Arseny's layout

Re: Arseny's layout

Postby Arseny » Mon Apr 07, 2014 1:06 am

gaborden wrote:The grade is a little over 3% by allowing the climb to continue from Reid Gap all the way to Green Hill where the upper track & mine siding crosses over the track out of Rogers Yard. If the grade stops at the start of the viaduct, the grade is close to 4%. Extending the climb through the passing siding makes things much better.


My grade starts somewhere between Reid Gap depot and Moonshine bar, and stops somewhere after the viaduct, near the turnout on the "2nd level" (virtually - because I will not have any viaduct)
User avatar
Arseny
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:42 am
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: Arseny's layout

Postby railtwister » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:21 am

j p wrote:
railtwister wrote: Figuring out the grade should be a lot easier using metric dimensions, don't you think?

Bill in FtL


The grade is exactly the same regardless of which units you use for measuring it (as long as you use the same unit for length as for the elevation).
Percent, or 1/x is exactly the same in metric, imperial or Polynesian unit system.
Historically, railroads used 1/x in some countries and ‰ in other countries.



Yes, of course the grade is the same, no matter what the unit of measure, but the figuring out process is easier using millimeters rather than inches for a couple of reasons. The millimeters are smaller units that are more suitable for application to a small layout. As long as you are dealing in like units such as eighths of and inch to measure both the amount of rise and the length of the grade, it's not a lot different than using millimeters, but the complication comes from measuring the rise in eighths or quarters of an inch and the length in inches or feet, which then requires conversion to the units used to measure the rise. It's easy to make an error when figuring the conversion (just ask an engineer involved with the crashed Mars Lander!)

Bill in FtL
railtwister
 
Posts: 699
Images: 4
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:39 am
Location: Oakland Park (Ft. Lauderdale), FL, USA

Re: Arseny's layout

Postby railtwister » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:30 am

Hi Arseny,

I forgot to ask, did your SW loco have a traction tire on it when you made the video?

Bill in FtL
railtwister
 
Posts: 699
Images: 4
Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 8:39 am
Location: Oakland Park (Ft. Lauderdale), FL, USA

Re: Arseny's layout

Postby Arseny » Mon Apr 07, 2014 8:37 am

No, I did not use traction tires
User avatar
Arseny
 
Posts: 2630
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 4:42 am
Location: Saint-Petersburg, Russia

Re: Arseny's layout

Postby ctxmf74 » Mon Apr 07, 2014 2:04 pm

"but the complication comes from measuring the rise in eighths or quarters of an inch and the length in inches or feet, which then requires conversion to the units used to measure the rise'

Using a calculator for the fractions is probably the easiest way to go. 1/8 inch rise in 16 inches run would be 1/8=.125/16=.0078 or .78% , 5/8 rise in 27 inches run would be 5/8=.625/27=.023 or 2.3% , etc. A bit more steps is 2 15/16 inch rise in 99 5/8 inches would be 15/16=.9375+2=2.9375/ [(5/8=.625)+99=99.625]=.0295 or 2.95 % ....DaveB
ctxmf74
 
Posts: 702
Images: 32
Joined: Tue Jan 05, 2010 12:25 am

Re: Arseny's layout

Postby LVG1 » Tue Apr 15, 2014 3:31 pm

railtwister wrote:..., but the complication comes from measuring the rise in eighths or quarters of an inch and the length in inches or feet, which then requires conversion to the units used to measure the rise. It's easy to make an error when figuring the conversion (just ask an engineer involved with the crashed Mars Lander!)


Just guess why we've eliminated non-metric measures in continental Europe... :wink:
"Let's eat, grandpa."
Punctuation marks save lives!
User avatar
LVG1
 
Posts: 864
Images: 34
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:01 am
Location: Guben / Gubin; Germany? Poland?—No, Lusatia!

Re: Arseny's layout

Postby Marquette » Tue Apr 15, 2014 10:39 pm

LVG1 wrote:
railtwister wrote:..., but the complication comes from measuring the rise in eighths or quarters of an inch and the length in inches or feet, which then requires conversion to the units used to measure the rise. It's easy to make an error when figuring the conversion (just ask an engineer involved with the crashed Mars Lander!)


Just guess why we've eliminated non-metric measures in continental Europe... :wink:


Because Imperial units are too complicated for you? ;)
http://espeett.blogspot.com - The SP in 1:120 - my attempt at a blog
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
User avatar
Marquette
 
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm

Re: Arseny's layout

Postby LVG1 » Thu Apr 17, 2014 2:22 am

Marquette wrote:
LVG1 wrote:
railtwister wrote:..., but the complication comes from measuring the rise in eighths or quarters of an inch and the length in inches or feet, which then requires conversion to the units used to measure the rise. It's easy to make an error when figuring the conversion (just ask an engineer involved with the crashed Mars Lander!)


Just guess why we've eliminated non-metric measures in continental Europe... :wink:


Because Imperial units are too complicated for you? ;)


Not too complicated for me.
But why complicated if there's a more simple way?

By the way:
I know, old European "Horse Power" is different from North American "Horse Power".
One European "Horse Power" was 735.5 Watt.
But how much is one North American "Horse Power"? :?:
"Let's eat, grandpa."
Punctuation marks save lives!
User avatar
LVG1
 
Posts: 864
Images: 34
Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2012 10:01 am
Location: Guben / Gubin; Germany? Poland?—No, Lusatia!

Re: Arseny's layout

Postby Rob M » Thu Apr 17, 2014 11:08 am

LVG1 wrote:But how much is one North American "Horse Power"? :?:

1/455 of a Corvette :lol:
User avatar
Rob M
 
Posts: 610
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:35 pm
Location: Northern Wisconsin

Re: Arseny's layout

Postby Marquette » Thu Apr 17, 2014 12:15 pm

LVG1 wrote:
Marquette wrote:
LVG1 wrote:
railtwister wrote:..., but the complication comes from measuring the rise in eighths or quarters of an inch and the length in inches or feet, which then requires conversion to the units used to measure the rise. It's easy to make an error when figuring the conversion (just ask an engineer involved with the crashed Mars Lander!)


Just guess why we've eliminated non-metric measures in continental Europe... :wink:


Because Imperial units are too complicated for you? ;)


Not too complicated for me.
But why complicated if there's a more simple way?


Imperial units *are* simple! Although Canada was officially metric by the time I started school, I grew up using Imperial units and still, for the most part, use them, although I am equally comfortable with either system.

By the way:
I know, old European "Horse Power" is different from North American "Horse Power".
One European "Horse Power" was 735.5 Watt.
But how much is one North American "Horse Power"? :?:


745.6 W
http://espeett.blogspot.com - The SP in 1:120 - my attempt at a blog
#include <std/disclaimer.h>
User avatar
Marquette
 
Posts: 2061
Joined: Wed Dec 23, 2009 8:16 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Layouts / Track Plans

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests