How steep an incline can be

Well, there we are, I'm wrong again.... ........what ever it is, it is a steep gradient.
I have measured the total length of the climb and the height climbed at various sections and the figures achieved were what I have
I put the photo to give an illustration of the steepness ... nice of you to find fault with the photo.


Greg, you liked to correct people quite a lot on the American forums.
You are incredibly informed and you obviously believe that you have to pour your knowledge onto everyone else.
Sometimes it would be good to directly contact the person who you believe is incorrect and then they can edit their posting...but then doing that wouldn't allow you to come on as being superior would it?

I do believe it was you that, when I had mentioned on one of the American forums, that I had some pretty steep climbs on my line, you said that I would strip all of my gears........ just goes to show that we are not always correct all of the time eh?
 
Last edited:
Barney Rubble - trouble. Good old rhyming slang..
 
I did mention on posts 20 and 22 of this very long thread the difference between degrees and percentage. We are now over 60 posts.

I don't like to correct people, I like correct information.

Many people read the forum, and misinformation can be a nightmare for people sometimes, especially newcomers.

That is truly the reason I went to great lengths to try to explain it clearly.

Honestly, I do read the entire thread before posting.

Also, was not trying to find fault with the photo, I was having a hard time believing you really had an almost 18% grade... (but I can believe a 12%).

So, I looked carefully to see if I could resolve the discrepancy (at least it appeared so to me).

So, looking closely, it indeed looks more like 8 degrees or maybe 7 in your picture, which results in a much gentler slope in percentage (and more believable).

I've got a 5.5% grade on my site, and a very well respected pioneer in LS visited my house and was really surprised how even that grade was tough for his most powerful loco as compared to a 4%.

Greg
 
Wow, this thread got legs in a hurry. I also use half a bubble on my level; that gives me 1:30 (3.3%) which even my Bachmann Indy, admittedly with additional weight in the boiler, can pull at least 20 axles up. The Piko V36 will manages at least 38 - I haven't tried it with more. And it still allows me to climb 300 mm in 10 metres allowing for a gradual ease in and out. Be aware as Gav said earlier, I think, that curves on a gradient add to the effort required by the loco, thus effectively "increasing" the overall slope.
 
I still think you cannot beat the "going and the rise" - you're train travels 10 feet and, in doing so, has risen one foot. Simples.

Even I abandoned Bushels, Pecks, Roods and Perches. Now I can understand percentages like "your over the limit sir" but it's hard to get your (my) head around gradients expressed in percentage!

But we dinosaurs will become extinct (it might be a catastrophe like drowning in a sea of modern, seemingly, useless idioms or just plain exasperation).

Rant over (for now).
 
LGeoB said:
You must be Tasmanian:)
Click to expand...

Ha ha! No, I'm on the mainland just across the water from those inbred Taswegians. :rofl:

trammayo said:
I still think you cannot beat the "going and the rise" - you're train travels 10 feet and, in doing so, has risen one foot. Simples.
Even I abandoned Bushels, Pecks, Roods and Perches. Now I can understand percentages like "your over the limit sir" but it's hard to get your (my) head around gradients expressed in percentage!
But we dinosaurs will become extinct (it might be a catastrophe like drowning in a sea of modern, seemingly, useless idioms or just plain exasperation).
Rant over (for now).
Click to expand...

Yeah, the going and rise ratio is fairly simple to work out in your head, the percentage is much the same but using the run as the base rather than the rise. It usually takes some division to work out the situation though.
Just divide 100 by the run if it has a rise of one for conversion. The relationship is fairly simple really.
Degrees however requires trigonometry, square roots and all that. o_O
 
Paradise said:
Yeah, the going and rise ratio is fairly simple to work out in your head, the percentage is much the same but using the run as the base rather than the rise. It usually takes some division to work out the situation though.
Just divide 100 by the run if it has a rise of one for conversion. The relationship is fairly simple really.
Degrees however requires trigonometry, square roots and all that. o_O
Click to expand...


Yeah but I don't need to divide by anything when I work with a ratio, so why bother with %?
 
Guys (and guyesses), careful on the use of the words travel and run when talking of gradients.

A train has to travel more than 50 feet to rise 1 foot on a 1 in 50 (or 2 % if you prefer).
This is because the ratio to express grade, relative to a triangle, is 1 is the little short bit that goes up, and 50 is the flat bit
at the bottom. The train actually travels, runs, or stalls, on the slopy bit, which is, by definition, longer than the flat bit at the bottom.
 
