I am currently builing a layout to this plan. I have also added a 3D drawing to show additional perspective. As you can see from the drawing I have plenty of vertical interest in the layout without using any grades, but I had planned to install a 1.5 percent grade from Como to Jefferson, with a shallower grade from Webster back to Como, via the loop. What i would like is an opinion on whether I should use any grade at all?
My last layout, which was finished and sceniced, was based on Malcom Furlow's San Juan Central; it was beautiful but the steep grades and tight radius curves convinced me to start over. Would just like to get some opinions before I decide.
All the best, Don perspective.
If you had a track on a lower grade below Jefferson / Webster, it would look good. But since you don't, I wouldn't bother. No real reason for the climb up, since you can use the scenery to get the rugged effect. If you want to make it 'appear' that the line went up, lower the layout base height and /or facia, making it slope down from Como. You would be surprised what fools the eye. And with a level track, switching operations would be easier since the cars wouldn't roll down-grade when left on the main.
Elmer.
The above is my opinion, from an active and experienced Model Railroader in N scale and HO since 1961.
(Modeling Freelance, Eastern US, HO scale, in 1962, with NCE DCC for locomotive control and a stand alone LocoNet for block detection and signals.) http://waynes-trains.com/ at home, and N scale at the Club.
I'd agree with Elmer. The interest that you get by changing elevation is usually one track vs. another. Since both tracks would have to go up the same amount, you don't gain much. Instead, you'd have a number of turnouts on the grade, which is not impossible but requires more care than just putting them on a flat and level surface.
Instead of putting real grades in the track, keep the track level and raise and lower the surrounding scenery. Put a ridge between the main and the Webster loop track and hide the main briefly as it goes behind the ridge. It looks like you're already doing something like that in your 3D view. A steep valley with a bridge across it also adds the impression of elevation change without the headaches.
Think about adding just a siding or two if you want the visual effect of a grade change. If you have an industry to switch, you can get away with steeper grades getting to it because you're only pushing a few cars, not pulling a whole train.
However, if you are planning to use helpers as part of your operation, that might make the grade more interesting. If so, give some thought to runaround and turning options at the ends of the grade.
It takes an iron man to play with a toy iron horse.
I agree with the others. No grades. Adjust the terrain to give the illusion. I really don't see any good place to put a grade without really altering the track plan. Grades on loops are killer as well
Nice track plan too. Looks like loads of fun.
-G-
I also think it looks good without the grades. Be aware that you have a couple of reverse loops in the plan. I count 3.
Springfield PA
If you didn't have the unnecessary connection between the two main lines at Jefferson, you could have a more interesting/scenic grade separation.
If it were me, I'd split the connections and have grades - but that's cause I like to see hippo's pushing...
I favour grades, but I now appreciate their effect on railroads in a way I didn't when I built my last layout. As far as I am concerned, anything more than about 2% is asking for limitations in service life that I am no longer willing to impose on the side rods of my steamers.
You needn't impose the entire burden for elevation changes on the engine running up any one grade. You can split the burden between descending terrain and its associated grade for the tracks thereon, and a nearby right of way that is climbing. You split the difference so that at some point you can get clearances, but neither tracks have had to exceed 1.5%. Over the course of a 10' run, you'll have plenty of clearance for a nice girder bridge or a pass-through trestle.
Crandell
As Bob Heinlein had a character say, "Fool the eye"
In the real world, tunnel portals, telephone poles and building walls are vertical. By slanting them, and any trees and fence posts close to the track, you can make a perfectly level track seem to be climbing a grade, while never having to worry about having the loose cars flying into Como if a coupler knuckle fails.
I went the opposite way. My steeply-graded mainline and even steeper private short line battle real grades. So did the prototypes I'm following. The portals, bridge piers and building walls are vertical. Only the track slopes - and one look at the ammeter proves it.
Chuck (Modeling the steep grades and vertical scenery of Central Japan in September, 1964)
Me, I like ups and downs. One of my favorite past times is watching trains grind their way up to the continental divide in the Canadian Rockies. Just watching them makes me have to go for a cool one. And that's why I have a long climb on my pike.
Brent
"All of the world's problems are the result of the difference between how we think and how the world works."
hi,
it is the kind of question only you can answer. A poster mentioned 2% as the kind of grade you might be using without any restrictions when operating. According to John Armstrong: if you want the grade to be a attraction itself, you'll have to build it in the 4% range. Then e.g. additional power, short trains or pushers are needed. IMHO those grades have to be pretty long, not something like a fly-over. Your plan does not have such a long incline; without a major redesign it can't be fitted in either.
