I set up a test track at a 4.5% grade to see which of my locos could make it up the hill with an 8 car passenger train using 60’ shorties.
Russian Decapods (Bachmann Spectrum) slipped as expected but work fine double headed.
The BLI Mikes did just fine without a whimper. (A surprise)
Anything larger like my BLI Cab Forword and Athearn Big Boy and Challenger all acted like the grade wasn’t even there.
I’ve borrowed a Bachmann 2-6-6-2 (2007 model-is this much different from the new H4 version?) and a Bachmann Spectrum Mt. to try later today as they are locos I’d be interested in testing.
I also have a Paragon 2 J1e that I’ll test at the same time.
I understand the “need” to keep grades to a minimum with 2.5% being the usual desired maximum and maybe 3 to 3.5% but this might be good news for folks who, due to limited room size might be better off than they think without having to double head or use pushers on everything.
My test section is about 30" long (about the length of the train) before it runs down to lesser more reasonable grades.
I have to say that I was really really surprised. All (I believe) of these locos have traction tires as they are sound equipped and light plastic construction. I’m going to try some Bullfrog Snot on the Russian to see if it will then go up the 4.5% with ease or not. I have to round up an experienced buddy lst to do this so it might be a week or so.
Wondered if anyone has found other steam locos that’ll climb such a steep grade without complaint or worrisome motor stressing.
I have a close to 4.75% grade on my layout and I can get my diesel engines up it just fine. I have on my layout a Kato SD40-2 Mid that climbs it no prob with 7 or 8 50’ cars, a BLI SD40-2 that can handle the same. My smaller engines are not usually tasked with that much of a load but they pull 4 or 5 50’ ers with no issues either. Those engines are Proto 1000 GP38-2, Atlas MP15DC, and a Kato GP35. There is a curve at the bottom of my layout just as the elevation starts and a curve at the top just after it flattens out. No issues and only slight slowing. The Cody’s Office breakaway test tho causes most of my freight cars to flip over at the bottom where the curve is.
4-5 cars (or even 7-8 cars) is not the typical train length for most folks. (and I’m sure that Tomikawa TT will weigh in here any minute with his 4-car shorty trains with a tiny loco at each end.)
There are always extremes that can be made to work in limited cases. But because most builders don’t do a good job with grade transitions and maintaining constant grades, even a nominal 3% grade may not be practical.
In designing over 100 layouts for a wide variety of spaces, concepts, scales, and arrangements (multi-deck, etc.), I’ve never been “forced” to go above a nominal 3.5% grade (and usually a lot less) to create a layout that satisfied the client’s wishes. The only exceptions might be short ramps to a coal trestle or ore dock intended for one car or a few at a time.
Jim’s is a unique situation, in that he chose a published plan with inherent identifiable serious problems and (through a lot of extra work and care) appears to have made it work.
But nobody designing their own layout is forced to go with a grade so steep as to be likely unreliable. That’s a choice. A poor choice, I would say, because I’ve seen multiple layouts torn down or abandoned because grades of 4% and higher proved unreliable and problematic.
And every one of those situations was avoidable with more thoughtful planning.
“Best”? If one is modeling typical mainline railroading in HO in the transition era to the modern era (as many are), that may be too short to be believable when it comes to freight trains. Note that I was responding to the post about handling 4 to 8 fifty-foot freight cars on a steep grade.
I have operated on and visited dozens of layouts and most have longer typical freight trains than that. For a small layout, yes, shorter trains are the norm.
There was a piece in Model Railroader quite a few years ago that talked about grades and the layout. It was a point of view as to why modelers used such shallow grades that allowed trains to go up and down without the need for a throttle change. Whereas on a real railroad, the engineer must add power when going up, and reduce power when going down. It was suggested that if our grades were steeper, that us modelers would be forced to run our models as the prototype. Adding power when going up and reducing it when going down, and, adding helpers because we HAD TO and not just because we wanted to for prototype operations sake.
This article had a great effect on how I built my model railroads after that. I use steeper grades just to get the operational feel for actually running trains as the prototype would. Helpers became necessary to conquer grades and not just for looks.
My present layout uses a 5% grade to get up to the upper deck witch is in the mountains. Helpers are required for trains over five cars long going up this grade. If you forget to get a helper, you get stuck and a helper has to come up so you can finish the run.
Also, Bull-Frog Snot does work. For steam locos, it is advised that you put it on the driver set that is gear driven by the motor, although it will work on other drivers powered by the side rods. The drawback is that you have to be careful when wheel cleaning.
