 | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Track slope...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Apr 1999 02:05:20 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
snafu@#stopspammers#io.com
|
Viewed:
|
1157 times
|
| |
|
...I massively underestimated the minimum clearance for my first attempt at an
overpass and so had to increase the slope of the track to get it up high enough.
I ended up with 1 brick per segment, but had a lot of trouble getting the train
to maintain speed going up the track, and it tended to over accelerated going
down and had trouble rounding the curve on the hill... (tho it did make some
nice crashes as it rolled off :-)
...So anyway, what's a good height for an overpass? Mine was 13 high and was
kind of close. And what's a good slope? Should I start the slope at 1, then go
to 2 plates per segment (a number I had heard)? And should I keep the slope on
curves at 1?
--
just a thought
snafu
aka Stephen F Roberts /----------------------\
/---------------------------< physicist -- webmaster |
| snafu@io.com \ - freelance genius - |
| http://www.io.com/~snafu/ |---------------------/
\----------------------------/
<remove the SpamShieldRemoveToReply part in my email to reply >
<use of my email for unsolicited comercial is strictly forbidden>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Matt's Train Depot has a good tutorial for building inclines...
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/train_depot/inclines.htm
michael
Stephen F Roberts wrote:
> ...I massively underestimated the minimum clearance for my first attempt at an
> overpass and so had to increase the slope of the track to get it up high enough.
> I ended up with 1 brick per segment, but had a lot of trouble getting the train
> to maintain speed going up the track, and it tended to over accelerated going
> down and had trouble rounding the curve on the hill... (tho it did make some
> nice crashes as it rolled off :-)
>
> ...So anyway, what's a good height for an overpass? Mine was 13 high and was
> kind of close. And what's a good slope? Should I start the slope at 1, then go
> to 2 plates per segment (a number I had heard)? And should I keep the slope on
> curves at 1?
> --
> just a thought
> snafu
> aka Stephen F Roberts /----------------------\
> /---------------------------< physicist -- webmaster |
> | snafu@io.com \ - freelance genius - |
> | http://www.io.com/~snafu/ |---------------------/
> \----------------------------/
>
> <remove the SpamShieldRemoveToReply part in my email to reply >
> <use of my email for unsolicited comercial is strictly forbidden>
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Subject:
|
Re: Track slope...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.trains
|
Date:
|
Wed, 21 Apr 1999 02:32:17 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
[lpien@IWANTNOSPAM.ctp]avoidspam[.com]
|
Viewed:
|
1374 times
|
| |
|
Good topic!
Stephen F Roberts wrote:
> ...So anyway, what's a good height for an overpass? Mine was 13 high and was
> kind of close.
13 is a bit low for anything oversize, IMHO, but I model 'merican. It's
probably OK for eurotrash stuff.
> And what's a good slope? Should I start the slope at 1, then go
> to 2 plates per segment (a number I had heard)? And should I keep the slope on
> curves at 1?
Good question. Just as with real railroads, the answer is "it depends".
Your slope in general is limited by the horsepower to weight ratio
you're willing to spend. As you increase the slope, adhesion also comes
into play. At 3 plates per track segment you are going to have a hard
time pulling even 1 or 2 cars up a grade with a single motor, as you
observed. A motor by itself will have a hard time at 4 plates per slope
unless you add extra weight to improve adhesion (this is counter
intuitive until you think about it! :-) ).
As with real railroads, you can, from an energy budget perspective,
exceed the sustainable slope for a short period if you're willing to use
momentum to get you over the hump. You can also use racks, if you can
figure out how. I recall that Brian Lanning was working on this but
don't know what the ultimate outcome was.
I tend to use 1 plate per slope, but I like long trains and usually
budget 2 motors per locomotive anyway.
Now, that's theoretical grade work. As in real life, you also have to
allow for transitions, you should not change the rate of change in
elevation by more than 1 plate per section, so to get to that monster 4
plates grade, you should be using 3 transition segments of 1, 2, and 3
plates of increase.
Another tip. Never change the rate of change on a curve, or on the
section next to it. You can get away with two plates per section, even
curved, without derailments, if you come into and exit the curve at the
same grade.
For some fascinating reading on this topic, go to a used book store and
find a civil engineering text that predates WWII. Matt Bates's site has
info on this as well.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
FDIC Know your Customer is wounded, thanks to you, but not dead...
See http://www.defendyourprivacy.com for details
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
>
> For some fascinating reading on this topic, go to a used book store and
> find a civil engineering text that predates WWII. Matt Bates's site has
> info on this as well.
Not having access to a used book store, why a civil eng text from before
WWII? Did that data become classified after WWII?
--
Paul Foster
http://reality.sgi.com/foster_stco/lego.html
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Paul Foster wrote:
>
> Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> >
> > For some fascinating reading on this topic, go to a used book store and
> > find a civil engineering text that predates WWII. Matt Bates's site has
> > info on this as well.
>
> Not having access to a used book store, why a civil eng text from before
> WWII? Did that data become classified after WWII?
