# Grade on the table



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

Changing the thread to correct place, from Layout - Falls Mill layout thread, I got chance do the grade test on my table. I used my 48" level on the track. I was amazed that it is perfect level and checked the degree level gauge. It pointed to 0°. 

I used my floor jack to jack up the one end of the table. Went up to about 3° on the degree level gauge. Ran GP-30 Burlington Northern #181 (Lionel brand). It run fine. So I added cars up to 6, it started to slow down and started to spin on the curve. I can see that on downhill, it ran faster than uphill. If I stopped it on the curve, it will stay there and start to spin, clearly reached the pull limit. So I checked with AHM GP-18 Sante Fe #2654. With same 6 cars, it pull better but at same point where GP-38 failed, it would start to spin. 

Side note: I was curious about how accurate for level gauge on my mobile phone. So I downloaded the application. I was amazed to see how accurate it is. I got 86.8°, meaning 3.2° grade. 

Not planning to pull 6 cars on 4' x 6' table, I dropped 2 cars, it run better and not slowing down. It seems 2.5° grade is the ideal number for this size. So I am inclining to agree with CTValleyRR and MTRR75 on the grade. 2° grade would be the best for every table size, small or large.

My curiosity got best of me, I tried Bachmann 6922 Union Pacific DD40XX as I believe that it would be okay on 22" curve. It would not run at all, just blinking light on hood. I think that this one is DCC, not coded to run on DC. Am I right? This made me wish to see it run on that grade because I never own long locomotive with 8 axles (4 on front and back) before. Heck, I got this one at bargain, on eBay along with other locomotives, including Athearn Hi-F. :hah:


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

One person's "best" is another's "maximum". If you must have grades, then the more gradual, the better. But I would certainly recommend staying below 2.5%. But as you can see, if you have a bigger layout and are running longer trains, grades will start to become an issue fairly quickly.

You also have to think about easements -- a gradual transition into a steeper grade. This is more for performance reasons than pulling power. Cheap couplers may fail, trip pins catch on the track, things may uncouple, and cars / locos may derail. The issue, mostly, is having part of the car on the incline while part of it is level. Since the car is rigid, this changes the relative heights of the couplers, as well as making some of the wheels actually come off the track.

So, even though your locos may pull up a given grade, you may not be able to work it into your layout. A 2.5% grade requires 40 linear inches just to gain an inch of height, plus about 10 on each end for the easements, so you really need more like 50" (because the easements do gain height, just not as steeply). Since you need to go up and down, that's about 100". The circumference of a 4x6 layout is about 208" (allowing some space around the outside), so you're looking at using half of your layout just to gain and lose a paltry 1" of elevation. Generally, that's not worth it on a smaller layout.


----------



## MtRR75 (Nov 27, 2013)

So the bottom line is that if you are trying to gain enough elevation for a train to pass over another train -- that is very difficult to do on a small layout. If you are trying to gain elevation for a train to pass over a street (which needs less clearance) -- that is more doable. If you are trying to gain elevation for a train to pass over a river, that is much easier -- especially if you indent the river down into your table -- hard to do on plywood, but much easier on foam board.

There is another trick that you can use to decrease your grade. Suppose you want a 2.5% grade from one end of the table to the other to attain your clearance. Raise the opposite end of the table about 1%. Now your grade is only 1.5%, but your flatland is sloping at 1% in the opposite direction. This means you will have to deal with changing speeds on all of your track, but you can run longer trains.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

I do not plan to have track to go over other track at all. Just raise one track, maybe an half to one inch high to make the layout to look more interesting. Maybe ironwork bridge, going over a lake or creek. 

On future larger table, I do plan to have one track going down and other track going up. Definitely, will need thicker foam to make that to happen.


----------



## DonR (Oct 18, 2012)

You often see rail lines atop a 'causeway' perhaps to raise the rails above
a flood point or to provide a more level run. That would make an interesting
layout scenic trick.

Don


----------



## SBRacing (Mar 11, 2015)

I had a previous layout that had something crazy like a 8% grade. I dont know how but I had cheap bachmann GP-30 and it pulled like 12 cars up the grade no problem, however the cars were not weight to NRM standards. I have a new layout and my max grade is 2.6%. Lessing the grade on the radius my help your loco out a litttle too. I was thumbing aroung on CSX website and the had a PDF of there rail standards. ex. min turnout # max grades straigt and in radius.

Thats my 2 cents, best of luck.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

Didn't know that CSX website has such document available like that.

NMRA has the documents like that : NMRA Standards and Recommended Practices

I am sure that it is more practical to check their website, right?

At least, I am learning more and more about NMRA. When I was kid, I didn't even know that there is such thing like that.


----------



## /6 matt (Jul 7, 2015)

You know blue, there is a much better way to make your layout feel more 3 dimensional. Just build the entire track plan elevated off of the table and make the scenery rise and fall around it. Think of you use a foam sheet 2" thick the land can fall 2" below the track. Put a 2" valley beside a 6" mountain and suddenly you now have what looks like an 8" elevation change even though the track is still level. I think that's what Don was getting at.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

I do get it. I was actually considering that but where can I find 2 inch thick form? I could not find one at either Home Depot or Lowe's. They only have 1/2 and 3/4 thick forms.

I hadn't check 84 Lumber or McCoy. (They are quite popular in rural areas.)


----------



## /6 matt (Jul 7, 2015)

bluenavigator said:


> I do get it. I was actually considering that but where can I find 2 inch thick form? I could not find one at either Home Depot or Lowe's. They only have 1/2 and 3/4 thick forms.
> 
> I hadn't check 84 Lumber or McCoy. (They are quite popular in rural areas.)


I can get 1" thick here in NC, maybe cause I am farther north than you. I don't see why you couldn't use a foam friendly adhesive to glue several sheets together. Just make sure the sheets are laying on a flat surface and maybe take a piece of plywood to set on top so when you weigh it down it should have fairly uniform pressure on it.


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

1/2 inch form costs 13 bucks, I think. 3/4 inch form cost 16 bucks.

3 x 1/2 inch forms will be 39 bucks.

2 x 3/4 inch forms will be 32 bucks.

I just wonder thicker foams would be more cheaper.

You can see my dilemma...


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

It seems to be geographical. Up north, there are plenty of the 3" foams. Closet one is in Wichita, KS. One 3" foam costs 55 bucks. 

6 1/2" foams will be around 78 bucks.

4 3/4" foams will be around 64 bucks.

9 bucks in difference... hummm...

Now I have my answer.


----------



## CTValleyRR (Jul 26, 2014)

Road trip!!!!


----------



## bluenavigator (Aug 30, 2015)

LOL, nah 9 bucks vs all the gas needed for the road trip, that is too much!


----------

