Max slopes for new HO engines?

[rbryce1]

I am still in the process of designing my "permanent" layout, and I would like to do a double layer layout due to space constraints.

The lower level would be the turn table and yard while the upper level would be the main runs and some accessory sidings.

To really get the full view of the lower level, I need to use a full 4% slope with a fairly long transition run to seperate the two levels by almost 8 inches in height.  I would be assembling a train on the lower level using switchers and pulling it to the upper level with the main engines.  I would like to use about 10-15 cars in a train.  I will be using either the EM-1 steam engine or consists of 2-3 Bachmann and/or Bowser diesels.

I know when I was young, pulling anything up any slope was not a good idea, as the engines did not have great motors and all but the real expensive ones had rubber band drive.

Today's locos seem to have much more powerful motors and all have gear and u-joint construction.

Am I smoking Crayola Crayons to consider this or is this something that today's designs of engines can handle?

Also, is there any problems with using even more than a 4% slope in the downhill direction only?

[sd24b]

4% is pretty steep.  However, 2 or 3 diesels should be able to handle your train lengths.  Not sure on your steam.   6 axle diesels generally pull better than 4.  What I have found to be a small problem is not working trains upgrade but going down grade.  Some engines suffer from cogging.  the weight of the train pushes against the engine forcing the worm gear forward.  Shouldn't affect you unless you're running longer trains.     Phil

[rbryce1]

I understand your comment.  I did feel fairly comfortable with the consisted diesels myself, but not really sure what the pulling power of the EM-1 (2-8-8-4) really is.  One member in our MRRC have told me that his actually pulls better than the Big Boy, but I have not been able to try mine yet with a train load.  I do have a jar of Bull Frog Snot I can put on the traction wheels if it starts to slip (well, not the whole jar!).

[RAM]

This may be way out,but it is something to think about.  If the main line train is going to stay on the main line, why not bring five cars up to add to the front of the train, and take 5 cars off of the rear.  After three times you would change out the whole train.

[Doneldon]

rb-

Eight inches really isn't enough separation between railheads for a multi-level layout. By the time you have space under the upper level for lower-level lights, upper level wiring and the upper level itself you're lower level will be only a few inches (three or four at most) which won't allow for viewing or reaching in, much less scenery and structures. For HO, 14 inches seems to be the minimum. That much separation, of course, presents a real grade challenge.

I suggest that you increase your level separation and do whatever it takes to reduce your grade. One way is to run the tracks between your lower and upper levels as far as possible to stretch out the grade. If that is truly impossible, and it might be depending on the configuration of your available space and your track plan, consider a helix. I'm not a fan of helices myself, but I recognize that there are times when one is needed. Of course, the helix will take up quite a bit of space itself. However, one long (tall) helix can have three outlets allowing you to stack up three levels while only surrendering space to a single helix.

That might sound a bit grand but I've seen it done effectively. You can still have a yard and engine terminal on one level with your railroad's mainline on the other levels. Perhaps your yard can be the middle level, allowing you to run trains both ways to the ends of the division you're modeling. Or, use one level for flatland and the other for mountain scenery. Or run two railroads on separate levels and have them interchange in the middle where they share an engine servicing facility or rely on yet a third railroad to handle engine service, interchange service and local industrial service. Thin Chicago or Kansas City where Class One railroads used short bridge and terminal lines for connections. The options are almost unlimited.
                                                                                                                -- D
                         

[rbryce1]

Phil, RAM and Doneldon,

Your points are EXTREMELY well taken.  You have brought up several things I had not taken into consideration, two being the lighing and wiring access, which makes my 8" separation plan look like I really am smoking Crayola Crayons!    

Your suggestion to move 5 cars up in each trip is something I would really not prefer to do, but you did get me thinking about another idea.  The real space taker which makes my layout on a single level is not necessarily the yard, but the turn table.  The turn table itself is not small, but when you add in all the track it takes to hold all the engines sitting around the turn table, the thing triples in size.  However, it's not only the turn table, it's all the track it takes to get the turn table to connect to the main line and back down again without having to use a reversing loop.  Either way, with or without a Reversing Loop, this really chews up real estate.

HOWEVER, if I just put the TURN TABLE on the lower level, the engine with no cars in tow can easily handle 4% and I can use all the real estate I need to get the engine itself to the upper level by having the engine exit the turn table, enter a tunnel and emerge on the upper level.  Everything inside the tunnel area would be hidden and easily accessed from below.  

There is now plenty of extra space on the main level for the yard and much more scenery.

Excuse me while I fire up Anyrail and design a totally new layout concept.  

Thanks again for the input.  

Bob

[jward]

i have successfully used 4% grades ob numerous layouts. some engines, such as the bachmann gp7, will pull very well on a 4% grade. mine is rated at 11 cars on this grade. two of them would more than pull 15 cars up the grade. i would not recommend going steeper than 4%.

that said, there is another solution to your problem which not only adds operating interest, but also is common on the real railroads: helper engines.  what you do is to add an engine to the back of the train to help it up the grade. at the top, it cuts away from the train and returns to the yard. with dcc, you can even control the helper engine independently of the other engines on the train. my dad has successfully used helpers to move 25 car coal trains up a 3% grade, for over 20 years.

[Stephen D. Richards]

How about a Helix in one corner?

[rbryce1]

Jeff & Stephen and every one else!

