Gradients and possible solutions

R

rgsmg53

Registered
Country flag
I'm relatively new to G scale so please excuse an elementary question. Mods please move this if posted in the wrong place.

I'm about to start building a permanent layout in part of my loft with overall dimensions of baseboards of approx 7m x 3.5m with a central operating area accessed via a loft hatch. I know this is small for G Scale but the garden is simply not level enough - and I need an indoor hobby for winter weather which the grandchildren can also enjoy.

I would ideally like to build a two-level layout with a looped-eight design but, due to the shallow roof angle, the width is reduced to 2.5m if clearance to accommodate an upper level of track is required.

I have been playing with designs using Anyrail (excellent program) and find that the absolute minimum (calculated) gradient is 3% if I am to leave headroom of 255mm (inc baseboard) for trains on the lower level and then this only allows two-level running at one end of the layout, the rest being taken up by graded track which severely restricts design freedom.

I've been carrying out some 'scientific' tests using a 4m length of straight track on an inclined trackbed and four LGB small bogie coaches hauled by various LGB and Bachman locos. The smallest loco I have is a LGB Feldbahn 0-4-0 and this can only manage one coach without slipping to a standstill. The LGB Stainz seems a lot better and can manage all four coaches but very careful (DCC) control is required to prevent slipping and the 0-6-0 six-coupled LGB diesel is not significantly better. All are fitted with Zimo decoders with 128-step motor control and none are fitted with any type of traction tyre.

So, it seems that if I really want a two-level layout, I will have to accept 3% gradients and some sort of traction enhancer (ie traction tyres or something like Bullfrog Snot). Does anyone have any advice? Do any of the traction enhancers really work and, if so, does anyone have any comparative performance data available?

Or perhaps I should just go for a single level layout - which is probably less work.......................
 
rgsmg53 said:
I'm relatively new to G scale so please excuse an elementary question. Mods please move this if posted in the wrong place.

I'm about to start building a permanent layout in part of my loft with overall dimensions of baseboards of approx 7m x 3.5m with a central operating area accessed via a loft hatch. I know this is small for G Scale but the garden is simply not level enough - and I need an indoor hobby for winter weather which the grandchildren can also enjoy.

I would ideally like to build a two-level layout with a looped-eight design but, due to the shallow roof angle, the width is reduced to 2.5m if clearance to accommodate an upper level of track is required.

I have been playing with designs using Anyrail (excellent program) and find that the absolute minimum (calculated) gradient is 3% if I am to leave headroom of 255mm (inc baseboard) for trains on the lower level and then this only allows two-level running at one end of the layout, the rest being taken up by graded track which severely restricts design freedom.

I've been carrying out some 'scientific' tests using a 4m length of straight track on an inclined trackbed and four LGB small bogie coaches hauled by various LGB and Bachman locos. The smallest loco I have is a LGB Feldbahn 0-4-0 and this can only manage one coach without slipping to a standstill. The LGB Stainz seems a lot better and can manage all four coaches but very careful (DCC) control is required to prevent slipping and the 0-6-0 six-coupled LGB diesel is not significantly better. All are fitted with Zimo decoders with 128-step motor control and none are fitted with any type of traction tyre.

So, it seems that if I really want a two-level layout, I will have to accept 3% gradients and some sort of traction enhancer (ie traction tyres or something like Bullfrog Snot). Does anyone have any advice? Do any of the traction enhancers really work and, if so, does anyone have any comparative performance data available?

Or perhaps I should just go for a single level layout - which is probably less work.......................
Click to expand...
Or a two-level layout with a station interchange between them. It could be a shuttle (I have a harbour shuttle system) or a raised oval,
 
Don't mistreat the little Feldbahn looks, they are a lot more fragile than the bigger ones, with smaller motors, and a more delicate drive-chain..

You can add a little bit of weight to your loco's (not the Feldbahn please) to increase traction, but not so much that they stall, rather than slip.
You will also find that your traction problems will be a lot worse, if you have a curve involved as well. - Even if the curve is on the level.

