Tehachapi, BC

[Scottl]

Hawtness

Booked my ticket!

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Congrats Gary!!!!!

It's such a major milestone, I'm excited for you.

[Philip H]

Once again, @GaryHinshaw proves trackwork IS really rocket science! 

[davefoxx]

Once again, @GaryHinshaw proves trackwork IS really rocket science! 

No kidding!  If I read @GaryHinshaw's post correctly, he has a section of track that is not glued down and with joinerless connections . . . and nothing derailed!  Wow!  Now that's impressive.

Gary, as always, your trackwork is impeccable.  Just a beautiful flowing work of art.

DFF

[svedblen]

You guys have already said it all. I just have to chime in! 

[bdennis]

Out of interest.. What are the deck heights from the floor for each level?

[GaryHinshaw]

No kidding!  If I read @GaryHinshaw's post correctly, he has a section of track that is not glued down and with joinerless connections . . . and nothing derailed!  Wow!  Now that's impressive.

Thanks Dave.  High praise coming from you, the builder of the Seaboard Central!

And you did read correctly: none of the lower deck track is glued down yet.  I'm not even sure if Saturday's crew knew that.  I believe this is only possible with stiff track like ME's. I just tack it down with track nails outside both rails once or twice every stick, mainly to ensure that the double track spacing stays in spec.  This lets me get a few sessions under my belt to see if I need to make any tweaks before gluing.  When I do start to glue track down, I'm expecting that the hardest part of the job will be making sure that the track is dead straight through Edison....

Y'know....sometimes it seems like a real shame to cover up quality benchwork with scenery! 

Funny you should mention that Bob.  During Saturday's session, Mark Dance was advocating leaving a good chuck of the peninsula un-sceniced, to give better visibility and access to Bakersfield underneath.  (He was suggesting just scenicing a strip along the tracks.)  I totally get the advantage of doing that, so now I have to think if I can pull it off aesthetically.   When I go back and look at the overview photo in this post, the first word that pops into my head is "busy", which is not at all how I picture the final product .   When I designed the layout, I wanted a long, torturous mainline run, but I also wanted to feature a few big sweeping vistas: the Loop shelf and the (new) centre peninsula.  You can start to get a sense of the intended aesthetic in the foreground of the overview photo, where the Loop track is ballasted and basic landform are starting to appear.  Much nicer lines!  My vision for the centre peninsula is to evoke a scene like this.  The question is: can I pull this look off with partial scenery?   

Discuss. 

[C855B]

... the track is dead straight through Edison....

You know how I feel about that:





That signal vanished with the resignaling project. The bobble in the track is still there, however. Too bad it's not the main.

[basementcalling]

Kudos, Gary.

Jealous of @Scottl an others who will be at the Vancouver event y'all throw.

As for Dance, just one up him and make all you scenery on lift out hatches. 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Gary, what about not moving the track when you glue it down?

I tried this a bit with my layout, using diluted white glue around the track base, and it seems to have done the trick. I mean, once you ballast it in place, it's pretty much cemented in, so the current glue just needs to hold it until then.

[mark dance]

During Saturday's session, Mark Dance was advocating leaving a good chuck of the peninsula un-sceniced, to give better visibility and access to Bakersfield underneath.  (He was suggesting just scenicing a strip along the tracks.)  I totally get the advantage of doing that, so now I have to think if I can pull it off aesthetically.   When I go back and look at the overview photo in this post, the first word that pops into my head is "busy", which is not at all how I picture the final product .   When I designed the layout, I wanted a long, torturous mainline run, but I also wanted to feature a few big sweeping vistas: the Loop shelf and the (new) centre peninsula.  You can start to get a sense of the intended aesthetic in the foreground of the overview photo, where the Loop track is ballasted and basic landform are starting to appear.  Much nicer lines!  My vision for the centre peninsula is to evoke a scene like this.  The question is: can I pull this look off with partial scenery?   

Discuss. 

How about mocking it up with two long strips of 6" to 8" of brown wrapping paper staple gunned to the plywood roadbed on both sides .  Just bunch it up at the inner or outer edges into gentle scenic curves and use a plier stapler to hold it crimped. The conical sections of the paper should give it enough stiffness to hold its own weight so you can get the idea.  30 minute job. 

