# Circular track plan to gain altitude



## OrionShield (Oct 8, 2017)

I'm just getting started with g-scale trains and am working on a layout that travels in the back yard and through the front yard.

I'm wondering about climbing about 10' of elevation using a pattern of circular or figure 8 track layout to climb about 10 feet. I'm wondering if anyone has seen this done or has advice. I'm hoping to create a mountain scene.

With thanks,

Andrew


----------



## s-4 (Jan 2, 2008)

Hi Andrew,
Climbing 10ft may be more ambitious than you think. Most of us like to run our trains on grades no steeper than 2%. 
A 10ft climb at:
1% requires 1000ft of track.
2% requires 500ft of track
3% requires 333ft
4% requires 250ft.

A 1% grade is an inch of climb over every 100in of travel. 2% is 2 inches of climb every 100in. 

A nice way to measure this is to use a 48in level. Since its almost 50in long...You can measure a 1% grade as a 1/2in from level. (0.5in/50in)=1%


----------



## Semper Vaporo (Jan 2, 2008)

And if you have any curves in it, then that also counts against you as an increase in the effective grade.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

Andrew, Welcome to MLS! 
You are describing a helix..relatively common in the smaller scales:






Never heard of anyone doing on in Large Scale before though..im sure it can technically be done! Whether its practical or not is another story..

Expanding on S4's data, if we take the minimum practical numbers for reliable operation, lets say 8-foot diameter curves, 2% grade, and 8" clearance between loops, to rise 10 feet we need 15 individual "loops" in the helix..8 foot diameter curve has a circumference of 25 feet..25 feet times 15 loops equals 375 total feet..too short for 2% grade..its closer to 3%, too steep IMO.

Lets go to 12 foot diameter curves..still need 15 loops to rise 10 feet, but now we are at 565 total feet of track..thats better! Just under a 2% grade..that could work!

So, you "only" need to build a helix 12 feet across, 10 feet high, with 560 feet of track.  it can technically be done! The question is, are you willing and able to do it? If so, we would all love to see it! But I suspect it wont be practical..which is why we dont see them in large scale.

How about a vertical lift bridge instead? Im planning to build one for my basement shelves:

http://forums.mylargescale.com/16-t...basement-train-shelves-access-outdoor-rr.html

Scot


----------



## ThinkerT (Jan 2, 2008)

I played around with a helix on my old G scale indoor layout - mostly R2 (5 foot diameter) curves with a few straights and R1 curves tossed in, because that's what the space demanded. Climbed 19 inches in two loops and a bit, grade 4% or a bit steeper. About 38-39 feet of track. 

None of the locomotives I had - an Annie, a couple of Lionel 0-6-0's, a Mack, or the Aristocraft diesel could make it to the top pulling more than three or four cars without the wheels spinning. Most could manage like two cars without issues. 

I'm working on another 19 inch climb on the rebuilt layout. This time, though, it'll be a single extended loop with lots of straights, and a grade of just over 3%. Much more doable, though still on the steep side. 

I believe VSmith experimented with a R1 helix once upon a time, with results similar to mine. 

These grades, especially with curves, are tough on the locomotives!


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

I would like to expand on what Scott has said with some additional information. Scott's numbers may be accurate for the scale he models in, 1:32. However there are a number of scales that run on 45mm track that Scott has left out of his equations Large scale comprises 1:29 (close enough to Scott's 1:32 to ignore), 1:24, 1:22.5, 1.20.3 and 1:13.7, all getting larger is size.

For a 1:32 scale the 8" number Scott relates is most likely acceptable (depending on what you are supporting your track on) assuming the 8" it top or rail to top of rail, and on less than a 1" thick road bed. I run mostly 1:20.3 scale equipment and use a minimum vertical clearance (top or rail to top or rail) of 12", my models are considerably larger. Using that clearance, this is how it affects Scott's calculations. Using an 8 foot diameter circle of track (96") multiplying it by 3.1415 (pi) gives me a linear length of 301.59" (25.13 feet). If I divide that length by the rise that yields a 2.51% grade. (I think Scott needs to review his math). However, I would not run something as small as 8 foot circles in my scale, I minimize on 10 foot for performance, and then some of my locos look funny on that.

Andrew, one thing you did not mention in your original post was what scale you are planning to work in. Scale can make a marked difference in how you plan your rail road. Locomotive and rolling stock choices will also affect what you can and can not do. If your intention is to run modern diesels with modern long rolling stock, then IMHO (in my honest opinion) 8 foot circles are much too small. I am sure I will get some flack over that statement but it is what it is. As a new person, my advice would be to purchase a copy of 'Garden Railway Basics' by Kevin Strong. The book covers, in general, almost every aspect of garden railroading including track work. Another resource is Garden Railways magazine, and in recent issue(s) there have been article(s) on grades in your garden railroad.

Welcome aboard, and feel free to PM me or email me at narrowgauge [at] knology [dot] net.


----------



## Pete Thornton (Jan 2, 2008)

> I'm wondering about climbing about 10' of elevation using a pattern of circular or figure 8 track layout to climb about 10 feet. I'm wondering if anyone has seen this done or has advice. I'm hoping to create a mountain scene.


You could do it the prototypical way, using geared engines and switchbacks.

But I'm surprised how quickly we forget the previous inquiries. Some years ago, Quentin Breen from Train Mountain joined and was asking about getting long freight trains out of his basement storage to the outdoor yard. Sadly, I can't find the thread and he is no longer with us.

