I am considering this for my outdoor layout, its R1, & has 5% grades.
I should point out that some of my favorite RRs are the Uintah RR, the Gilpin Tramway, the Mt Tam RR, and the Darjeeling Himalayan RR. All renown for their insane trackage and grades. Sorry, but that’s what I really like and have always wanted to model.
Now rolling stock will be small lokies hauling smaller ore cars, I’ve been testing my stuff on a 7%+ grades and its been A-OK so far.
Max. vertical distance should be about 20 inches total. Stepping stones will be placed throughout during construction and yes that is a fence behind. I should have easy access to most all of the layout.
The way I envisioned operation, Heckaweh is the mining center, Borracho the freight center. I want to keep the trains short and light. At Heckaweh the ore trains (Loco & 3 or 4 empty ore cars) would be assembled at Heckaweh, run up the mountain, and then switched onto the siding and leave the string there at the mine. If I had to pick up a string of loads while delivering empties, the “brakes” (an icepick jambed in the ground behind the cars) would be set, the engine uncoupled, then when the loco has picked up the “loaded” cars, they would couple on the empties on the end then drag then up and switch them onto the mine siding for loading. Then the train would either back down the hill to Heckaweh to drop off cars on one of the sidings, or continue over the mountain to drop off the car at the mills near Borracho. The ‘loaded’ cars dropped off at Heckaweh would the be moved either back over the mountain or thru the tunnel to the Borracho mills. Freight trains (larger loco & 2 or 3 freight cars)would be 'assemble
Don’t do it mate, i have 4 % with an R2 curve and several R3 curves and i wish i didn’t have them, many problems as time goes on and you wish to different things.
Even having these types of grades is a good argument for MTS, ie maximum voltage improves totque and the MTS memory function will stop runaways.
You will find the amount of waggons you can pull will be reduced and the effect of dirty tracks will be amplified out of all proportion. As well you will have your trains tend to run backward down hill if you stop and take the power off.
Would you like to send me your details and i will see what i can do to offer alternatives.
Knowing that you fully understand the draw backs of high slopes mixed with tight curves, and are willing to play within that very limited rule set. Plus the fact that you have established “test track” to check the functionality of your equipment, however, you did not state if you had included any R1 trackage in this “test slope”. If you did not include the cure in your test, then I would ask you to go back and test it again.
With your extensive Loco bashing skills, I’m sure you could easily “bash in” a “cog/rack” gearing system. Much as I plan on doing for the streetcar/tram line to the top of Rosebud Falls. When I did my “slope testing” I included a 6.5 ft diameter curve in my test track, as that was the predetermined curve leading into the grade.
Why apologize, if this is truly what you want to do then go for it.
Think I’ve been hearing the same little voice! [:P] [:P] [:P] [:P]
Almost forgot - The plan - looks like a lot of fun packed into such a small place!
I know Ian is going to lambaste me for tell you to go for it, but I believe you have enough experience in this hobby to fully understand the limitations you are imposing upon yourself. Go have fun!!! Want lots of pics!!!
Upon closer examination of the plans, I would ask one question. Is that the rusting carcass of an old engine I see down in the distance at Salt Canyon near Bridge 1?
I figure given the short consists i plan to use I should be OK, but next up will be full sized mock ups of a couple of the worst spots and then experiments with various stock, we’ll see how that goes. I’m not going to rush this layout.[;)]
Vic;
Nice to see your plan, but you got me in trouble. I printed it and was looking at during the commercials on the tube last night. The wife wanted a look, and then asked “Why doesn’t ours go all twisty and turney like this?” To which I replied “It could but that would mean filling in the Koi Pond!” She responded “NO you don’t, but maybe we could find some ground over on the other side of the patio.” THANKS A WHOLE BUNCH, VIC! As it is it will take me another 3~4 years to finish the current plan, and now she wants to add more! Again THANKS A WHOLE [censored] BUNCH!
[banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead][banghead]
But she did say she would look into getting a “cog”/rack engine in the near future after I told her that LGB had discontinued production of their rack drive engine. [swg][swg][swg]
I am not going to lambaste you because i don’t fully know what it means but i have a fair idea though.
I still would advise against it, not just the grades and the curves but to have a dozen sets of points in that area would be a nightmare, really good expensive points will alleviate the situation some though but it will still be trouble.
Vic you Americans have invented a type of layout called a double or folded dog bone and it is the best you can have for a small layout; i have one in my area 3 and it has its problems but basically it works well.
If you are interested i will get a set of pics posted for you top ahve a look at. 60 m track in 21 m2 and it looks good. I can also advise of the page in the bible where it is drawn up.
Thanks for the offer Ian, but my earliest studies for this area were of folded dogbones, I did about 5 or 6 different dogbone variations but I never quite liked the way they worked out inside the given area. No guarentees on this plan either. Well see how the mock ups work, I’m going to test all of my stock on it, that should prove interesting[;)]
Like I said, that plan is going to be a challenge to build. Keeping the rails level with all those curving slopes. But after construction and tweaking it a bit, it should be tons of fun to run.
Now get out there (after the rain passes) and start playing in the mud!
