Hey guys so I have found a little info on this but not much. Designing my N scale shelf layout and will be beginning construction soon. It will have some over and under action and I will be running double stack container cars so I designed my overs at 3" high. The way it's designed, from the beginning of the grade to where it levels out will make it right at about a 2.5% grade. What is the best option for me to get this grade as Woodland Scenics only has 2, 3 and 4% foam risers. Can I somehow modify a 2% and if so how? Otherwise any other ideas that won't be too complicated to make it work right? Thanks!
Looks to me like they have a sort of zig-zag foam thingy. You maybe could use a 3% version and stretch it out a bit. The puzzlement is whether there's enough stretchiness there to do it without breaking the foam.
Ed
You may be able to use some sort of shim under each end of the 2% to bring it up to 2.5% or just use the 3% risers and avoid all that fiddling to get to 2.5%.
Bear "It's all about having fun."
What I did,in HO. I knew the height I needed, knew how far I had to work with. Took a pieace of 1in foam 3-4in wide. Layed said foam in place. Put supports under where needed, made the top and bottem nice, done.
No idea what the %grade is, don't care. All my engines will pull at least 5 cars up it, good enuff
Hi CTConrail,
You could use the 2% incline with some stiff cardboard built up gradually from the start. Corrugated will work once you get into the areas where it needs to be thicker, but cereal box type cardboard would be better where the grade starts.
Don't forget that you have to have a smooth transition from level track to the sloped track. I'm not sure what the recommendations are for N scale but the change in slope needs to happen over several inches or you may have uncoupling or derailment issues as the train starts up the grade.
Note that the transitions shorten the actual length of the 2.5% grade. In order to fit everything into the same space the grade may actually have to be steeper than 2.5% between the transitions.
Another approach to getting a smooth grade with built in transitions is to use 1/2" or 3/4" plywood 'cookie cutter' style with risers every 12" - 16". Cut the plywood an inch or two wider than the roadbed and long enough that the plywood can be attached firmly to the level benchwork before the grade starts. When you lift the opposite end of the plywood up to form the grade the plywood will naturally form a transition between the level area and the grade. Same thing on the other end.
It will look like this. The roadbed shown is on a 2% grade. Since the picture was taken we made some changes that required the grade to go to 2.5%. Making the change was quick and easy. All we had to do was unscrew the 1"x4" risers and move then up a bit:
Dave
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
Thanks guys. I really don't want to go to a 3% grade as I plan to run longer trains. I would have designed it at a 2% if I could have gotten away with it but I am working with a smaller space (7x9.5, 2 feet wide except for the ends which are almost 3 feet). None of my grades are a straight shot, both are utilizing my radius on each end of the layout so the foam would've been nice to easily shape to the curves but the plywood cookie cutter method is also doable.
CTConrail Thanks guys. I really don't want to go to a 3% grade as I plan to run longer trains. I would have designed it at a 2% if I could have gotten away with it but I am working with a smaller space (7x9.5, 2 feet wide except for the ends which are almost 3 feet). None of my grades are a straight shot, both are utilizing my radius on each end of the layout so the foam would've been nice to easily shape to the curves but the plywood cookie cutter method is also doable.
For what it's worth, on my last layout I had 2.9% grades up and out of staging and two 6-axle SD45's could pull a 24 car coal train up no problems. I didn't try to see what the limit was but might have been able to handle a few more cars.
The above layout was 10x18'. If you are working with a 7x9.5, then what is a "longer" train? I'd guess on a layout that size, 15 cars would be on the long side.
Point I'm making is 3% is not probably going to limit you much unless you are running single engine trains with a relative lot of cars of that size layout.
Rio Grande. The Action Road - Focus 1977-1983
What if you were to use some of those plastic risers found in cheap train sets and space them out evenly on your total rise. Then come along and 'fill in the voids/spaces' with cuts of stiff foam, ....and the sides with a more permanent scenic material.
Brian
My Layout Plan
Interesting new Plan Consideration
riogrande5761The above layout was 10x18'. If you are working with a 7x9.5, then what is a "longer" train? I'd guess on a layout that size, 15 cars would be on the long side.
