Stan Bolsenga said:
Remeasured and more accurately it is a 3.5" rise in 4'. A possible redesign is to run up a grade of 1.75" in 3' ending in a switch and then a straight section of about 2' where one mine would be located. At the switch would be another short section rising about 1.5" in 2' or so to another mine So we now have a switchback but it will be limited by the 2' section. However, I'm not worried about a train of just 1 or 2 short ore cars and the engine.
Any other comments would be much appreciated- these certainly have helped
Stan
The new grade is 7% which is doable for most of the smaller engines in HO - especially geared steam. Train length may be only one to three cars, though.
I recommend you build a test track with 2 straight pieces of flex on a board. Prop one end of the board up to be at your anticipated grade. See if your engines will pull the desired train on the grade before committing to final form on the layout.
With more than 2% grades you WILL need a vertical transition curve at both the bottom and the top to prevent accidental uncouplings (resulting in exciting uncontrolled runaways - don't ask me how I know about these). Also, lack of a vertical transition curve can cause coupler trip pins to hang up on ties and loco pilots to short out on the rails. Finally, if grade change is abrubt enough, locos can lose traction as they straddle the angle change. It is better to have an even steeper grade than not enough transition.
The easiest way to get decent vertical transitions is to use plywood for a subroadbed. Cut the plywood to little more than roadbed width and bend the plywood to the grade, as mentioned earlier. 1/2" plywood subroadbed always gave me reasonable transitions. If creating your own transitions, the rule of thumb I have seen work is a longest car (or loco)length transition for each 2% of grade change.
just my thoughts, your choices