# Elevation - Rise and Decline - Same or different?



## Necro (Nov 19, 2010)

I know that the recommended incline is 2 degrees, with 3 degrees really being the max. What about declines? (I know trains could run backwards but...just assuming it's ALWAYS a decline)


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Necro,

I don't think you mean "degrees". I suspect you mean "grade", which is the ratio of rise height divided by run length, taken as a percent. 1% to 2% is common. 3% is getting steep. 4% is way up there, but done in some circumstances.

I think you could go steeper downhill than uphill, if you were 100% sure about running direction. However, what often turns into a problem is not the grade of the middle section of an incline, but the smoothness of the transitions into and out of it. I.e., you would NOT want to begin or end a 3% slope directly into a dead-horizontal run. The "kink" would reak havock on couplers, drive wheel contact on big locos, etc.

Regards,

TJ


----------



## Necro (Nov 19, 2010)

Ah...ok. Good insight into the slope. So, basically, you need 150" of track, in each direction, just to gain 3" in height? (min. height to 'pass' over another train track). That seems...a wee bit long. (2 degrees is a bit half that to reach the same height...)

The reason I'm wondering about this is my father setup (and gave me) the remaining parts - what they are - from an old "Thunder Mountain" Life-Like set. This has a figure eight and oval track that overlap each other and all fits on a 4x8 panel. The entire grade to get to max height is done in 3 pieces of track in the oval - 1x 9" straight and 2x 18" radius curves. The figure eights elevations are done over 5 pieces, 1x 9" straight and 4x 18" radius curves.


----------



## Necro (Nov 19, 2010)

Found an example:









This is from this Life-Like set: http://www.amazon.com/Life-Like-Trains-Diesel-Driver-Electric/dp/B0024XJX90


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Necro,

If that photo above is using 18" radius track, the rise on the left is somewhere around a 4.5% grade. Steep. A good loco will run around it with some cars in tow, but not too many. A poor loco will have a tough time pulling more than two or three cars.

Notice the "kink" where the foreground switch transitions into the 9" going to the left curve. Try to smooth thing out, if at all possible, though that's more difficult with the pre-made ballast fastrack stuff.

TJ


----------



## Necro (Nov 19, 2010)

I just tried something real quick - basically a pretty decent grade and my loco and some rolling stock. I found out two things.

One, my main loco - a Life-Like 0-4-0 'Union Pacific' handled the grade fine (~5%) with 6 smaller 'freight' cars attached. And two, the older rolling stock I have in boxes from my dad...sucks. Wheels suck, trucks suck, and they jump track at a moments notice. That...is kind of disappointing. Because now I need some rolling stock as well...damn.


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Yup ... welcome to the hobby ... aggravations and all!


----------



## Big Ed (Jun 16, 2009)

tjcruiser said:


> Yup ... welcome to the hobby ... aggravations and all!



Yes....That Sucks!


----------



## tkruger (Jan 18, 2009)

Remember that in the basic Life-Like set the cars are way to light and to make the locomotives pul better they use traction tires. This allows a low quality locomotive to make it up the grade with several of their brand of cars in tow. To make the cars less likely to derail add weight. If it is a box car glue large nuts to the inside. I have filled gondelas with pennies and made a fake tarp to make it look loaded. Weight is the main key to stability. The down side will be that you will not be able to pull as many cars up the hill.


----------



## Russell (Dec 11, 2009)

A question. TKruger wrote,


> if it is a box car glue large nuts to the inside.


Is there a guideline of how much weight is ideal? Maybe stated in ounces per inch of length.

Also, is there a special kind of glue to use? Or are there glues to avoid?


----------



## tjcruiser (Jan 10, 2010)

Russell said:


> Is there a guideline of how much weight is ideal? Maybe stated in ounces per inch of length.


Without getting too technical, it's more of a centrifugal force issue than simple a weight-per-length. You're trying to lower the center of gravity such that the centrifugal force generated from going around a turn (or induced through a bump) is low enough (vertically) such that it doesn't have the strength ("moment", really) to overcome the "restoring moment" defined by the wheel gauge (distance between wheels/rails).

It's essentially the same principal that we hear about when people talk about the risk of SUV trucks tipping over.

Try an experiment ...

Set up a simple test track inclined SIDEWAYS to about 30 degrees ... i.e., one rail higher than the other. Put a car on the track, and try to push it over (tip it) with your finger ... locate your finger vertically in about the middle of the car. Now, compare that to other cars. Add weight as needed (as low as possible) to get them all to some common baseline.

Cheers,

TJ


----------



## Boston&Maine (Dec 19, 2007)

Russell said:


> A question. TKruger wrote,
> 
> Is there a guideline of how much weight is ideal? Maybe stated in ounces per inch of length.
> 
> Also, is there a special kind of glue to use? Or are there glues to avoid?


NMRA states 1oz plus an additional 1/2oz per inch of car: http://www.nmra.org/standards/sandrp/rp-20_1.html


----------



## Bman (Aug 24, 2010)

Just an additional note on the incline of track. I guess I learned the hard way. From my level table top I went right into a 3% incline using the woodland scenics incline starters, I ran that up to 1 1/2" which was two incline starters in succession. Then after about a foot of level track I went into a 4% incline up another 4". Yeah I had some problems. My thoughts were hey the sell the inclines that must mean they're good to use. In my case the outside track the outside track didn't take too much time to smooth out, I only recently have fixed my inside track so I can run any combination of cars in any order without uncoupling. 

Listen to TJ, I wish I was on this forum when I started my layout. It was the transitions (like TJ said) that killed me. I was able to smooth them out, enough, and that's the only reason I have not totally blown up my layout and started over. 

This is an overview of the layout










This is a two loco consist pulling some cars up the grade. As you would guess I use a lot of consists to pull cars up this grade.


----------



## Russell (Dec 11, 2009)

Thank you all:TJ, B & M, Bman. I can see my boxcars (old athearn Blue Box ones with the metal plate on the bottom) shake in the turns and especially on turnouts.
Bman, I looked at your layout (thanks for the photo) and I'm thinking hard on the incline I am in the process of making. My layout is about the same size as yours (5 by 10). Yours does look longer.

Thanks again. 

PS Internet forums have sure made hobbies more fun. Sharing it all like this is a large part of the fun.


----------

