In trying to work a logging branch into my new trackplan, I’m up against the same question I had on the last layout - whether or not to try switchbacks on the incline. On the previous one I opted for a tightly-curving incline with a lone switchback at the very top of the grade. I had a wider swath of benchwork to work with with no trackwork below to design around. IMHO - switchbacks look very cool, but I want to do it right if I choose that option. Anybody have any caveats, warnings or success stories to pass along? Aside from “include long enough tail tracks” I don’t know much about the “how-to’s” of building them as a means to get some elevation along a shorter run.
Did you enjoy the operation of the lone switchback at the top of the grade? Which is more appealing to you - going back and forth through a set of switchbacks, or watching the train climbing a steep curve?
In most cases, the prototype would have preferred the tight curving incline to a set of switchbacks - in general, cheaper and quicker to operate. Switchbacks, especially multiples, are slow and tedious to operate on the prototype - and to some modelers, too. With multiple switchbacks, you have to repeat the same moves every time going from A to B or B to A. Some find this boring, others don’t. My rule of thumb is more than 1 pair of switchbacks in a branch is too many.
As for constructing them, allowing room for the vertical transition curve to the grade before or after you get to the turnout is critical. Don’t let the vertical curve get into the turnout area. Even though this vertical curve pumps the final grade higher, it is essential for reliable operations. Tail track length is usually the driver on train length for our models, not the grade percent.
Switchbacks and their grades put a premium on good couplers and tight tolerances on coupler installations. Even with reasonable vertical curve transitions, couplers are likely
The globe has switchbacks spread far and wide because they made/make the most sense for the conditions. When curves are restrictive and grades too, what does a locating engineer do to ensure trains can travel effectively, efficiently, and safely to bring revenue materials to delivery points? In the hills, it often means switchbacks. Laying a switchback and tail may be cheaper than a viaduct by a half-million dollars in 1908, and that’s a chunk of change.
I lived in Peru, SA, for nine years as a youth. There was a switchback just above our house where the Central Railway had to gain a lot of height on a mountain promontory. The line horse-shoed up river from our house a few hundred meters and then went past us on a 2.2% slope. A mile later it went past us again, another 200 feet higher, but going in the opposite direction…because of a switchback at the far end.
I like the idea of switchbacks, but they have to fit, both on the layout and for a reasonable purpose.
I have one on my current layout…access to Seneca Coal.
-Crandell
To all - thanx for the feedback. I definitely want to work in switchback(s) if I can engineer them okay. I’m assuming that steeper grades make for longer vertical transitions. Both of my options have the logging spur branching from the mainline that is at elevation already - so any gain after that is for visual impact.
Looking at two aspects, model and prototype:
-
Model. I have a pair of staging yards where every train in or out has to make a switchback move - single in, double (and back about 1/2 scale mile over a hidden summit and 400+ degrees of 24 inch radius curve) out. Trains are up to 20 cars, rather more than typical ‘logger’ length. Defiitely puts a premium on careful tracklaying, but it was the only way to get staging for nine trains (and a cassette dock) to connect to two hidden tracks on (opposed) 2% grades.
-
Prototypes: US - Cass Scenic Railroad (WV) climbs across Cheat Mountain on a long double switchback. The last Rio Grande narrow gauge branch (Monarch, CO) had a two-tail switchback, finally standard gauged. The tail tracks were upgrade to the bumpers, at about half the grade of the connector. The line hauled minerals (downgrade) not logs. The Crown King branch (ex-ATSF?) south of Mayer (AZ) switched back at least five times [Edit - 10 times] to climb the mountain. The present-day road is (mostly) built on the old roadbed, and you can see the grade of the old tail tracks at the streetcorner turnbacks.
-
Prototypes: Japan - the Kiso Forest Railway built branches (mostly on low trestlework rather than earthworks) to wherever the woods crews were cutting. The last had a couple of switchbacks on a ?% (steep!) grade, and still looked as if they used a sidewinder for a straightedge. Japan National Railways, Chu-O- Hon-Sen, had one station where every train that stopped had to pull a double switchback maneuver - across a double slip switch. Through trains just blasted across the double slip without stopping. Because the DSS was one ‘corner’ of a double crossover it was theoretically possible for two local passenger consists and
I agree with everything Frisco says about switchbacks except that they are boring. I do not use them on my looging line now because they are not prototypical to the area I am modeling. I use to have a freelanced 4X8 30 inch gauge logging line and all the spurs off of my woods line were part of a series of switch backs. I think the back and fourth and passing moves were at least as interesting as a switching yard. But that is just my opinion. Peter Smith, Memphis 
Since I use Woodland Scenics foam inclines instead of cookie-cutter or riser methods, probably what I’ll do is prototype it first. Easy to see how things work out & make changes if necessary. Likely I’ll have a pair of switchbacks at most so it’s not gonna be boring or repetitive.
I agree with Fred. In addition …
Switchbacks take a lot of length because the need for the two tails as well as space between where elevation change takes place. My planned switcbacks for six-foot-long branchline trains require about 20 feet of length.