You may be better looking at an end to end shunting puzzle, with wider boards at one end of the loft?
You can always have the outermost track, as a continuous run, to keep the grandkids occupied.

If your loco's have wheels designed for a traction tyre. - One wheel will have a groove in the tread for a tyre, then you can fit one.
Bullfrog snot may improve adhesion, but will impede power-pickup from the track. I have also never found it to be applied uniformly to the tread, so it makes running a little lumpy.

I am sure others will also have ideas?

PhilP.
 
I have a 1:25 gradient, and a Stainz with a traction tyre will manage a few 4/5 up the slope, without a traction tyre very much is determined by the motor and weight of the loco, to what they will pull. Personally, if I were to do it again 1:40 (2.5%) would be my maximum gradient.
 
Have a look at this little layout built in a 3M x 3M garden shed.
It shows what you can do in a small space.
Quote from description "the steepest grade is 1:11 on a 15" radius"

Latest - The Sandstone & Termite Railway

Main page for G gauge garden railway. Description of the construction of the line.
www.trainweb.org www.trainweb.org

He has done far more work since his last post
 
i had , on my last layout, grades of 5 to 6% on straights. on curves R1 only about 3 to 4%.
with Stainzes that were full of additional weight (about 2.3kg/5pound total weight). together with motorized tenders they could draw 5 two-axle cars or 4 four-axle cars.

but depending, what you like from a layout, you should think, if it is worth it, to use half of the avayable space for gradients.
the lower part with only 25cm/250mm/10" serves as staging area only. (or do you want to set up an undergroundline?)
if you like lineside buildings and stuff, one flat level could be preferable.
 
Work out the absolute maximum height you need for the engines and rolling stock you will be using also allowing the track height/felt etc. plus a very minimal clearance above. Where the upper level track crosses over the lower track support it with a minimum thickness board at those points. Could be something like 3 ply or less. You may need to use some cunning scenery and selection of bridge designs to hide the minimum height between the two levels. You may win several centimeters thus reducing your overall grade somewhat. Skimp, skimp, skimp. It all counts. :)

Where the lower level goes under the upper level, dip your roadbed there rather than the all the lower level being at your main board height making the upper level not necessarily as high. This will reduce your grades too. It's all in the planning. Good choice with AnyRail. A lot can be done with the apparent minimal tool set. I also tend to replace long flex track lengths over the set track pieces once I figure things out so I can make the layout more extensive. Yea, I know. I should just pay for it . Skimp, skimp, skimp. :giggle:
 
Last edited:
Steep grades can be hard on locomotives. Perhaps 2 levels with a Rack line to join them? Or have you thought of a zig zag to join the two lines, works on the real thing. As for your garden being too steep, gradients can be eased with loops and again a zig zag or two.
 
ciao, a 3% slope is fine; I'm building a layout (indoor) on two levels (73 and 100 cm) connected by a 3.5% ramp: from the first tests I have no problems with my small engine (most of them are 2 axle tram)

I was thinking of dedicating a multiple traction (2 locos permanently cuopled) for the transfer of longer train...to avoid problem ;)
 
Thanks for the replies. Demonstrated the test gradient to the grandchildren today and there was unanimous agreement that the Feldbahn should be used for shunting rather than heavy trains!

I'll be setting up a basic single-level continuous loop in time for Christmas so we can all experiment with curved gradients but the more I think about it the more I'm coming round to a single level with a couple of dropped baseboards for bridgework. Potential layout designs seem so much more atteactive that way.
 
Have you considered a rack loco eg LGB Ballenberg or Furka Oberalp?
Don’t overtax your feldbahn loco, they should not be run continuously for more than 20mins, if it is an older model then motors are like hens teeth and the newer motors do not fit.
 
rgsmg53 said:
Thanks for the replies. Demonstrated the test gradient to the grandchildren today and there was unanimous agreement that the Feldbahn should be used for shunting rather than heavy trains!