While not scenic vistas, these floating strips of super detailed right of way might look tres cool floating over the staging yard.  Or tres stupid.

And I am not sure lift out scenery will be enough...although it would work fine for access, during operations I think the crew may need to see Bakersfield yard.

just my $0,02

md

[robert3985]

During Saturday's session, Mark Dance was advocating leaving a good chuck of the peninsula un-sceniced, to give better visibility and access to Bakersfield underneath.  (He was suggesting just scenicing a strip along the tracks.)  I totally get the advantage of doing that, so now I have to think if I can pull it off aesthetically.   When I go back and look at the overview photo in this post, the first word that pops into my head is "busy", which is not at all how I picture the final product .   When I designed the layout, I wanted a long, torturous mainline run, but I also wanted to feature a few big sweeping vistas: the Loop shelf and the (new) centre peninsula.  You can start to get a sense of the intended aesthetic in the foreground of the overview photo, where the Loop track is ballasted and basic landform are starting to appear.  Much nicer lines!  My vision for the centre peninsula is to evoke a scene like this.  The question is: can I pull this look off with partial scenery?   

Discuss. 

Gary, two ways of looking at it (pun intended).  First, if indeed it's necessary for Bakersfield to be looked at during operating sessions, then there are at least two ways to accomplish that: (1) Lift-out sections, and (2) camera & small fascia mounted screens.  Nowadays, small screens and video cameras are pretty cheap, especially if you don't have a need for high resolution, weather resistance or ultra-small size. 

Lift-out sections might be necessary anyway, and would be cheaper than video surveillance, and the idea of removing them during op sessions is okay...replacing them for photo sessions and general railfanning when running alone to achieve the scenic vistas you are wanting. 

Another possibility would be to design access "voids" in the peninsula, where Bakersfield would be easily visible by operators, but from a lower angle, such as for photography or stooping down to observe trains, the edges of the "voids" wouldn't be obvious because they'd be sloping and scenicked. 

However, after looking at the photo showing the sort of high-angle vista you hope to achieve, permanent access holes wouldn't be part of your layout design.

Personally, my preference would be for video cameras and monitors, since scenery is also a big part of why I'm building what I'm doing, just like you, and the cameras and fascia mounted monitors would be the least scenickly intrusive option to allow visual access to Bakersfield Yard.

Cheerio!
Bob Gilmore

[Cajonpassfan]

Gary, let me add my kudos to the string. The railroad will be stunning, awesome!

As to the staging trackage, I'd strongly recommend the camera/monitor route. In my humble opinion, holes it the scenery or even the fascia will diminish the fine work you're doing. I run on several layouts with a camera/monitor setup, including my own, and given bullitproof track work and reliable equipment (which you have) there's little need for direct visibility, just for physical access if and when necessary.

To add to it, there's no real need to have the monitor adjacent to the hidden trackage; in my opinion, there's an advantage in actually not having the monitor next to the hidden trackage, as it conveys to the crews the illusion of trains coming truly from beyond the basement (as opposed to from a fixed place under the visible mainline). It also allows more flexibility for placement of the monitor(s) in a location where the crews will not clog the isle until actually needed.

Again, exciting to see such wonderful progress, keep'em coming!
Otto

[Scottl]

Don't get me wrong, I want to see the scenery with those long trains in it.  But after my current experience, any kind of hidden staging is off my list unless it is located on another deck altogether.  Covering up those tracks with even removable covers is asking for operational trouble.  I discovered that an added problem becomes where do you put the scenery covers when the room is full of people and you need access?

I like Mark's suggestion as a trial to see how it looks.

[mark dance]

Gary...I think you were targeting another shake down session in a week or so. Maybe try covering Bakersfield up with brown wrapping paper "scenery" for that session. Then you can get a feel for how much direct visibility you will need.

I've operated staging yards with mirrors and cameras. It just doesn't feel that will be enough for Bakersfield. The deck height clearance is quite narrow and there is a lot going on there. Especially if you intend to originate and or terminate long trains with DPU or tail end pushers there. Relegating pusher ops to visible and largely accessible areas of the layout would reduce this risk.  I worry about operator anxiety as well as the real mechanical risks.

Md