Gradients when laying track

[beavercreek]

Hi
Yes, in my posting above a few back you will see some piccies of my locos pulling longish strings of rolling stock up 15% -20% gradients. I have also mentioned the use of traction tyres and/or supplementary motor blocks replacing motor bogies in a piece of weighted rolling stock to assist. They work for hours with no detrimental effect to gears or motors. The traction tyres do need cleaning with meths every so often (once a month or so).

 

[spike]

Hi
Yes, in my posting above a few back you will see some piccies of my locos pulling longish strings of rolling stock up 15% -20% gradients. I have also mentioned the use of traction tyres and/or supplementary motor blocks replacing motor bogies in a piece of weighted rolling stock to assist. They work for hours with no detrimental effect to gears or motors. The traction tyres do need cleaning with meths every so often (once a month or so).

Sorry to be pedantic Mike but do you mean 1:20 and 1:15 and not 15 and 20%?

You will need a rack loco for 20% which is 1:5

 

[Andrew]

Hello Andrew, Greg Hunter on his website has a few tips that may be of interest to you.
http://www.members.optusnet.com.au/satr/BeginnersHints.htm

Regards from Andrew at Sandbar & Mudcrab

 

[coyote97]

ok...so lets go in oncemore.....

first, lets talk about ways to name inclines.

1.) the degree-method
1a.) old degrees:
in old-degrees, a circle has 360 degrees, a "right" angle 90 degrees.
1b.) new degrees:
a circle has 400 degrees, what gives the advantage of easier parts: 200 for a hlaf, 100 for a quater 50 for 1/8, 25 for 1/16 circle. this is just used in surveyors community , but not really to name inciles, nor the 360 degrees version.

2.) the relativity method:
it is based on a fixed amount of height-difference of "1", no matter what the unit is: inches, meters, kilometers, miles...as far as u use the same on the length!
So:
1: 100 means: for a (topgraphical) lentgh of 100 units u raise 1 unit.
1: 30 means on 30 units un raise 1 unit.

As far as we use "normal" Railroad-gradients, the topgraphic length and the related length (real length) can be considered the same.
up from 1:40 or 1: 30 gradients it may be intersting to calculate the real track length.


3.) the "percent"-method
most people get puzzeled with this, because they consider a housewall as a 100% gradient: the steepest thing they imagine.
But thats just another "writing" for the degree-methods: 100% would be 90 degrees, 50% would be 45 degrees.

BUT THAT IS NOT!

the percent-method gives another length-raise-relation:
this time the base is always the same: 100 units of topographic length raises the given amount of units.
10% means: on a base of 100 units u raise 10 units. 10 units per 100 units....per 100...per cent.


4.) the permille-method
its exactly the same as the percent-method, but based on 1000 units length. thas done because many RR have fine differences in gradients that gives broken percentages: 3,3% 5,1% 1,3% this is the same as 33‰ 51‰ 13‰



prototypical RR are like this:


mainlines: tried to be held on a max of 1-1,5 %, on about 2 % the operations become difficult with long trains and because of security questions (brakes) most lines over 2% are named "steep-line" with special instructions.

average lines: the lines are often more smooth "on the landscape" and often have inclines of 2 or 3 % up and down, with less affect to the operations with mostly short trains and less goods-transports.

branchlines: some branchlines going to the bottom of the mountains out from the plains have incines of 3 or 4 % as a standard.

mountainlines: engineers found out that on about 7% theres a savety-line for operations, whats going steeper needs to have a rack. but there are tram-lines (modern ones) with 12 or 13 % inclines over kilometers, but the light cars have heavy brakes (magnet-line-brake). The onyl "old" line i know with 13 % without rack is in portugal with a streettram going down along a church.

fastlines:
because of the good traction and kinetic energy the inclines on fastlines are sometimes heavy (up to 4%). Thats no problem for the ICE-train, but for the builders-trains bringing material to the building lot.


a max of 4-5% , reduced to 2 % the sharper curves get is a good advice for the gardenrailroad. it was told here before.


Frank

 

[steve parberry]

Not sure the correct grade but most things go up or down this. however train length has to be in proportion to loco size.

 

[CoggesRailway]

I think this is well answered but for what it is worth I think my gradients are another dimension have several the "ruling" (steepest) being 1:35 or in my colleagues language "a bit more than half a bubble".

I worked out that half a bubble on my long level is 1:40 btw.

If you ever venture into steam the changes in noise on gradients are great go on board here and see for yourself! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KWZV2T6ZEs

 

[CoggesRailway]

Also Steve those lit carriages reflecting the pond is BRILLIANT

 

[Bredebahn]

I guess a tunnel in a clay pipe is one of those rare cases where a slight gradient is actually better than no gradient .......

 

[Richie]

The Gradients on my line which is based on the Rio Grande are as steep as 1 in 18 climbing 1" every 18" and on a curve but i can still have trains of 30+ freight cars with 3 locos pulling just like the real trains in the rockeys .

 

[beavercreek]

Sorry to be pedantic Mike but do you mean 1:20 and 1:15 and not 15 and 20%?

You will need a rack loco for 20% which is 1:5

Hi Spike
Yes, on my layout there is a section which raises just under 1 ft in 5.5 ft so almost 20% or 1in 5. That is configured as the down hill part for the mainline but for the short line it is the uphill part. Conversely the uphill part on the mainline is about, at its peak just under 1 in 7 or 1ft in 7ft or about 15%. As I have said and illustrated with pictures in a previous post, I use triple heading and also auxiliary motorised rolling stock when single or sometimes double heading depending on the number of cars being hauled. I had an article in the last (winter) G Scale Society magazine that showed the plan of the layout and the manner of how the garden has given rise to the gradients on the layout.

This is not the steepest part of the gradient!

 

[minimans]

And don't forget that a curve on a gradient is even worse..................................

 

[JRinTawa]

Hi ASG , i had the same problem a while back -and to test the gradient for requirements - (i use 1 in 40" ) i got a piece of wood 10 ft as used for decking , layed it out on the garage floor with said track on top put 1" pieces of wood under one end (in my case 3 ) for 10 ft = 1/40 then ran all my locos , with the wagons or amount of coaches, you want as a normal train length hope this helps regards Dave

I took test laid some track to test expected gradients, in my case I laid a fair sized loop thus including gradients on curves. Was only going to be down on the lawn for a few days, but ended up down for several months, needed lots of testing you see!
I settled on a maximum of 1 in 40 (2.5%) but 1 in 50 (2%) for most. It has worked out to be good practical grades for me as most of my small loco's have no traction tyres.

 

[korm kormsen]

Apologies Korm
...
With an extra set of traction wheels they eat up the 15-20% grades just like in real life.
...

apologies?what for?

i get the feeling, that we are not talking about the same.

15-20% grade would significate in metric 15 to 20 cm height every 100 cm.
or 2" to 2"and 1/2 height to every foot of length.
or am i misstaken?

 

[korm kormsen]

ps: had a look at your pic.

as you can see below, the grade shown in your pic is about the same, as the grade on my upper bridge. i call that 6%.
if your pic should be slightly inclined, as the wooden posts in front and the platform(?) behind the train indicate, then your line would be somewhere between 3 and 5%. - after my way of counting...

 

[spike]

Sorry to be pedantic Mike but do you mean 1:20 and 1:15 and not 15 and 20%?

You will need a rack loco for 20% which is 1:5

Hi Spike
Yes, on my layout there is a section which raises just under 1 ft in 5.5 ft so almost 20% or 1in 5. That is configured as the down hill part for the mainline but for the short line it is the uphill part. Conversely the uphill part on the mainline is about, at its peak just under 1 in 7 or 1ft in 7ft or about 15%. As I have said and illustrated with pictures in a previous post, I use triple heading and also auxiliary motorised rolling stock when single or sometimes double heading depending on the number of cars being hauled. I had an article in the last (winter) G Scale Society magazine that showed the plan of the layout and the manner of how the garden has given rise to the gradients on the layout.

This is not the steepest part of the gradient!

Thanks for clarifing Mike, yer that short section is steep.
It is difficult with grades as there are many ways to express it.