There was an emphasis shift in introductory civil texts around that time
period, as highway and airport engineering became more prominent. In any
1920 era civil text, railroad and bridge engineering vastly outweigh
airport and highway engineering.
--
Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
FDIC Know your Customer is wounded, thanks to you, but not dead...
See http://www.defendyourprivacy.com for details
For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
- Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
- Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
- This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Larry Pieniazek wrote:
> 13 is a bit low for anything oversize, IMHO, but I model 'merican. It's
> probably OK for eurotrash stuff.
Eurotrash!! That's the name of a TV Program. You're just jealous that
European Passenger trains can run at 186mph.
> Your slope in general is limited by the horsepower to weight ratio
> you're willing to spend. As you increase the slope, adhesion also comes
> into play. At 3 plates per track segment you are going to have a hard
> time pulling even 1 or 2 cars up a grade with a single motor, as you
> observed. A motor by itself will have a hard time at 4 plates per slope
> unless you add extra weight to improve adhesion (this is counter
> intuitive until you think about it! :-) ).
Are the metal rails magnetic? If so you could use Superhedsion(TM)
basically using magnets to improve traction.
> --
> Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
> FDIC Know your Customer is wounded, thanks to you, but not dead...
> See http://www.defendyourprivacy.com for details
> For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
> - Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
> - Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
> - This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
How long is this sig.? It's in breach of netiquette - oh dear!
--
Carbon 60
ICQ # 5643170
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
> Are the metal rails magnetic? If so you could use Superhedsion(TM)
Did you just invent this word and trademark it or is Superhedsion a real
word/technique?
>
> basically using magnets to improve traction.
>
> > --
> > Larry Pieniazek http://my.voyager.net/lar
> > FDIC Know your Customer is wounded, thanks to you, but not dead...
> > See http://www.defendyourprivacy.com for details
> > For me: No voyager e-mail please. All snail-mail to Ada, please.
> > - Posting Binaries to RTL causes flamage... Don't do it, please.
> > - Stick to the facts when posting about others, please.
> > - This is a family newsgroup, thanks.
>
> How long is this sig.? It's in breach of netiquette - oh dear!
> --
> Carbon 60
> ICQ # 5643170
Everyone loves to torture Larry, huh?
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.trains, Christopher Masi writes:
> > Are the metal rails magnetic? If so you could use Superhedsion(TM)
>
> Did you just invent this word and trademark it or is Superhedsion a real
> word/technique?
>
> >
> > basically using magnets to improve traction.
hmm...actually, the trademark name is "magnahdsion" (or some spelling
thereove) and belongs to Hornby Railways. Used on such (wonderful) engines as
my Lord of The Isles, Rocket, and dockyard shunter...
(yep, I have OO gauge trains too...heck, I have everything from N to 3 1/2
Livesteam...)
James
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
James Powell wrote:
> hmm...actually, the trademark name is "magnahdsion" (or some spelling
> thereove) and belongs to Hornby Railways. Used on such (wonderful) engines as
> my Lord of The Isles, Rocket, and dockyard shunter...
I was referring to Hornby's Technology - I thought it was Superhedsion -
it picks up all the loose nails on the track. The Scalextric equivalent
(Slotcars) is called Magnatraction basically a magnet on the bottom of
the car sticks the car to the metal slot rail.
> (yep, I have OO gauge trains too...heck, I have everything from N to 3 1/2
> Livesteam...)
> James
OO/HO is a good scale for home use.
--
Carbon 60
ICQ # 5643170
Remove DIESPAM to reply.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.trains, Stephen F. Roberts writes:
> ...I massively underestimated the minimum clearance for my first attempt at an
> overpass and so had to increase the slope of the track to get it up high • enough.
> I ended up with 1 brick per segment, but had a lot of trouble getting the • train
> to maintain speed going up the track, and it tended to over accelerated going
> down and had trouble rounding the curve on the hill... (tho it did make some
> nice crashes as it rolled off :-)
Ya, but you had to have seen what it is like when it is a 25 straight long
stretch to a curve at 23 bricks high, at speed :).
(25 straight long, starting at 52 bricks, going to 23 bricks=very steep grade)
Lets put it this way, the train hit the wall. The wall is 2 1/2 feet away.
It didn't hit the -bottom- of the wall either
:)
Need I say the train was dismantled?
> ...So anyway, what's a good height for an overpass? Mine was 13 high and was
> kind of close. And what's a good slope? Should I start the slope at 1, then go
> to 2 plates per segment (a number I had heard)? And should I keep the slope on
> curves at 1?
I build to 13 high. It is the highest that will pass through the (old)
signal, and works quite well. Yes, 1 plate per piece change, and one plate
per curve are best (0 plate, 1 plate, 3 plate(brick) 5 plate(1 2/3 brick)
straight track)
However, with good control, you can go to 1 brick/lenght, or even 1 1/3 brick
per length. The 4.5V motor will do it easier...
James Powell
| | | | | | |
