# grade question



## HOMatt (Feb 14, 2016)

what is the rule of thumb for a grade? If I have a level that is 4" above the base, how long of a run do I need to get it back down to that level?

HO scale
Matt


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

HOMatt said:


> what is the rule of thumb for a grade? If I have a level that is 4" above the base, how long of a run do I need to get it back down to that level?
> 
> HO scale
> Matt


There is no rule that I am aware of but 2% is generally considered reasonable for most situations, so to get 4" of rise you would need about 16' of run. That works out to 1/4" per foot, or a 1/2" block on the end of a 2' level, then you just adjust the grade till the level is level. If you want more or less grade you adjust the thickness of the block to suit. One thing to consider, if your grade is too steep your engines will be able to pull fewer cars up the grade, till the engine can't even get itself up the grade.


----------



## Lehigh74 (Sep 25, 2015)

For real railroads, 2.2% was established as a standard max ruling grade based on the B&O. There are some that are steeper, but many are very close to 2.2%. You can probably go a bit more than that with model trains if you don’t have the room. I used a max of around 3% on my O gauge layout. When determining how long of a run you need, don’t forget that you need a gradual transition from level to your max grade at the top and bottom.

Narrow gauge/mining/logging railroads had much steeper grades.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

Matt

Another important factor in building a riser, you want to create
an 'easement' so that the rise is not so abrubt that the
front coupler of a loco diga into the ties, or that it's
wheels would lose contact with the rails at the top.

To create an easement, make sure the flex track joint is 2 or 3 
inches back from the start of the rise...let the flex track find it's own
natural grade before supporting it. Do The inverse of that at the top.

Don


----------



## HOMatt (Feb 14, 2016)

DonR said:


> Matt
> 
> Another important factor in building a riser, you want to create
> an 'easement' so that the rise is not so abrubt that the
> ...


good tip, something I wouldn't have thought of. I don't know if I'll do what I have in the back of my mind. I didn't think that I would need so long a length to accomplish it. 

On the Plywood Summit Line I have now, the rise from the base to the highest point is 11' long.


----------



## MtRR75 (Nov 27, 2013)

If your elevated track is going to go over a railroad track (as opposed to a road or a river), there is one other way to reduce the grade. Have the track that goes under the bridge go downhill, while the track going over the bridge goes uphill. This complicates your track laying somewhat, but you can greatly reduce your grade, while achieving the same clearance at the bridge -- depending, of course on your track plan.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

One important factor to consider is this: if you have steep grades, your vertical curve into the grade will have to be that much longer at each end so that your powered wheels don't lose traction. That extra length means what lies between the two vertical curves must necessarily be that much steeper to reach the height you need to attain.

So, apart from the onus on locomotives to pull cars up steep inclines, and therefore severely limiting the length of train you can have if you can't double practically, you end up with grades that almost no railroad has. A 2.2% grade is quite severe for the prototype, and it generally is the practical limit for our toys. Yes, it's true: many layouts have to have grades considerably steeper to fit everything in, but you must compensate by using two engines, using traction tires, or cutting your trailing tonnage in half....sometimes all three if your grades exceed 4%.


----------



## Chip (Feb 11, 2016)

I dunno, it's a toy and all of them are different. An 0-6-0 with no load can do 6%+ by itself and a two motor DD40 AX type can too, no problem. It's all about what you want to see and or IF you insist on "prototypical" then yea, 2-3% is a good "max" to choose. If you are not that concerned you can do what ever you can get away with. GO for it!


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

The chief problem at the top of a grade, as Don mentioned above, is that the "fixed" wheelbase determines what your locos will do. When the rearmost fixed wheel of the truck or driver arrangement is still on the slope, is the front one elevated enough to come fully off the rails (or the rearmost one, after the loco has crested). If it is, and your track is dead straight, your loco will likely drop back onto the rails without a problem. If there is any curve or wiggle in your track, one or more wheels may come back down outside the rails, causing a derailment.

