# Alps layout



## OBB_LGB (Nov 19, 2010)

@import url(http://www.mylargescale.com/Provide...ad.ashx?type=style&file=SyntaxHighlighter.css);@import url(/providers/htmleditorproviders/cehtmleditorprovider/dnngeneral.css); Hi everyone,

Just to paint a picture here.... 

I'm just getting into the world of G scale (coming from a childhood of HO). I'm designing a layout for a basement, starting with a 18ft x 10.5 ft area. I'm aware this is small, but I'd rather like to start small and simple. I know, I should have probably chosen O scale or smaller for indoors, but I can't resist the call of beautiful Austrian/German/Swiss scenery and trains, and I really never liked HO scale.

For me this is more about scenery, I'm not much of a train collector. I also don't want any advanced routes. I want a couple small passenger trains, no more than 3-6 cars per train.

My initial question is the issue of grades, which I read about in earlier threads. My specific problem is how it should be handled in a situation where I want to separate a dramatic mountain pass from a small town at lower elevation. I could do a safe 2-3 percent grade, but that wouldn't give my mountain pass a dramatic looking elevation at all. Are there any clever methods for getting a train up a decent (let's say 3 ft) elevation within a layout this size? Another possibility I was thinking was to design a long narrow extension strictly for the purpose of getting the train up to a height over a longer distance, which would turn back into the main layout.

Sorry if these are dumb or unclear questions, if need be I'll adjust my post. 


EDIT:

Also, just to add, I'm looking to use track power, and probably brass LGB sectional track.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

They use cog railroads to climb steep hills. The Swiss have some nice ones.... LGB made one... try Ebay. 

John


----------



## OBB_LGB (Nov 19, 2010)

Interesting John, and thank you for the fast reply. 

I found an example of such an indoor layout here: http://www.spec2000.net/rr_site_pages/rr_story_files/PHOTO1.jpg 

That's pretty close to what I wanna do. Am I out of my mind or what?


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

with a cog railway you can go steep. up to 20%. 
with a "normal" railway it is much less. 

main results of a lot "try & err": 
an LGB Stainz with additional weight can tow 3 short cars up a grade of 7.5%. 
with four cars you are down to abot 6.5%. 

for the indoors layout i'm building at the moment, i choosed to make two long ramps of 6% alongside one of the walls.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Interesting, but the small size may be a limiting factor, especially with pax trains. Realize what cars you use from LGB that you are talking about 5+ foot long trains including the shortest one you mentioned (three cars). 

If you came from modelling in H0, have you considered H0e or H0m? You could have a VERY impressive layout at that size. Inclding operating catenary and rack trains.


----------



## AppleYankee (Jan 3, 2008)

My solution to keep the percent grade down is to split the the height of the rise. I have two sections where tracks must crossover each other. My layout is 8 X 30 ft. All my loco's have pantograph's and my layout also has catenary wire above the track. I needed a minimum of 8 1/2 inches of clearance between crossing levels because of the catenary wire. To keep the grades between 2 and 2 1/2% and to limit the length of the grade I chose to go up 4 1/2 inches on the over track and down 4 1/2 inches on the under track. The length of track required is around 19ft versus almost 30ft to reach a height of 9 in. My normal train length is about 10 ft. (Large RhB engine, 1st class car, 2nd class car and a 1st class/2nd class control car), mainly because of passing sidings and yard tracks. 

Jan


----------



## Ironton (Jan 2, 2008)

I am sorry Jan, but your numbers do not make sense. The grade is determined by dividing the total distance from the lowest point to the highest point by the length of track used in getting from one point to the other, regardless. So you started out correctly.

At a 2.5% grade you need 360 inches of track to climb 9 inches. That is your 30 feet. At a 2% grade you need 450 inches to climb 9 inches. That is 37 1/2 feet.

Your 19 feet of track means climbing 9 inches is just under a 4% grade (9 / 228). A bit steeper than you thought, right?

Hope this helps.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Rich, 
He cut the hill in half by making the lower track dip down for the other half of the grade. So recompute using 4.5" as the elevation climbed. 
Better grab that second cup of coffee! 

John


----------



## AppleYankee (Jan 3, 2008)

Right on John, I split the 9" height I needed by having the grade on one track go up 4.5" to my crossover and and the second track going down 4.5" to pass under the crossover. The length is about 220" for each track section and works out to about a 2% grade versus a 3% or more grade. 


