Guys, what is the appropriate grade percent to stay at when inclining your layout, my layout is in a 10x12 area am im wanting to take it to a second level without helix. This is for diesel engines. Also for those of you with multiple levels what distance do you put between levels?
Thanks, Del
Post a picture and I’ll see what kind of grade I can give it. [:o)]
All kidding aside, it depends on the amount of separation you have between levels.
On my last 10x18’ layout I had track go from staging around the room at a 2.9% grade up to a yard above the staging and back down again, same grade. There was only 7.5 inches of clearance from the staging to the wood bench above.
Here is a wide view of the layout under construction with a section removed:
Here you can see the subroadbed climbing the 2.9% grade on the left and descending on the right.
With two six axle SD45’s I could pull 25 car trains up the grade. Probably would need 3 diesels if they were four axle.
For a 10x12’ layout, I’m guessing you will need a steeper grade. I was very conservative on my vertical easements so might have been able to reduce the grade slightly, but you’ll probably be in excess of 3%, possibly 3.5%
Calculating the Slope Percentage
Convert the rise and run to the same units and then divide the rise by the run. Multiply this number by 100 and you have the percentage slope.
In otherwords, how much separation do you need from bottom level to top in inches = rise
How m
rio, did you use a autoreverser on your layout?
No. It was just a continuous loop, around the room twice. Start at the yard and then down grade into staging and then back up again to the yard. No reverse loops. In a small room, that would eat a lot of space depending on mimium radius. I wanted to maintain 32 inch minimum radius so it was around the walls.
I tried the math using 16" as vertical seperation, and using a 9’ x 11’ track bed, doing once around came out to .033.
At one time, I had thought about a second level, and the “nolix” method. I stuck with one level.
I don’t know what guys use as vertical seperation, 16" was just my first idea. To me, less than that just seems to cramped? vertically challanged?
I can understand avoiding a helix, [+o(]
Mike.
Mike:
11 feet by 9 feet once around will give less than 36 feet of run. a rise of 16 inches divided by 432 inches will give a grade of 3.7 percent. Effective grade around the surves will be higher.
I agree, but I don’t have a second level, that using i"x4" joists and half inch plywood for subroad bed, giving 12 inches of space, is about the lower limit for level spacing.
A loop around would be about 388” and with a 16” gain comes out to 4.12%
Mel
My Model Railroad
http://melvineperry.blogspot.com/
Bakersfield, California
I’m beginning to realize that aging is not for wimps.
OK, you started this… [(-D]…9’+9’+11’+11’=40’. I know there is some error in the curves at each corner. A 16" rise = 1.3’. 1.3’ divided by 40’ = .0325.
I rest my case. [:-,]
Which, no matter who’s calculator you use, is still too much for decent operation.
Maybe he could go 1 and 3rd times around? OR lower the vertical seperation.
I’m NOT a layout designer. I’ve never ever built a layout with a second level. I came close on my last “PWC”, but I only climed enough to give decent clearances for one track over the other.
Mike.
Im at 3% on mine at this point, but im thinking at stopping at 9 inch seperation between levels due to the room/layout size. It would be great to have tons of room!
The approx 8" clearance was cramped but I wanted to keep grade/ slope from getting steep.
I’m surprised you got only 3.3% grade with twice my vertical elevation and a smaller room.
rio, yea right now im at 6" vertical at 195" in track length and thats close to about half way around my room. I just dont see going past 9" vertical. Now, its going to be a bit before I continue with it as i am working on scenery and such on the main level.
I am in HO scale. I would like a 3" seperation between levels on the crossover.
On my planned layout, this will require a very steep 5.5% grade. I built a mock up and found out a Walther Proto 2000 Fairbanks Morse H10-44 will pull three cars and a caboose up that grade. A Walthers Tranline FA will pull five cars and a caboose.
That will work for my plans for this line.
-Kevin
what about a “tiered” layout
I think that’s what he must be looking at, or asking about. Good call Greg.
“my layout is in a 10x12 area am im wanting to take it to a second level without helix.”
He’s talking only 9" of seperation, I missunderstood the whole thread to be about a two level layout, without using a helix, you know, like a second deck type thing.
I don’t think the OP is talking about that. [%-)]
Mike.
I do prefer tiered layouts to multi-level layouts.
Single level layouts, even with action separated between tiers, just are more pleasing to look at, easier to maintain, and simple to light.
-Kevin
Yes, I think Greg nailed it. A tiered layout is what I am doing here and if I ever get the rockwork done it should look like that.
Check out those curtains.[:o)]
This is a never ending thread, each of us have a point of view about grade, going from soft one to good ones like a 3% or more
But I thing we must speak about the best to use even if place restrict for sure the use of soft grade
The best to use is like general prototype a maximum medium grade of 1.5% to 1.8% as a maximum, using large curves if necessary with easement.
This is theory and only a few of us can use these grades because of our design wishes and place available.
So, I’m now in the way to design a new plan for the extension of my N scale layout.
Because of the two basic rules of space availabe and my wishes these are the grade I will use and the curves radius; these are defined by many threads I have read and seems the grades which give the less troubles for running models trains.
You must also consider which power you will use on the layout, steam or diesel.
Model diesel are for the most more powerful than steam models.
You need to know the lenght of the train you ask to use on the layout.
My N scale design plan use steam power, train lenght of 20 cars plus a caboose
My minimum radius is 18" in N scale
Grade is a maximum 2.5% but I use for the most a 2% grade and try to use curves of 19" in the grade and the curves are balanced to a maximum 1.7% grade; they will have easement.
This mean a six feet lenght to overpass another track, a bit more if curves are included in the grade.
But you can also increase the feeling of height in a design plan like me
My design plan is a long line, which comes from the hills of virginia and come down to a river line.
The two lines double each other on the plan but in reality they are a long run from a point to an another point; they meet to a big town.
So from this town the hills line go up using the around 2.5% grade but the river line go slowly down following the river bed with a
Come on Marc ! It’s still on page 1. [(-D] It just got started.
Nice tutorial on how your layout is, for whatever the OP can glean from it.
Mike.
one distinction i see between a multi-level and multi-tiered is the width of the bench.
a multi-tiered layout requires some width, not only for track but scenery as well. multi-level layouts can be very narrow (< ft) (see John Peluso’s Frisco) perhaps as little as 4" .
so if you can make the benchwork narrow enough to have another pennisula that can lengthen the track enough to get to the next level, a multi-level layout could be much longer. of course this may require somewhat narrow aisles, so there are practical limits.
perhaps the limiting factor is the track radii at the end of pennisula’s across from those very narrow sections of bench.
This is the situation I was faced with. In order to get the longest possible run I was able to fit a peninsula. That limited bench work to fairly narrow 18" and narrow pinch points. But I wanted to limit min radius to 32". Don’t have an aircraft hanger.