Using a vertical easement makes this much less likely.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

Chip said:


> I dunno, it's a toy and all of them are different. An 0-6-0 with no load can do 6%+ by itself and a two motor DD40 AX type can too, no problem. It's all about what you want to see and or IF you insist on "prototypical" then yea, 2-3% is a good "max" to choose. If you are not that concerned you can do what ever you can get away with. GO for it!


A locomotive getting itself up grades is earning no revenue for its owners. In fact, they're bleeding through the nose because they are paying the operators, and the machine consumes materials they must mine, purchase, grow, or steal. It also must be amortized, or paid monthly if leased, AND it must have repairs performed on it periodically. All of that costs money that a locomotive barely getting itself up a 6%+ slope isn't earning for them.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

Some useful information, 

"From: "Randy Hees" [email protected]
Subject: Maximum grade

The theoretical maximum grade for steel (or iron) wheels on steel rails is 25%. This assumes all wheels are powered, with clean dry rails. While a locomotive could climb this grade, it couldn't pull anything, so the limits on grade are economic rather than a physical.

Generally mainline railroads have avoided grades over 4%, and prefer grades of less than 2%. Some logging lines had grades in the 8% or greater range, but these were considered extreme.

The original line over Donner Pass had grades of 2.4%. The Harriman built second track reduced some of that (but not all) to below 2%.

When the 1905 Western Pacific was built, it had a condition in its charter than maximum grades could not exceed 1%.
—Randy Hees"

Note a 25% grade is 25' of rise in 100' of run and not a 25 degree angle. I just wanted this to be clear as I have noted some confusion in the past. With this you can see that a 100% grade is 100' of rise in 100' of run or a 45 degree angle from the horizontal, not straight up and down.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

mesenteria said:


> A locomotive getting itself up grades is earning no revenue for its owners. In fact, they're bleeding through the nose because they are paying the operators, and the machine consumes materials they must mine, purchase, grow, or steal. It also must be amortized, or paid monthly if leased, AND it must have repairs performed on it periodically. All of that costs money that a locomotive barely getting itself up a 6%+ slope isn't earning for them.


I have never earned a dime from any locomotive operating on my layout. Nor, once I make the initial investment, do I have to pay very much to operate or maintain them (I have solar panels, so the electricity is essentially free). And I don't purchase them on credit, so there are no amortization costs or monthly payments. I operate them for fun, not money, and the guys who come to share it with me also demand little in payment beyond some trifling refreshments.

So yes, if I were concerned about operating my model trains in a strictly prototypical manner, I would never run a locomotive dead-headed (although some pick-ups require it). But not everyone is so concerned -- some people just like to watch their stuff run. And if that's what they want, there is no reason why they shouldn't do it.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

Very true, CT. I like to see my trains run as well, but never just as a locomotive struggling to get itself up my grades. Our hobby has room for all kinds of playing. I don't know anyone who just watches their locomotives attempt to get themselves up steep grades, though. Almost all of us like to trail a couple of cars at least, and that's why the steepest grades should be avoided. It's hard on the drives, hard on the pins connecting our steamers' rods and linkages (causing premature wear), and I can't imagine anyone not tiring of seeing a locomotive, and nothing else, in that never-ending and repeating cycle of the struggle on a grade that is prototypically unrealistic.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

mesenteria said:


> Very true, CT. I like to see my trains run as well, but never just as a locomotive struggling to get itself up my grades. Our hobby has room for all kinds of playing. I don't know anyone who just watches their locomotives attempt to get themselves up steep grades, though. Almost all of us like to trail a couple of cars at least, and that's why the steepest grades should be avoided. It's hard on the drives, hard on the pins connecting our steamers' rods and linkages (causing premature wear), and I can't imagine anyone not tiring of seeing a locomotive, and nothing else, in that never-ending and repeating cycle of the struggle on a grade that is prototypically unrealistic.


