Gradient Height oo gauge

[Fifeflyer10]

I have built two layouts one on top of another eight inches apart, originally to run as two separate displays. I am now wondering about the possibility of running a ramp or gradient to join the two. My main question is , would it be possible, as I have over 8ftdown each side to gather speed to reach the top level? The layout is built in my garage and runs 12 ft x4 ft on one side and 8ft x 4 on the opposite side with a double drop flap at one end, giving access to my boiler, and a permanent section at the other end creating a complete loop.

[Grovenor]

A lot depends on what you want to run up the grade, a grade of 1:25 is possible if you have plenty of weight on driving wheels and the trains are not to long, at 1:25 you will need 200 inches of length plus a bit more for the vertical curves top and bottom. I have grades of around this steepness on my layout and most locos can handle between 4 and 6 coaches but steamers do need extra weight, modern diesels are fine as they come.

Regards

Keith

[Fifeflyer10]

Thanks for your help and advice Keith. I have a mix of diesel and steam locos. I loved your layout, so much further on than mine. Would you fancy coming up to finish mine lol?. The sound on your locos is really sharp too. congratulations.

Graham

 

 

A lot depends on what you want to run up the grade, a grade of 1:25 is possible if you have plenty of weight on driving wheels and the trains are not to long, at 1:25 you will need 200 inches of length plus a bit more for the vertical curves top and bottom. I have grades of around this steepness on my layout and most locos can handle between 4 and 6 coaches but steamers do need extra weight, modern diesels are fine as they come.

Regards

Keith

[Kris]

You might be better off seeing if there is the possibility of running the loop right round the garage so that you get a more reasonable gradient. This would only need to the the width of the track. If you were doing this you could get away with a greater distance between the layers.

[Fifeflyer10]

Hi Kris thanks for your reply. Maybe I should explain further, at present both boards are running round the walls. Both boards have track within two inches of the edge. I have between two and four lanes of track running round the boards which is all wired for dcc. I have cut out sections of the top board to allow access to the bottom board

 

Graham

 

 

 

You might be better off seeing if there is the possibility of running the loop right round the garage so that you get a more reasonable gradient. This would only need to the the width of the track. If you were doing this you could get away with a greater distance between the layers.

[Silver Sidelines]

Graham, constructing workable gradients can be very time consuming. If you plan to use engine driven steam engines then my experience would suggest that you need gradients flatter than 1 in 50. Even then you may need to add lead shot to the engines if you want train lengths greater than three or four coaches. Notable exceptions are Bachmann 9Fs and the latest Hornby Brittanias. I have converted a couple of ex GWR flat sided tenders with Airfix mechanism to provide a solution. If you use modern diesels or tender driven locomotives with rubber tyres then it is a much easier game and I have nothing but praise for the load pulling capacity of Heljan diesels.

 

My latest layout was constructed on the supposition that the floor was level and the gradients were made by measuring the necessary height up from the floor. Subsequent operation and checks with a spirit level showed the premise to have been wrong and the layout had to be completely relevelled. As part of this operation I dropped large sections of the layout nearly two inches. This was carried out relatively easily using a scissor type car jack placed on one of those 'elephant foot' type office steps, plus some short lengths of wooden plank for packing. It was a quick operation to use the jack to transfer the load from the existing permanent supports to temporary supports and then back again to the new shortened supports. The planks were nominally 3/4" and it proved possible to lower the layout incrementally one plank at a time without causing any damage to the overlying boards and trackwork.

 

There is a video on YouTube which give you a flavour for the scale of the current operation

 

 

The layout is on three levels with a separation of 2 1/2" between levels. With a board thickness of 1/2" this equates to a height difference of around six inches between highest and lowest. There are more pictures at:

 

http://www.flickr.co...57609706367809/

 

Good luck

[Fifeflyer10]

Hi Longsheds, thanks for your advice you have a fantastic railway, puts me to shame. I am amazed at the gradients that you have built, would you like to come up to Fife and help???? Seriously I loved your films on you tube and will watch them repeatedly for tips and ideas thanks again.