Jan


----------



## OBB_LGB (Nov 19, 2010)

Wow, I'm already impressed with the quality responses on this forum. Thank you all! I really look forward to making something unique and sharing it on this site. 

Anyway, I looked into the rack locomotives and fittings. Between a couple online retailers and Ebay, I found everything I need, but something tells me if it were so great, it would be a more popular method. 

I will try my darndest to come up with a compromise in my layout that satisfies my goals. I might be able to do it...after all, the entire layout can be set at high altitute...it doesn't necessarily have to climb to a high altitude. 

Kormsen's picture is a lot like what I imagined doing to get to a decent height.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

The rack system worked well, I had one of the LGB Ballenberg steam locos. I should have never sold it. 

http://www.gbdb.info/details.php?image_id=100&sessionid=5e1d198e9515d0561e78d46278b53b8f&l=english 

As far as being "popular" there really are not that many rack railways in the world, and the LGB rack stuff does sell for a premium, even secondhand.


----------



## vsmith (Jan 2, 2008)

My indoor layout was about 19' 6" x 10' and had 4.5% grade and I had a hard time get the track up and over itself, about 10" max. Rack would be the only way to get higher in the area you describe.


----------



## Ironton (Jan 2, 2008)

We are talking about the same thing. He is just considering the middle of the climb to be ground level. I was talking about the total distance from the bottom to the tip of the grade.

So by his calculation he goes 4.5 inches below ground level and 4.5 inches above ground level. That is fine. The total length of his grade from bottom to top is still 38 feet.

I would just consider ground level to be the losest point. Then it takes 38 feet to get up the 9 inches of total climb. Either way the total length of track on the grade is the same.

Sorry, I read his post as he was only using 19 feet of grade. No disagreement, just a difference of viewpoint









I wanted to be sure that the original poster understood that it takes the same amount of track regardless of how you design or look at the layout.

Hope this straightens things out.


----------



## Totalwrecker (Feb 26, 2009)

Rich, 
He never went up to 9". The climbing track only went up 4.5" The other track that dipped to negative ground (-4.5") is not part of the climb and can't be added later.... thus he did accomplish his quest in 19'. 

Think of it as an highway crossing, the track bumps up as the road bumps down. You don't add the roadway to the track when computing the grade. 

Ahah! Translucent Mud! 

John


----------



## Don Howard (Jan 2, 2008)

Rack railroads are fun.
Many countries have a least one.
Rack - Mt Snowden in Wales.
Cog - Mt Washington, New Hampshire, and Pikes Peak, Colorado.
Zahnradbahn - Zugspitze and part of the Switzerland's Glacier Express. Goernergrat Bahn mountain train is across the street from the Zermatt train station.

Chemins de fer à crémaillère in France - one is on Mont Blanc - http://www.compagniedumontblanc.fr/...dules.html

Cremallera - Montserrat rack railway, the second (after the Vall de Núria) in Catalonia, Spain, near Barcelona



Models: 


There are 2 current ones here in Vermont that members of the Vermont Garden Railway Society have.
Lotta Rock Railway has one that goes from ground level up to a stone castle.
http://picasaweb.google.com/vtgrsoc...1456963810 
and
http://picasaweb.google.com/vtgrsoc...1778392610 

and my railroad.
rack section climbs hill above the locomotive to the woodshed
RGSNorth cog album 


There are at least 3 versions of the LGB locomotives.
2046 Rhb
????? SchB SchoellenBahn

????? Zugspitze set


----------



## ronchatt (Jan 2, 2008)

* Adding to the list of railways from Don Howard, try the West Coast Wilderness Railway in Tasmania*.
* And I belive* *New Zeeland had at least one. Ron*


----------



## OBB_LGB (Nov 19, 2010)

I sure do like that Ballenberg, so that's probably what I'd go with if I actually did this. I think I'll try and design it so that I can add higher elevation detour using a rack if I still really want it. For now I think I'll keep it simple. 

I'll probably be starting a new thread at some point with drawings of what's in my head.


----------



## Spule 4 (Jan 2, 2008)

There were more than a few rack lines in Asia, Africa and the Middle East: 

http://www.steam.dial.pipex.com/hills/rackrailways.htm 

The ones in Indonesia were very interesting, I have some 1970s movies of these lines.


----------

