One set of WS risers (2%, 3% or 4% grades) will take you up to about a 1 3/4 inch rise and back down again. Stay cool and run steam......
Powersteamguy1790 You mean incline sets, not risers, correct? The WS risers don't rise, they've already risen. So to speak.
Ok, Bob, You have not steered me wrong. For Table 1, Phase 1 I will go with the _inclines_ and maybe even a few risers. Oh, and I am going to change the name of this thread. //Edit: removed the word "yet" because some how I know he never will. [ April 07, 2005, 10:10 AM: Message edited by: Grey One ]
I have the WS inclines too, but I can see definite benifits in using the plywood, mainly in the transition from level to the incline and, even more so, from the incline back to level. The WS items arent oo bad, but plywood will tend to give a much more natural and prograssive transition...... Its kinda "you like em or you dont" and it depends on your building style. The only real solution is, go get a set (2 per box) and give it a go....then try the same thing in plywood...see which one works for ya.
How about a combo, I have a transition area that will be 80 feet of track long, I plan to start the transition area with foam, the transitioning to plywood or laminated hard board. The Woodland Scenics risers will start the transition smoothly, which would save me some work, but then the hard board will take over.
Hi Grey One, I just put down WS inclides with a combination of foam board. It cut down the expense but you have to trim the foam board to line up with the inclines. The incline sets line up perfectly but vary in cost from 10.50 to 15.50 depending on where you shop. The inclines package only (8 in a package) is about 4.20 to 6.20. It is true you will have to fill in the notches which hydocal cloth which will be another expense. Good luck in whatever you deside. Bernard
Thanks guys, I'm thinking of using a combination for a couple of reasons. The WS will be used as a smooth transition from level to the foam. I will try to cookie cutter to support the curve. Table 1, Phase 1 is a learning experience. I want to test the impact of grades. What can pull what up a 4%, 5%, and 6% grade. At what point will it string line? Since motive power is not an issue then just how "big" of a train can I haul before problems occur. I expect "string lining" will be a problem before wheel slippage. I’ll try to test it on the main line curve starting at the bottom of table one. We shall see If it is more than I can handle, I'll go back to WS.
Steve stated: want to test the impact of grades. What can pull what up a 4%, 5%, and 6% grade. At what point will it string line? Since motive power is not an issue then just how "big" of a train can I haul before problems occur. I expect "string lining" will be a problem before wheel slippage. I’ll try to test it on the main line curve starting at the bottom of table one. We shall see Steve: Your loco's will be tested to the maximum with a 4%, 5% or 6% grade. Realistically your best results will be at a 2% grade. The steeper the grade from that point forward will severely compromise your loco's performance no matter what loco you run on grades steeper than 2%. Stay cool and run steam.....
Bingo! I have done that as well, using 1x3's clamped on both sides as a guide, and a hotwire cutter to do the dirty work. Works like a charm. If you plan on making the grade curve, cut the grade a little less steep. I simply cut the grade riser into sections, and position them on the grade. Cutting the grade (1.8% curved versus 2% tangent) down keeps grade and curvature from increasing the effective grade (a 2% grade with a 10* curve can effectively be steeper than 2%, even though the rise of the alignment is only a 2% climb), and while slicing wedges out of the riser works, to make it flex; slicing the riser into wedges, and gluing them down works equally well. HTH!
