Awhile back there was a conversation about building mountains on the layout and in it someone was talking about “Slopes” (not grades / gradients) of the mountains themselves. I seem to recall that someone mentioned the usual “normal” slope for Appalachian style mountains, and the “get-away-with-able” slope that can be modeled on the layout.
I looked for awhile but can’t seem to find the thread-- can anybody either point me to it, or else just repeat the info? I’m trying to figure out / recall what the smallest distance from the wall I can get away with and still have them look reasonably like Appalachian style mountains. I’m also going to be running a train to the upper deck along them so they can’t just be flat against the wall / backdrop.
I don’t recall that one. I can see towering tors across the Strait of Georgia in the Coast Range that have sides near 60 degrees. They must be solid granite or something. The Foothills in Alberta, near Calgary, are very gentle. In just a few kilometers, you are into steep cliffs of rock jutting out of scree slopes.
I think much of the hills or mountains in eastern N. America are fairly gentle by comparison, but I do know of some very sharp rises and falls, some quite breath-taking. So, are you going to model steepness or something else? Is your space limited?
I have steep vertical climbs on my layout because of the track…it is a folded large loop with the end curves running tightly to the walls. Means very steep “mountain sides” since they are nested and stepped.
It looks okay in front-on images, but horrendous from 45 deg or shallower.
Your avatar says you are in Northern VA, So either you are in flat areas, or you should just be able to look around you and guage what you are trying to model. or take a short road trip to find out. The Appalachians aren’t that far from you.
The linear space isn’t limited so much as the front-to-back depth. What I am planning to do is have a main scene in front, a mountain town, a narrow interchange & marshaling yard, and where helpers are added / removed from trains prior to the climb up the mountain (to the upper deck). The track curves around the end of the room in a large squared-off “U” shape. At the end of the run there will be a large turnback-- probably 36" - 40" or so, and then back around to climb along the mountains.
The actual depth is deeper than anywhere else on the layout, which is why I believe I can do it and get away with it-- about 30" - 32" deep, and I suppose it could be potentially even a little bit deeper, though that’s how the benchwork is currently configured.
I’ve decided that, unless something comes up that tosses a huge monkey-wrench into the plan, having the turnback and visible climb is more acceptable / palatable to me than having a helix. I didn’
Certainly, and if that’s my gauge, then I don’t think it will work-- it would eat up too much space. But, like most things in model railroading, compression is what makes things difficult, possible.
Compression is the key. Just make the slopes relative in size. Just as long as you don’t make the common modeler’s mistake of modeling a wedding cake-type formation!
Thanks. I just got through reading the current issue of MR where there is an article detailing how to use cardboard and paper for making terrain. It also sounds like a dandy way of mocking some of this up so I can get a better visual of it all before I cut anything.
I’m finally ready to start working on my permanent layout. Got all the niggling room details finished-- so now this stuff is becoming important to nail down
IIRC from my engineering texts and the like, the usual maximum angle of repose for soil is about 30 degrees. Steeper than that, and landslides are a real risk. Rock formations can of course be steeper. But even rock can have landslides when erosion starts causing cracks, and water lubricates the slipping. The slides last year along I-40 in the Smokey Mountains are an example. Steeper than 30 degrees does not have a good long term survival rate in nature. That’s why when you see steeper angles, it’s the unusual rather than the typical.
Think about it from another aspect. 30 degrees is a 50% grade. Walking is quite difficult on more than a 20% grade (1,000ft rise per mile), which is about the steepest practical roads for automobiles and trucks.
From my airshow flying days, a 60 degree angle climb will look essentially vertical to people nearby on the ground. The spectator has to be a ways away to be sure the climb is not vertical.
Many of the early model railroad scenery books and articles suggested limiting slopes to 45 degrees or less to be realistic (except for rock formations). Th
I agree with Fred’s points. Even here in the Rocky Mountains (outside of Denver) the steepest slopes are about 30 degrees, any steeper and you have conditions for an avalanche during the winter. I live near the foothills, and they are really gentle slopes with very few trees.