My main lines have a 1% grade with 33 / 36" curves. When pulling 25 weighted cars (single Hudson) the trains slow down slightly but noticably going up grade and speed up going down grade.
It does add some realism. The effect is more pronounced with longer trains but 25 looks the best on my medium sized layout. Then again a single American slows pulling five freight cars up the mountain line.
I going to have agree with Byron on grades, at some point operations becomes “work” instead of running trains. While requiring helpers to get over a grade would be interesting for a time, at some point (this is me and me only) it would become cumbersome to require helper(s) to clear a grade (unless of course it was a branch line that didn’t require you to go “over the mountain” if you didn’t want to) Sometimes I just want to mix a drink, kick back and watch a train go through the scenery.
Then there is the fact that unlike the protoype, our models don’t act/react the same way a real train does on a heavy grade, we don’t have brakes on cars, an 8 oz boxcar just doesn’t look and act the same as a real, loaded boxcar. Some model locos will jerk back and forth while descending a grade. This can be corrected by shimming, but to a point.
To me, the secret is to make your MRR appear to be climbing a grade, when in reality there is no or very little grade at all. This is done with theatrics (for lack of a better word) one example, have the scenery suddenly start to drop away from the right of way, gradually getting larger and larger as the valley increases in size, and using tall and taller trestles as you go, all the while the actual roadbed is relatively flat.
Bullfrog snot, I have it, used it, and not a huge fan, I ended up removing it from my locos. Admittedly I used it on my small locos, (the ones that usually need help) and electrical continuity was affected to the point where it was detrimental.
Don['t be surprised if that older Spectrum USRA 2-6-6-2 acts as if the 4.5% grade isn’t even there. I’ve got one, and though my maximum grade is a short section of 2.4%, that little lokie acts as if it were on the ‘flats’ with a train when it hits it. That’s one surprisingly powerful little articulated. I’ll be interested to see your report after you try it out on the 4.5%.
Very good point. 30 years ago I had a Ntrak module that people looking at swore had a steep grade on the two main tracks (the branch was hidden in a tunnel) This was an illusion due to the slope of the terrain and the grade on visible diorama track.
I do , however, believe that is sometimes advantages to exagerate grades on a model railroad for visual impact, as long as the grades don’t interfere with operation. For instance, depending on the model terrain, a 1% grade might not look like a grade where 2% would.
One thing to keep in mind for you steamer fans is that the simple pin and hole arrangement on all but the fanciest of steamers’ main and siderods will get a lot more wear dragging heavy trailing tonnages up 3% and steeper grades. These are not precision devices outboard of the main drive mechanism inside the frame and boiler. Yet, as you force the motor and gears to turn the main driver, it, in turn, by virtue of its mechanical link via the siderods, forces the other drivers to turn. While you may enjoy lots of ooomph from that can motor and the engine weight’s resultant adhesion fractor, you are still lifting a train to altitude. What gets all the wheels turning are those little pins rubbing that much harder on the inside perimeters of the tiny holes in the soft metal rods…or plastic rods in some cases (Genesis FEF and Rivarossi Allegheny being two examples, both engines people like to run fast and/or heavy laden.
I have done the 3% grade, and not by choice…or I should say by skill. My current layout was meant to be 2.7%, but I goofed and it was 3% with generous curves thrown in…thank goodness. The next layout, now underway, will have nothing steeper than 2.0%.
I have a very large home layout my two mains are about 750 feet each with a 2% grade and 30 - 32 inch radius, I usually run 2 Kato’s with about 65 cars, 100 cars with 3 loco’sand all cars are NMRA standard weight. It has taken about 2 years to work all the bugs out and now the trains run like clock work, my boy and I are fairly good at running 2 trains each with 2 passing sidings that are 60 feet in length. It seems the only ones that give me trouble are the roadrailers about 75 are all I can run with out any derailments. We have tested this problem quite a few times also and this is our results. Most Atlas Lifelike and Proto 2000 loco’s also do about the same. Interesting to read about other modelers yeas and nays, Jim.
I have a number of 3% grades but my curves are all 18" which only causes a problem with my Bachmann 4-4-0, even when pulling only 4-5 40’ cars. The Shays, Climaxes have no problem but I’m generally only pulling 4-6 log cars, or maybe 8 disconnects, sometimes with logs and other times empty.
