Complicated Trackwork on a Grade


DairyStateDad

DairyStateDad

Mumbling in the corner
So, what is your direct experience with putting trackwork more complex than just a stretch of main line on a grade?

I get it that you don't want to put a turnout on a transition grade, that if it is to be on a grade at all, there should be a constant grade beginning well before the turnout and and continuing well after it.

But besides that -- how steep can you go? And how much more complicated can you get with trackwork on a grade beyond a single turnout? Passing siding? Switch leading to an industrial spur? More? What about a grade crossing with other track?
 
In my experience, you have already mentioned the main issue, maintaining a constant grade. Other than that, it's really a matter of choice. While some say your grades should be less than 2%, I've seen several instances of grades over 5% that operated well. The keys are really your locomotives ability to pull a train up the grade and your preferences.
The other pitfall to avoid with complex track on grades is that of a lateral grade. In particular with a crossing. In addition to the grade along the track, you will introduce some amount of sideways tilt.
Other than than, it's really all about what you want and how well you build the sub-roadbed, roadbed and track. I have turnouts leading to spurs and passing sidings on grades and they work and look just fine.
 
Thanks.

It's probably totally nerdy, but putting all of it on a spreadsheet has actually been pretty helpful.

Basically, the trade-off comes down to ... The more I want the areas with turnouts etc. in them to be level, the steeper the other grades have to be. Conversely, the more I want to hold down the other grades, the more I have to be willing to put some of the more complex trackage on a grade. Factoring in the transitions has made it more complicated, of course, but the issue is still basically the same.

Even in the "worst case scenario" -- meaning with much longer transition sections, and working to keep the switching areas as flat as possible -- I can say that I've never had to exceed a 3% grade in my calculations. So that's something, I guess... :)
 
I don't think putting it in a spreadsheet is nerdy at all, but then, some say I'm a nerd! :)

I imagine you've considered this, but would it help at all to have one end of a passing siding level and the other on a grade, ensuring that the transition grade ended a car length before the turnout?

I've fought that same fight myself; wanting the switching areas level leads to steeper grades. Look at it as a way to justify double-heading our short trains. :)
 
Obviously the Issue with turnouts on a grade is that the track on the turning side of the turnout will be tilted. The effect from this is worse if the turnout is sharper the grade is steeper or the trains are longer. But the worst thing is if the track continues to curve around after the turnout. On my layout (which has a lot of the mistakes rookies make),there is a 3.5% grade then immediately after the grade there is a 22" curve that continues thru about 120 degrees. A very long train will have the carriages at the back pulling back down the grade and the engine pulling the front of the train 120 degrees to the right while the carriages in the middle are pulled sideways off the track. If you were to add a tilt in the rails to that mix it would be far worse.
 
The most craziest thing I have done, and it works actually, is put a turnout at the top of a grade that is 4.7%. What makes it sound worse is this piece of track is curving into the turnout and not the straight line. So its pulling up the grade and turning 90 degrees into the mainline.

The only trouble I had with this section is when I tied down the frog on this turnout. I learned very quickly that putting pressure on a frog is a no-no. Other than that, it pulls a consist of three loco's and 18-22 cars well up the grade and around the turn without a derail. I did get a lesson on heavy cars being up front and not in the back though (length of car can make a differance too).

My inventory spreadsheet now has columns for length and weight of the car so I can sort when creating a train and get an order-of-cars that will actually work without fiddling.

Here are some pictures of this part of my track...

View attachment 39212View attachment 39213View attachment 39215View attachment 39216
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I appreciate the reassurance. I did decide to do one major revision on my plan today. I have moved one station stop from half way up the line to the very beginning of the run. That way I can keep it on the level, instead of having the siding and spurs both climbing a grade and going around a curve, and the climb itself will be one long stretch, meaning just two sets of transition segments - - one into the grade, one after. As a bonus, where I relocated the stop will now get a small, more urban scene that will also hide some other track. I wouldn't have had as much room for that in the original spot.

From the DairyStatePhone
 
Last edited by a moderator:
One thing has to be constant, and that is the grade. It doesn't matter if there is a turnout on the grade, just make sure the grade thru the turnout is the same as the main grade. The grade on the diverging track can change, as long as there is room away from the frog of the turnout to make this change, which for me, was about 1 car length.

Back in the 1970's, I had a small 5'x9' layout. This layout had 22" min. radius curves, 3 passing sidings, a 4 or 5 track yard, 2 grade crossings, and about 8 spurs. Only the lower passing siding was level, the rest of the track, except the yard, was on an up or down grade. As long as the turnouts, and crossings were kept at the same grade as the main, there were no problems with the equipment staying on the rails.

Even an old Hallmark PRR Centipede stayed on the rails, (which surprised the heck out of me), showing that its more important for the turnout to match the grade, than to try and get the turnout level, and change the grade to compensate.
 