There are rock cliffs, but not a lot, I would say maybe less than 5 percent of a mountain has rock cliffs. I see some modelers that have their entire mountain covered with rock cliffs, and it doesn’t look right.
We also have what is called the timberline, which is where the trees stop growing. In Colorado the alpine timberline ranges between 11,000 and 12,000 ft.
I enjoyed several nights of Googling images of Appalachian rock faces when I was facing a similar issue. While most of that range is missing steep peaks there are many impressive rock walls both man made and natural. My logging operations move up from the town to the hills along just such a cut into the hillside. Take some time to look online for photos. I’m living on an island off the coast of Texas so a visit in person was not an option. Windows Live and Google Earth both offer satillite and Bird’s Eye photos that can save you a lot of gas (and let you see a lot more of 'em). Cutting into the hillside gives you a little more lattitude on slope.
I 'am not modeling the Appalachian mountain but the mountains in southwest NM. I use real rocks I just make the mountain make it look the way I like it . Here is a photo of a mountain that I built for my layout. I
Awhile back there was a conversation about building mountains on the layout and in it someone was talking about “Slopes” (not grades / gradients) of the mountains themselves. I seem to recall that someone mentioned the usual “normal” slope for Appalachian style mountains, and the “get-away-with-able” slope that can be modeled on the layout.
I looked for awhile but can’t seem to find the thread-- can anybody either point me to it, or else just repeat the info? I’m trying to figure out / recall what the smallest distance from the wall I can get away with and still have them look reasonably like Appalachian style mountains. I’m also going to be running a train to the upper deck along them so they can’t just be flat against the wall / backdrop.
John
IIRC from my engineering texts and the like, the usual maximum angle of repose for soil is about 30 degrees. Steeper than that, and landslides are a real risk. Rock formations can of course be steeper. But even rock can have landslides when erosion starts causing cracks, and water lubricates the slipping. The slides last year along I-40 in the Smokey Mountains are an example. Steeper than 30 degrees does not have a good long term survival rate in nature. That’s why when you see steeper angles, it’s the unusual rather than the typical.
Think about it from another aspect. 30 degrees is a 50% grade. Walking is quite difficult on more than a 20% grade (1,000ft rise per mile), which is about the steepest practical roads for automobiles and trucks.
From my airshow flying days, a 60 degree angle climb will look essentially vertical to people nearby on the ground. The spectator has to be a ways away to be sure the climb is not vertical.</
As has been pointed out, the slope of mountains depends on if you are considering the Alps, the Appalachians, or the Rockies. The following photo shows one corner of a hollow mountain that has two tracks traversing about 4 ft. I build my mountains from arcs of plywood screwed to the wall and base. There must be removable portals for access to the derailed trains within. Bob Hahn
As has been pointed out, the slope of mountains depends on if you are considering the Alps, the Appalachians, or the Rockies. The following photo shows one corner of a hollow mountain that has two tracks traversing about 4 ft. I build my mountains from arcs of plywood screwed to the wall and base. There must be removable portals for access to the derailed trains within. Bob Hahn
I would go with alternating near flat or near vertical. If you are running INTO the mountains you will be following the banks of a stream or river. If you are running parallel to the ridge, up the slopes then you will be cutting across the foothills and the lines will be an alternating series of cuts and fills.
Considering that a “mountain” is hundreds to thousands of feet higher than where you are, and all you will see is at most about 100 to 125 feet of the hill between decks, I don’t know that it matters. I would alternate steep and less steep areas and cover everything with trees so you really can’t tell anyway.
Even though the Appalachians are eons older than the Rockies and therefore much eroded and generally less steep, you’re probably going to have to take a little artistic license in recreating your little section of them on your layout, just as we have to do with other areas. I’ve been in areas of the Appalachians where the ground seems to rise almost straight up and in other places it was more of a gentle rise. Add to that the fact that railroads often had to blast a road way out of the side of a mountain creating those beautiful vertical rock faces. So, depending on how much space you’ve got to devote to the terrain, you’re probably going to have to do a lot of ‘compressing’.
I