I’ve been active in model railroading for more years than I care to think about and can never remember testing a 4.5% grade—I should give it a try someday to see what it is like. Although back in the day, my brother and I did some crazy things on our layouts and maybe I have tested this steep of grade and have just forgotten. Come to think of it, we probably did. [:-^]
My Yuba River Sub is a relatively large garage layout with relatively generous (34-36") curves and long, but non-constant grades of 2.0% with several short sections of 2.4%. I run 98% steam, but none of my locos have traction tires. Most of them are heavier brass imports, though I do have some newer plastic steam. I generally run trains of between 25-30 freight cars and 8-10 passenger cars. Although I do a lot of ‘double-heading’ with steam locomotives, it’s mainly for show and operational possibilities–cutting in and dropping helpers-- rather than locomotives that can’t make the grades on their own with a full train.
But I do agree with Sheldon that constant running up too steep a grade can be pretty rough on the soft metal or plastic rods of many of the current steamers. I think 2.4% is the maximum I’d want to run a mainline grade, simply for the sake of the equipment.
Like you my Bachmann steam locos spin; however, after loosing two Climaxes due to stripped gears I’m pretty careful with my Shay and try not to over stress it. Mine will pull 2-3 loaded log cars up a 3% with 18" curves without any problem and I’ve never tested its capability beyond that.
Wayne, I have a Shay but haven’t tried it yet with a train. I’m not positive but I’m pretty sure that all of my Bachmann’s have no traction tires. It’s my guess that they’re all going to spin given the slightest provocation. I have some BLI stuff and they don’t spin without a lot of provocation, if at all. I hate traction tire maintenance and replacement procedures so I’m going to give Bullfrog Snot a try as soon as I can talk my buddy into it.
Byron is absolutely correct about my having chosen a published plan with some definite limitations and/or challenges. I was a complete newbie (at least at building a layout for Ops Sessions) and he was kind enough to point out those limitations.
I chose to go ahead anyway as it was the lst layout plan that would fit into my room and give me almost everything I was looking for. I couldn’t afford to hire a planner/designer although if you have enough it can definitely be false economy NOT to spend the money to hire someone.
So he is correct in saying that no one is forced to have a 4.5% stretch that it is done out of inexperience, compromise or a case of “too late” to tear everything down now.
I actually thought I’d beat the high grade after Byron pointed it out. (The original plan was something along the lines of 6-7%!!)/ After Byron’s comments I started this grade many feet away and got it down to 2.7% to 2.9%. What I was still too green to realize at the time, that entire grade would be on a 28" radius curve and the additional friction would likely raise it to somewhere in the 4% range, maybe as high as 4.5%. So…I’ve decided to leave the 4.5% I have near the top of the grade on a straightaway and not on that long curve that’s going to be hard to reach anything during a session.
Here are the test results from today:
Yes, the 2-6-6-2 did climb the grade without complaint hauling a nine passenger car train. Actually thi
Wayne, I have a Shay but haven’t tried it yet with a train. I’m not positive but I’m pretty sure that all of my Bachmann’s have no traction tires. It’s my guess that they’re all going to spin given the slightest provocation. I have some BLI stuff and they don’t spin without a lot of provocation, if at all. I hate traction tire maintenance and replacement procedures so I’m going to give Bullfrog Snot a try as soon as I can talk my buddy into it.
Byron is absolutely correct about my having chosen a published plan with some definite limitations and/or challenges. I was a complete newbie (at least at building a layout for Ops Sessions) and he was kind enough to point out those limitations.
I chose to go ahead anyway as it was the lst layout plan that would fit into my room and give me almost everything I was looking for. I couldn’t afford to hire a planner/designer although if you have enough it can definitely be false economy NOT to spend the money to hire someone.
So he is correct in saying that no one is forced to have a 4.5% stretch that it is done out of inexperience, compromise or a case of “too late” to tear everything down now.
I actually thought I’d beat the high grade after Byron pointed it out. (The original plan was something along the lines of 6-7%!!)/ After Byron’s comments I started this grade many feet away and got it down to 2.7% to 2.9%. What I was still too green to realize at the time, that entire grade would be on a 28" radius curve and the additional friction would likely raise it to somewhere in the 4% range, maybe as high as 4.5%. So…I’ve decided to leave the 4.5% I have near the top of the grade on a straightaway and not on that long curve that’s going to be hard to reach anything during a session.
Here are the test results from today:
Yes, the 2-6-6-2 did climb the grade without complaint hauling a nine passenger car train. Actually thi