Incline

[gazclass58]

Afternoon fellow modellers I need a bit of help I'm thinking building a double track incline for my passager rolling stock would just like where would I start from? Thanks in advance

[ITG]

First, I guess is calculate the incline %. Do you have to reach a minimum height for clearance purposes? If so, how much running length have you got to achieve that height? Remember, that it is the underside of the upper level which is your clearance level - the track height may well be a few mm above that? And rail height of your lower level will be a few mm above board level.

How straight will your incline be? If on curves, what radius? Friction is greater on curves than straight inclines.

How long are the trains you intend to run, and what will you be pulling with? Older locos deliver better traction, but of modern models, diesels seem better.

The planning and calculations stage is undoubtedly where you must start.

A relatively easy way of achieving a consistent incline is by using Woodland Scenics Inclines and risers - preformed polystyrene flexible inclines.

[RJS1977]

Despite being born some years after Britain 'went metric', I tend to prefer to design baseboards in imperial units as there are a number of handy approximations which work out nicely in imperial.

 

One of these is that a gradient of 1:30 (which is what manufacturers tended to recommend as a minimum years ago*) works out nicely as 1cm rise per 1 foot along (1:60 is 1 cm per 2ft etc).

 

 

*(Although Hornby's piers were set at 1:16 which is too steep for many locos)

[The Johnster]

I'd be inclined (sorry) to suggest that any gradient on your layout will be better and easier for your locos if regard is paid to the following, and some of this is possibly not going to be what you want to hear:-

 

.Try to avoid curvature on the incline, especially if you are using setrack geometry with tight curves, and if curvature on the incline is unavoidable, try to use the largest possible radius of curve.  This is because the inner rail will be forced by the physics of the thing to be a steeper gradient than the outer rail; I mean the inner rail of an individual track, not the inner track of the double track you are proposing, 

 

RTR locos, especially steam, are built around solid chassis blocks which limit the vertical and sideways play that the driving wheels can be allowed, and outside motion limits it further.  Climbing such a corkscrew really needs full 3 point compensation, which is not really an RTR option.  Diesels or Electrics running on bogies will cope better.  Too sharp a transition at the top may lead to some rolling stock 'grounding', especially longer coaches with low hanging underframe detail.  Battery boxes are especially vulnerable as they usually hang directly above the railhead.  Another drag on your already struggling locos will be the extra rolling resistance imposed by curvature.

 

.Try to have vertical transition curves between level and gradient at the bottom and top of your incline, especially at the top.  Too sharp a change of level will mean that the centre drivers lift from the rail at the bottom, and you lose traction just at the point you need it most, and at the top the outer drivers will part company with the rail, losing 2/3rds of your traction while the maximum load of train is on the incline, causing a slippage even if you manage to keep the loco on the track. 

 

.These vertical transition curves induce another issue, that of average gradient.  If you have planned your gradient to be, say, 1 in 30, the transition curves must be excluded from the length of gradient and the slope not measured from the bottom to the top but from the point at which the 1 in 30 is achieved at the gradient end of the bottom transition curve to the point at which the gradient eases at the top transition curve.  This will lose about 2 or 3 feet from the total length at 1 in 30, but if you do not take it into account and measure a 1 in 30 rise from the absolute bottom to the absolute top, the central part will be a good bit steeper than 1 in 30, which will be the average point to point gradient.  You want it to be the maximum steepness, not an average.

 

.Keep any turnouts or crossings at least a loco wheelbase away from the vertical transition curves.  You can have them on the central part of the gradient if you want, but keep them away from the top and bottom.

 

.Locos slipping to a standstill are not really much of a problem in terms of damage caused.  Slipping is a result of too much motor power for the grip the wheels can offer on the rails, and while nobody recommends it, it does no harm to the loco if you cut the power quickly.  But a stall, where the wheels are gripping fine but the motor cannot handle the load, is much more damaging to the motor which will overheat quite rapidly; you will hear it humming in protest, and if you ignore it will stop.  Permanently, and possibly melting plastic bodys,  If you stall, cut the power immediately, then back down the gradient and attach a pilot or a banker.  This will probably see you up the bank, and lesssen the amount of current that the train loco can draw.