Unless you model D&RGW's Soldier Summit route, Tennesse Pass, SP's Siskiyou, SOU's Saluda grade, or Yule Tram in Colorado; stay away from plus 2% grades. (2.4%, 3%, 3.3%, 5% and 14% ruling grades, respectively, to name a few) I agree with PSG, and 2% grades realistically will tax your engines, curvature, and train handling. Modeling a steeper grade usually requires helpers, DPU's or both. Which is fun! Always look to the prototype. DPU's are the rule now, but even 10 years ago, helpers were still manned on most mountain divisions. Tennessee Pass ran manned helpers on nearly all EB trains until UP pulled the plug in '97. Since you model GN and some Canadian roads, GN's old Steven's Pass and Marias Pass rute still require mid-train units, whether manned or remote, and DPU's on most EB trains. The 2.2% grade to Cascade tunnel is among the stiffest climbs in mainline railroading, and you regularly see DPU's on heavy trains. In short, if you model a steep grade in excess of 2%, you'll need: A. shorter trains for your engines to handle B. more engines to handle normal trains C. DCC to have more realistic helper ops (that was a shameless DCC plug, but not necessary to have DCC) In the end, have fun! Steep grades tax the engines, can lead to more derailments, and can be a maintenance headache. Just like the real thing! [ April 09, 2005, 10:30 PM: Message edited by: HemiAdda2d ]
I'm not sure I follow. What I understand is that you feal sure that even with 4 to 6 GPs and SDs on the front that hauling 30 "average cars will be a problem up a 4% to 6% grade where" 1) Many of the cars are 25 years old 2) The curves will rance from 15 to 28" radius . I realize the Atlas 2-6-0 won't make it and the Kato bullet train blurb says a max of 4%. Thanks again guys for the info. I hope I am not the only one learning here.
Steve, The 6 geeps would pull that train, assuming they all have free-rolling trucks. The problem is putting all the power on the point. That curvature, especially towards the 15" side will be tortuous. Not only will the grade at 4-6% be a killer with even 30 cars, the stringline opportunities will be exponentially greater. Unless you use carefully-speed-matched units, in helper or DPU mode. On a 6% grade, your engines will be 6" lower than a point at merely 8 feet (ok, 100 inches--96 inches is close enough to 100 inches, just for ease of instruction) ahead. A 30-car train will range in between 10-12 feet and up (30 autoracks or similar cars will plus 3 engine will be about 25 feet long), depending on the car lengths used. So on your layout, a 30 car train, not counting the motive power, will be almost a foot taller at the point than at the caboose! Think about what a tight curve in there will do to the train. As forces from gradient increase, the curvature multiplies those forces, and makes a simplest tracklaying goof turn into a major derailment. Tracklaying on such a layout needs to be as perfect as possible. On the old Rio Grande Moffat route, coal trains range upwards of 13,000 tons. With the extreme curvature (up to 12* in between Denver and Moffat Tunnel) and the 2% grade combined, swing helpers are tacked on at Tabernash for the EB trip, and DPU's are cut in the train as well. I have witnessed trains of 16,000 tons, with 4 units on the point, 3 more pushing midtrain, and another 3 on the tail. All units were GE and EMD ACeez, totalling over 44,000 horsepower! This kind of power arrangement is nearly essential so the train will not stringline on curves, and distributed power and braking keeps the train speed in check. Could you imagine the mess a train like this would make if it experienced a runaway? Am I still not making much sense?
Lets put this into perspective: The old Rio Grande had a branch up to Monarch Pass, where a limestone quarry was located. The branch, called the Monarch Branch featured curves up to 30*, and a 4.5% ruling grade. Up till the early 80's when it was abandoned, a pair of GP30's would handle about 15 cars. Total. Empties upgrade, loads downgrade, back to Pueblo. The train was taxed to the limit on this curvature, and was restricted to about 10MPH.
Steve: Redirect your emphasis on a 2% grade on your planned layout. You'll be happier when it comes time to run your equipment. Stay cool and run steam......
Hemi, You make a lot of sense. In fact you make it sound exciting. Thanks Bob, Thanks, This could be interesting and I could be doing some head banging, but that is part of the pleasure.
Early May I think. I'm not sure. I may be stalling. It's easy to draw lines in MSPaint and order equipment and trains. Right now I can speculate and daydream. Once that table is built I have to back it up. Last decision to make. Do I have the table Fluid Dynamics' style or Bobs' style? Bob's style is safe and reliable. FD's style is safe _if_ there are no derailments. Then again there is “my style”. Which is FD + “Murphy strips” along the edges in case the cars do take a tumble. Um, not “in case”, when. < insert the Chewbaca’s howl at the situation > Ok, Ok, writing all of this has made me see the foolishness. I’ll order it today and post the date as soon as I know. No, really.
