Question re: inclines and track connections

[MaineBrickFan]

So I've been working on an incline to get to the required 14 brick clearance. I am working in modular baseplate sections. One issue as a result is that as my track rises, the length of the track is coming up increasingly short to connect to the next baseplate section. After about three or four (36 x 36) sections, I cannot completely connect the track sections. This makes sense as a matter of trigonometry, of course; as your angle increases the end point of the track will recede from a flat piece of the same length .

It seems that as long as the rail sections are only a few mm apart and are aligned laterally, the trains can navigate this gap (although I don't have this layout loop complete yet, so it's hard to be sure). So the easiest solution is to just leave every seventh rail section unconnected.

The alternate solution I thought of was to build 2x4 bases to prop up the rails. That way, the base can flex, but this tends to leave a pretty fragile hillside under considerable tension, and it can be a pain to reconnect.

I suppose another option is to just leave the track bed free from the ballast/baseplates, although I am not sure that is ideal. Any other folks with long climbs on their layouts grappled with this issue or come up with more creative solutions?

Edited December 2, 2013 by MaineBrickFan

[zephyr1934]

Hum... since you are working in modular base plate sections, I'd suggest that you start out with a bare bones design to get the mechanical details working (just the supports to get the rail in the right place). Once you have that tweaked to your satisfaction, then figure out how to go back and make it look like a hill or bridge or ??? If you are using PF, my knee jerk idea would be to have the gaps occur at the edge of every base plate section. Then they should simply be wide joints rather than actual gaps (that is another nice thing about having the bare bones prototype, you can test the joints and see if they cause problems for your rolling stock). In any event, many (but not all) pf trains should be able to cross up to a half stud gap in the rails with little problems.

[UrbanErwin]

If you have a small between each two or four track pieces you wont have a big gap at the end.

[MaineBrickFan]

If you are using PF, my knee jerk idea would be to have the gaps occur at the edge of every base plate section. Then they should simply be wide joints rather than actual gaps (that is another nice thing about having the bare bones prototype, you can test the joints and see if they cause problems for your rolling stock). In any event, many (but not all) pf trains should be able to cross up to a half stud gap in the rails with little problems.

Thanks -- I should have made it clear that this is PF track. And I think your solution (echoed by Urban Erwin) is the easiest one - every second baseplate or so I will just not click together the link to connect the tracks. (I am using technic bricks and pins to hold the modules together, so that will provide a solid connection for the landscape. Regarding your last note, are there particular PF trains you think would be a problem?

[zephyr1934]

Oh, I generally prefer to err on the cautious side, and I think it is a good idea to test a prototype before spending a lot of money on fully detailing a project. Building and detailing the hill sections could be expensive and if you then find your trains will not work, that would be !@#$%. Better to first build the supports out of used 2x4's to test the idea.

Okay, enough preamble, here are the points of caution that strike me. First, the stock lego train motors are not very powerful, so if you have a heavy train, that could cause problems. Second, if you have long wheel bases or some other odd design to a MOC locomotive, that might not like the gaps (e.g., some MOCs do not like to take switches). I THINK most of the stock city PF sets should do fine on a grade.

The EN should do POORLY because the front and rear trucks will likely lift the driver wheels off the track at the bottom of the hill and lift the pilot truck off the track at the top of the hill. It is designed to run on flat surfaces.

The HE and Masersk trains MIGHT be problematic- the HE because with 6 cars and only one motor the hill could be too much for it, two motors might solve the problem though. The Maersk simply because the engine has a lot of drag (if you put two motors under it, that might eliminate the drag problem and give it a lot more power).

Oh, one more thing that comes to mind that you probably do want to avoid, and that is inserting gaps between rails on a curve. When a train comes around the curve the extra gap is a spot where the wheels could take to derail (see the clockwork article in Railbricks 7 for more on this idea)

[MaineBrickFan]

zephyr -- Thanks for a very detailed response! You have always been a real resource on these boards and I appreciate you taking the timer to answer my noob questions.

I'll definitely give it a few test runs before i get the hill entirely built. One side of it is the edge of my layout so I can safely build my 2x4 brick wall there, but the other will depend on how it works out. The hill is all straights, so I tat least have avoided adding the uncertainty of gaps in curved inclines.

My thinking is that I will add a second motor to the longer trains if necessary; the tests I have done so far are with the Yellow Cargo and all three trucks. I anticipate that the EN will be problematic and will try to figure out the best way to handle that one -- maybe it will just stay on one level for now...

I will try to update with some pictures when I have made significant progress...

[zephyr1934]

Don't mention it (though you are quite welcome), I'm just paying it forward. There is no such thing as a dumb question after all and it often does take some trial and error to get lego to work right for AFOL trains. As for the EN and hills, I bet it could be modified so that it would do okay over grade changes. I built mine with extra points of rotation on the pilot and trailing trucks. I have yet to take photos of it, but the mechanical design is similar to this one.

[AussieJimbo]

Lots of great info already from zephyr.

In my experience the EN doesn't like to enter or leave a grade at more than 1 stud per straight section. Once into a grade it has no trouble with a 2 stud per straight grade. For a curved grade I keep it to 1 stud per track piece, especially for S-curves and horseshoes but try to avoid curved grades if I can.

I tend to set all my grades by these rules and have no problem with PF or even RC locos. My dual motor Yellow Maersk can pull many cars up such grades. I've also done quite steep downwards grades (4 or 5 studs per with graduated entries and exits) where I was comfortable running the train in only one direction across the section.

:classic:

[Haddock51]

I recently made some tests re inclinations as a preparation for my project 9V Extreme (for details see separate topic "9V Extreme - first test results")

The ramps have an inclination of 7,7 percent (length: 3,9 m/30 straight tracks, elevation: 30 cm). The edges between ramp and plain level are "smoothened" with 1x2 plates under the connection of the 1st and 2nd straight before and after the edge.

The picture below shows that the Emerald Night (with two 9V engines under the first passenger car) manages the edge superbly without derailing - and at decent speed!

My tests also showed that the extended Horizon Express (with 4 9V engines and 8 units) and the extended Maersk train with two engines and 6 waggons with load manage these inclinations and edges with no problem - both uphill and downhill. :sweet:

Early January, I will set up a double-track 360 degree climbing-spiral prototype with curved inclinations of approx. 5 percent. This means entering new territory - at least for me. I hope that these tests will show equal positive results ...

Edited December 14, 2013 by Haddock51