For the Interurban Types Out There, A Question?

[RailWanderer]

The image for reference:



Now, knowing a little bit about interurban functionality and having read some info on what interurban units could or couldn't do, I am at a quandary here. The image shows a route I am building of a valley approach to a small town. None of the grades are more than 4% and the drop in elevation is 90 meters. Knowing this, and here's the questions, do you think this length of track looks too unrealistic? Do you think interurbans could handle these kinds of grades? The track in the image follows much of the real life track.

[krellnut]

I think the grades are good. It looks like you don't have superelevation on those tracks. Too bad. If you laid those without easements on, then you can't add superel. If that's all you have laid, its worth doing them over.

[RailWanderer]

At speeds of less than 40 mph I wouldn't think superelevation would have much effect on the performance.

[krellnut]

At speeds of less than 40 mph I wouldn't think superelevation would have much effect on the performance.

True. I lay all my track with easements on, sometimes even in yards Super elavation has a place on slow moving track also. But hey, its your route. Do whatever you want. If you would have tried the MRL, you would see my point. I laid the track for it.

[RailWanderer]

I have the MRL, partially, and believe me, I understand easements and superelevation, I am not so sure it has a place on this route. Now, back to the questions at hand:

Do you think this length of track looks too unrealistic?
Do you think interurbans could handle these kinds of grades?

[GERUNIMO625]

Hello Sir,

*As a disclaimer; I know probably the least about Interurbans out of everyone on this forum, so keep that in mind. But, (not to brag) I do know a thing or two about modern rail operations and I can assume there are alot of parallels.

Anyway, based on looks alone; the picture suggests a great piece of railroad thus far! The descent doesn't appear obnoxious, and would seem to be very reasonable for any rail equipment of any era to run down.
That said, I guess I'll answer your question with a few questions. Where is the railroad located? I ask because the weather may affect operations and therefore how the railroad would have been built. As an example, we know the Sacramento Northern had a 4% grade, but it also rarely, if ever snows there. So a light Interurban car with a low tractive effort could likely handle the climb, especially if all the cars were powered as well. Now if there was snow on the ground 25-40% of the year it might have been a different story. Either they would have designed and built the road differently or the equipment. So maybe another question to ask would be what kind of equipment do you intend to use?
Please don't feel like you have to direct your answers to me. They are open ended questions, food for thought. I was making no attempt to pry.

Also, and probably most importantly. If its fictional route, or even a real one, who cares! Its yours, you made it, you can take all the creative license you want. At the end of the day, your the one who needs to be happy. If your planning to share it, I think most folks here will be greatful you chose to share with us. They'll say thankyou, and move about their way.

Again, it looks awesome!

[RailWanderer]

Jerry,
I had considered just those same questions when starting down the first incline. First, the line was originally built in northeast Ohio, which is, as you know, a four season state. The reason I asked the original questions is because when laying the track on the terrain provided by the DEM data I was at one point up to an 11% grade. Now I realize that some DEM data isn't super accurate or finely tuned to hug the Earth, and may be the reason for the irregularities. The area of the route is pretty close to my back yard and when I look at the old roadbed there it seems to be a fair grade within the valleys these interurbans had to struggle to get from one level to another. And most of the old images of the route only show single powered cars with maybe one cargo unit behind, like local milk and parcel service. So, thinking in terms of "this is my route, I will do it my way" and after tuning down the slopes a bit to make them closer to 4%, actually I wanted 3%, I just thought in my mind they looked rather steep. So I was looking for some intelligent input that would help me with the production and satisfaction of building the route. You know how rivet counters can be. But, all in all, I want something that may mimic the original and I know it will never be accurately represented, but I wanted it to have some fun and functional value with the assets available.

I may release it to the community when I am done with it, in fact, I may need a couple of sets of eyes to see what I may have missed. So, anyone interested may contact me. I am trying to keep the assets to two payware routes, SNRwy and VNHRR, freeware doesn't offer what I need to accomplish the route. I plan on making a link at my website for the development info and access to the route files as I go.

And BTW, thank you for your input.

[GERUNIMO625]

Hello again,

Looking back I think my comment was a little 'preachy'; and I was certainly preaching to the choir. Sorry for patronizing you it was not my intent.
Your route looks great!

Enjoy your weekend...whats left of it anyway!

[GreatNortherner]

Hello,

I'd like to add my too if I may:

Regarding super elevation: not sure how U.S. interurbans did it back in their heyday, but here in Europe even inner-city trams sometimes use super elevation on their curves when they have a seperate roadbed. Even at the lower max. speeds that trams run on (usually below 60 kph), it still provides better ride comfort for the passengers and probably the other benefits too. Judging by the SN route, Interurbans could go much faster than trams, so maybe some super elevation would be useful in tight curves?

Regarding grades: 4 and even 5% is a very steep but manageable gradient for a 'normal' railroad. The Mukilteo branch in Washington (BNSF Stevens Pass) has up to 5% percent and a single Geep can shove a short cut of cars up there just fine. So if you're interurban is a mixed freight/passenger road, I'd around say those 5% would be the maximum, too. For only passenger services though, with the lightweight coaches and powerful motor cars, you can probably get away with steeper grades.

