Track Gradient

Jim,

1 in 30 is reckoned to be about the minimum you can get away with, but it's usually better to aim for something like 1 in 50. You've also got to add in any rolling resistance from curves as well - the tighter they are, the worse it is.

It also depends on what size of trains you want to pull up the gradient and with what locos. You can do a quick test with a length of track laid on a plank and tilted to the gradient you want and see if your average loco and train can get up it easily.

If you have problems getting the length of run to give a reasonable gradient, you can investigate lowering the track which the u0pper track is crossing. This can effectively half the length of run needed to provide clearance for the upper to cross the lower.

Remember if you are calculating the clearance for one track to cross over the other, don't forget to allow for the thickness of the track and the track base/support.

Jim.

In message , James Waterfall writes

Level :-)

Seriously, I wouldn't make it any steeper than 1 in 50 or 2%.

If upper tracks cross over lower tracks, you need about 3" vertical rail head to railhead separation, allowing for a track substructure of about

1/2". If you're using an over-bridge, you may need more, depending on the design of th bridge. But the bottom line is that the second layer will have to be 3" or more above the lower one.

As others have recommended, 3% (1 in 33) is maximum for reasonable operation. Less is better. You can go to 4% (1 in 25), if you're running very short trains. If you have the space, go for 2% or less. You need space at each end of the gradient for the vertical curve, the transition from level to gradient and back again. Figure on 13ft of run to raise the track about 3". If you have more space, either go higher, or lessen the gradient.

Gradient is the same in any scale, as it's just a slope. Dunno if you did trig in school, but gradient is the tangent of the angle.

HTH

don't forget some length for transitions from level to slope and back again