hi
has any one built the gorre and daphetid track plan one on a 4x8 and if so what grade did you use for the track going up over the tunnel? I worked it out a 4% grade roughly.
hi,
you were not the only one.
Paul
I've studied the plan repeatedly. 4% sounds in the ball park. The real life answer is going to vary, depending on how you actually build it, and how much clearance you decide to provide.
Unless you are chinging the track plan at the upper end of the branch, anything 5% or less will probably work operationally. There is no runaround at the upper end, so you are limited to a push-pull operation on the branch. The number of cars would be dictated by the spur length at the top. Effectively, you will have 2 or 3 cars pushed up the grade by a switcher or geared locomotive of some type that can handle the 15" radius curves. Most switchers or geared locomotives can push 2-3 cars up a 5% or less grade. The exceptions would likely be plastic-bodied 0-4-0 steam switchers or extremely light diesel switchers.
If you build the G&D#1 in a 4ft width, you cannot have an 18" minimum radius unless you modify the plan extensively. The original had a 14" minimum radius in a 44" width. The re-draw in 101 track plans has a 15" minimum radius in a 48" width.
Another thought about twice-around plans (which G&D#1 is) on a 4x8 or similar island layout - the elevation of the loops blocks much of the sight of the interior of the layout unless the layout is built significantly below eye level. Eye-level island layouts and twice-around (or figure 8) over-under schematics do not go well together.
my thoughts, your choices
Fred W
Of course, the grade pct. is also going to depend on how much clearance there is where one track goes over another. The higher the separation, the steeper the grade. Today trackplans usually use 4" separation in HO. Back in the 1940's it would have usually been much less. From pictures I've seen, John's early G&D had a lot of c.1900 equipment which was much shorter than today's piggybacks and doublestacks, so he may have been using say 2-1/2" clearance or thereabouts.
cncsxbnsfrailway2has any one built the gorre and daphetid track plan one on a 4x8 and if so what grade did you use for the track going up over the tunnel? I worked it out a 4% grade roughly
Are you asking because you want to build it or out of curiosity? The particular way John Allen arranged the tracks increases the grades required. A slightly different arrangement in the same space which allows the branch to run farther before crossing over would reduce the grades required overall.
John Allen was a master craftsman, ran much smaller equipment on that layout and tinkered with the cars and locos for the most reliability. So he could make the very tight curves and steep grades work. It wouldn't be the same for some of us who are mere mortals.
I'll respectfully disagree slightly with some others who have posted on the grades. If one allows for a vertical transition from level to grade or from grade to level, the grades are really steep. And the tight curves exacerbate those grades. They may actually be worse on the "main" than the branch.
In the HO 4X8 version published in 101 Track Plans, one of these main line grades is 2" in about 42" (after allowing for a vertical transition). That's 4.76%. Combine that with the equivalent grade caused by the friction from what is at most a 20" radius curve (approximately 1.6%) and that creates a main line grade of over 6%. It will be pretty difficult to have reliable operation on the main line of any but the shortest trains.
It may be heresy, but I can't see any reason to build this layout over some of the other thousands of HO layouts designed for a 4X8 sheet (or to restrict oneself to a 4X8 sheet either, but that's another story).
Layout Design GalleryLayout Design Special Interest Group
I assume the G&D used such steep grades as a way to offer more impressive scenery and to frame the scenes a little better. The scenery and overall feel of the layout is what makes the little pike great IMO, not so much the track plan or operational possibilities.
If someone is not talented when building western mountain scenery and realistic details, their effort in building the layout may lead to frustration.
- Douglas
Doughless I assume the G&D used such steep grades as a way to offer more impressive scenery and to frame the scenes a little better. The scenery and overall feel of the layout is what makes the little pike great IMO, not so much the track plan or operational possibilities. If someone is not talented when building western mountain scenery and realistic details, their effort in building the layout may lead to frustration.
The original G&D 1 so some one pointed out in my thread which you have a link to .