I'll be setting up a basic single-level continuous loop in time for Christmas so we can all experiment with curved gradients but the more I think about it the more I'm coming round to a single level with a couple of dropped baseboards for bridgework. Potential layout designs seem so much more atteactive that way.
Click to expand...
Are you thinking of something like this in principle?3 - layout in condensed size format E.jpg
 
When I had my loft layout I had a level circuit running around the edge on the upper level with a branch winding down to a partially hidden return loop and storage sidings that utilised the greater width available at the lower level. I could let one train run on the upper loop while another shorter train operated out and back on the branch.
 
rgsmg53 said:
I'm relatively new to G scale so please excuse an elementary question. Mods please move this if posted in the wrong place.

I'm about to start building a permanent layout in part of my loft with overall dimensions of baseboards of approx 7m x 3.5m with a central operating area accessed via a loft hatch. I know this is small for G Scale but the garden is simply not level enough - and I need an indoor hobby for winter weather which the grandchildren can also enjoy.

I would ideally like to build a two-level layout with a looped-eight design but, due to the shallow roof angle, the width is reduced to 2.5m if clearance to accommodate an upper level of track is required.

I have been playing with designs using Anyrail (excellent program) and find that the absolute minimum (calculated) gradient is 3% if I am to leave headroom of 255mm (inc baseboard) for trains on the lower level and then this only allows two-level running at one end of the layout, the rest being taken up by graded track which severely restricts design freedom.

I've been carrying out some 'scientific' tests using a 4m length of straight track on an inclined trackbed and four LGB small bogie coaches hauled by various LGB and Bachman locos. The smallest loco I have is a LGB Feldbahn 0-4-0 and this can only manage one coach without slipping to a standstill. The LGB Stainz seems a lot better and can manage all four coaches but very careful (DCC) control is required to prevent slipping and the 0-6-0 six-coupled LGB diesel is not significantly better. All are fitted with Zimo decoders with 128-step motor control and none are fitted with any type of traction tyre.

So, it seems that if I really want a two-level layout, I will have to accept 3% gradients and some sort of traction enhancer (ie traction tyres or something like Bullfrog Snot). Does anyone have any advice? Do any of the traction enhancers really work and, if so, does anyone have any comparative performance data available?

Or perhaps I should just go for a single level layout - which is probably less work.......................
Click to expand...
Have a look at this vid, may not be suitable for your loft but the space is quite tight with most of the radius R1 though where there is double track there is R2 in the outer. Took a lot of planning to get it all in with some movable sections (hinged baseboards on wheels) to get in. Gradients resolved exact using nuts and bolts to get things even. But shows what can be done in a small space. Oh yes suggest turn sound down! Sorry cant give exact measurements of space but it was in a shed I built a few years back, not much more than 12x8 feet.there is a continuous run low level with access to a garage and the garden. Could be altered to gave second continuous at the top. Train comes out of garage below where camera is, loops round shed to return to garage high level what the shed was designed to do have a good run from a fiddle yard to station in a small space with ability to get to the garden (acess to garden of course not applicable in your situation)
 
Last edited:
playmofire said:
Are you thinking of something like this in principle?View attachment 321314
Click to expand...
Could be. If possible, I would like to achieve two separate continuous loops to avoid pathing conflicts. DCC offers enough opportunities for collisions as it is!
dunnyrail said:
Have a look at this vid, may not be suitable for your loft but the space is quite tight with most of the radius R1 though where there is double track there is R2 in the outer. Took a lot of planning to get it all in with some movable sections (hinged baseboards on wheels) to get in. Gradients resolved exact using nuts and bolts to get things even. But shows what can be done in a small space. Oh yes suggest turn sound down! Sorry cant give exact measurements of space but it was in a shed I built a few years back, not much more than 12x8 feet.there is a continuous run low level with access to a garage and the garden. Could be altered to gave second continuous at the top. Train comes out of garage below where camera is, loops round shed to return to garage high level what the shed was designed to do have a good run from a fiddle yard to station in a small space with ability to get to the garden (acess to garden of course not applicable in your situation)
Click to expand...
Certainly food for thought. Thank you. I had tended to dismiss R1 curves to try to maximise achievable gradients.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom