Slope in HO scale

[Anonymous]

Slope should be 2%, 3% max. It is a simple matter of rise over run... rise 2-3 inches for every 100 inches run.

[Anonymous]

I agree that you shouldn't model extraordinary things, they stick out like a sore on a sore thumb. Really.

Is 8 degrees really necesary?
It seems too high on the outside rail...

[Anonymous]

My two cents worth... Don't do the steep grade (I speak from experience). I would also avoid superelevation of the curve unless you have done it before . I've seen this not work and create a new set of problems when done incorrectly. Sounds to me like a redesign of the track plan is in order. Grades and climbing in a given length of track is one of the crux technical issues in most layout designs.

Guy

[Anonymous]

So if i was able to post a picture of what i am trying to accomplish with the bridges, could someone tell me the best route to go with what i'm trying to do? It would be greatly appreciated.

[jfugate]

True enough, Bob.

However, there is a principle in modeling that I tend to follow, and that is if you want the most believable, then model the most typical. I've seen many unusual paint jobs on rolling stock and structures, odd location or combination of details, the list goes on.

But if you put more than one or two of these on your layout then it quickly becomes more of a potpourri of the odd and won't ring very true if realism is a high value for you.

Modeling the prototype SP in Southern Oregon like I do, I have elected to downplay the unusual even though I could get away with it in many cases because I could show you a prototype photo to prove it. But once you selectively compress like we need to do on any layout, then the layout starts to feel more like what I mentioned above.

And when you model the odd or the unusual, you have to do it with real skill and finesse or it will look even *more* out of place than the typical. It's easier to bluff your way through modeling the typical and doesn't take near the same skill level to do well.

[jrbarney]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jfugate

If you want realistic, then having one truss bridge over another is not very realistic.

Joe,
In general, I agree with you. But, there's a prototype for everything. There is one classic photo in the Ed Bond collection that shows a tri-level crossing in the Black Hills of South Dakota. The Deadwood Central was on grade on the lowest level, crossed by the Fremont, Elkhorn & Missouri Valley on the intermediate level (wood trestle approaches to a wooden deck truss of sorts) and that, in turn, was crossed by the private trackage of the Homestake Mining Company (steel plate girder approaches to a steel rod deck truss).
Bob
NMRA Life 0543

[jfugate]

If you want realistic, then having one truss bridge over another is not very realistic.

Realize that a through truss bridge is only used in locations where under-the-track clearance is low or the span is particularly long. Otherwise, if realism is what you want and you have over-the-track clearance issues, then a through girder bridge or deck girder bridge is more typical.

Here's a deck girder bridge (with pile trestle approaches) as an example ...


Notice how low clearance it is. Atlas makes these kind of bridges both through and deck variety.

[cwclark]

if you are on a grade and a curve is involved, raise the outside rail about 8 degrees from the inside rail..this will help the engine transition the grade better because it will force the weight of the locomotive onto the inside rail causing better traction...the 4" is pretty steep...you can pull it off but the train is going to be real short...lots of engines and few cars...

[Anonymous]

From what i have read, i will be decreasing the slope by about half, however there will be a curve. will this be bad? There is no way to get around the curve and there really isn't a way to get around the height i am trying to achieve because i will have one truss bridge going over another truss bridge. I know it is my layout but i want it to be as realistic as possible. Thank you for all the help thus far!

[ndbprr]

It is steep BUT:
1. the equipment will climb it if you don't put too many cars behind the engines
2. If it is hidden and the only way and you can live with the restrictions it's your railroad
3. Watch the transitions into the grade so the leading edges of equipment like engine running boards don't bottom out
Don't scenic the layout until you are sure you can live with it in case you decide to tear it out and you should be ok.

[Anonymous]

4" in 8 feet is actually over 4% (4/96x100=4.17%) and really shoud be restricted to logging layouts with geared locomotives to be considered "prototypical". Be aware that putting a curve on the layout effectively increases the grade!

Is there any other way around it? Can you also lower whatever it is that the elevated track passes over? Can you make do with a 2-3% grade? Or will you be happy running only 5-6 cars behind a double-header?

Andrew

[Anonymous]

There are no curves in it currently but there will be one 90 degree curve in it if I cut that slope in half. I will be using GP-40's and RS-1's and I am modeling the Vermont Railway as well as the Green Mountain Railroad

[johncolley]

That is almost 4%, a steep grade for a railroad. A few had short grades that steep, but most long grades were down around 2%. It depends on several factors what will work for you: Are you planning short trains, are there any curves involved, what locomotive(s) are you running? If you cut that grade in half you should be OK.

[Anonymous]

How steep of a slope can i model in HO scale which will still work. Right now i have a rise of 4" over 8' and want to know if that will work or if i should change it now. Thanks