Tehachapi, BC

[ednadolski]

Great question about the fascia.  I definitely don't want to slice it at the edge of the current benchwork, but I'm not 100% sure what I do want to do.  Here's a shot that shows the relation between the two decks a bit more clearly:

On this angle, my little brain keeps drawing a mental line connecting the ridge of Tunnel2 hill below with the ridge of the Tunnel 16 hill from above.

Something worth mocking up, perhaps?

Ed

[davefoxx]

Who says that fascia has to be perfectly plumb?  Perhaps if it leaned out up to a forty-five degree angle, you could maximize the scenery on top but provide a few extra inches of access underneath.  Also, if you connect your noggin with it from underneath, maybe it's less of a direct blow and more of a glancing shot. 

DFF

[James Costello]

On this angle, my little brain keeps drawing a mental line connecting the ridge of Tunnel2 hill below with the ridge of the Tunnel 16 hill from above.

Something worth mocking up, perhaps?

Ed

The thing that concerns me about this approach, would be unintentionally giving the impression that the two scenes are connected or geographically close to each other, like parts of Tehachapi are - like say Caliente - Bealville - Cliff, whereas these two places are quite far apart...

[MDW]

I get the temptation to both connect the scenes with that ridge and minimize/eliminate the upper level fascia.  For me, I like the fascia’s role as a tool for suspending disbelief and would enjoy seeing even a thin bit of it continue through to divide the scenes.   

But that’s just me and no matter which way you go, you’ve got some seriously kick butt modeling going on.

Michel

[GaryHinshaw]

Thanks for the feedback gents.  This is what I most value about this forum & format. 

My inclination is to keep the scenes separate but by the same token, my inclination is not to dismiss Ed's input, since he has some of the best Tehachapi scenery out there.   Since I have plenty more kraft paper, it will be easy enough to try out his suggestion.  I'll post shots later.  One thing I'm concerned about is blocking the sight line from Allard down into Caliente (3rd photo above) which is kind of an accidentally cool view.

Otto, I think the section I have mocked up over Tunnel 17 - vaguely highlighted by the red curve in the 3rd photo above - does exactly what you suggest.  I'll try to take a photo from a better angle to make it clearer.  I'm not totally happy with how it turned out,  but that's partly because the overall shape of that ridge is a bit off.   Since I'm going to replace it anyway, I'm going to experiment with some different termination treatments there before committing.

Thanks again.

[DKS]

Gary, this isn't so much about the terrain as it is about the layout structure. I find myself continually distracted by this brace:



Now that you have a sense of the vertical space the scenery will occupy, would it make sense to create a new brace to eliminate the one underneath?



This might might also open up new opportunities for the space around the removed brace on the lower level. Just some food for thought.

[DKS]

The thing that concerns me about this approach, would be unintentionally giving the impression that the two scenes are connected or geographically close to each other, like parts of Tehachapi are - like say Caliente - Bealville - Cliff, whereas these two places are quite far apart...

This.

[Cajonpassfan]

Agreed.
And besides, it’s just about impossible to make a credible transition from single deck to double deck scenery on an open layout like this.
Otto

[GaryHinshaw]

Gary, this isn't so much about the terrain as it is about the layout structure. I find myself continually distracted by this brace:

Now that you have a sense of the vertical space the scenery will occupy, would it make sense to create a new brace to eliminate the one underneath?

Great idea David!  That would be very simple to implement, and it doesn't take much since the shelf is nearly self-supporting anyway.  (And you really dug into the archives for that shot!)

Haven't had a chance to try any fascia treatments yet, but I'm hoping to soon.

[Santa Fe Guy]

 Gary.
Could you give consideration to a scenic backdrop made of MDF with curved styrene that went from the mountain on the lower level and curved in two directions as it met the top. This can be curved to a 12 inch radius, painted your sky blue then with the backdrop painted to match your scenery.
I use curved corners in all my layouts where possible and the results are worth the effort.
Might be worth a thought.
Rod.

[GaryHinshaw]

Rod, I don't think I'm following your idea.  I think you're suggesting a split backdrop that follows something like the lines I have sketched here:



Is that right?  If so, I think that tends to cut off the expansiveness of the scene I'm trying to portray in the lower deck (and I'm not sure how I would tie that into the fascia of the upper deck).

This is probably a good chance to remind readers what the two scenes being modelled here look like.  The lower deck is representing Tunnel 2 and the start of the Allard siding.  These tracks run right through the heart of the Tejon ranch in the Tehachapi foothills, where the vistas are open and the vibe is serene (when trains are absent):

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/717449/
https://www.railpictures.net/photo/624203/

(These two views are taken from the opposite vantage point of my photo above.)  In contrast, the upper deck scene represents the last mile or so of the climb to summit, squeezing through the narrows carved by Tehachapi Creek:

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/620157/

Given the very different geography, my inclination is to separate these two scenes in the viewers mind as much as possible.  That said, I am listening to the bug Ed planted in my ear and giving his idea a shot.  Here is a very quick & dirty mock-up of a way to connect these two scenes:



From this angle, the continuation of the upper deck spine to well below the tracks is indeed dramatic (and should be even steeper than I've mocked up), but the the transition to the lower deck ridge is jarring and I honestly don't see how to avoid that without choking off the Allard vista below.  To add to the challenge, the two ridge lines don't really match up very well:



so that would have to be dealt with.  I may be lacking vision here, but for now I'm going to continue mocking up fascia treatments for the upper deck.

[Chris333]

The last pics with the 2 areas connected seem to make the left and right lower areas darker.

[CRL]

I think the last “prototype” photo above shows a dirt road running along the base of the track embankment that gives you a good way to terminate the upper deck in the horizontal plane. Model the road, then terminate the bottom of the upper deck below there, letting the upper deck visually “float” over the lower deck. Put a complete sky board behind the lower deck to obscure any upper deck supports. Don’t connect the upper or lower deck scenery except where the prototype is connected... like the loop.

Just my 2 cents offered free of charge and worth what you paid for it. 

[Steveruger45]

Yep, what @CRL said is pretty much how I was thinking too and in line with my earlier suggestion as well.

[Santa Fe Guy]

Gary, yep that is exactly what I was suggesting but tied in with Edd's idea and the way you have positioned the paper.
You achieve two outcomes, 1, it separates the scene so folks have to move to follow the train and 2, it satisfies what you are after.
Sorry I could not describe it any better, but you picked up on it well.
Out of all these ideas one will come to the fore.
Have fun, as a 77 year old I'm crawling around laying carpet tiles in my Garage / train room.
Rod.