Are you forgetting he's in N scale?
I have the right to remain silent. By posting here I have given up that right and accept that anything I say can and will be used as evidence to critique me.
You could get the 3-pct. risers and cut them into separate pieces with a hot-wire cutter and then spreading them out further. I did that to create a 1-pct. rise out of 2-pct. risers, cutting each piece (cutting at each "zig-zag" space) and then spreading the sections out.
I would probably do a "real world" test of the track plan first, and see if 2-pct might not give you enough elevation to work without needing to cut things up.
riogrande5761 For what it's worth, on my last layout I had 2.9% grades up and out of staging and two 6-axle SD45's could pull a 24 car coal train up no problems.
For what it's worth, on my last layout I had 2.9% grades up and out of staging and two 6-axle SD45's could pull a 24 car coal train up no problems.
I will be running at least a 2 engine consist most times, SD80s or AC4400s for the longer intermodal trains and actually Mel made me realize I either did my math wrong and actually have closer to a 3% or I am not remembering the length of my grade runs correctly. If I did do the math wrong I could just use the WS 3% risers. If I am lucky enoughnto have the same results as you with ability to pull 24 cars with 2 engines then I am ok with a 3%. i do also have the cheap plastic risers (in N and HO) that railandsand mentioned so I could use those to test and get an idea before making my risers out of pink foam. However it is a 2 track main but I can still use them to get height measurements. I'm sure once I start building I will be ok. If I am actually at a 2.5% like I thought then Stix I like your idea also. Thanks guys!!
The quickest way to do this, without all the cutting and shimming, is to cut out the length and radius in 1/2" plywood, and then support it with quickly chopped 1X2 risers. A few screws and you have your slope. You'd only need maybe five risers in total, each spaced about 20" apart, plus the plywood flexed vertical curve at each end of the grade. This could all be accomplished inside of an hour, and that includes sweeping the supporting surfaces free of debris....and a trip to the toilet.
I actually used an online calculator and also the software I designed the plan with calculated the grade for me. I slightly redesigned my plan from where I got my original measurements because my original plan looked way too cluttered track wise (that's what happens when you try to squeeze so many industries in a smaller layout) so that could be how I screwed it up. I have to go to my software when I get a sec and look at my track plan again and see what the deal is.
selector The quickest way to do this, without all the cutting and shimming, is to cut out the length and radius in 1/2" plywood, and then support it with quickly chopped 1X2 risers. A few screws and you have your slope. You'd only need maybe five risers in total, each spaced about 20" apart, plus the plywood flexed vertical curve at each end of the grade. This could all be accomplished inside of an hour, and that includes sweeping the supporting surfaces free of debris....and a trip to the toilet.
I have not written this off as an option either. Thanks!
carl425 riogrande5761 The above layout was 10x18'. If you are working with a 7x9.5, then what is a "longer" train? I'd guess on a layout that size, 15 cars would be on the long side. Are you forgetting he's in N scale?
riogrande5761 The above layout was 10x18'. If you are working with a 7x9.5, then what is a "longer" train? I'd guess on a layout that size, 15 cars would be on the long side.
Yes. Is N scale able to haul more cars up the same grade or less than HO on average?
Carl425 Yes. Is N scale able to haul more cars up the same grade or less than HO on average?
Thats a good question and I was wondering the same. Bigger motors on HO but less weight on N so I would guess around the same but not sure honestly. Anyone know the answer?
Oh and PS, where I messed up is that its a 2.5" rise not a 3" so it is closer to a 2.5% grade. However a large portion of the grade is on a radius so how if at all will this affect the grade?
Oh and PS Mel, where I messed up is that its a 2.5" rise not a 3" so it is closer to a 2.5% grade. However a large portion of the grade is on a radius so how if at all will this affect the grade?
Grade on a radius increases the effective grade.