 

Graham

 

Graham, constructing workable gradients can be very time consuming. If you plan to use engine driven steam engines then my experience would suggest that you need gradients flatter than 1 in 50. Even then you may need to add lead shot to the engines if you want train lengths greater than three or four coaches. Notable exceptions are Bachmann 9Fs and the latest Hornby Brittanias. I have converted a couple of ex GWR flat sided tenders with Airfix mechanism to provide a solution. If you use modern diesels or tender driven locomotives with rubber tyres then it is a much easier game and I have nothing but praise for the load pulling capacity of Heljan diesels.

 

My latest layout was constructed on the supposition that the floor was level and the gradients were made by measuring the necessary height up from the floor. Subsequent operation and checks with a spirit level showed the premise to have been wrong and the layout had to be completely relevelled. As part of this operation I dropped large sections of the layout nearly two inches. This was carried out relatively easily using a scissor type car jack placed on one of those 'elephant foot' type office steps, plus some short lengths of wooden plank for packing. It was a quick operation to use the jack to transfer the load from the existing permanent supports to temporary supports and then back again to the new shortened supports. The planks were nominally 3/4" and it proved possible to lower the layout incrementally one plank at a time without causing any damage to the overlying boards and trackwork.

 

There is a video on YoutTube which give you a flavour for the scale of the current operation

 

 

The layout is on three levels with a separation of 2 1/2" between levels. With a board thickness of 1/2" this equates to a height difference of around six inches between highest and lowest. There are more pictures at:

 

http://www.flickr.co...57609706367809/

 

Good luck

[Silver Sidelines]

Hello Graham, thank you for those kind words. After three unfinished layouts it is time that I added some scenery. Keep watching, there is a new brewery taking shape. Ray

[Fifeflyer10]

Hi Ray, can I ask if you made the retaining walls yourself or did you buy them from Metcalfe?

 

 

Graham

Hello Graham, thank you for those kind words. After three unfinished layouts it is time that I added some scenery. Keep watching, there is a new brewery taking shape. Ray

[Silver Sidelines]

Evening Graham, I had to look on Flickr to remind myself:

 

 

Yes all the grey walling is from Metcalf viaduct kits, five in total. The viaduct is made in 'relief' in that I have only finished off one side and the piers are all cut in half. The walling was made by using the card for the piers as infill. As produced by Metcalf the viaduct is made for a maximum track height of height of 5 1/2". On my layout I have a 6" gap to fill which puts the finished rail level with the top of the parapet. It iis at the back of the layout so it is not immediately obvious.

 

The maroon walling is from Townscene and still needs finishing. I think there were three kits.

 

Regards Ray

[Fifeflyer10]

Hi Ray thanks for that.

 

 

Graham

Evening Graham, I had to look on Flickr to remind myself:

 

http://www.flickr.co...57609706367809/

 

Yes all the grey walling is from Metcalf viaduct kits, five in total. The viaduct is made in 'relief' in that I have only finished off one side and the piers are all cut in half. The walling was made by using the card for the piers as infill. As produced by Metcalf the viaduct is made for a maximum track height of height of 5 1/2". On my layout I have a 6" gap to fill which puts the finished rail level with the top of the parapet. It iis at the back of the layout so it is not immediately obvious.

 

The maroon walling is from Townscene and still needs finishing. I think there were three kits.

 

Regards Ray

[Alan Kettlewell]

On my layout 'Midland Junction' (see galleries), I have several track runs that are on a gradient. On the visible area of the layout there are two long runs that rise about 4 inches over a length of 20ft, so about 1 in 60. The steepest gradient would be in the storage loops where the visible aspect isn't so important. The tracks here have to rise about 3 inches over 12 foot so about 1 in 48. Long 9 coach steam hauled trains struggle a bit to climb these but diesels handle it very easily.

 

So even 1 in 50 would be quite steep except for short steam hauled trains or diesels.

 

On a previous layout I built a helix to raise the track about 8 inches. The helix was made from circular boards cut out from a 4 ft squares of board. Each 'circle' has to raise the track so it can cross itself and allow the height of the train - I allowed only 7cm headroom between levels, just enough room for the trains, so the gradient was quite steep. The diameter of the track was about say 3ft 6inches or 105cm, therefore a gradient of (Pi x D) = 330cm / 7 = about 1 in 47. On this, steam locos wouldn't haul anything more than 6 coaches but again, the diesels handled it easily with up to 10 coaches. Also of course, gradients on straight track are easier than those on a curve.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards

Alan

[RJS1977]

Of course, the alternative is to construct a 'gradient eliminator' i.e. a mechanical lift for trains, as built by Peter Denny in the 1970s. Again, however there is a practical limit regarding length of trains.

