I've been searching around a little and not finding much for what kind of grade I can get away with. I have completed setting up my layout sections in the garage and I'm getting ready to punch thru the wall into the new "territory" (spare bedroom), which is going to give me another 15x9-1/2 room to take over. The problem is that I'm at 30" to table top in the garage, and I'm going to lose 12" steeping up into the house, so I am looking at ramping up the mainline on a grade the more the better to reach a more normal height in the bedroom. Generally I'm seeing about 3% maximum on other layouts. Whats going to be the limits in your experience with length of trains with a 1-2 powered locomotives as far as traction problems or? I've got 28" radius's on the main and planning for them everywhere except a 24" on the returning loop in the bedroom.
This depends on your layout space, the train length. Do you run long trains with multiple engines? I've weighted my cars. My grade at the main line is 1.6 % and I run long - for me with 20 or 25 cars - trains with three engines. I've also some street running with 5 %, but there the switcher will pull only 3 or 4 cars. Wolfgang
I think with my radius's I am going to be looking at around 25-30 car trains max. I have a reverse loop that drops under the layout and comes back up that is pretty nasty, I have to run 2 powered loco's to get just 6 cars and a caboose thru it. I think it's around 5% too. I'm going to do some calculations when I get home, I think I will need about 3/8" rise/per foot which is about a 3% grade. There is the newest section of the layout in the garage which isn't sceneried yet, I may cut out around the track with the jigsaw and elevate it, should be good for a couple inches in the right direction. I'd hope a pair of Athearn geeps would take a 3% grade with 20+ cars, but I haven't tried it yet either.
You need to allow for curvature too, as curves have a similar effect on pulling capacity as upgrades. Even the prototype allows for this within the term 'ruling grade', and on models our tighter radii make it arguably a bigger issue. Woring out your likely scenario and then mocking it up and testing it is really the only way to be sure before you build.
Grades The prototype railroads try to have a slight a grade as possible. 2.5% is the maximum for mainlines. The former Espee line over the Siskiyou's in southern Oregon has some 3.2% grades which restricted the kind of steam locomotives used. In HO 13.75 inches is about 100 feet or about 1/8th inch a foot. Looks like if your track has to gain 12 inches in elevation a run of 40 feet will be required for a 2.5% grade Divide the rise by the desired grade: 12 inches divided by .025 = 480 inches divided by 12 = 40 feet Hope that helps.
Steam engines pull less than diesels. 1-2 units and 25 cars, I would think that 3% would be pushing it reliably. 2% would be way better. Steamers, 2% max, 1.5% better. Depends on how much you are willing to have the trains slow down going up the hill or race/surge going down. Dave H.
I'm thinking 2% is a good idea for mainlines. Perhaps you could raise the garage portion and flatten the profile? As illuminated in other threads loops aren't (SP) all that uncommon in the real world.
I'll add my two cents here and probably repeat the obvious. I do like the idea of raising your layout on the garage side to flatten out the difference. If that's not an option then yes a loop can be used to gain elevation. Ie., SP's Tehachapi Loop! Some of the rules I have for my layout. Grades are to be 2 to 2.5% maximum on the mainline. I expect one locomotive to be able to pull ten freight or passenger cars up a 2% grade. With regard to weight. I prefer to keep the cars at the minimum weight they were shopped at. If needed: I keep my 40 foot freight cars at 1 to 1-1/2 ounces, full length passenger cars at 2 to 2-1/2 ounces. Add more weight and they become harder to pull, add to little weight and they will jump off the track Ie., Stringline! There are variations on the weight but this is the basic rule of thumb. NMRA has a set standard you might want to check out. Keep us advised and send us photos and updates on your progress. Have fun!
Prototype grade I live near this grade (3.6% at one point near I-5) and have had the pleasure of riding the left-hand seat over the Siskiyous a couple times. It's been awhile, but when I rode - to add prototype perspective - CORP was using 4-5 GP38s and SD-45s to pull 15-25 loads and MTs westbound over The Hill. I model it at 2.7%, but with a 13-in (N-scale) curve. Depending on the motive power, I can comfortably pull around 20 freight or 10 passenger cars, so that's pretty close to prototype (except I need fewer power units - if my track is clean, my new Kato GS4 will pull 10 lightweights without help). Scott
Like a number of others have already responded, it is all train length dependent. I don't know very many guys who like to run short 5-9 car trains on a layout as large as yours will be. Anything over 2% will limit you substantially. Get a few straight 10' 1x4's tack some flex on it and mock up a few and see what your lash up will pull. Like the prototype, less will always be better. Joe Daddy
I've made my thoughts on this subject into a blog post. Tighter Curves and Steeper Grades Feel free to flame me here or there. Best!