Was not a Model Railroad as such it was a photographic set for JA's photographic business,a lot of G&D photos ended up in model manufacturers catalogs.
The rest of the G&D was model railroad of the highest order
I don't see not being able to build western mountain ranges as a problem the G&D could be any where mountainous USA
However if you cannot do mountain scenery of any sort well, you could be in a lot of trouble with this one.
After all it is a mountain railroad.
For good scenery you don't need to be a very talented artist just able to copy the right shapes the rest comes with practice and more practice. In fact very talented artists rarely succeed at model railroad scenery because a very different skill set and different eye for the scene is needed.
We are not interested in visually pleasing in the artistic sense
If it doesn't look real warts and all we got it wrong for a model railroad scene.
regards John
John Busby Doughless I assume the G&D used such steep grades as a way to offer more impressive scenery and to frame the scenes a little better. The scenery and overall feel of the layout is what makes the little pike great IMO, not so much the track plan or operational possibilities. If someone is not talented when building western mountain scenery and realistic details, their effort in building the layout may lead to frustration. I don't see not being able to build western mountain ranges as a problem the G&D could be any where mountainous USA For good scenery you don't need to be a very talented artist just able to copy the right shapes the rest comes with practice and more practice. In fact very talented artists rarely succeed at model railroad scenery because a very different skill set and different eye for the scene is needed.
I'm not sure if you're supporting my point or not.....
Deviating a bit from the OP's question about the G&D's grades.....
Relative to other choices, the dramatic, detailed, and sometimes just a bit exaggerated scenery elements are what makes the G&D's very attractive and very special, IMO. Having the ability to create dramatic scenery balanced with enough realism as to not have the layout seem cartoonish takes a special eye as well.
I think that not being able to effectively duplicate the drama would leave the builder disappointed with their final product relative to what they had planned.
Unfortunately for me, the G&D's are an unattainable dream. I do not have the skill or the eye to pull it off. I know that If I tried to build the layout, I would spend at least $1000 and numerous weeks building a sharply curved nearly impossibly graded and operating layout that circled the edge of what would look like a 4x6 bowl of brown plaster.
Hi Doughless
Just putting my point of view across Hopefully in a manner suited to the model railroad room.
I certainly don't agree that any particular Model railroad is unattainable
That comes down to time and effort put into the project and getting like minded friends who can explain the things you need to know that you don't already know.
A willingness to try new things and ways of doing things helps too.
But I can say you do have to be willing to trash that weeks worth of scenic work, and start again if it does not match expectations,
Or cut and toss big chunks of it for the same reason and that can be very hard at times.
Fortunately the terrain part uses a lot of stuff that would otherwise hit the city garbage truck and plaster is not expensive.
For many layouts my scenery looked like green plaster and saw dust until I worked out just copy what you see and don't try and be an artist or too clever with it . Every thing you need to know can be seen in town or just out of town just copy it.
admitedly Its not quite as simple as that but it is pretty close to it.
Its surprising just how much realism comes just from getting the shape right.
John BusbyBut I can say you do have to be willing to trash that weeks worth of scenic work, and start again if it does not match expectations,
I don't thinl I have as high expectations as the real g&d. And I am currently building it. I currently have the "yard" down and am working on the tight radius's of the mountain (tunnel). I'm thinking I need to put 6" off the back of the layout. I've got them down to a 18" radius so far.
As far as scenery goes, it's going to be green and some trees pretty much.
Well I think the first G&D - the one John Allen built in the 1940's in slightly less than 4' by 8' space - had very nice scenery, with a pond and some hills, but nothing of the spectacular mountains and valleys that the later versions had. I don't think it would be all that hard to re-create the scenery today.
This was his very first layout, and had what could be considered mistakes - the curves are very very sharp, some less than 15" radius for example, and I suspect the grades were steeper than what he used on the expanded versions of the G&D. It was built well enough that JA was able to incorporate it into his later G&D layouts, so it certainly wasn't a failure. It was what it was, a first time "learning by doing" experience.