I'd recommend setting up a little test route with some grades (6%, 7%, 8%, ...) and then create a scenario with a representative passenger consist and see up to which gradient you can safely drive it up (and down). Also, if you have access to old topo maps of your route, you could use the height lines on them to estimate the elevation differences along the ROW. It's a bit tedious with all the counting, measuring and calculating, but usually yields quite good approximations and certainly better ones than just going by the DEM data.

Cheers
Michael

[gwgardner]

I have experimented with similar grades on my interurban track, and have found that the PCC Streetcar (from the RWA library) can easily handle sustained grades up to as high as 8%. I've limited it to 5% in the two areas where needed. Example in the screenshots. I think it looks fine, and it does run fine. Whether it is prototypical, I defer to GreatNortherner.

Your screenshot looks great to me, a not at all unrealistic grade.

only partially scenicked areas of my route

[RailWanderer]

Hello again,

Looking back I think my comment was a little 'preachy'; and I was certainly preaching to the choir. Sorry for patronizing you it was not my intent.
Your route looks great!

Enjoy your weekend...whats left of it anyway!

Ha Jerry, I never even assumed you were being "preachy". I was absorbing what you had to say and commenting in regards to the matter at hand. Most of the input so far has been good and informative and I have been using it in my test route for experimentation. I don't plan this route to be an exact copy of its real life counterparts as that could never really be the case as we have lost a lot of the older more charismatic ways of railroading to time and the elements. I guess I want to make the route as pleasurable as possible for not only myself, but for others eventually.

If you were patronizing me, shame on you, if you weren't and just thought you were by my reply, it wasn't at all meant to be condescending. I'm not ignorant, and I do know a little about the ins and outs of the editor, I'm just not proficient with how things were handled back in the early days of interurbans. I mean they only lasted something on the order of 40 years, and bit the bullet for much the same reason as major railroads just much sooner as they were more of a niche type railroad entity in the first place trying to service the outlying populated areas.

No harm done.

[RailWanderer]

Regarding super elevation: not sure how U.S. interurbans did it back in their heyday, but here in Europe even inner-city trams sometimes use super elevation on their curves when they have a seperate roadbed. Even at the lower max. speeds that trams run on (usually below 60 kph), it still provides better ride comfort for the passengers and probably the other benefits too. Judging by the SN route, Interurbans could go much faster than trams, so maybe some super elevation would be useful in tight curves?

Michael, thanks for the feedback. I agree with all you say and krellnut are saying, but I find the easement tool very hard to use as with my editor I can use it and it works fine until I want to lay just flat track, and the dern thing is still engaged even after disengaging it in the side panel. I can't tell you how aggravating that tool can be, so I don't use it.
Easements in the first place are sections of track on a curve used to take the stress off the couplings as a train moves in and out of a tighter curve, the approach and exit sections are less curved than the middle section in most cases. The superelevation is used to control the center of gravity as the train moves through curves and probably other known elements that I won't get into here, thus both of these, easements and superelevation, help to control any possible derailments and allow the train to move faster through the curve. So I do understand them, I just don't like the editor's tool for handling these elements.

Regarding grades: 4 and even 5% is a very steep but manageable gradient for a 'normal' railroad. The Mukilteo branch in Washington (BNSF Stevens Pass) has up to 5% percent and a single Geep can shove a short cut of cars up there just fine. So if you're interurban is a mixed freight/passenger road, I'd around say those 5% would be the maximum, too. For only passenger services though, with the lightweight coaches and powerful motor cars, you can probably get away with steeper grades.

Thanks for this as it helps me to know that what I am doing is in the right direction.

I'd recommend setting up a little test route with some grades (6%, 7%, 8%, ...) and then create a scenario with a representative passenger consist and see up to which gradient you can safely drive it up (and down). Also, if you have access to old topo maps of your route, you could use the height lines on them to estimate the elevation differences along the ROW. It's a bit tedious with all the counting, measuring and calculating, but usually yields quite good approximations and certainly better ones than just going by the DEM data.

The test track is the route you have seen in the image. I am trying this route in an experimental capacity so that I get it right before I good to all the trouble of adding scenery, which is not as hard as the track laying. I have old top maps of the area, but they are rather hard to read as they are nothing like the ones produced just before the USGS started satellite mapping, and Google Earth. So, I have been using them to help with the track laying, and yes it is a PITA.

Thanks again for your input.

[RailWanderer]

I have experimented with similar grades on my interurban track, and have found that the PCC Streetcar (from the RWA library) can easily handle sustained grades up to as high as 8%. I've limited it to 5% in the two areas where needed. Example in the screenshots. I think it looks fine, and it does run fine. Whether it is prototypical, I defer to GreatNortherner.

Again, this is good input, but then weren't PCC units mostly used within city limits and on street routes. I found this article, although maybe a bit too technical for me, was also very helpful with many aspects of attempting this route.

[Mdk103]

Gonna put my on this:

Interurban vehicles (and electrics in general) should be able to climb up 5% grades. My local, the Illinois Terminal had grades up to 6.5 or something like that around Danville, IL, and units like the SN ones were used to work that grade.

[RailWanderer]

Excellent, that is more what I have been looking for another real life experience that says what these units can do, thank you. That's a better answer than something about superelevation and easements. Not sure what that had to do with grades and how electric unit can handle them. The grades that are still visible on the local line here mimics what you commented, and many materials I have read about interurbans have another idea, thus the reason for my questions. So, the actual grades that are visible are actually true and believable, wow 5% amazing, thanks again Mdk103.