Some discussions here on that:
In a nutshell:
Grade equivalent, is the drag (expressed as a grade) that a train sees from going through a curve.
https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/31569
https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/946
CTConrail Oh and PS Mel, where I messed up is that its a 2.5" rise not a 3" so it is closer to a 2.5% grade. However a large portion of the grade is on a radius so how if at all will this affect the grade?
riogrande5761Basically 32/radius of the curve= grade equivalent.
That is the HO formula. Scaled down to N-scale it's 17.4/radius.
carl425 riogrande5761 Basically 32/radius of the curve= grade equivalent. That is the HO formula. Scaled down to N-scale it's 17.4/radius.
riogrande5761 Basically 32/radius of the curve= grade equivalent.
I've never seen an N scale version of that. As you continue to make clear, I don't know Jack about N scale train physics. Shall I say "never mind" and bow out of the N scale topic where I don't belong? Cheers.
I've been considering a grade for my future layout and have been thinking of using the WS ST1412, Incline Starter Set to get the verticle transition right. From the end of that first 2' section, then to the needed clearance I plan to use 2" foam, shimmed as necessary to get to the desired height. If the first two feet is 2% probably the remainder would be just a little over 2 1/2%.
Good luck,
Richard
riogrande5761 I don't know Jack about N scale train physics.
Count me in on the Jack club, too.
Cuyama posted 17.5 as the N scale numerator in 2013. Not being familiar with N scale radii, I wasn't sure how that related, but he figured that out for us, too. A 22" radius = 17.5/22 adds 0.79% to the grade. Of course that is twice the Atlas N scale sectional track radius
http://cs.trains.com/mrr/f/11/t/221186.aspx
Henry
COB Potomac & Northern
Shenandoah Valley
Ouch...yeah unfortunately I designed this with a 15" radius as thats what i was able to get away with as this is going to be on shelf brackets so this is going to present a whole other set of problems as that will push me closer to a 4% grade than a 3%. That doesn't quite work for me. I guess its back to the drawing board.
I have been in N-Scale since the early 70's and have had several layouts with various grades and I do not think you will be happy with a 3.5% grade unless you are going to always be running 2 locos an no more than 10 light weight cars and if you follow NMRA weight spec for your rolling stock you will surely not be happy.
I used 2% Woodland Scenic' risers and Atlas code 55 track on my current layout and some of my 30 car trains require 3 locos to pull the grade. My normal train length is 12 to 15 40 ft. box cars and a caboose behind a 4-8-4 steam loco with traction tires and they work great on the 2% grades. Just my thoughts and experience.
Boiler-man I have been in N-Scale since the early 70's and have had several layouts with various grades and I do not think you will be happy with a 3.5% grade unless you are going to always be running 2 locos an no more than 10 light weight cars and if you follow NMRA weight spec for your rolling stock you will surely not be happy. I used 2% Woodland Scenic' risers and Atlas code 55 track on my current layout and some of my 30 car trains require 3 locos to pull the grade. My normal train length is 12 to 15 40 ft. box cars and a caboose behind a 4-8-4 steam loco with traction tires and they work great on the 2% grades. Just my thoughts and experience.
I don't mind running 2 or more engines however I don't think I will be happy with a 3.5% either. I didnt want to go higher than 2.5% honestly but unfortunately becauseof my lack of space I need to utilize the radius on each end for the inclines. I am going to have to try to reassess my plan yet again and take some measurements of track with roadbed and my highest car on it (double stack or autorack) and see if I can lower my rise a little. I can probably lower it to 2" from 2.5" which will help my case a little.
My grades do not sit soley on a radius, only partially. There are straight sections also. Does this help my case as far as lowering my grade % some? Or is the fact that the grade is partially on a radius totally screw me?
CTConrail My grades do not sit soley on a radius, only partially. There are straight sections also. Does this help my case as far as lowering my grade % some?
It only helps it on the straight sections.
I'm not sure how far along you are in the construction but I would do a mockup with (box) cardboard. It only has to be sturdy enough to run your train once and it doesn't even have to be on your layout. You want to see how your trains run. If it doesn't work, you've only wasted your time with some recycled cardboard.