Hi al
Yes it was JA's first layout the tightest curve was 14 5/8" this just hapens to be the std British R 1
But the layout was planned and contructed with care something even today we must do.
We would say the sharp curves where a mistake but back then they where a lot more common than they are today..
Its real hard not to but I am not so sure we should be judging the G&D 1 with todays standards.
cncsxbnsfrailway2 John BusbyBut I can say you do have to be willing to trash that weeks worth of scenic work, and start again if it does not match expectations, I don't thinl I have as high expectations as the real g&d. And I am currently building it. I currently have the "yard" down and am working on the tight radius's of the mountain (tunnel). I'm thinking I need to put 6" off the back of the layout. I've got them down to a 18" radius so far. As far as scenery goes, it's going to be green and some trees pretty much.
I don't make the G&D level either not may of us will ever reach that level.
But I will not settle for anything less than the best effort I can give it.
If that means I have to trash a weeks worth of scenic work and do it again to get it right thats what I will do.
Scenery is the part I enjoy the most and I have even been accused of being good at it. But when I know its not right it will annoy me until I fix it even if that means some what drastic action.
With the exception of plaster and poster paint just about everything else I use for the basic land form non model railroaders would toss in the garbage.
Usually remodeling if it has to take place happens before it goes beyond the colored plaster stage.
cncsxbnsfrailway2I'm thinking I need to put 6" off the back of the layout.
If you have space in the room to expand the layout, I'd suggest that you do yourself a favor and expand as much as possible to make the grades more hospitable. Of course, if you have more space then the attraction of trying to duplicate the G&D is less obvious to me -- but whatever floats your boat.
If you plan to run trains and not have this be primarily a scenery diorama, be sure to add transitions between the level and graded portions, as shown below. I like to try to add one car length of transition for each percent of grade, but a little less can work if you put a lot of care into the building. Note that many published plans don't allow for transitions at all, so the actual grades end up being much steeper than indicated.
Transitions should not extend through turnouts. Turnouts can be fully on the level or fully on a grade, but changing grade within a turnout is usually a problem.
cuyama cncsxbnsfrailway2I'm thinking I need to put 6" off the back of the layout. If you have space in the room to expand the layout, I'd suggest that you do yourself a favor and expand as much as possible to make the grades more hospitable. Of course, if you have more space then the attraction of trying to duplicate the G&D is less obvious to me -- but whatever floats your boat.
I guess 6" is the minimal between running what I want and what I can. Just curious though, who else is trying to recreate it and why? I guess for me it's the hills, yard and elevations all in a manageable space.
the following drawing might be helpful too.
The easiest way to calculate your possibilities is to find out about the rise you will get, given a certain length of track. Lets assume you have 9 ft or 108 inches of length and you want to know if a 4 percent grade will give you enough clearance: (max car length= 50 ft or 7" in HO)
needed extra length for both easements = 4 x 7" = 28".
length left for grade = 108 - 28 = 80" , with a 4% grade the gain in height will be: 80 x 4 / 100 = 3,2".
Probably not sufficient for an non-level crossing.
Now look at a 6 percent grade:
needed extra length for both easements = 6 x 7 = 42"
Length left = 66", with a 6% grade the rise will be = 6 x 66 / 100 = 3,96, which is sufficient.
With a 8% grade, the length left is only 52", leading to a rise of 4,16; hardly more
The above illustrates clearly you really need quite some length to get hospitable grades. Hence the remark of Byron Henderson: is your layout primarily meant for taking great pictures or for trouble free operation?
BTW using way shorter cars, as John Allen did, with a 35 max length will make a huge difference. Keep in mind however the sharp curves add to the drag as well. Using a 18" radius the added drag is about 1,67% . Are your engines up to the combined drag?
Of course larger radii will help a lot too, though it means a way larger table.