All good ideas, but I think I have solved my dilemma with the turn table on the lower level and the rest of the layout above.  Designed what looks to be a nice set of conditions, where only the engines are ever on the lower level.  All the rolling stock and my switchers are in the freight yard on the upper level.  I have achieved 27 linear feet of 3% slope, where 24 feet of it is inside a tunnel or mountain (lower level).  

It's sort of difficult to explain, but the layout is shaped like a "T" due to the room's constraints.  The upper level will consist of a low section in the center and 2 elevated sections at the bottom and top of the "T".  The section which would resemble the horizontal part of the "T" is high and mountainous, the center is lower and residential.  The bottom part of the "T" is again higher, will be part industrial and part "Parks and Recreation", and will be positioned above the turn table.

The track leaves the turntable on the lower level and immediately enters a tunnel portal, then travels sort of like an oval shaped helix where it is not visible from the outside, but accessible from underneath to hide all the wiring and to deal with any problems should any occur.  The mountainous upper level land contour then drops off to the lower center section, which reduces the height the track must rise to meet the upper level section.  It then exits another mountain portal and joins with the upper level track in the center section.  The upper level consists of 3 levels of track elevation connecting the 3 sections, all different, all within 2% slopes and connected with the land contour and several extended trestles and bridges.  Amazing what you can do with a lot of foam!  

After all the crap I went through on our Christmas layout making and grading inclines by hand, forgive me, but I'm just getting a lot of the Woodland Scenic incline kits for the track inclines.  

Well, I have more to plan and analyse before I call it the Plan, but so far, it looks do-able.  Might be a while before photos are available!

[blwfish]

Roundhouses and turntables take up a lot of space.  My engine terminal - which actually models a relatively small prototype, but which caters to the largest steam locomotives - consumes nearly all of a 4x8.

From the sound of it, you have a disproportionately large amount of space dedicated to the terminal. The other tracks that it seems that you have moved elsewhere are probably almost illogical if set too far away. Tracks such as the ashpit/inspection, wash rack, coaling tower and water plugs, etc are always found very, very near the roundhouse and turntable in the prototype. (I'm sure there were exceptions, for example in very narrow river valleys.) But consider carefully how far you want to go here. Many smaller layouts simply don't have the space for a large steam-era engine terminal.

Years ago I realized that I liked engine terminals better than almost anything else, so I built a small layout that was essentially ONLY engine terminal! Everything else was staging! But I got to show off lots of steam locomotives!

[rbryce1]

The turntable area is only about 3 ft by 4 ft, and it includes two spurs for coal/water loading of steam engines, an ashpit and 2 oil tanks for the diesels.  Hope to be able to work in a coal hopper dumping station as well.  The freight yard is actually on another level, but not far from the turntable.  

With the elliptical helix not being in view, it removed much of the clearance problems I had if I had wanted to show all that area.  

I have one layout I really like, but I am also working an a totally different approach as well.  When I'm done with both and the hills, valleys, mountains and waterfalls are situated, I'll pick the one I like best and go for it.  Probably start laying real estate in November.

[rogertra]

From your opening statement regarding rubber band drive, I'm guessing you are an adult of around my age (ancient) and not a teenager.

Buy a book or books on track planning!

NOT the ones produced by people like Bachmann, Atlas et al for their "set track" range of trackage but books on real track planning and how to design a model railroad.  Books produced by the makers of "set track" are all just plans for what can best be described as roundy go roundy "toy train layouts", not "model railroads".  Yes, I'm biased but I did the roundy go roundy thing back when I was a teenager and quickly grew out of that stage, as you will as well.  You will also soon loose interest in anything other than a "model railroad" plan. Once you go "model railroad" rather than "train set", you will find that the set track you purchased will now look out of place so my advice is to ignore set track, of any make, and go straight into flex track and avoid all set track.

For the best books, go to sites like Kalmbach Publishing and purchase copies of their books on layout design and track planning.  Look for the latest one by Tony Koester on building a multilevel model railroad as that seems to be your goal.

However, feel free to ignore the above if that's your wish.

[rbryce1]

Rogertra,

I got a nice chuckle with your comments, and I agree with them.  I do  not have any train "sets" or "track layouts".  I'm not desiring a roundy round layout in any way, in fact trying real hard to not have one.  My real problem is, I don't have a gymnasium to build in, and there are only so many curves I can make within my constraints.

I have already looked at some of the "toy train layouts" and have quickly discarded them.  I'll look where you suggest this evening, as, I pretty much know what I would like the model to include, just don't know the best way to accomplish it.  What I don't desire is a really dumb combination of everything just to have everything.  

Maybe I should look for a gymnasium!!

[richg]

Take a look at the below link. Layouts for different scales but some may offer an idea. You can scale some up or down to the scale you want.

http://www.thortrains.net/

Rich

[jward]

given an ideal situation, i prefer a loop to loop type layout, with staging yards on the loops at each end. that way, the layyout is self staging, and if you are fortunate enough to be able to add a third staging loop you bring some intersting problems with equipment shortages and surplusses into play.

that said, given the space most of us have, we have to make some compromises. in an average room, you can build a layout with only one line through each scene, ala pelle seborg, and not have much operating interest, or you can double up on the trackage, disguise it to look like two parallel railroads, and have twice the layout in the same space.