Please excuse the obviousness of this question-- I’m getting an unbelievable number from a tool I should be able to trust and I just want to hear it from someone else:
I have a separation of 9 inches (starting elevation 41 inches, ending elevation 50 inches) over a 263 inch run.
What is the grade (in percentage)?
Thanks,
John
3.4%
As ClinchValleySD40 said, the answer is 3.4%. You divide the rise by the length of the run to get the percentage. I have a feeling you might have done it the other way around.
Andre
Thanks guys-- that’s what I get too. However the tool I’m using is trying to tell me 1.21%
John
What kind of tool is it to come up with such an hilarious number?
Andre
Buy a whetstone, looks like your tool needs to be sharpened.
For a quick rough estimation, just remember that however many inches you go up in 100" will equal the grade percentage…so a 3" rise in 100" is a 3% grade. In your case, a 9" rise in 300" would be 3%, so since you’re using less than 300" it has to be more than 3%.
Agreed-- that’s exactly what was causing my confusion-- I was getting one result in the program I was using, and another one as I measured the wall directly myself.
I finally figured it out though-- there was an extra segment of track that had gotten into the (CAD) plan that was sticking straight-up and thus darn-near impossible to see. When I added up the individual segments I got one number, but when I selected them all as a bunch, the extra segment got included and thus what it computed was correct, I just couldn’t figure out how it was coming up with the number.
So the issue is resolved.
John
What kind of tool are you using? Are you taking a reading at over like a 3" distance? If so, you might have 1.2% at that point, meaning for an average of 3.4% you will have areas over 3.4%. Rising grades should have at the beginning and end a kind of vertical easement where there is transition from flat to hill and back to flat again.
Richard
Ah, yes. The wonders of modern electronics when what you see ISN’T what you get.
Just for curiosity’s sake, did you allow for grade-to-level transitions at both ends? With a grade in the 3.5% range, you really need to allow some length to keep from stubbing coupler pins at the bottom or getting break-in-twos at the top [oops].
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - with grades up to 4%)
I dunno, John. While my calculations also come up with 3.4%, I’d go with what the tool says - not so steep, so your locos should be able to handle more cars and the grade will look better, too. [(-D][(-D]
Wayne
Yes, it is not my goal to have such a steep incline-- preferably I’d like to keep at 2.0% or less. It shouldn’t be a problem though, I’ll simply start the climb a little sooner and continue it a bit longer, and I have the space. It wasn’t until I tried to match up the computer with the reality, ruler-in-hand, that I noticed the issue. The bottom transition curve won’t be an issue. Hopefully neither will the top. I’m going to have to go do some more thinking and measuring.
John