How do I know if a train will climb a slope?

[Anonymous]

It is possible tough. Raise it 5.5 inches then make a turn do another 5.5 inches

Matthew

[selector]

Craig, I DO HAVE super-elevated curves on my 3.6% grade, and I have never...ever.... had an engine or piece of rolling stock roll over on me. My lesson, that I learned and attempted to pass on to you, is that I overdid the superelevation to the point where it looked a bit too toy-like. Mine is in the order of 4-5 deg at one point, so I suggest 2-3 deg at most. Go easy, but do use them; you will be pleased to see your trains tilting just very slightly on those curves.

[Anonymous]

Here are two offbeat answers for Craig.

Given the pessimism of the responders, the only solution is to make all of your trains go DOWNHILL on the grade. Getting them up to it is another problem entirely.

If you were to do that, you could happily reenact the situation of Old 97, which goes:

"It's a mighty rough road from Lynchburg to Danville
And the lie's on a three mile grade.
It was on that grade that he lost his airbrake
You can see what a jump she made

It's a little hard on the rolling stock, but it makes a terrific impression on visitors.

Alan

[kwillfixit]

I built a test slope for my new layout. Although a good loco on 1:20 would pull six passenger coaches other locos were struggling so tried 1:25 and all seems well for over 8 coaches.
Another problem is how much extra track length to allow for the transition from flat track to the slope and vice versa - as not allowing enough causes uncoupling.

[JimValle]

Oh Man! 18" radius curves on grade. You are just asking for your inexpensive engines to spin their wheels, shudder, buck and generally protest what you're trying to do. And your cheap, horn-hook equipped rolling stock will either uncouple or lay over on it's side when you try to pull a train, especially if you super elevate. To work heavy grades and curves you need engines with lots of lead in them for traction and Kaydee couplers
carefully matched for height and free swinging. Car should be weighted and have good wheelsets. Attention to these details will pay off in the long run.

[Anonymous]

Some suggestions for your layout:

1. Use flex track instead of snap track. It costs less, looks better, and allows you to gently ease the curves. You'll find that the trains will run more smoothly within the same amount of area. I use cork roadbed under the flex track, nailed initially, and then ballast the track and pull the nails when I'm done.

2. On elevated track the flex of the benchwork is a major problem. It's even more important to have stiff benchwork on an elevated section of track than on a flat layout. I had a portable layout built on 1/2" plywood that would creak and groan as you moved it. It's scary to hear your trackwork creak! I'd use either 1/2" plywood or 3/4" plywood well supported with 2X4's for support and stiffening.

The layout I'm building now uses 3/4" plywood and 2X4 studs every 16-20" for support. Can I climb on it? Yes, I'm doing it while I build the layout. Will I climb on it when it's completed? Probably on an occasional basis.

Larger curves are a BIG plus, but you have to work with the space you have available. My curves right now vary between 18" and 34", with the 18" restricted to inside the planned switchyard. My last layout had 2 18" curves, and could handle pulling trains through them, althought they looked a little funny.

If you have to use 4% grades, don't plan on running steam engines. They just don't have much tractive effort. Disels can be tricked up to pull a lot more if needed by replacing wheels and adding weight.

Mark in Utah

[mrunyan]

I would never suggest to use MDF. It is extremely heavy and is most suited for vertical structures or small structures like drawers. MDF and particle board WILL sag over time, just look at any cheap book shelves which sag even without any load. I would suggest a good furniture or cabinet grade plywood, and the more ply's the stronger it is. It's a bit more money up front, yes, but your empire will survive the test of time and not be wavy by the time all the scenery is done. Best of luck.

[Anonymous]

Craig,
I have two 4% slopes using 24" and 26" radius curves.
I have had very little problem . My Kato SD80MACs pull a
string of cars with no problem. a consist of two Stewart
EMD FTs work well. A consist of two Bachmann Spectrum
K-4 4-6-2 Pacifics work well. My Lionel Veranda works well.
My Lionel Challenger is a mess. It won't hardly pull itself
up, let alone a string of cars. It depends on your equipment.
My Bachmann DCC EMD FT A-B unit works well. I am considering
the addition of a BLI Hudson (traction tires) just to see how it
will work. In short, Diesels seem to have to all over the Stream
engines. My layout has the option of avoiding the grades using
a flat land route around and through the high country. Don't be
afraid of 4% grades. they are even proto-typical of real life, as
is double-heading.