When I was young one of my favorite things was to run a Lionel 2026 engine and tender with just a caboose, a caboose hop, as it was called. The other thing was to see how many cars the 671 could pull up the grade. We would run it around the level loop to get it up to speed and then switch it onto the hill to see if it could make it up. With too many cars we had to back it back down the hill and try again. We never did get the other end of the hill connected back to the main line, so even if it did get up the hill we had to back it back down.


----------



## mopac (Feb 24, 2011)

Somewhere around 25 years ago, maybe more, I built a 4X8 over-under layout, like 
many new guys do. Big mistake. There is not enough room on a 4X8 to do a proper
grade. Back then I was using Tyco locomotives. They actually went up the grade fairly
well with a few cars. It was coming down that was the problem. Never had a derailment
up or down the grade. I had done a good job of laying the track. That layout could run
hours without a derail. Those Tycos turned into a roller coaster coming down grade.
Way to fast unless you almost shut the transformer down to nothing. It was very
unrealistic and I hated it. Fell out of love with that layout very fast. I still have it but it has become a storage table. I hated that layout. Planning a new layout around the walls
and would have plenty of run to do 2% grades. Right now I plan to not have any grades
on the new one. With the newer locos I don't think you would have the roller coaster
effect, but I am still going to avoid grades. I want to run longer trains and don't want to constantly be adjusting the throttle. Just my opinion, I hate grades, they look cool and
all, but can cause problems. Seems almost all new model railroaders want them. They
will learn.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

CTValleyRR said:


> *So yes, if I were concerned about operating my model trains in a strictly prototypical manner, I would never run a locomotive dead-headed* (although some pick-ups require it). But not everyone is so concerned -- some people just like to watch their stuff run. And if that's what they want, there is no reason why they shouldn't do it.


Then you need to learn how the real railroads operated their engines and trains. On the B&O's east slope of Sandpatch grade they often used 2 steam engines as helpers. Once at the top the helpers would uncouple and run light back down the grade to wait for the next train to help up the hill. These engines spent half of their mileage running light and toward the end of steam they were 2 big 2-10-2's pushing the train up the hill.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

thedoc said:


> Then you need to learn how the real railroads operated their engines and trains. On the B&O's east slope of Sandpatch grade they often used 2 steam engines as helpers. Once at the top the helpers would uncouple and run light back down the grade to wait for the next train to help up the hill. These engines spent half of their mileage running light and toward the end of steam they were 2 big 2-10-2's pushing the train up the hill.


Sigh. I constantly forget that I have to watch every single word I type to make sure I don't inadvertently type something that can be misconstrued. Might have even been a nice point had it not been prefaced with yet another "you don't know what your saying" comment.

Having grown up 15 miles from Horseshoe Curve, and watching helpers without consists run up and down the grade several times a day during my visits, I know all about it. But if these helpers couldn't make the grade on their own, then they wouldn't be much help, would they? I was also distinguishing between dead-headed runs, where the loco has to run light between destinations when there is no consist available, from helper units.

My point is that it isn't fair to object to how someone operates their layout on purely prototypical grounds when you don't know whether the hobbyist cares at all about it.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

thedoc said:


> These engines spent half of their mileage running light...


Half their mileage maybe, but NOT half their fuel, and that's what counts the most. Even counting the total fuel used by the primary and helper locos for a run, compared to a single loco running half the load for two runs, you'd still come out way ahead.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

CTValleyRR said:


> My point is that it isn't fair to object to how someone operates their layout on purely prototypical grounds when you don't know whether the hobbyist cares at all about it.


