I have a layout design I will be starting to build soon, it utilizes a maximum grade of 3%. I am hoping this isn't too steep and cause motor burnout on my Lionel Post War, LC+, and future Legacy engines. The layout is a 'U' shape, with 036 radius and turnouts, and fills a 9.5'x12' area. One area has a 3% grade up which crosses over a 3% grade down.
Your thoughts? and advice.
Thank you in advace for your response. - Tony
Replies sorted oldest to newest
The lower %, the better. I kept my grades to 2.5% and I have no issues even with long consists.
3% isn't too much of an issue for most reasonably sized consists. Very important is the easement going into the grade and coming out of the grade. That will have a major effect on the reliability of running. I used about three feet at the start of the grade and at the top of the grade to taper back to level track.
If memory serves me correctly the PW trestles created a 4% grade so I would think you're safe as long as your consists are reasonable.
3% is informally considered to be the maximum desirable grade, though as mentioned the post war trestles were more. The grade percentage figure in SCARM, the layout design CAD tool, changes colors at various percentages of grade (Green, yellow, red). At 3% and over it turns red. At higher grades engines work harder and sometimes slip or one has to run shorter consists. Well lubed wheels on cars can help.
My steepest grade is 4.17%. A MTH RS1 will pull 10 (each loaded to NMRA weight standards) Weaver hoppers plus a cabin car up it as will a MTH RK PA (downgraded to one motor) pull 6 KLine passenger cars. Unfortunately contrary to space limitations and normal practice, the grade begins and ends on a curve.
I also start on a curve, just the way it worked out. However, the curves is around 99" diameter at the starting point, so it's not a huge factor.
Our clubs new layout has a 3.125% max grade. We haven’t had much of a problem yet. My new VL Challenger though won’t pull 9 21” passenger cars up the grade it just stalls and slips. No problem with the older challenger or big boys.
here’s the older challenger with a 36 car train
https://youtube.com/shorts/SeRXuVCX8RU?feature=share
heres more on the layout
People keep quoting grade values for real trains. Real trains do not have traction tires. Eric Siegel (ericstrains) has a 6% grade between his two levels and has no problems. Also, the shorter the grade the steeper the grade can be. It's only the portion of the consist on the grade that one needs to take in account.
Jan
Real railroads tried to avoid grades like the plague, and where they had steep grades they used helpers. At AGHR, we designed the mainline grade at 1.4% and the upper branch line to 2%. It allows for running long trains without straining the locomotives, especially with NMRA-weighted rolling stock.
On this design I'm refining for my garage, the grade on the mainline is 1.6%. The branch into town is 2.2%
@Jan posted:People keep quoting grade values for real trains. Real trains do not have traction tires. Eric Siegel (ericstrains) has a 6% grade between his two levels and has no problems. Also, the shorter the grade the steeper the grade can be. It's only the portion of the consist on the grade that one needs to take in account.
Apparently you didn't read the post right before yours.
@zhubl posted:Our clubs new layout has a 3.125% max grade. We haven’t had much of a problem yet. My new VL Challenger though won’t pull 9 21” passenger cars up the grade it just stalls and slips.
I'm sure some people live with 6% grades, but I can assure you it limits your flexibility. I have a 2.4 and 2.5 grade, depending on the inside or outside track on the grade. Indeed, most stuff transitions the grade quite effortless. However, there are a couple of locomotives that struggle with a full consist of heavy cars on my grades. I know the Series II set Polar Express with the larger motor is working to pull seven passenger cars up the grade an the Hogwart's locomotive with eight cars as well. My Lionel Legacy SW7 is working with more than a few cars on that grade as well.
To suggest that I wouldn't have more issues with 6% grades is ridiculous! It's only common sense to minimize the grades wherever possible. You have also totally left out the folks without traction tires on their locomotives...
I fought this for a while... but, I went from a 2.2% grade to a 3.5% grade to gain more yard space, upper reversing loop and more route options. So shorter consists... 8-12 car consist (nmra weighted)... after that, 12-30 cars double head & multi unit locos to reduce engine stress.
According to the Model Buildings online calculator I’m at 5.73
After reworking the height. Decline is a bigger problem than climbing. I feel ashamed.
.
I held my grade to 1-1 1/2 percent, only have problems when train is way to heavy, my grade also starts on a curve. Cruise makes up and down grade a treat.
Ray
@ogaugenut posted:3% is informally considered to be the maximum desirable grade, though as mentioned the post war trestles were more. The grade percentage figure in SCARM, the layout design CAD tool, changes colors at various percentages of grade (Green, yellow, red). At 3% and over it turns red. At higher grades engines work harder and sometimes slip or one has to run shorter consists. Well lubed wheels on cars can help.
Agreed on minimizing grades. As a point of clarification, in SCARM using O scale FasTrack (maybe, maybe not other track types too) the grade color changes in version 1.9.0 are:
Green 0 - 2.5%
Yellow 2.5 - 4%
Red > 4%
Ditto above... for Atlas
Grades add interest to the operating of our railroads.
Every Model Railroader I know has built a long consist only to attempt to add 1 more car.
The longest successfully operated train on my tracks was 54 cars…and that is on the the main line oval—and it has a slight grade transition…
I know that if I took the time to set out the rolling stock in a weight based order, I could get 75 cars…but nothing I have would pull them up my steeper grades.
The focus on grade percentage is a nice to know aspect…
The OP has a 9.5’ x 12’ area..to attain 6” of clearance off a reasonable grade climb, that’s 100” or more of linear trackage…and chances are almost 100% that there will be a 36” curve in the riser…
That will limit train length-but will add operating interest; splitting the consist or adding a helper engine.
So the plan should include a spur to park the helper engine near the grade.
This is an older video, during the beginning of construction…but after the date my wonderful wife discussed the possibility of moving-20 cars plus 1 5 car unit-technically 25 cars😁
Behind a Switcher, that struggled a little
the grade starts at about 18.5” from the ceiling..
and climbs to 6” from the ceiling
So 1’ in just under 20’
12”/240”=5% grade
With two opposing O-72 curves.
Here’s a look at the whole road
Good luck
John,
The problem is not with the grade but the running gear of the VL Challenger. There have been numerous threads on the Forum of members reworking the mechanism for better operations.
Jan
Like I said, I have a number of engines that I'm certain would have major issues with a 6% grade, that's over twice my maximum! The great part is, it's your RR and you get to design it any way you like. I designed mine for a reasonable grade that I could live with. YMMV
@Jan posted:John,
The problem is not with the grade but the running gear of the VL Challenger. There have been numerous threads on the Forum of members reworking the mechanism for better operations.
Jan
If you could link any helpful info on the 2018 run of the VL Challenger that would be appreciated. I was thinking traction tires were the culprit but I’d be interested to know what others have done
maybe it’s because they left the two engines in sync 😜
Access to this requires an OGR Forum Supporting Membership