 

All of which makes the point that it is advantageous for gradients to be as gently sloped and as gently curved as possible, which eats into whatever space is available, and that loads be limited on them to what the locos can cope with and perhpas a coach to spare (if the loco can just about  manage 8, limit the load to 7).  If it's any consolation, real railway engineers had exactly the same problems, mostly got it wrong, and had to build more powerful locos or provide pilots/bankers.  The Settle and Carlisle was planned around a 'ruling gradient' (the steepest on the route and hence the one governing loads) of 1 in 100, part of the engineering magnificene of this achievement and on a railway where double heading was normal, but one cannot help but note that the Midland Railway which set the parameters also included the Lickey on the Gloucester-Birmingham route, which had caused no end of difficulty and limits loads even today. 

 

Even the great Brunel, who built the Westbourne Park-Swindon 'billiard table' fell foul of gradients, planning the South Devon route for 'atmospheric' traction and making the South Devon banks as steep as the Lickey, only to find that the atmospheric was vulnerable to rats and salt corrosion and that conventional locos would be needed instead.  Luckily for him, conventional locos with light loads could cope, just about, but the legacy affected GW and WR loco design into the 1960s, being a significant factor in the avoidance of pacifics and the choice of diesel hydraulics, and the subject of a 1930s electrification proposal.

[PMP]

5 hours ago, ITG said:

A relatively easy way of achieving a consistent incline is by using Woodland Scenics Inclines and risers - preformed polystyrene flexible inclines.

This is the best advice on the responses.

https://woodlandscenics.woodlandscenics.com/show/item/INCLDECLSET
 

They’re available from Bachmann stockists in the UK. They’re simple to use, designed for RTR stock and effective. You haven’t mentioned which scale you’re working in but these are particularly suitable for Z to OO/HO. You don’t need to engage in difficult calculations, they’re flexible and can be used in curved track layouts too, and if you’re  doing double track they can be laid side by side.  The Hornby incline sets are far steeper and won’t be as easy to use.

[mike morley]

RTR couplings might not be too happy if the transition too and from level track at the foot and head of the incline is not fairly gentle.  Tension-locks should be okay at the foot of the gradient but if the transition is too sharp they could struggle at the top.  Not sure how well Kaydees would cope top or bottom.

[gazclass58]

1 hour ago, PMP said:

This is the best advice on the responses.

https://woodlandscenics.woodlandscenics.com/show/item/INCLDECLSET
 

They’re available from Bachmann stockists in the UK. They’re simple to use, designed for RTR stock and effective. You haven’t mentioned which scale you’re working in but these are particularly suitable for Z to OO/HO. You don’t need to engage in difficult calculations, they’re flexible and can be used in curved track layouts too, and if you’re  doing double track they can be laid side by side.  The Hornby incline sets are far steeper and won’t be as easy to use.

Sorry I model OO Gauge. Thank you for your comment

[gazclass58]

7 hours ago, ITG said:

First, I guess is calculate the incline %. Do you have to reach a minimum height for clearance purposes? If so, how much running length have you got to achieve that height? Remember, that it is the underside of the upper level which is your clearance level - the track height may well be a few mm above that? And rail height of your lower level will be a few mm above board level.

How straight will your incline be? If on curves, what radius? Friction is greater on curves than straight inclines.

How long are the trains you intend to run, and what will you be pulling with? Older locos deliver better traction, but of modern models, diesels seem better.

The planning and calculations stage is undoubtedly where you must start.

A relatively easy way of achieving a consistent incline is by using Woodland Scenics Inclines and risers - preformed polystyrene flexible inclines.

Thank you for your reply I will mostly be running hst and dmu on the incline and the odd lite freight loco I need to get it in a 16 to 18ft run but starting on flexible curves fingers crossed

 

7 hours ago, ITG said:

First, I guess is calculate the incline %. Do you have to reach a minimum height for clearance purposes? If so, how much running length have you got to achieve that height? Remember, that it is the underside of the upper level which is your clearance level - the track height may well be a few mm above that? And rail height of your lower level will be a few mm above board level.

How straight will your incline be? If on curves, what radius? Friction is greater on curves than straight inclines.

How long are the trains you intend to run, and what will you be pulling with? Older locos deliver better traction, but of modern models, diesels seem better.

The planning and calculations stage is undoubtedly where you must start.

A relatively easy way of achieving a consistent incline is by using Woodland Scenics Inclines and risers - preformed polystyrene flexible inclines.