The point is that how one modeler wants to run their railroad is entirely up to them and there is no right or wrong way to do it. Some modelers want to run mixed trains that have one of each type of car, and that's OK. I am planning to run trains that are primarily one type of car in a train. But if you are going to comment on how the real railroads did it then you need to base those comments on how the real railroads actually did it. The real railroads did occasionally run an engine light from one place to another, other than helpers drifting back down a grade. It is very dangerous to claim "never" when referring to the real railroads, as some have said there is an example for everything. If you can think of it, some railroad somewhere probably did it, however that is not the best excuse to build a layout that represents all the odd ball techniques of the real railroads. For my self I intend to just model the most typical practices of the B&O, as best I can determine what they were. I'll be the first to admit that my model will be a collection of anachronistic elements, but I am going to include the buildings and features that I like regardless of when they existed.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

Shdwdrgn said:


> Half their mileage maybe, but NOT half their fuel, and that's what counts the most. Even counting the total fuel used by the primary and helper locos for a run, compared to a single loco running half the load for two runs, you'd still come out way ahead.



Fuel and water count in the cost of operating the engine and drifting back down the hill they used very little if any fuel and water, but the railroad still had to pay the train crew the time they spent on the job, so the expense didn't stop when the engines were not pushing a train up the hill.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

Shdwdrgn said:


> Half their mileage maybe, but NOT half their fuel, and that's what counts the most. Even counting the total fuel used by the primary and helper locos for a run, compared to a single loco running half the load for two runs, you'd still come out way ahead.


Assuming that the primary engine and the helper were the same type of engine and the fuel usage was the same, there are still 2 engine trips up the hill under load, and one trip drifting back down the hill with no load. I really don't see where there would be any difference, even if you consider the time paid for the crews of the engines. There would be a loss if the helper crew had to wait for the next train to push up the hill. That time paid by the company would be a loss, but maybe the crew could go to the local beanery and get something to eat and clock out for lunch. The only real savings would be in not tying up the mainline while a single engine got the train up the hill.


----------



## Shdwdrgn (Dec 23, 2014)

The helper loco makes half the trips. He goes up the hill, then comes back down the same side. The primary loco goes up the hill, down the other side, then comes back with the empties, making a second trip over the hill (assuming he brings back empties). This could happen if the primary flow of goods were in one direction, if the destination city were at a significantly higher altitude so the reverse trip could be managed by a single loco, or I'm sure there are other scenarios. I would imagine there are situations where it makes more sense to send a single engine with more frequent smaller loads, and other situation where they would send dual locos in both directions. But every route would have its own unique 'best practice' for saving the railroad money.

Not that I know the history well enough to say any of these scenarios happened, but if someone figured out they could save a few dollars per trip by switching things up, they would have jumped on it.


----------



## Lee Willis (Jan 1, 2014)

The points about the fuel are a big issue - on some challenging climbs, a locomotive could often not even get to the top with any fuel left, and had to refuel half way up the grade. One climb like that was Raton Pass in southern Colorado.

My uncle "drove," as he always referred to it, locomotives for the Santa Fe Railroad. by the time I was born he had enough seniority that all he did was drive helper locos back and forth over Raton Pass between Trinidad, Co, and Raton, NM. (Operating helper locos was preferable and always taken by the most senior engineers because it meant you would be home most nights, not out of in California or Chicago with a long-distance train.). I made the trip with him twice when I was very young, once in the cab of a steamer, I think a 2900 class Northern, and later in the lead F3 of the Super Chief. The roughly 20 miles between the two stations involved about 28-26 miles of track and had an interim station about halfway up the Trinidad to peak side for refueling. It had been built around the time of WWI and was used all the time then. By the 1950s it was often not needed, but some of the old Mallets still used for their extreme pulling power, and not the most efficient locos ever made, needed to stop and refuel there, even then. 

A heavy train pulled normally by, say, a big 2900 Northern, and assisted up to the top by two Mallets or similar, would often take half a day to make the trip of around 26 miles by track (about 20 miles between train station). The smoke from multiple engine working at full capacity was incredible - and probably not healthy, although my uncle living into his eighties and never had any lung-related problems.