 

Richard

[gordon s]

Your findings are exactly in line with my own Alan. The challenge of gradients on my own layout 'Eastwood Town' has been the biggest obstacle by far in trying to build a multi level complex layout. The one thing I forgot to consider was the thickness of the trackbed when calaculating the gradient on a helix. I used 70mm clearance with 12mm ply trackbed so the total distance climbed was 82mm not 70mm. This further reduced the gradient from 1:47 to 1:40. The drag factor on a 21" radius circle would probably add another 50%-100% to theclimb, so I suspect the gradient was probably the equivalent of 1:30 or less.

 

The latest version of Eastwood Town has two gradients of over 1:100 and one of 1:78 so I'm hopeful steam locos will run up the steeper gradient with 7/8 coaches.

 

By the way Ray, I hadn't seen your layout before and I must congratulate you. The similarity of your layout and earlier versions of Eastwood is amazing. Sadly I had to scrap then both, hence my admiration on your completion of such a complex plan. I'll drop you a pm with some pics and you can see what I mean....

[Fifeflyer10]

Hi Alan thanks for your information, very helpful. There's more to this than I had first seen. However, armed with more info from here I will continue to plan.

 

Thanks again

Graham

On my layout 'Midland Junction' (see galleries), I have several track runs that are on a gradient. On the visible area of the layout there are two long runs that rise about 4 inches over a length of 20ft, so about 1 in 60. The steepest gradient would be in the storage loops where the visible aspect isn't so important. The tracks here have to rise about 3 inches over 12 foot so about 1 in 48. Long 9 coach steam hauled trains struggle a bit to climb these but diesels handle it very easily.

 

So even 1 in 50 would be quite steep except for short steam hauled trains or diesels.

 

On a previous layout I built a helix to raise the track about 8 inches. The helix was made from circular boards cut out from a 4 ft squares of board. Each 'circle' has to raise the track so it can cross itself and allow the height of the train - I allowed only 7cm headroom between levels, just enough room for the trains, so the gradient was quite steep. The diameter of the track was about say 3ft 6inches or 105cm, therefore a gradient of (Pi x D) = 330cm / 7 = about 1 in 47. On this, steam locos wouldn't haul anything more than 6 coaches but again, the diesels handled it easily with up to 10 coaches. Also of course, gradients on straight track are easier than those on a curve.

 

I hope this helps.

 

Regards

Alan

[Alan Kettlewell]

Your findings are exactly in line with my own Alan. The challenge of gradients on my own layout 'Eastwood Town' has been the biggest obstacle by far in trying to build a multi level complex layout. The one thing I forgot to consider was the thickness of the trackbed when calaculating the gradient on a helix. I used 70mm clearance with 12mm ply trackbed so the total distance climbed was 82mm not 70mm. This further reduced the gradient from 1:47 to 1:40. The drag factor on a 21" radius circle would probably add another 50%-100% to theclimb, so I suspect the gradient was probably the equivalent of 1:30 or less.

 

The latest version of Eastwood Town has two gradients of over 1:100 and one of 1:78 so I'm hopeful steam locos will run up the steeper gradient with 7/8 coaches.

 

 

I find steam locos on Midland Junction will haul 9 coaches up the 1 in 60 gradient although some do have wheel-slip, more so as the gradient enters a curve near the top. However this does introduce opportunities to run double headers or banking locos which can add some realistic operation.

 

Apologies to the OP for going slightly off topic but on the subject of helix construction, in my view, layouts with different levels can add a great deal of interest to a project and the helix is one way of tackling the problem of getting all trains to run on all parts of the layout (rather than limiting track work to two seperate levels without connection).

 

Although not everyone's cup of tea, I found that working through the mathematical calculations and finally building something from it that worked was quite satisfying. Although quite a large area is needed for a helix (usually hidden in a hill or mountain or 'off-stage' for best effect) I found the ability to drive trains to a different level certainly enhanced the project.