I think we do exactly as the 1:1 railroads do and add more power the steeper the grade.
BTW that F3 lash is a very nice setup........plenty o power

Here I engineered my grades to be no more than 2.5% and was lucky that no major obstacles were in the garden,
in fact I had to build the grades as everything was basically flat.

Here is my longest steepest grade.....2.5% runs approx 35feet.

http://www.youtube.com/user/wxsatuser?feature=mhw4#p/u/1/BaXNES3n568

 

[beavercreek]

ps: had a look at your pic.

as you can see below, the grade shown in your pic is about the same, as the grade on my upper bridge. i call that 6%.
if your pic should be slightly inclined, as the wooden posts in front and the platform(?) behind the train indicate, then your line would be somewhere between 3 and 5%. - after my way of counting...

Hello Korm
1) The camera was level (I have a tripod with spirit level)
2) the log roll is canted that way due to the fact that it is fixed together and could not be straightened and is not due to the camera being tilted.
3) I said below the picture in a previous post that the picture was NOT showing the greatest gradient.

But thanks for the analysis

 

[beavercreek]

Thanks for clarifing Mike, yer that short section is steep.
It is difficult with grades as there are many ways to express it.

I think we do exactly as the 1:1 railroads do and add more power the steeper the grade.
BTW that F3 lash is a very nice setup........plenty o power

Here I engineered my grades to be no more than 2.5% and was lucky that no major obstacles were in the garden,
in fact I had to build the grades as everything was basically flat.

Here is my longest steepest grade.....2.5% runs approx 35feet.

http://www.youtube.com/user/wxsatuser?feature=mhw4#p/u/1/BaXNES3n568

Hi Spike
It is ironic isn't it? I dream of having a flat garden (our whole plot slopes down from one back corner of the garden right the way through to the front of the plot where the driveway is - there are steps everywhere! sloping driveway, steps up to the house , steps around to the back garden, steps up to the lawn - you get b****y fit around here!).
Nice bit of footage by the way, it is good to see a nice time lag between seeing the train for the first time and then until it passes by.

 

[Woderwick]

Just a word of caution when adding weight to locos. Wheel slip is nature's way of saying "I am doing my best and this is too much" Yes there are some locos that can do with a little extra weight, such as the Bachmann Industrial mogul, but with care.

Too much and the loco can stall and you can damage the motor. Also if you are really lucky you can achieve that holy grail of managing to have the loco pull the extra car, or make the steep grade without actuall stalling but running the motor windings just below melting point.

Ask yourself what you are trying to achieve, would the loco really pull xxx many cars in reality, would it manage the gradient you are demanding of it. The triple heading is very protoypical, but I have also seen Annies loaded with 20 cars launched at steep grades. I would imagine the prototypes neve ran with more than half a dozen.

Any way, it you are going to add extra weight, do it a bit at a time.

laters

 

[beavercreek]

A single motored LGB loco can be ballasted to an all up weight of 2200 gms
A single motored U Class, Corpet or Heidi type loco (0-6-2 or 0-6-0) can be ballasted to 2900 gms.
A twin motored LGB loco can be balasted up to a weight of 4500 - 5500 gms

The weights seem high for the locos? 2200gms is equivalent to about 5lbs! and 5500gms is about 12lbs
Can this be right. Let alone how that amont of ballast fits in!
I am happy to be corrected as if the gear cogs can take it then this must be the way to go but how you fit in the amount of ballast is going to be interesting.
Perhaps a little photo thread on adding tons (not literally) of weight to locos and how it fits in would be a good idea...anybody up for it?

 

[beavercreek]

All weights are genuine and correct Mike and as I say above, I have run locos at these weights for up to five years.
It is quite a challenge to get a Stainz to weigh 2200 gms / 5 lbs............the weight is added as follows :
1. a roll of lead is glued/siliconed into the steam dome.
2. a thin "catherine wheel" of lead is wrapped around inside the spark arrester.
3. the two voids front and rear of the "D" gearbox are filled with multiple plates of lead (there is a fair amount of space under the cab)
4. a slab of lead is slid under the boiler on top of the well tank.

Wow.... I really do stand corrected!
Where do you get the rollable lead from?
All that weight means very well built bridges!!