a big fan of Carl Arendt's Small Layout Scrapbook, and found out about Cass there... It's the perfect inspiration for a small steep logging line with a switchback. I think it would work best with the switch and the tail both on the level similar to the real one. Greg
Sounds interesting. I can't see any reason to not do this project. Plenty of switchbacks were used in Pacific NW logging. Hope we can see some progress photos! Boxcab E50
Only two It has just two switchbacks. They replaced a 360-degree curve of track (a loop) made unuseable because a large wooden trestle burned down.
And more... This has to be the mother of all switchbacks... looks like the engine is pulling a string of empty log buggies...
Here's an engine backing up a D&rgw switchback... ...the lower switchback. Makes sense they always kept the engine on the downhill side of the cars. Really neat old timer caboose. You can see just how steep the grade is at the left of the switch...