 

Anyway, to get more to the point, I'm wondering if a separate topic perhaps on helix calculations and construction methods might be worthwhile posting in the forum. I realise that not many may be attracted or have the opportunity for a helix but maybe there'll be a few who might benefit. Any opinions would be appreciated.

 

Thanks

Regards

Alan

[Alan Kettlewell]

 

There is a video on YouTube which give you a flavour for the scale of the current operation

 

 

The layout is on three levels with a separation of 2 1/2" between levels. With a board thickness of 1/2" this equates to a height difference of around six inches between highest and lowest. There are more pictures at:

 

http://www.flickr.co...57609706367809/

 

Good luck

 

 

Fabulous layout! I bet you can't wait to start the track painting and ballasting! Having just spend 3 full weeks doing mine I don't envy you this task - however I'm sure it will all be worth it.

 

Regards

Alan

[Silver Sidelines]

Apologies Graham

 

Just as an aside to Alan - yes you are not the first to suggest paint and ballast for the track. Something I have been thinking about and may even get round to in the near future. There are competing issues, should I dig the garden or should I ballast the track, no question if the sun is shining. I will keep you both updated.

 

Regards Ray

[Fifeflyer10]

No problem Ray I just enjoy looking at your layout again and again. Thanks for the info on Metcalfe.

 

 

Graham

Apologies Graham

 

Just as an aside to Alan - yes you are not the first to suggest paint and ballast for the track. Something I have been thinking about and may even get round to in the near future. There are competing issues, should I dig the garden or should I ballast the track, no question if the sun is shining. I will keep you both updated.

 

Regards Ray

[Silver Sidelines]

Fabulous layout! I bet you can't wait to start the track painting and ballasting! Having just spend 3 full weeks doing mine I don't envy you this task - however I'm sure it will all be worth it.

 

Regards

Alan

Alan I just have to say that ballasting of all 'visible' trackwork was completed just prior to Christmas. I thought your 'three weeks' slightly optimistic. You can read all about it on my Blog:

 

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/blog/880-longsheds-layout-1960s-00-scale/

[thesteambuff]

hi

An amazing layout you have constructed,what are the dimensions of the room?

 

David

[Silver Sidelines]

Hello David

...what are the dimensions of the room?

There are some more details on my Blog

 

Regards

 

Ray

[Phil H]

Hi All. I have just only become a member this wk 2014, my question as to gradient's, my proposed new oo gauge lay-out will have 2 level's H/l will

be 4"/100mm above the lower level. I have allowed 25/26 ft complete with transitions at each end of around 1ft/300mm. If my math's are right this

works out at 0.01333% recurring as to mtr's at 7,500 mm /8,000mm to 1/75 1/80 5ft of track at the lower end will be on a curve to the bottom

transition point.

I hope this will allow 8 coach trains pulled by steam loco's wrenn engines.

Any one with any comments or to put me on the right track.

 

Regards Phil H.

[Silver Sidelines]

Hello Phil

 

Welcome, certainly sounds interesting.

...1/75 1/80 5ft of track at the lower end will be on a curve to the bottom
transition point.
I hope this will allow 8 coach trains pulled by steam loco's wrenn engines.
..
 

Wrenn can be certainly heavy and powerful.  You don't mention the make of coaches.  The other half of the equation is the load, both weight and rolling resistance.  Weight becomes less of an issue as the gradient flattens, even with Bachmann Mk1s with pinpoint axles there can be significant rolling resistance with some older coaches.

 

From my limited knowledge I would say definitely on the right track.

 

Regards

 

Ray

[Phil H]

Hi Ray. Thanks for the info. The fall is about 32mm in 8.33 ft. making it around 4mm / 3/16th of I". so at 19/20ft the track would start to curve at this point would be around 20mm/

3/4" above the transition point 5/6ft a way from ioo% level. I have allowed 4 tracks to come down. They will be all level before they go under the high level terminus station above.

Both sets of track will split to try and keep a even 5ft over all radius to the curve. The over all size of lay out is 22ftx9ft open frame 2x1planned timber. Track bed MDF9mm track layed

on cork bed.

Forgot to say  your layout looks fantastic.

 

Regards Phil H.