Tehachapi, BC

[Scottl]

There is something about plywood sub-roadbed like yours that looks so good.  I've always used foam boards, but the plywood is the only way to go with an intricate plan like this.  Nice solution with the beam.  This is coming along nicely.

[Specter3]

Looks really good and the design of the end piece of that cross brace is very sweet.

[Pomperaugrr]

Wow, beautiful work!  I am enjoying this thread!

Eric

[C855B]

(This is my first viewing of this thread given a couple of years away from TRW.)

Incredible planning, and execution seems to be going very well. Great advice from the crew, too. I seriously regret not being here to help this project along in the "core" planning stages, as my railfan cred is being born in Mojave. Gary, you're basically modeling my backyard.

I'm getting the gist that your modeling period is "modern". That would preclude modeling the 3' gauge railroad at Monolith, which used to be how they ferried the limestone down the hill from the mine. I've not run across any model railroads featuring the Monolith narrow gauge, but I would love to be enlightened if somebody knows of one. Also, one of the more memorable features of the town there during the '60s and '70s was everything covered in gray dust, which probably could be accurately modeled by dumping the contents of a vacuum cleaner bag on your layout. 

Come scenery time, you'll want to include the large tree next to the ROW west of the horseshoe at Caliente, between the Cal-Bodfish Road grade crossing and Tunnel #1/2 (now daylighted). That has long been a gathering point for railfans to get badly-needed shade in the summers there. I think it's an oak, but somebody more knowledgeable about deciduous trees is welcome to correct me. Anyway, anybody with more than a passing familiarity with the locale will recognize the tree immediately.

[GaryHinshaw]

Thanks for the comments guys, I really appreciate it.  C855B, welcome back to TRW.  I recall reading on another board that you were a Mojave native, so I'm delighted this is resonating with you.  Even though you missed the early planning, feel free to comment on any and all aspects of the plan, since most of the layout is still just that - a plan.

I hadn't realized that there was a narrow gauge line serving Monolith!  Is there any info about that operation online?  You're right that I'm modeling modern, but I'd still be curious to see what it was like. 

I'm guessing the tree at Caliente you're referring to is the Live Oak in these shots:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=187674&nseq=3
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=187656&nseq=4
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=163317&nseq=17

If so, then yes, it's definitely in the plan.  (It's still there.)  Doing it justice is another matter....

Cheers,
Gary

[GaryHinshaw]

Time for another quick update.  It's been busy at work, but I did manage to get a fair bit of time this weekend to work on the layout.  Alas, not much visible progress, but a lot of actual progress.  Here is an overview of the Loop shelf as of today:



The main progress has been to splice the roadbed pieces together; make sure everything actually fits according to plan; then start installing risers.   Here's a closer view of the right side showing a bit more detail:



The highest line in back is the approach to the south-end helix staging (which sits under the Loop) from the right-side wall. The lower line is the track from the lower shelf coming up to the Loop shelf.  You can see where I thinned the roadbed in the foreground for the Tehachapi Creek bridge, and where I had to get creative with risers in the middle left: the cantilever bracket - cut from 3/4 ply - is necessitated by the helix which will sit underneath.

I also realized that the cross brace extension I made last week didn't have enough horizontal clearance for the roadbed, so I cut a new one with angled sides to allow more clearance without loss of strength:



This one actually works. 

I really like the 3/4 ply as roadbed (it's like having 10 scale feet of bedrock underfoot) but you have to watch it like a hawk because it has a mind of its own.  In particular, I've been having to check and recheck the grades between risers because this stuff has it's own ideas about how to bend when you're dealing with curves on grades, which is pretty much all the track on this shelf.  This has made progress somewhat slow since I really want to nail this for future reliability.

Next up is to make and fine tune the risers in the Loop to get that in permanently.

Cheers,
Gary

[ednadolski]

Awesome progress Gary!   It's like watching William Hood's crews giving shape to his grand design (ok, maybe without the blasting powder, but you get the idea )

On the 'highway ramp' section, have you checked the clearances for double-stack cars (with track and roadbed in place)?   Also, are you going to have enough width on the subroadbed to support the tunnel portals (BTW let me know if you need a sample casting or two to play with -- I found a few extras I had made from a while back).