For some reason i am not sure about the scenery plan. I am missing rivers and streams, especially in mountainous areas they went side by side. Mountains and mountain tops should be on the background (drop), railroads cut through the long slopes or were following rivers.
Smile
Paul
Great answers from all. My gut feel was not to use grades, so that is they way I will probably go. If I do decide to put in the grade it will be less that 2.0 percent, and the connection between the mains at Jefferson will be removed.
In answer to Paul's question above, there are three areas where I plan to have water features. If you look carefully at the drawings the loop on the bottom left of the drawing has a 67" wooden trestle with 14.5" bents, that will tower over the river below. There is also a wooden trestle bridge with 8" brents just to the right of Como, where the track makes the 'U' Shaped dip to the south on the north wall. Behind the mountain that is labled 'Palisades' there is a river canyon spanned by a high wooden trestle with a howe truss center span.
This layout is primarily based on a nine-mile section of C&S narrow gauge track that started in the Rocky mountains near Kenosha Pass at a "whistle stop" known as Webster. Jefferson, Como, and Fairplay are actually in a relatively flat, high mountain plain known as South Park. I am a diehard fan of the C&S, but the prototypes is no a constraining factor for me. There were no trestle bridges exactly like the ones on my layout, the Argo Tunnel Mine was on a completely different division, and the "Palisades" were far from the divison point at Como but I wanted them on the layout, so I was willing to live with the compromises.
I am new to modeling so take my advice as a dreamer not a realist. I would add a less than 1% grade from the inside track of como all the way around th the outside track of como, reducing the grade on curves.
Lost in the snow
Go for the grades. It looks like your trains won't be that long to begin with, and it will add an element of realism to the landscape. It would be best if you pushed up the landscape on the higher end so the mountain tops remained the same height above the rail as your flat plan.
Lee
Route of the Alpha Jets www.wmrywesternlines.net
An update.
I have the roadbed all cut and temporary risers in. I took Mark Pierce's recommendation and removed the unnecessary connection between the mains at Jefferson; it removed a reversing loop and gave me some options when it came to experimenting with the grade. I have adjusted the risers to view the layout from both perspectives, and from a visual perspective the version with the grades is definitely a clear winner.
I calculated the grade from the 3-way switch behind the roundhouse to the water tank at Jefferson (which is currently 3 inches higher than the yard at Como), and it is exactly a 2 percent grade. There is zero grade from Jefferson Tank to the door of the layout room south of Webster and a very shallow grade back to Como, via the loop.
Considering the visual appeal and the more prototypical grades (the C&S grades from Webster to Kenosha were actually 4 percent), I am really leaning to keeping the grade. I will be running DCC equipped Blackstone C19's (which were actually leased to the C&S from 1936-37) and re-motored and re-geared Keystone brass imports. If I double-head trains from Como to Webster, on the north branch of the main, do you guys think a 2 percent grade will work well from a model locomotive perspective?
All the best, Don
First of all, I am NO expert in this hobby and still have many learning experiences ahead. I have always liked grades, I think it adds dimension to a layout. If one were to use woodland scenics incline sets, to get 3" rise @ 2%, you need 12 feet, and then another 12 feet to get down.
Regardless if you install grades/inclines, I like the plan! I even saved it in my files for future reference...
Inspired by Addiction
See more on my YouTube Channel
Hi Penn,
I went with 2 percent grades; they look great and I don't think I will have any operation issues.
Glad you liked the plan; I used 3rd PlanIt to create it. If you would like to have it I would be glad to send you the actual track plan file. You can get the demo version of the application to view the file, so just let me know.
Send me the actual track plan? Sure, I'm honored! A few months ago I downloaded the demo version of 3rd PlanIt. I experimented with it for a while, but couldn't get the track to connect. I'm either thick headed, impatient or both!
I'm sure your layout will turn out GREAT! If possible and you have the time, I would be interested to see actual pics and progress as you construct the layout. If I count correctly, it measures 12' x 18'
Hi Penn,Here are some under construction shots of the railroad. Forgive the mess, but I have been painting backdrops and getting the becnhwork far enough along to install the Argo Tunnel.All the best, Don
Don,
That is SWEEEET, Looks awesome! Mess? I don't see one, looks like a work of art (and railroad) in progress. The trestle bridge is sure to catch the eye.