Just wondering-----Say, on a logging layout, a long upward 2 or 3 percent grade, maybe with switchbacks, reaches the top of the grade, now on return to the bottom, not using the same track, could the track down be enclosed in a tunnel behind, BUT, could you increase the steepness of the grade downward a lot to aid in saving time and space??? who cares if the train is going a bit faster, it’s out of sight and then emerges back down below, time and space saved , no??? or am I dreaming?? (this is highly speculative)
You could, but then if you ever wanted a train to go in the opposite direction (or do you only send trains westward and never run a train eastbound?) it would face a steeper grade on hidden track. Plus will you be able to control it so it doesn’t come squirting out of the tunnel at warp 9?
Dave H.
setup a test track to see if it works. I’ve never heard of this but that doesn’t mean that it is not possible.
Anyone can climb a hill or mountain, but a dummy will not survive the descent. What goes up must come down.
A rule I went by when I was trained by rote to run mountians in trucks.
With your trains will your loco hold back the train all the way to the bottom at a safe speed? It will serve no purpose to have a deliberately steep downgrade to have your models run off the corner and crash down to the floor below.
You will want to have your train with the engine on the “Downhill” end of your train. For that to work properly, you need to learn how steep a grade your engine can hold a train at zero speed. If it slides then the train is too heavy or the grade too steep or a combination of the two.
It might be easier to have a track that was on an elevator of sorts that could be lowered down to restart the upward run OR you could put reverse loops at the top and bottom for continuous running. 18" radius in HO would be broad for a logging railroad.
You may be the first and only model railroader I have encountered who wanted his trains’ run to be quicker.
It’s actually not unkown for the protoype to have steeper lines in one direction when multiple tracks are involved. Now, probably only a model rai;roader would have the specific set-up youB’re describing. But with some careful planning, if it serves your operational purposes. why not?
On the South Shasta Lines, the reverse loop at the uphill end was about 2% against normal traffic, but dropped back down at 4%. Toward the end of the show, Mr Humann would route a train ‘the wrong way,’ mainly to give his articulated a decent workout.
My recently dismantled layout had a short, straight 8% downhill grade. Some of my locos, especially the lighter steamers, didn’t like it at all! That’s why my present layout will have nothing over 4%, and less than that in hidden track.
Chuck (modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
That’s exactly what I thought.[%-)] Most folks would give anything to get their trains to take longer.
Loathar: My sentiments exactly, why have a train running very slowly where it cannot be seen hidden under or behind the layout, better to have it emerge quickly so it can be seen again at a normal speed, also I have never encountered a model railroader who enjoys trains running at far below any natural speeds, seeing a train crawling along at a very slow pace would indicate the train may be in some distress. This also flies in the face of some crack passenger trains and hi-ball freights.
Not a bad idea…But do a mock-up and test your theory first. Especially (lessons I’ve learned the hard way)with grades at and over 4%
I have to agree with Chuck regarding smaller engines… Little steamers (the size you would normally see on a logging line) are a bit too light in weight to hold back many cars. As already stated…You got to have brakes!
Could you do a helix, say an 18" (or even smaller, depending upon equipment size and length of the train), at 4% inside your logging mountain scene? It could even “peek” out in a spot or two, creating a mini-scene.
Then why is it that every time I get stopped for a train it has 6 engines 50 cars and is going 12 mph?[;)]
I will admit that for some larger club layout I like running at 60 or 70 mph. For my layout I keep it below 40. It makes the layout feel bigger. Also because it is a branchline switching layout, not a highspeed racetrack style mainline.
There was “a woman’s guide to having a model railroad fan husband” joke article on the net that I saw some time back. It said in there that you can tell how much your husband payed for a locomotive by the speed he runs it at. The slower he runs it, the more expensive it is. I think that there is alot of truth to that.
Why would one want to limit a logging layout to a 2-3% grade? That sounds like a class-one main line. Even class 1 railroads have branches with grades steeper than that. The D&RGW Monarch Branch in use until 1982 had 4.5%. Prototype logging railroad could regularly have grades of 6%, often 8%, and even “winch” sections of 10-12%.
Here is just one example of what one can find when searching for % grade of logging RRs.
http://www.msrlha.org/track-guide.html
I must be the only one here who enjoys running 20-30 scale mph then. Never really have the room for a true highball. Having the T1 Duplex at the dollar mark would be something.
Great responses, with thanks, so now I think I will forego all those switchbacks, tunnels, small grades and just stick in one big 8 or 9 percent grade and be done with all that other stuff, and have that old steamer ripping up the hills at speed( more speed- more trips- more logs- more money) Some of the replies mentioning slow speeds answered a question I’ve wondered about for a long time, that at train shows ALL the trains seem as if they are in slow motion, no wonder I heard children comment “won’t they go any faster?” now I know the answer. Again, this concept of trains going slow is a new revelation to me.
Yeah, I am no expert on the geared steam locomotives used for logging railroads, but I thought their top speed was something like 18 mph, with 10-12 mph being most common.
Yes, logging lines typically ran at slow speeds. Geared engines had a top speed of 10-15 MPH. Logging lines running more traditional steamers (side-rod based engines) still kept speeds down, mostly because of lightweight rail, sharp curves, and the rough, often unballasted, temporary trackwork. That was why geared engines were so popular, they were easier and much more forgiving on the track.
Brad
If you run DCC and use decoders with Back EMF you wouldn’t have to worry about the trains racing downgrade.
Keep in mind on a 8-9% grade you might only be able to pull one car at a time up and back.
Actually, even with back emf, you have the same traction and control issues going down as you do going up. I’ve learned this through personal experience with Lionel and other 3 rail O.
If your engine is capable of free-wheeling (many O locomotives are) - drive wheels turn while being pushed but no power apply - there comes a point where the load behind the engine on a downhill grade will cause it to free-wheel. When that happens, your downhill grade has just turned into a gravity-seeking, guided train missle launcher. [:(] You have no control; throttle inputs are meaningless; gravity has taken over.
The single thread worms used in HO gearboxes are seldom capable of free-wheeling, although the new NWSL ball bearing gear boxes come very close, and might occasionally get there. But a few of my metal Ulrich Overton passenger cars behind an engine on a 9% grade might just exceed the sliding friction of a small engine with nickel plated drivers on polished nickel silver rail.
Also, the control authority of the back emf (likely quite small) may limit how much reverse drive force could be applied. But even if the back emf did have actual reverse authority, you can spin drivers just as easily in reverse as in forward. Actually easier, because you already have forward momentum to overcome.
Until our models can be fitted with operating brakes on the cars, steep downhills need testing as much as steep upgrades. That is, unless you actually enjoy experimenting with your trains as uncontrolled, gravity seeking devices. [:O]
yours in defying gravity
Fred W