Another thought, if you're considering installing any temporary track (to check out grades, train lengths, etc.) I recall seeing the folks at La Mesa installing cardstock strips on the sides of the roadbed, as a safety measure against derailments.  Drywall shim strips seem like a quick & easy way to make that, and they're easy enough to tack on:

http://www.lowes.com/pd_37738-1278-GRDWSHIM_0__?productId=3334498&Ntt=shim&pl=1&currentURL=%2Fpl__0__s%3FNtt%3Dshim&facetInfo=

Keep them pics a-coming! 

Ed

[C855B]

Yup - that's the tree. Lots of in-between-train hanky-panky took place under that tree. Not to mention countless rounds of Rail Baron.

Narrow gauge ceased ops in '72-'73, although the rails lasted for at least another decade. One of the locos went to Magic Mountain (Six Flags) for their train ride, in '71. There is precious little information about this railroad because the plant operators were outright hostile, granting no quarry (pun intended) to trespassers.

Map: http://www.trainweb.org/KernJunction/locations/monolith.htm
trainorders.com thread: http://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?11,2406063

Maybe I missed it somewhere in the 10 (!) pages of thread here, but are you including Kern Junction in your plan? It would be a great excuse to split-up staging yards.

[ednadolski]

I really like the 3/4 ply as roadbed (it's like having 10 scale feet of bedrock underfoot) but you have to watch it like a hawk because it has a mind of its own.  In particular, I've been having to check and recheck the grades between risers because this stuff has it's own ideas about how to bend when you're dealing with curves on grades, which is pretty much all the track on this shelf.  This has made progress somewhat slow since I really want to nail this for future reliability.

Are you going to cut away the plywood subroadbed, when it is time to install the actual bridge?   If so then it might be advisable to install an extra riser on either side of the bridge, about say 6"-7" from the cuts (looks like you already have the 1x4s there to attach them).   That should help ensure that the gradient of the subroadbed is preserved when the bridge portion is removed, so you won't have to worry about any additional unwanted flexing.


Ed

[3DTrains]

Are you going to cut away the plywood subroadbed, when it is time to install the actual bridge?   If so then it might be advisable to install an extra riser on either side of the bridge, about say 6"-7" from the cuts (looks like you already have the 1x4s there to attach them).   That should help ensure that the gradient of the subroadbed is preserved when the bridge portion is removed, so you won't have to worry about any additional unwanted flexing.

I'm just going to tuck this little gem into my "how to" list.

[GaryHinshaw]

Awesome progress Gary!   It's like watching William Hood's crews giving shape to his grand design (ok, maybe without the blasting powder, but you get the idea )

Thanks. 

On the 'highway ramp' section, have you checked the clearances for double-stack cars (with track and roadbed in place)?   Also, are you going to have enough width on the subroadbed to support the tunnel portals (BTW let me know if you need a sample casting or two to play with -- I found a few extras I had made from a while back).

Yes.  I made myself a little wooden gauge based on NMRA S-7 Modern Clearances, and added 1/4" at the bottom to account for cork+ME code 55 flex.  Here it is compared to the classic gauge:



The overall height works out to 2" in round numbers (1 31/32").  All of the roadbed will have at least this clearance.  I'm not sure if I will make the tunnel portals smaller or not.  I really like the look of a double stack barely fitting in the portal (it sounds dirty, I know) so the tunnels will likely form the limiting clearance on the pike.  If you have a spare portal I'd gladly take it, but you have already been more than generous in loaning me your master molds.

Another thought, if you're considering installing any temporary track (to check out grades, train lengths, etc.) I recall seeing the folks at La Mesa installing cardstock strips on the sides of the roadbed, as a safety measure against derailments.  Drywall shim strips seem like a quick & easy way to make that, and they're easy enough to tack on

Good tip - I'm definitely interested in something like this. Truthfully, in all my years of home maintenance (and having just installed drywall in the layout room) I have never heard of drywall shims.  What exactly are they intended for, uneven studs?