DairyStateDad:

On my Milwaukee Northern, I have a long (16 foot) section of track that is at a 1.5% grade that runs from the main layout height to an elevated yard/interchange. I have one turnout as the spur branches off to form the two yard leads. I have never had any problems with the turnout, turnout operations or trains running through the turnout. Actually, my layout is a double decker in the yard/interchange area, with hidden trackage below.

Operating signals in the yard/interchange let the engineers know how the turnout is positioned.

One problem with sidings, or my case yard leads on a grade, is holding cars in place. While attached to a loco no problem with any movement, but without the weight of a loco, cars will move. My operating rules state that no cars can be spotted on either the entry or exit lead without a locomotive attached.

The July train wreck in Lac-Megantic, Quebec, was caused by a run away train parked on what was I believe a 1.3% grade after a fire in one of the lead locos was extinguished.

I know of other prototypical sidings on grades, but this there the crews can set the wheel brakes on the cars to hold them in place after uncoupling from the loco(s). However, most sidings on a grade are simple track work to avoid problems that others have pointed out. Passing sidings is another topic in its self.

Thanks.

Greg
 
Thanks for the feedback, Greg...I have been thinking about the siding on a grade issue and I think that will remain a serious one to tackle.

A brief update is in order....

Last weekend I tried out an alternative plan that would keep both Aaronsburg and St. Matthew almost level, but the overall design ended up being unsatisfactory in a number of ways, despite its attractions. Further research and thinking about all this led me to conclude that while transition is important -- and it will be factored in appropriately for my grades and layout -- that some of the rules I was trying to apply were probably more intended for larger equipment and longer trains. So at this point, I plan to go with the plan as I last presented it in full, except for the change at St. Matthew from a Switchback to two crossed spurs:

NEW st. matthew.jpg

The hidden staging track will go down first, and it will be configured on 1/2 inch or 3/4 inch XPS pink foam subroadbed, which will be affixed so that if I want to begin the elevation in the hidden area I can "cookie cutter" the subroadbed after the fact to raise it where needed. I will experiment and run more calculations to do everything I can to keep the grade as low as possible and as smooth as possible.

As the layout progresses, I will lay spurs coming from turnouts on a grade so that they level out (or have a very slight downgrade away from the turnout toward the bumper) to keep cars from rolling into the main. And to the extent possible, I will try to get as much elevation as I can leading in to Aaronsburg from downgrade so that Aaronsburg can be level or as close to level as possible.

This weekend I have a few more trims on some benchwork components to make (I've been enlisting the help of two friends who have much more extensive woodworking equipment than I do, and for whom there will be a lumber mill named when the layout gets to that stage... :) ), then the benchwork should, I hope, FINALLY be finished... I'm still aiming to get some track down by the end of September, although it might be Halloween at this rate before that happens. And I'm looking forward just to posting the finished benchwork for that matter!
 
A quick afterthought. I really do prefer the plan I linked to immediately above, but for the heck of it, here are that one and 2 variations.

1) Alt-1.jpg


2) alt-2.jpg


3) alt-3.jpg


No guarantee I'll go with the majority opinion, but I am curious which ones others like the best.

My preference for no. 1 is mostly because, although it might have to be on at least a slight grade, the Aaronsburg passing siding is larger and somehow more "elegant" -- I don't know how to explain it any better.

I also like the fact that the rest of the mainline track is visible, and I get some nice sweeping curves.

I find strengths and weaknesses in Nos. 2 and 3. Both of them make it easier to make both St. Matthew and Aaronsburg level. But the passing siding for no.3 seems to small, and it seems odd, too, to cram so much track -- hidden or otherwise, into a narrow (18 inch) space, vs. No. 2, where I switched St. Matthew and Aaronsburg. Yet No. 2 just seems generally unsatisfying to me in ways I cannot even articulate.

Anyway, I really am interested in feedback, if you care to share it...




A refresher on details: Setting is 1930s, northern Wisconsin, power is small steam, branch is to a logging camp.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I did an edit and maybe that caused a problem. I will see if I can fix.

OK, I'm seeing them now. Is anyone else?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Seeing them just fine DSDad. I do have a comment about plan one. If you're willing to use a curved turnout, you can extend that siding at Aaronsburg, for most of the way to the Liftout/dunkunder. The longer the sidings are, the more operations can be enhanced. Like a train passing another from the other direction, without either train having to stop.
 
Seeing them just fine DSDad. I do have a comment about plan one. If you're willing to use a curved turnout, you can extend that siding at Aaronsburg, for most of the way to the Liftout/dunkunder.
Click to expand...
I think that shouldn't be a problem to extend the siding even more. I'm figuring on other curved turnouts, too, so what's one more? :) Thanks for the suggestion!
 
I've actually doodled a variation on Aaronsburg that extends the siding but also moves it somewhat counter-clockwise, so that instead of occupying the upper left corner and occupies most of the left rectangle. It's still longer than the original, but it also allows for a slightly greater distance from there to Eagle Junction, which I like.

I think I may have finally reached the limits of what I can work out on paper, and that it's time to work on the 1:1 scale planning on the real benchwork....
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top