But googling "site:mylargescale.com helix" produced a few old threads with similar answers to the above.


----------



## Scottychaos (Jan 2, 2008)

armorsmith said:


> Using an 8 foot diameter circle of track (96") multiplying it by 3.1415 (pi) gives me a linear length of 301.59" (25.13 feet). If I divide that length by the rise that yields a 2.51% grade. (I think Scott needs to review his math).


Actually, it's you that needs to review your math. You have it wrong. you divided the circumference of one circle, 25.13 feet, by the total rise in feet, 10 feet, to get 2.51% grade. That is wrong. You were wrong twice actually, you need to divide rise by run, you divided run by rise. and you also need to determine the total run, not just one circle.

Using your example, rising 10 feet in 25.13 feet, you divide the rise by the run, (not run by rise) 10 divided by 25.13, which, rounded, is a 40% grade.

You need to calculate the total run length, not just one circle. If each circle rises 8 inches, you need 15 circles to rise 10 feet.
25.13 times 15 = 377 feet. 10 feet rise over 377 foot run equals 2.65% grade. Which, as I said correctly, is closer to 3% than 2%.

Scot


----------



## Greg Elmassian (Jan 3, 2008)

I emailed my friend Ted, he has a helix to gain height from his basement to his back yard, and I hope he will post his experiences here. From looking at his videos, it works well, even with long trains.

Greg - 682


----------



## Ted Doskaris (Oct 7, 2008)

*Video of double loop*

In response to Greg E. about my loop to gain altitude is a video below. 
The video includes a 40 car train traversing a double loop to gain about 3 1/2 feet from under my house to the upper part of the back yard. Outdoor track is stainless steel.
The tightest curved area on the lower part of the loop at the far end includes a few sections of 14 foot diameter track that is relaxed out to a wider curve; otherwise the curves are 16 to 20 foot diameter. I used a rail bender to ease curve transitions.






-Ted


----------



## s-4 (Jan 2, 2008)

This was from my old layout. Roughly 8ft diameter, 4% grade-ish, and just barely enough clearance. Almost every freight car was given LGB double ball bearing wheels to make it work reliably without killing the loco gears.


----------



## toddalin (Jan 4, 2008)

Check out the Mystic Mountain Railroad in the Palo Alto area for a "heck of a helix." They even have construction photos.

http://www.mysticmountainarts.com/MMRR/


----------



## denray (Jan 5, 2008)

[/url]IMG_0613[1] by Dennis Rayon, on Flickr[/IMG]

Don't forget he said front yard to backyard, that may in its self be 100 plus feet apart, using that distance plus using bridges and mountains, crossing over the track with 40 to 50 ft creates the possibility of gaining some height. I only run geared loco's and one to three cars behind little 0-4-0 but I have lots of mountains. in one place i have 4 tracks that are over each other.
Next year the top track will connect to the middle track with a 1-1/2 helix plus 40 feet of track getting to the helix. 
Now there is 16 inches in height difference between bottom and middle tracks, 
{{This may or may not be possible}} 
If he would start out at 3ft high at the bottom instead of the ground maybe then he would only have 7ft to climb.
All i can say is there is so many things to think about, the only recommendation i can make is to keep in mind to connect the front and back, but really plan and develope the back you might decide the front is to far to go. 
So many people have big and great ideas until they see the work it turns into. 
Build a little smaller with the plans to add on without difficulty, then add on after the small section is done. it is fun the run trains then add on, as to be 3 yrs to get trains running to find out they don't run as you had dreamed they would, . Then quit with great frustrations.


----------



## denray (Jan 5, 2008)

this is a shot of the four tracks crossing each other







[/url]Nov 20 c by Dennis Rayon, on Flickr[/IMG]


----------



## kormsen (Oct 27, 2009)

i have a height difference of 26". that took me over 13 meters (nearly 14 yards) of track. mostly straights at 6% elevation and some R1 curves at 4%.
it is only for strong locos (2motors, 4 driven aixles) and short trains.


----------



## armorsmith (Jun 1, 2008)

Scott, my math is fine. It is you who didn't read the post correctly. The ONLY rise I mentioned in the post was the *8" Rise* your suggested in your post. Secondly, The total rise has nothing to do with the rise of a single loop when the distance between top or rails is the guiding factor. So I will review it again and spell it out more definitively.

Total centerline length** of one loop of 8 foot (96") diameter track = 301.592"
Rise for one loop of track = 8" (Scott's dimension) clearance top of rail to top of rail
8" rise divided by 301.592" run = .0265 (times 100 = 2.65 % grade.

** this dimension is approximate as the track is actually metric and I don't have the exact dimensions available.

So yes Scott, you caught me. Some how I managed to be off by 0.14% on the grade (equivalent to approximately 3/8" in a 96" circle). For the vertical distance the OP is attempting to gain, I would say that the 15 loops and 8 foot circles would work fine. Of course larger circles would work better due to our inability to account for the drag on the inside wheels against the inside rail of the loops. Larger loops, less drag.


----------



## Dan Pierce (Jan 2, 2008)

If you have ball bearing wheels, much less drag on curves. Even the single ball bearing wheels work well (Gary Raymond made some).


----------



## krs (Feb 29, 2008)

How about a switch-back arrangement?

All the track would essentially be straight track allowing a steeper grade than curved track.
It's also more prototypical than a helix.
And it could easily be automated for the train to reverse and the switches thrown automatically.

Using a cog loco would also allow much steeper grades


----------