G-force1 said:
Yeah but I don't need to divide by anything when I work with a ratio, so why bother with %?
Click to expand...

I agree but using a common run of 100 units makes it easier to apply to math because the run can be easily converted to a single unit then typically making the rise a smaller portion of 1 which can then be used as a multiplier.
So Rise and Run suits people. Percentage suits calculated math and Angle suits trigonometry where you may also be calculating vertical curves, tangents etc. Each system has it's place.
 
Last edited:
Gavin Sowry said:
Guys (and guyesses), careful on the use of the words travel and run when talking of gradients.

A train has to travel more than 50 feet to rise 1 foot on a 1 in 50 (or 2 % if you prefer).
This is because the ratio to express grade, relative to a triangle, is 1 is the little short bit that goes up, and 50 is the flat bit
at the bottom. The train actually travels, runs, or stalls, on the slopy bit, which is, by definition, longer than the flat bit at the bottom.
Click to expand...

When you are talking rise and run it is the horizontal run not the track run. Like you do with staircases.
But what you say is true, one has to be careful to not think of the slope or track distance as the run. That is the hypotenuse of the triangle.
 
Okey dokey.... To comfort Greg and make sure that I am saying things as they really are I will become a bit more pedantic (apologies but it is sometimes the norm on American forums).

I have to include this disclaimer as Greg is worried that you will rush off and try what I have done at home......

"Apologies to all of you have thought, because of my photo and posted information, that it is a good idea to have a gradient like this...
I can in no way endorse the subjugation of locos to a torment like this.
This is not a good way of designing a layout, enslaving poor hapless locos to bust their hearts hauling their trains up stupid gradients.
I also take no responsibility for anyone stripping their gears because they saw my photo and thought it was the right thing to do....
Just say NO... (for those who remember Grange Hill)."

The photo which I had in my previous posting (which Greg has picked apart and told me that I am wrong in my measurement etc...) was just to roughly illustrate the gradient and yes, maybe, I have been also a little inaccurate in describing at what part of the incline it was taken..it was not taken at the worse part.

My main gradient travels about 40 ft and climbs 3 ft (12.19m climbs 0.91m) so it, on average, it is a 1:13.33r (like to be as accurate as I can for Greg).

But as the gradient is not a constant incline there is a a stretch where it is at its worse in comparison to the rest.

The photo is where the gradient starts to become its most intense.... The gradient becomes even worse inside the tunnel (which the loco is about to enter) and also the gradient increases after it exits the tunnel but that stretch is obscured by rocks etc.
So I obviously could not take a photo of that part of the incline.

No-one believes my gradients and what has had to be done to over come them until they see it in the flesh and then they all, to a man/woman, agree that they are as steep as I say...


2 angle of gradient.jpg
 
Paradise said:
I agree but using a common run of 100 units makes it easier to apply to math because the run can be easily converted to a single unit then typically making the rise a fraction of 1 which can then be used as a multiplier.
So Rise and Run suits people. Percentage suits calculated math and Angle suits trigonometry where you may also be calculating vertical curves, tangents etc. Each system has it's place.
Click to expand...

Yes but that changes what a lot of people have done for a lifetime. There will always be folks who don't understand/get it wrong, so use the simplest method for the situation, so as to include as many as possible, not try to force a blanket one for everything when it's clearly not ideal everywhere.

Anyway it's time for corfy (again), I've done Painsbury, hoovered out the car and washed it almost all of it on a level surface!
 
Going back to the (welcome) clarification on the slope... so the average grade has a 3' rise in 40' so the percentage is 7.5%... that's steep by prototype standards but not horrible by model standards.

Far less than the 17.6% you get from a 10 degree grade indicated in your picture. But I do hear you that the initial part is steeper.

So, I apologize, if on that long ago post that you have not forgotten, I stated that 7.5% was going to destroy your locos I apologize, somewhat late, but since you still remember the incident, probably still a good idea.

You do have me curious as to when this was and what numbers were stated at the time, but 7.5% is still tough on our models, and clearly will somewhat limit train length.

Anyway, I am sorry that you were still harboring the "rebuff". Please accept my apology for something that was not intended to be personal.

Greg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top