I am trying to determine if a sub-level staging yard will be practical for my N scale layout. I have a 4’X8’ layout consisting of 4 2’X4’ sections. I would like to make the drop without having to cut into the structure of the modules. To clear double stacks, and the module structural components I would have to drop about 5-6 inches in 3 to 4 feet. Is there a formula to help me figgure the grade? also once I figgure the grade, how will I be able to determine if it is feaseable?
thanks!
Not a feasable grade. Should be about 12.5%.
The formula is rise/run x100. Or 6/48 x 100, or 12.5%
David B
how far will I have to travel lineraly to drop 5 inches vertically?
1" of rise over 100" of distance is 1% no matter what scale. (2" oever 100"=2%, 3"over 100"=3% etc…)
ok, thanks… brains fried right now… so what is a feasable grade for a n scale layout that often runs double or triple headed?
Depends on the grade. You should be asking what is an appropriate grade.
David B
This is the way to calculate grade, and it is the same for any type of grade anywhere, including scale and real world:
First make all your “units” the same. All inches, all cm, all yards,… In this case, let’s use inches. So we will take out our calculator (if division isn’t something you do accurately or quickly) and divide the distance of the rise or fall by the total length of the grade measured parallel to the bench surface, not the length of the grade. We enter 5, press the divide sign, and enter 48 (for the inches you have to play with in the “run” of the grade). You will see "0.104 (and more numbers besides that) when you press the equal sign. The way to read that is, get rid of the decimal point, and add it between the 0 and the four. You read your grade as “10 point 4 percent”. As David says, it isn’t feasible unless…unless…you are using geared engines on a logging or mining track and short trains. Reality-wise, your engines will have to be doubled in order to haul anything substantial up the ramp to get to your layout surface.
If you want something “reasonable”, or doable, you should be thinking in the range of 3%, maybe 4. In your case, that means about 9’, maybe 10, without actually computing it.
2%
To rise 5 inches, you will need 250" of travel (2 per each 100"). 250/12=20.8 feet.
David B
A 5% Grade is 5" over 100" (steep) BUT - you need to add two 'TRANSITION TRACKS longer than your longest car (say 6"ea.), so your couplers stay connected when you traverse.
Picture one car -level - connected to a 2nd car -on a 5% slant wth couplers engaged (_/), So - 100" on a 4X8 is roughly one and a half times around the - 22" outer loop? or wherever you can find it. 8’ is 96"+16", and you’ll have to notch-out about 3" in the center supports if you want the couplers to hold. Worth it?
I would stick to a 2% grade (2" rise over 100").
I tried a 4 % grade with my N scale once…miserable failure.
I have a 4% grade on my mainline (although I’ll never build one that steep again!) and I can run my trains pretty easily, at least the ones under 10 cars. Almost all of them are less than 10 cars, and the ones over 10 cars can get a little hairy with only two locos.
This is HO scale though, I don’t know about N scale. High-ish quality locos are a must though; the two Bachmann DCC-On Board locos currently operating on my layout have cogging problems going downhill. Paired with an Atlas or a Spectrum they are fine though.
Good luck![tup]
I know these answers are not what you wanted to hear. I think you should set up a test grade to see if your locos and train can handle it. I would get a 6 foot long board and fasten a piece of track to it. Then raise one end 5 inches (about 7%) and see if your train will go up it. If you have a long train, get a longer board. Everyone has their own opinions about grades, but if you really want to know, TEST - TEST - TEST.
Good advice. Here’s my notes on grades. I hope the person who started the thread finds them helpful.
It has. looks like i’ll be running some test trains this weekend.
VAL:
It might be too steep for locomotive-hauled trains. Maybe if you had a lashup of 10 locos from the same mfr. that ran well together, and were used as the “staging yard helper engine”…it might be worth a test but it might also be nothing but trouble.
I wonder if a sort of “car barney” could be built and used without harboring too many gremlins?
I think that this may help or you an idea or two.
How about a helix at one end of your layout? A 22" radius helix would drop 5" in 360 degrees at a grade of 3.6%. Still steep but closer to the realm of reason. If you could reduce the level to level height of the helix to 4", the grade would be only 2.9%. The real beauty of the helix is that the ultimate drop or rise is limited only by the number of turns used.
In a way you are correct, but because of the tight radius, it effectively raises the grade by half again.
David B
V&AL - I’m curious in where you picked up that spelling for “Alleghenny” for your road. I’ve done quite a bit of historical, geological and cultural reading about the eastern mountains, and while I’ve come across several different regional spellings of Allegheny (I use just the northern standard in this instance), I’ve not come across “Alleghenny”. Is that a North Carolina terminology?
The real reason?? I misspelt it as a kid when I named the road.
The “historical reason”? same reason as the different regional spellings. When the road was founded the name was mentioned by the founder but was written down by his secratary, who unintentionally misspelt it because she read a newspaper where the editor misspelt it and the secratary for the V&AL thought it was the correct spelling.