Skip

[Anonymous]

Thanks tstage. I'll give it a try.

I thought you would also appreciate the theme my son and I picked for the layout - it's from Matthew 5:14, ...A city on a hill cannot be hidden - hence the rise in track up to the city!

I'm sure I be back with more questions soon. This weekend I'll be buying plywood or MDF or something to raise the track.

[nobullchitbids]

I will disagree with those who suggest banking such sharp curves. What well could happen is that, in pulling a longer train up the hill, the cars on the curve will be pulled inward enough to tip them into the center. The sharper the curve, the more likely this will happen. This is because physics does not scale down with the model -- model cars are top-heavy compared to the prototypes and easier to tip over.

[tstage]

Craig,

Three 18" radius curves will make a 90 degree turn. Four 22" radius curves make a 90 degree turn. Therefore, each 18" radius curve is 30 degrees; each 22" radius curve is 22.5 degrees. You can mix and match BUT it's best to have the larger radius curves on the beginning and ends of your curved track. (This is also known or referred to as an "easement".)

I'm with Crandell. If at all possible, try and get the largest curved radii you can on your layout. I have a 4 x 8' layout and all but three of my curves are 22" radii. I had to use a few 18" curves but I incorporated 22" curves as easements to transition into those tighter sections of track. It makes the trains both look and perform better.

Tom

[Anonymous]

I do have around 7 or 8 of the 22" variety, but they don't seem to make a perfect 90 degree. Can I mix the 18 and 22s?

[selector]

Thanks for the real world lesson, Bob. Truth is stranger than what we see on our layouts!

Craig, my ears perked up when you mentioned 22" radii, but then you went and said that you had chosen 18" due to their large numbers and your layout's footprint. If you must, you must. I still don't think you have much to worry about unless you are limited to a fairly large loco (steam) and want to pull long trains up that grade.

Now, if I could just convince you to go back and work on getting those 22"ers involved....[:)]

[Anonymous]

For what it's worth, I've started and pulled two passenger cars, a tie car and a caboose, total weight over 200 tons up a 4.77% grade with an EMD SW1200 with no trouble at all. If the track was wet, It helped to sand backward for a carlength or so, then notch up gradually. If I was real careful with the throttle, it was possible to start without sand.

Bob

[tstage]

Craig,

The "R" refers to the radius the curved track will make - in this case, an 18" (from center). You can double-check that by piecing together six of them to make a 1/2 circle and you should get a 36" center to center measurement across the diameter.

Tom

[Anonymous]

Good question jacon12. I was wondering about that myself.

What I have has been in an attic for at least 25 years - it was my grandfathers.

There are several different styles of curves as shown below. Each seem slightly different, but that could be due to the many years of heat/cold in the attic. Here is what they say:

1) Atlas, 18" R, Snap, Track, F
2) 18" R-2560, GT Austria, AHM
3) Sector 30 (degree), Radius 18", Made in Italy
4) Atlas, 22" R, Snap, Track

I assume 1 through 3 are all the same, but I'm not sure if the 18" R refers to a centerline, inside or outside dimension. Any help?

My proposed layout utilizes the 18" because of limited space for turns and an abundance of this size track.

Let me know what you think. - and thanks in advance for all the great info this forum has to offer. WOW!!!

[jacon12]

Craig, what radius are those 90 degree curves?
Jarrell

[selector]

Craig, banking, or more correctly "super-elevation" in RR lexicon, would be a fine thing, but like in your grades, less is more. You might initially think that about 7 or 8 deg off vertical is, and looks, good, but that would only be found on a very high speed (130 mph, and up) main line with a fairly tight curve.