Are you going to cut away the plywood subroadbed, when it is time to install the actual bridge?

Hopefully not!  I'm very worried about the integrity of this spot, so I'm planning to build the ballasted deck girder bridge around it.  I might have to trim it down a bit more first though (both width and height).  Does anyone have any experience removing 1-2 plys of plywood without gnashing the remaining plys too badly?

Maybe I missed it somewhere in the 10 (!) pages of thread here, but are you including Kern Junction in your plan? It would be a great excuse to split-up staging yards.

I'd love to, but I'm not sure quite how to do so yet.  The current plan for Bakersfield is shown in the blue tracks along the bottom wall in this sketch:



but there has been relatively little thought given to making this more interesting.  One idea would be to make the BNSF line at Kern peel off and basically form a balloon track under the Tunnel 2 peninsula and return to the other end of the yard.  This adds a bit of operational interest.  Alternatively, I'd love to include some representation of the Arvin branch for more switching opportunities.

Suggestions welcome!

-gfh

[GaryHinshaw]

Opinions please.

When I checked the placement of all the Loop roadbed, I found that the upper track leaving the Loop was about an inch further from the left wall than I expected.  I'm not bothered by this per se, and in fact, it does present an opportunity.  The lower approach loop is smushed against the hidden return track on the right side, so I could shift the whole shebang to the left a bit, alleviating some of this crowding.

To get a better feel for things, I made a very crude mock-up of the scenery concept for that section.  First, a proto photo:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=115825&nseq=1

and then the mock-up:



The idea is to conceal the upper return tracks with a backdrop layer that extends just high enough to hide a train, but to leave the tracks accessible in case of derailments, stalls, etc.  (Remember that these tracks are almost at eye level, so the first layer needn't be too high.)  The photo taped on this layer is just intended to illustrate the type of background this scene could have, since there is no room for 3d scenery behind the track.  There will be another backdrop layer behind the hidden track.  The visible track here is supposed to be coming from Woodford through a cut, and the lattice in front gives an idea of the cut's depth. 

I'm actually pretty happy with how this concept looks: I don't find the scene to be too crowded, so I'm tempted to leave the roadbed as is, especially since it would be somewhat non-trivial to shift it.  Comments?  I'm especially interested in hearing from any dissenters.

Thanks,
Gary

[Smike]

my .02 worth. I would leave it if you can be assured that you will be able to have a convincing backdrop. (Which I think you can) From the proto photo it looks like you have enough stuff sticking up in front of it (trees, hills etc.) that if this is at eye level then it won’t have that flat ground slammed up against a vertical wall feel.

Oh can I suggest not to ever cover up your benchwork? I mean looking over your photos its like wood art! Your layout thread is motivating me to get started on designing mine, since I’m now 1 month settled in a new home.  I’m really draw to the back and forth loops of Tehachapi, just need to just need to design something of an eastern road flavor. 

[wm3798]

Could you run the scenery up in front of the return track, then use a removable panel to model the freeway?  That would give you the opportunity to do the high angle photo such as the proto shot you reference, and still have access to the track under the road.

Lee

[kiwi_bnsf]

Hi Gary,

Firstly thanks for the excellent thread. It's great to see such well thought out planning translating into beautiful benchwork.

It's also nice to hear input from so many people with detailed knowledge of Tehachapi and its surrounds. I'm based in New Zealand, and I'm also modeling Tehachapi in N scale on multiple decks, and modeling so far from the prototype does have its challenges.

I had a thread that you kindly contributed to that is now in the RailWire Archive: https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=17483.0

Things have progressed significantly since then. However, I don't want to hijack this thread, so I'll start my own shortly. I think I'll have to call it "Tehachapi NZ" now that you have started a naming convention!

Anyway, I just wanted to say hi, and thank you for the inspiration. Seeing your progress has motivated me even more to push beyond the two years of room prep, and get some benchwork mocked up ASAP.

Cheers

Tim Benson