 

[ISW]

9 hours ago, gazclass58 said:

Afternoon fellow modellers I need a bit of help I'm thinking building a double track incline for my passager rolling stock would just like where would I start from? Thanks in advance

The 00-gauge layout I'm currently building incorporates 2 ramps, one at ~1 in 40 and the other at ~1 in 48. No problems with my diesels or DMUs getting up/down the ramps. They include curves of ~650mm radius and climb ~350mm. You can see photos of the build, together with design details starting at:

I hope this is of some help to you.

 

Ian

[DCB]

I use 1 in 36 or an inch n 3ft which is pretty do able for OO DC heritage steam models and Diesels, but current RTR DCC fitted or ready steam tends to be absolutely hopeless.   Prototype haulage should be 10 to 12 coaches up a 1 in 38, Hemerdon,  if its GWR and 3 coaches up a 1 in 37 , Lickety, if its Midand   If you're using OO steam DCC I would keep it absolutely level.   I have a video on YouTube of a Triang Brttannia climbing a 1 in 36 with about 13 coaches on while a Bachmann Tornado slips with 4 coaches.

[wandering blue]

It would be worth you searching RMWeb for gradient discussions on spirals/ helixes, relevant to where your ramps will be curved.

You might want to consider DCC Concepts Powerbase.

Non-steam era stock generally has an easier time of it, as others have said already. 
WB

[Right Away]

Depending on how far you are in the layout design stage, it is possible to achieve a given clearance with a much lesser gradient by arranging the lower track/road etc to descend before it is crossed by the rising track.

[ELTEL]

Charlie Bishop on his YouTube video channel “Chadwick Model Railways”.did some incline tests on locomotives on his new helix recently.

 

It’s worth a watch 

 

Terry 

 

 

[The Johnster]

3 hours ago, wandering blue said:

Non-steam era stock generally has an easier time of it, as others have said already

This is because the rigid wheelbase of a power bogie, even a long one like a Class 31 or 47, is shorter than that of most steam locos, and is freer to move and twist to cope with curvature on an incline; I mentioned the corkscrew effect of curvature before.  it's not how powerful the loco is, it is how efficiently it puts the power down to the wheel/rail interface, and model bogie locos are much better at this.  It's been mentioned that older locos are better climbers, better pullers in general in fact, and this is down to wheel profiles and tyre materials, and my bete noir traction tyres, Satan's snot.  They tend to be heavier as well, as space formerly used for ballast is needed for DCC chips, speakers, and such.  If you look at the split chassis blocks of a Mainline loco, you will see what I mean; pity the pancake motors were so feeble...

 

Bachmann use a very smooth plated surface for their tyres, steam or otherwise, which wears off over time and usage, so a high mileage loco pulls better than a new one because the plating wears off and the surface beneath it is rougher and 'grippier'. 

 

If you use Right Away's dodge of dropping the lower track to clear beneath overbridges, you will save some space but not as much as you might expect because now you have to allow for a vertical transition curve at the bottom of the lower track's diveunder inclines.  Extra headroom will have to be factored in for longer vehicles, and modern coaches (not to mention some GW types) are scale 70'or +, so about a third of the space you save  will be lost.  Again, the key to success is gentle gradients and transitions, and large radius curves (and possibly DCC Concepts Powerbase), all of which make demands on space. 

 

This is of course the fun of inclines; you have to be a Civil Engineer and deal with, and solve, Civil Engineeering problems exactly like a real Civil Engineer.  There are plenty of products to help you build it, but you have to design it and factor all the potential issues in; it will give you a new respect for the people who built real railways!

 

 

[tomparryharry]

I should mention that scale is completely immaterial in a linear situation.  1 in 50 is still 1in 50, whether it be Z gauge or 0 gauge.  The only factor  is 'linear compression'  where you're trying to get up (or down) a variance in height.  Being modellers, linear compression is a constant battle. Naturally, a nice flowing gradient is desirable, but reality at home is nearly always a case of compromise. 

 

It does make me laugh (sorry, chuckle) when a reviewer observes the lack of haulage ability in a model:- " The model failed to haul a rake of X models on my layout" In real life, a similar real-world situation would call for either a pilot, or a banker.  There are lots of photos of a 48xx on an autocoach job up the Welsh valleys. Funny to note that it's never raining, or blowing a 'hoolie' in those photos..... Off with the 48xx, on with the pannier.....

 

Cheers,

Ian.