In OO, what is the accepted norm for height clearances of one track over
another, and what is the accepted gradient to achieve those heights please?
scoot
John Turner - 26 Apr 2008 08:39 GMT
> In OO, what is the accepted norm for height clearances of one track over
> another, and what is the accepted gradient to achieve those heights
> please?
Clearance is easy; find you tallest loco or piece of rolling stock and add
say ¼ inch.
Gradient is a real variable - it will depend upon so many difference factors
including the length of train you wish to use, whether the gradient is on
the straight or a curve, the haulage capability of your least powerful loco
and so on. Certainly don't consider anything steeper than 1:30 - but on
most prototype railways 1:50 is considered steep and has the potential to
cause operating issues.
Of course there are steeper inclines, but you're going to have to do some
experimenting to see what might work for YOU!
John.
Wolf Kirchmeir - 26 Apr 2008 13:23 GMT
> In OO, what is the accepted norm for height clearances of one track over
> another, and what is the accepted gradient to achieve those heights please?
>
> scoot
The clearance between rail and underside of any obstruction should be
about 2-1/2". Add the thickness of your track from underside of
supporting board to top of rail to that measurement. It's typically 1/2"
to 1". So the total rise is 3" or more. If you are using an overbridge,
you can shave this by about 1/4".
The gradient to achieve this depends on a number of factors, such as
desired train length, but the recommended maximum range is 1 in 35 to 1
in 30. I would not build a steeper gradient unless absolutely necessary.
With steeper gradients, train length will be much shorter. If possible,
hold gradients to 1 in 50 or less.
PS1: The effect of gradient on train length is substantial. If a
locomotive can haul 100 wagons on the level, than it can haul 50 or
fewer on 1:100, 30 or fewer on 1:50, and 20 or fewer on 1:30! In real
Life, that's assuming the wagons are all braked, since coming down a
hill is trickier than going up it.
PS2: Design standards for track plans: When drawing up the general
arrangement of your mainline, it's best to assume steeper grades and
tighter curves than you actually expect to use. Then you can be sure
that your general arrangement will fit the available space. The actual,
detailed plan will have easier grades and wider curves, which means
better operation in all respects.
HTH

Signature
wolf k.
Robt P - 26 Apr 2008 16:00 GMT
> The clearance between rail and underside of any obstruction should be
> about 2-1/2". Add the thickness of your track from underside of
> supporting board to top of rail to that measurement. It's typically 1/2"
> to 1". So the total rise is 3" or more. If you are using an overbridge,
> you can shave this by about 1/4".
> JT wrote:
Clearance is easy; find you tallest loco or piece of rolling stock and
add
say ¼ inch....
Why state it clearly in about 11 words, when you can waffle the same
in around 107 words? [HTH]
Cheers
Robt P.
Greg Procter - 26 Apr 2008 20:16 GMT
> > The clearance between rail and underside of any obstruction should be
> > about 2-1/2". Add the thickness of your track from underside of
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Cheers
> Robt P.
The question is as straight-forward as the length of the proverbial
piece of string!
For example; if you are in a situation where the lines cross at right
angles there's no need for a support beneath the upper track. Clearance
can be:
- 5mm for track height, plus 52mm for scale prototype rolling stock,
plus 5mm clearance - total 62mm. (2 1/2")
If the tracks are at an angle the crossing track will need a solid
support base. This can be plywood or in desperate circumstances a "U"
shaped metal trough.
If you want to run overhead electric locos or US HO the 52mm will need
to be increased considerably, perhaps another 12mm.
If the crossing point is visible then you'll want to add another 15mm
clearance to look prototypical.
Given that every 1mm increase in height adds another 50mm in the length
of each ramp or an increase in the gradient (which decreases practical
train length) this is a calculation which deserves a lot of thought.
Regards,
Greg.P.
Wolf Kirchmeir - 27 Apr 2008 02:47 GMT
>> The clearance between rail and underside of any obstruction should be
>> about 2-1/2". Add the thickness of your track from underside of
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Cheers
> Robt P.
What JT said doesn't work. Try it.

Signature
wolf k.
Wolf Kirchmeir - 27 Apr 2008 03:10 GMT
>> The clearance between rail and underside of any obstruction should be
>> about 2-1/2". Add the thickness of your track from underside of
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Cheers
> Robt P.
Robert, you are a terrible reader, and you can't count, either. I gave
clearance as:
-- The clearance between rail and underside of any obstruction should be
about 2-1/2". --
That's 13 words. JT's as quoted by you is 18. Besides, JT's answer
refers only to clearance, not to vertical rise.
I could waffle on, but you're obviously a busy man, so I won't bother.

Signature
wolf k.
Robt P - 27 Apr 2008 14:51 GMT
> Robert, you are a terrible reader, and you can't count, either. I gave
> clearance as:..
Correct on both counts...LOL
Once got 3/100 in maths exam, and 1 of those was for turning up..
Cheers
Robt P.
Wolf Kirchmeir - 27 Apr 2008 17:26 GMT
>> Robert, you are a terrible reader, and you can't count, either. I gave
>> clearance as:..
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> Cheers
> Robt P.
Cheers!

Signature
wolf k.
Benny - 28 Apr 2008 21:12 GMT
> In OO, what is the accepted norm for height clearances of one track over
> another, and what is the accepted gradient to achieve those heights please?
I tried to keep it to 1 in 50 on my layout. I had one little bit that
was slightly steeper as I thought I could get away with it and I had to
re-lay the thing as my bog std. Hornby stuff couldn't handle it. (No, I
didn't try the Wrenn locos... would've been interesting tho'...)
--
Rod