building lay out

[badgers]

can any one give me some idea about the hight of a second level ,

would about 41/2 inches be a good clearance from base board too bottom

of top level

[badgers]

back again forgot too say it is for a oo layout

[Chrissaf]

The height you can achieve will depend upon the size of the layout. IMHO you need to achieve, at the very minimum, a gradient of 1 in 30. To achieve a 4 1/2" rise you would need a track run up of 135" or 11.25 feet and another 11.25 feet to go back down again. Even a gradient of 1 in 30 is not ideal, you will find modern light weight locos (particularly steam ones with their larger diameter wheels) will struggle to pull up more than a small number of coaches. A 1 in 40 gradient equates to a run up of 15 feet for a 4 1/2" rise, and a 1 in 50 gradient equates to 18.75 feet for the same 4 1/2" rise.

.

I agree that a second level adds interest, but in a small space layout this is IMHO more reliably achieved by having two completely independant levels, both flat with no gradient ramp of track between them. Then one level (say the upper one for example) can run passenger trains, whilst the lower level with sidings runs freight. This gives the scope for embankments, tunnels and bridges as the two levels cross over each other at multiple locations.

[NormanQ4]

Unfortunately I think Chris seems to have misread your question.

My clearance is set at 2 3/4" from the baseboard to the underside of the support structure which is ample.

Going by his previous post 1:40 gradient would require a run up /run down of 110" or 9' 2".

If you have a really big layout then the clearance / run up / down is not so critical but if space is tight then go for minimum clearance.

[Chrissaf]

I would deem 2.56" (65mm) to be the minimum clearance required, but do take into account what additional clearance might be needed for things that might be fitted under the upper level, like wiring looms or point motors for example, particularly relevant if the upper track is going to sit directly over the top of the lower track. Think also about clearance needed for access, recovering derailed trains for example. Also maintence access to wiring and point motors mounted under the upper level.

.

In my first reply I was thinking past the original question as written, and thinking more about why the question was being asked.

.

With a dual level approach, as I suggested in the second half of my first reply. There would be no gradients. Thus the height difference can be a lot higher if necessary to give the most optimum scenic effect.

[badgers]

thanks for your replies, my lay out is about 4mts long and about 1 mt wide ,want too put a turntable on top at one end and a village station at other end ,up on top level ,and marshaling yards on lower level,have cut wood on speck too 5inch but this is so i can work back down too smaller hight,thought about 3to 3,5 inches would trhat be about right or do i need too make it higher have 5 inches too work with

[Chrissaf]

The potential contributors here are disadvantaged as they cannot see what you can see. Can you not produce an outline drawing of your desired track layout supported ideally with an actual photo of what you have so far and post them back here. That way you will get far more specific and less speculative replies.

[2e0dtoeric]

Also bear in mind that a gradient on a curve is harder for the loco to climb than the same gradient on the straight!

Generally, unless you have a HUGE space, forget gradients completely.

In the real world, the Settle/Carlisle route has a long climb of 1 in 100 (known as 'The Long Drag'), and steam loco's struggle on that, especially in the wet. There are steeper lines on preserved runs, but they are usually powered by small tank engines with only three or four trucks on at a time.

[Chrissaf]

2e0 makes a good point about the extra drag on the rolling stock that a curve will have, particularly if that curve is part of a gradient. Given that you have said that your board will only be about 1 metre deep. Then, to incorporate any reasonably shallow gradient in your layout, then it is likely that the curve will need to form part of the gradient (even if the layout is 4 metres long). With only 1 metre to play with that curve is likely to be quite tight.

[badgers]

back for more tips ,the gradient, would be over a five foot run and straight, no curves,and about

"0"   to 3-1/2 "   top level

comeing down   3-1/2"  down too "0",   if i down loaded one of the buy once and print for ever wall prints would it give me some idea of hight of top level and also a guidetoo work off  ? any one tried them

 

 

[badgers]

is it possiable too buy a ruler for "00" sizes, i know can get them for "N"and if from where

[Chrissaf]

A five foot run to rise 3 1/2" is a 1 in 17 gradient. This IMHO is just TOO steep to work.

.

Not only will the loco really struggle to pull hardly anything at all up the hill. The transition from straight to ramp will be so severe that wheels without pivotal bogie articulation (like steamers for example) are likely to experience wheel lift and cause loss of electric pickup and the loco will stall.

[96RAF]

Download SCARM a free layout planning software and with it you can plan in slopes on your layout, which will tell you the gradient slope for any rise over a distance. I try to keep to a max of 3 degrees.

 Yes you can get a 00 scale rule try  Expotools.com - a fiver.

[2e0dtoeric]

Try an experiment - get a length of timber - say six feet (or two metres, if you prefer foreign measures), tack a few sections of track to it.

Put a loco and a few trucks on it, then lift up one end against a ruler, and see just how steep the track will go before the loco gives up from a standing start.

If you have a protractor to hand, see what the angle really is.

As a rule of thumb, if you have a tight curve on your planned climb, half of what the loco will go up on the straight is the maximum steepness that will work.