On your grade, I would go more or less with what the track will do NATURALLY as you lay it. Believe me, it will try to twist up a very little bit (at least, mine did). If not, just shim the outer rail by putting one, maybe two layers of tape, say masking tape, under that rail for a few inches. The real sticklers would tell you to begin the layers about 4 or 5" outside of the curve.

So, about 2, maybe 3 deg, at most, and use tape under the outer ties, or roadbed, to get that elevation.

Oh, and at just under 3%, I don't think the 90 deg curves will be a big factor, unless you have short radii, such as 18", or (gulp) less.

[Anonymous]

Alright, I've reworked the layout and moved my turnout several feet away. Here are the new numbers...7" of rise over approx 20' = 2.92% grade.

However, in order to accompli***his I've had to introduce three 90 degree curves. What should I look out for as I build the benchwork? Should I "bank" the roadbed slightly around the curves? I'm considering using 1/2" MDF, which seems pretty flat and stable. Are there better alternatives, ie A/C plywood, etc?

Any further guidance would be great!

[ARTHILL]

I have some of those grades. My shay does what it is expected to do. My new Broadway does it after I exchanged the drivers with the included rubber ones. It is not prototype, but much of HO is build on exageration and shortening. After I was done I did have to adjust some of the grades which was easy since all the track was on plywood bed held up with risers scewed to an open table structure. I just used clamps to adjust things and when they worked I put the screws back in.

[Jetrock]

Low gear is the secret to any geared locomotive, real or model. Steam engines are at their most efficient when going flat-out, so geared locos like Shays, Climaxes and Heislers use a gear reduction system to tump along at 5-10 miles an hour while the pistons are going like mad. Small drivers help too--early rod engines intended for logging had small drivers (24" or so) which provided lower top speeds but better bottom-end.

[selector]

That's essentially it. They were a heavy loco for their size and for the trains they were required to pull. Still, they were not 2-8-0's or K-4's, so they rarely pulled more than a few logging cars. But, they did it up some horrendous grades, some exceeding 7%. The way they did it is the same way that heavy trucks do it; they use a low gear and the horsepower works better in lower gears at lower speeds.

P.S.-if you wanted to really abuse the works on a Shay, you'd maybe get a max of 17mph out of her.

[Anonymous]

I think even slower. Geared like a mountain bike in the lowest gear, crank real fast, go real slow.

[tstage]

Jarrell,

Here's my limited speculation. The wheels are small and the center of gravity is low. The gearing is such that it provides it with a considerable amount of torque for hauling heavy loads. Shays were built for torque rather than for speed. I'm not sure what the top speed of a Shay is but I would be tempted to say not much over 20 MPH.

Tom

[jacon12]

I've been following the answers to Craigs question and I have one of my own. What is it about the construction of the Shay that makes it so good at steeper grades, both prototype and model?
Jarrell

[Anonymous]

Thanks so much for all your expertise! Back to the drawing board it is...

[selector]

I'm an emphatic 'me-too' here. By all means, test and see as Ed says. But, if you end up with your steepest 'board-measured' grade on your layout, you had better have that track laid as even as it was on the board all the way up, or you will have a major disappointment. The loco drivers will rise and float off of even the slightest deviation from that grade from track section to track section, and that will surely mean a stall, or simply spinning.

Again, I emphatically echo what the others are saying. Do yourself a big favour and find a way to live with at most a 3.0% grade. You will be so much happier with the results, unless you have a very heavy Shay to work with.

[egmurphy]

I agree with what has already been said about grade recommendations.

If you want to test your engines and rolling stock, just assemble some straight track on a long board. You can check various grades (remember that the % grade equals the inches of rise divided by the inches of horizontal run) with your own engines to see how train length is affected. The curve will cost you a bit more power, but isn't your main worry.

My old Lionel engine would have walked up a 7.6% grade, but it had "Magne-Traction". [:D]


Regards

Ed

[Jetrock]

7.6% is VERY steep--on the prototype, 2% is about maximum aside from logging lines using special traction engines, and on model railroads 3-4% is a practical maximum. If you use metal wheels, good engines, proper weights, and careful trackwork, you can pull a short train up a 4% or so grade.