It was good engineering practice to have slight uphill grades (perhaps 1/4 of the maximum grade) on the switchback tails. This made stopping when going down the switchbacks safer, as well as for trains gaining speed when on the uphill journey. This is a feature you might want to include.
You’ll have work cut out for you getting nice vertical curves using the WS stuff. I strongly encourage using “cookie-cut” plywood.
Mark
My personal preference. I don’t mind switchbacks, but I won’t design them into a layout unless I need them. If there is a better way to gain elevation, I’ll use it.
That said, my current layout has a logging branch line with one switchback.
These switcbacks-on-trestles were to a hydro-electric plant in northeastern California (North Fork of the Feather River), located where the line connected to the Western Pacific main track.
Mark
The narrow-gauge tourist line in Felton, CA once had a loop to gain elevation, but when the large wooden trestle burned down, the loop was replaced with a couple of switchbacks as this wouldn’t require the more expensive alternative of rebuilding the trestle.
Mark
Since posting the above, I went back to the the section on switchbacks in Clement C. Williams’s The Design of Railroad Location (1917, 1924) He cites an extreme example of switcbacks used on the Crown King extension of the Santa Fe. The 18-mile line rose 2436 feet and had ten switchbacks. The switchback tails were 300 feet long. The tails had a grade of 2.0% while the maximum grade between switches was 3.5%. So, my previous statement seems a bit off.
Mark
That’s the route I mentioned last in my ‘examples’ post. The present-day road bypasses most of the switchbacks, and has a couple of abrupt deviations where the railroad had bridges and a short tunnel (collapsed, IIRC.) It still has four hairpins. A quick Mapquest search is very revealing - it’s mostly desert country, and the old roadbed is still clearly visible even though the tracks have been gone for three quarters of a century.
It would make a great prototype for a route climbing up the stairwell from the basement to the first floor…
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964)
Another thing to mention about mark’s mentioning of roaring camp’s switchback is the grades. The switchback he mentioned is one of the steepest grades found on a conventional railway (without the aid of rack and rail or a cable or something) with the grade being rated at 18%
Are you sure that the Roaring Camp’s max grade is 18%? That sounds high even for a shay… all I could find on the internet was a reference to an 8.5% grade at that railroad. That is still very steep, I have been on the Cass where the max grade - depending on which source you believe - is between 9% to 11%. It is very impressive seeing a shay handle a train on those grades through the switchbacks.
All the tips on the switchbacks have been right on target, with the considerations of vertical easements, tail track length and tail track grade. I enjoy operating a switchback where it is appropriate to the railroad and terrain. I even have one on my 12" gauge railroad:
- James
A few years ago my wife gave me a gift of “Engineer for a day” at Roaring camp. Basically it allowed ne to ride in the cab with the crew of the Narrow Gauge Heisler all day. They would let me apply the brakes in a couple of sections and blow the whistle. It was great fun.
I did come away with a couple of impressions from the experience. One was that running a train carries a big responsibility with around a hundred passengers behind you in the coaches. When we ran that switchback, the loco runs straight into the hill… looks like you are going to crash before the engineer applies the brakes at just the right moment…Hardcore…
The second thing was that the owner of Roaring Camp had the narrow gauge line put in specifically to run a tourist railroad. It is not a true prototype railroad. The crew complained that he had wanted a treacherous line with steep grades and sharp curves to attract tourists (How this was supposed to attract tourists was never fully explained to me). The line was made to these specs. The crew pointed out that the grades and curves were very hard on the equipment and that maintenance costs had made management regret this decision later on down the road. Caveat: I have not independently verified this story…FWIW
BTW: If you decide to be engineer for a day (it is a blast -definitely recommended), make sure you protect your ears when they bleed/test the engine brakes in the yard (very loud and unexpected)
Switchbacks on a model? I had a good friend who had some on his layout…not for me.
Guy
Thanks to all for some very interesting insights and photos. The way things are shaping up it looks like I’ll go with a tightly-curved incline with a lone switchback at logging camp level - much the same as my previous layout. As for “Engineer for the day” - count me in!!
Gee, all that and we’re back where you started? Well, I trust everyone enjoyed the roundtrip.
Mark
I really DID try to work some switchbacks into my scheme - I may still get there but it will require some expansion of the “logging zone”. Hey - with this config I have both!!
It’s only a suggestion, but I would recommend you keep your grade at six percent maximum. That’s plenty of grade to achieve the visual impression of a steep grade and, if you have half a dozen cars, you will find that its a pull (or push) for your locomotive. The maximum grade at Cass is 9%. I have no idea what you will be using for motive power or equipment but keep in mind that the steeper the grade, the more wear & tear you put on the gear train of the locomotive. IF you will be using a Bachmann shay, It won’t last long on steep grades. An 80 ton Shay would only be able to handle 5-6 loaded cars at best.
Switchbacks were only used when the railroad ran out of real estate and still needed to gain elevation. Cass had run-around tracks at a switchbacks to keep the locomotive below the train itself. These would be a part of the tail track.