Best advice is the right advice. Lownen and all tuned in, No flame intended but what the...well...are you telling these people. Grin! As a youngster just getting started in the hobby I went down to my LHS. Yep, I had a LHS sales person tell me something similar to what you said on your blog and I built my railroads with tight curves and steep grades. I was never more disappointed and frustrated with the end result. I learned the hard way that a model railroad needs to best reflect a real railroad. Fortunately, my granddad a engineer for the Santa Fe railroad came in and pointed out the error of my ways, showing me how I could solve some of the problems I encountered. He teased me about trying to build a roller coaster. I wouldn't call you a "Heretic" but I do feel you are right there on the teetering edge of misinforming a new convert. The first layout that he or she builds will make the difference between them continuing to be a model railroader or leave. What you have suggested may satisfy them for a while but pretty soon the owner is going to want longer trains, full length passenger cars and as they arrive on his or her railroad property reality will begin to set in. I'd rather give the advise I needed to hear as a youngster and encourage the newbie to build wide curves and slight grades. Believe me when I say, most newbies are only interested in one thing. Running their trains like they see the toy stores operate O-27. Or similar to my first "Roller Coaster Layout". That may work with heavier locomotives and cars but with HO or N scale's lightweights...not so. I've seen newbies give up the hobby because they were unhappy with their first layouts. All due to tight curves and steep grades. I've watched hobby sales persons, who have no knowledge of railroads, hand out your advise and I've watched the newbies return as much as they could, in total disgust. Better, to steer them in the right direction and develop future model railroaders. Or in the case to the LHS establish your customer base via continued sales. As a result, I would like to see you discuss the fact that the tighter curves and steeper grades are available, if one must build such. That most model railroaders eventually enlarge the curves and lessen the grades...as I did. That they most likely will benefit, to their delight, a finer running railroad with wider curves and realistic grades. I'm not 100% prototypical but let's not but down the men and women who are. No offense meant by all this. Have fun!
I don't think anyone here is saying you can't have steep grades and tight curves - just that they will limit what you can run and what the visual effect will be. I have a 15" radius and a (separate) 4.8% grade on my HO layout - but they are in specific industrial locations that my 6-axle power will never access; strictly 4-axle switchers and two or three cars. If (please god, one day) I had the space for a proper mainline I'd be keeping it to 2-3% tops, with big curves
Rick, et. al.; I have great respect for you and many of the people on here who have spoken up for wide curves and prototypical grades. However I've seen people, particularly children, lose interest because they can't put their track together in interesting ways in the space that they have. Prototypical track layouts are beautiful if you have the space for them. But I can't even remember how many times I've seen people come here and post what they were going to do and have people respond with "well... you need more space" or "take out your inner loop, the curve is too tight". I am especially sensitive about this when it comes to children. They need to fit their trains on small train tables and boards under their beds. They love their Brio and Geotrax. Give them electric trains that work in the same space and let them grow into the desire for a prototypical layout. From my own childhood memories, I'm convinced that this is a better solution than giving them a Lionel set with an oval and nothing more. Mike; Thanks for your comments. I'll support your request for more space in my conversations with the Almighty. Best!
"Grades over 2% don't look real" doesn't answer their question, it simply states an irrelevant fact. Source URL Randall, I'm going to have to disagree with your statement. Grades are extremely relevant. Grades affect and drive train length, layout configuration, layout routing, scenery options, operations and of course appearance. Keeping my grades under 2% have been a major obstacle to achieving a good operating and appearing layout. Now if we are just playin electric trains, well, they matter their too. Just my 2 cents Joe
I'm more interested in modelling a branchline/industrial railroad, and so I have it in my head that a "normal" train would be about 6 to 12 cars and a small steam/four axle diesel. Given this mindset a 4% grade and 18" radius curves are acceptable to me. My mainline generally exists to service the interchange and let me just watch a train roll by when I want to. Even then I don't flinch too hard at 4% grades, it works if you have good track and rolling stock. My experiments and experiences have led me to believe that larger radius curves are the biggest factor in running long cars and long trains. All that said; I would advise anyone wanting to model a mainline type operation especially passenger or modern (long cars), to think larger than 22" radius and 2% or less grades. It's a reliability/satisfaction play.
Joe; Yes, grades are very relevant. But the answer that a grade doesn't look real is not relevant to the question, "What's the maximum I can have?". Yes, I am just playin with trains. And I agree, grades do matter there too. Right now I have a an oval of N scale Unitrack set up with 9 3/4" radius oval set up with 6% grades under one of the curves... making the effective grade significantly greater. Is it a roller coaster? Just about. Does it work? My Athearn D&RGW Consolidation pulls 9 of Athearn's Overton cars over it with no problem. On the other hand, my Model Power Pacific has trouble making it over a 4% grade without pulling any cars... not enough weight. Which train would I recommend to a parent whose child wanted to do an over/under layout on a board that they keep under their bed? Athearn for sure. Helitac; You'll get no argument from me. Best!
I just had a thought, and please be carefull how you interpret this; I accept that thermodynamics is universal; are N scale physics different (and in what ways) than HO physics. Not to hijack this interesting discussion, but maybe some differences are still out there?
Helitac; I think that the biggest difference is weight. I haven't run any tests as an adult, but I seem to remember HO and O gauge trains of my youth climbing steeper grades with much more success. I have always assumed it was due to the weight differential. Of course I never had too many cars to hook on when I was a kid either. In a previous thread someone (not me, believe it or not) argued that all of the inherent difficulties in makeing N scale steam locos could be overcome simply by enlarging them to TT scale. That said, I haven't gotten around to doing any grade tests on my TT scale trains, my selection of locos is much more limited in that scale, and the minimum curve I have in TT scale track is 13" which isn't scale comparable to my minimum radius Unitrack curves.