When choosing "the best" trackplan, not only hills, elevations and bridges could be taken into consideration. Some modelers would look for better or more operational possibilities. I provided a link to another thread in my first posting in which Ulrich (sir Madog ) mentioned the Rosston J & H RR.
Smile
Paulus Jas needed extra length for both easements = 4 x 7" = 28". length left for grade = 108 - 28 = 80" , with a 4% grade the gain in height will be: 80 x 4 / 100 = 3,2". Paul
I'm interested in where you came up with the rule that the transistion length should be one car length for every 1% of grade change. This is a very conservative rule that I don't believe is supported by any calculations or experimentation.
There is a fellow that did some calculations based on steam loco rigid wheel base and flange height, using circular easements. The length of easement to keep flanges from jumping the rail (half flange height) was incredibly short, even when using 10-12 ft vertical curve radius. Typically less than a passenger car length was needed even with 4% grades.
The results demonstrated to me that coupler over/under ride, and loss of traction due to driver loss of contact with the rail (for rigid long wheel base steam only) would drive longer transitions than flange calculations. Even partially equalized mechanisms have a decided traction advantage over rigid long wheel bases, and can use shorter transitions.
I believe the lack of research on vertical transitions has to do with the fact that normally used subroadbed thicknesses used in cookie cutter or spline construction will never yield too abrubt a vertical transition. Only the recent return to inclines and risers on top of a level, flat surface in layout construction has brought the issue to light.
I am constructing a switchback layout (after the Gum Stump & Snowshoe) which will have 2" rise in 42" run. The transitions are planned for 14" each (2 max car lengths), which leaves a 1" rise with 14" run for the center portion - a 7.1% grade. Note that a train (max 20" due to switchback tails) will never have the entire length on the 7.1% at once. The resulting transition is one car length for a 3.5% change in grade. Like I said, I expect coupler over/under ride to be the determining factor in whether my plan will work or not. And that can be actually calculated from coupler to coupler length, and truck center distance. (I have not done the calcs yet).
Final thought: many of us have difficulty setting the riser/roadbed height more accurately than the nearest 1/16". A very gradual calculated transition just may not be buildable, depending on riser spacing.
Hi Fred,
I have been using cookie-cutter style easements; some adjustments were needed before anything worked fine. This lead, due to longer easements, to grades a bit steeper (almost 4%) then I wanted, only to find out that most engines were still quite able to pull long ( 6ft) trains up hill, some steamers being the exception.
I picked up the rule on-here, Byron Henderson among others have written about it in the past. I agree with you that couplers might be more determing then wheelbase. Carlength is very important too of course. What worked fine with my 40 and 50 ft long cars, will be quite different when operating long 90 ft cars or coaches. The vertical angle between cars will be larger too, when running longer cars.
When planning a layout i feel being modest instead of being overly optimistic is a virtue. Especially when you start building. Will the radius of a curve ever be completely consistant, will the height of a riser ever be absolutely accurate?
fwrightA very gradual calculated transition just may not be buildable, depending on riser spacing.
Respectfully disagree, I've done it more than once. In my experience the key is adequate length It may not be a perfect spiral vertical curve in the end, but it's much better than no transition or a transition that is too short. Since we are advising a newcomer to model railroading who has chosen a demanding design with very steep grades and sharp curves, erring on the side of a gentler transition rather than one that is too abrupt seems prudent.
And how much work is an extra riser?
With your own experience (and running very short trains), you'll probably be able to make a shorter transition work fine (with care given to coupler height, as you mentioned).
John Allen's earliest implimentations of the 4 X6 G&D can be seen in the pages of "HO Monthly" magazines of the late 40's. John was a frequent contributor. HO Monthly touted "exclusively HO" on every cover. It later became HO Model Trains and, finally, after Kalmbach bought it, simply "Model Trains" (all gauge).
Richard
If I can't fix it, I can fix it so it can't be fixed