Unusually for many RRs, on Raton pass the helper locos did not turn around at the top and head back, but continued downhill into Raton, where they were refueled again, and serviced if needed (often they did need it, it was only a few miles by all at max stress!), and when serviced and refueled, they helped trains coming the other direction, from Raton to Trinidad, climb over the pass.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

As I indicated the real savings to the railroad was the time saved in getting the train over the hill, and on a busy railroad this was the most important reason for using helpers. The primary engine taking the train down the other side and returning with another train is irrelevant to the original question of getting the train up the hill. As Lee Willis said sometimes the helpers followed the train down the other side and helped a train coming the other way, It would all depend on the grade on the other side and the tonnage coming in that direction.


----------



## mesenteria (Oct 29, 2015)

I'll bow out of this discussion with this comment: there is room in this vast hobby for all kinds of preferences. Those of us who have been around a while, a rather modest while only in my case, have come to accept that there are several avenues to disappointment that are almost universally experienced, with some variation. Derailments that defy discovery for their causes, grades and curves (often in combination, and almost always reported by newcomers trying out their ubiquitous 4X8 Plywood Pacifics), and engines that stutter and stall, or short out, for no apparent reason...these all quickly douse the flames of passion for the experience of running scale and toy trains. We who beg newbies not to try to cram steep grades into their limited spaces intend only good will.

Some people simply cannot be told; they have to learn for themselves.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

thedoc said:


> The point is that how one modeler wants to run their railroad is entirely up to them and there is no right or wrong way to do it. Some modelers want to run mixed trains that have one of each type of car, and that's OK. I am planning to run trains that are primarily one type of car in a train. But if you are going to comment on how the real railroads did it then you need to base those comments on how the real railroads actually did it. The real railroads did occasionally run an engine light from one place to another, other than helpers drifting back down a grade. It is very dangerous to claim "never" when referring to the real railroads, as some have said there is an example for everything. If you can think of it, some railroad somewhere probably did it, however that is not the best excuse to build a layout that represents all the odd ball techniques of the real railroads. For my self I intend to just model the most typical practices of the B&O, as best I can determine what they were. I'll be the first to admit that my model will be a collection of anachronistic elements, but I am going to include the buildings and features that I like regardless of when they existed.


And if you really bothered to read and digest what I wrote, instead of that you assumed I said, or wanted me to be saying, you would see that I did say exactly that. The term "never" applied to MY personal practices (and noted the exception in parentheses).

And with that said, I agree that it is pointless to continue further down this rabbit hole.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

CTValleyRR said:


> And if you really bothered to read and digest what I wrote,


Do you have a link for this alleged digest, or am I expected to just hunt for it?


----------



## HOMatt (Feb 14, 2016)

wow, I really asked the wrong question I guess. Never thought it would turnout this way.


----------



## thedoc (Oct 15, 2015)

HOMatt said:


> wow, I really asked the wrong question I guess. Never thought it would turnout this way.


No, you asked a good question, it's just that some modelers are totally detached from reality.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

thedoc said:


> Do you have a link for this alleged digest, or am I expected to just hunt for it?


You have to do what you should have done the first time: apply your brain to the processing of what you're reading, not look for the secret decoder ring to do it for you.

Definition 3, not 7:

Digest 
verb (used with object)
1.
to convert (food) in the alimentary canal into absorbable form for assimilation into the system.
2.
to promote the digestion of (food).
3.
to obtain information, ideas, or principles from; assimilate mentally:
to digest a pamphlet on nuclear waste.
4.
to arrange methodically in the mind; think over:
to digest a plan.
5.
to bear with patience; endure.
6.
to arrange in convenient or methodical order; reduce to a system; classify.
7.
to condense, abridge, or summarize.


----------



## Lehigh74 (Sep 25, 2015)

HOMatt said:


> wow, I really asked the wrong question I guess. Never thought it would turnout this way.


Matt – On the contrary, it is a very good question and was an interesting thread…until a few fellows decided to have a cyber slap fight that no one else really wants to read. I *ALMOST* wish I was back on OGR where the spat posts would get deleted.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

I agree -- it was a very GOOD question, and I apologize for letting myself get drawn off in a completely useless direction. I should know better.

If the moderator wants to delete all the irrelevant comments, that's fine with me.


----------

