Andymsa Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Hi all, I just need to double check what a 35% gradient is. By my calculations it is 1 in 3.3 Thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastglosmog Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Actually, more like 1 in 2.86. 1 in 3.3 is 33%. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Hi all, I just need to double check what a 35% gradient is. By my calculations it is 1 in 3.3 Thanks Far too steep for England, unless its a Funicular, bit too steep for Wales, I think Snowdon is 25% and is a rack raiway Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Joseph_Pestell Posted August 21, 2018 RMweb Gold Share Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) Is the OP sure that it is 35% he wants? In a railway context 35 o/oo would be more likely. Edited August 21, 2018 by Joseph_Pestell Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andymsa Posted August 21, 2018 Author Share Posted August 21, 2018 (edited) this is for the fleischmann rack train and the max gradient allowed is 35% Edited August 21, 2018 by Andymsa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brack Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Abroad sometimes gradients are expressed in 0/00, so 35/1000 is 3.5%, still steep, but workable. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andymsa Posted August 21, 2018 Author Share Posted August 21, 2018 Actually, more like 1 in 2.86. 1 in 3.3 is 33%. yes that was what I came up with, I put the wrong figures down my excuse is I was up at 3am and the brain is a bit frazzled. im going to make the gradient at about 1 in 3 or 1 in 2.5 I will see how it looks thanks Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Some daft modern/foreign idea! Everyone understands what 1 in something means, but what does so and so per cent mean? It's just the reciprocal of course, but not so intuitive IMHO. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastglosmog Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Agree with you 100% (even 1 in 1, or 45°), Il Grifone! I blame those colonialists across the Atlantic (at least, that is where I first came across this weird way of expressing gradients). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NittenDormer Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 Some daft modern/foreign idea! Everyone understands what 1 in something means, but what does so and so per cent mean? It's just the reciprocal of course, but not so intuitive IMHO. Actually I am the opposite. Percentages work much better, partly because it feels more exotic / continental. Also allows more detail - 5% too gentle, 6% just right, 7% a tad steep, 8% brutal, anything above beastly. (For cycling.) The 1-in approach not nearly as neat. I also prefer kilometres to miles (makes me seem faster). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Vecchio Posted August 21, 2018 RMweb Premium Share Posted August 21, 2018 Daft modern/foreign idea- well the UK went metric in 1966 or am I wrong? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brack Posted August 21, 2018 Share Posted August 21, 2018 On the prototype Riggenbach rack has a limit of 1 in 5, Abt double rack 1 in 4. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Il Grifone Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 Daft modern/foreign idea- well the UK went metric in 1966 or am I wrong? It's nothing to do with metric. As to metric conversion the origional idea was to completely convert by 1975, but that didn't last long*. They are even allowed to sell goods in pounds again now.. Traders love this as a pound is less than half a kilo.... One of the first half hearted measures was to sell wood in multiples of 30cm, so you got about an inch less with every five feet. Don't get me wrong. IMHO the imperial system became obsolete the moment they invented the metric system. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andymsa Posted August 22, 2018 Author Share Posted August 22, 2018 I have decided on 9cm over 60cm this is about 1in 6 roughly or 1 in 5 or in metric 15% Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vespa Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 4/5 of nothing with the reciprocal of 9.3. Gradients are totally useless on model railways and building the base boards to accept up and down hill effects without actually raising or lowering the track and thus not having running problems. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andy Y Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 Gradients are totally useless on model railways and building the base boards to accept up and down hill effects without actually raising or lowering the track and thus not having running problems. Good luck with building your flat-earth rack railway (which this topic is about). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vespa Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 (edited) post deleted Edited August 22, 2018 by Vespa Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
eastglosmog Posted August 22, 2018 Share Posted August 22, 2018 I deliberately built gradients into my layout - 1 in 80 (1.25% if you must) up to and down from the river bridge to give navigable headroom. Adds greatly to the interest in driving loose coupled goods trains. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DCB Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 (edited) Gradients are fun, when they are supposed to be gradients. Our main line is 1 in 80, It was level when the shed was built (ish) and a battle of adding lead where DCC decoders once lived, raising and lowering baseboards and jacking up the shed with car jacks and wedges has been resorted to on several occasions. The branch was designed for 1 in 36 so train lengths are limited to 7 coaches unassisted , still short by prototype standards where 12 were taken over 1 in 36 grades between Newton Abbott and Plymouth but the double heading and banking adds to the interest. I always wonder whether 1 in 1 is 45% or 90% Rise per foot travelled or rise per horizontal distance travelled.. To me signs like 12% are meaningless while 1 in 3 strikes fear into cyclists and people with 1 litre petrol turbo engined eco boxes. (Good one by Grosmont, makes the 2 litre Astra grunt a bit) and the 1 in 4 25% at Goathland must have made the "Tour de Yorkshire" push bike racers grunt a bit as well.. Edited August 23, 2018 by DavidCBroad 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dungrange Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 I always wonder whether 1 in 1 is 45% or 90% 1 in 1 is 45 degrees (the angle) or 100% (ie there is one unit of vertical rise for each horizontal unit) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianusa Posted August 23, 2018 Share Posted August 23, 2018 I designed my tinplate layout for my US trains with grades far too steep but necessary to fit the space available. It worked well as locos and rolling stock all had knuckle couplers until I bought some Hornby trains. Loose couplers; so rolling stock especially in a longish train always wanted to get ahead of the engine with the inevitable results so while the US trains can go anywhere, Hornby trains are confined to the flatlands! Brian. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now