N-Scale Vignette-Style 1955-1959 Tehachapi Layout

[mark.hinds]

That approach to the backdrop looks very promising.  I am getting close to that stage myself on the upper deck, and will watch with interest.

Gary,

Yes, my idea certainly sounds good in theory.    

When I look at the previous image (with the Photoshopped sky), it just seems to me that it is a bit more "alive" than even a well-lit painted or photo backdrop.  If a few LEDs behind (or at the edge of) a translucent-panel sky could give that effect on a real backdrop, it would be nice.  Just that; I wouldn't try to light the layout from the backdrop.  (Note that the photo benefited from the module being lit by a large window right behind my workbench, and coincidentally that makes the shadows match those in the sky image.  On the actual layout scenery, since my lighting will be from the front, I will need to find or create front-lit backdrop buildings etc. to paste on.)

MH

[mark.hinds]

I’ve been out of commission for a couple of weeks due to an injury, but hope to be back to work on the layout this weekend.  In the meantime, I have been thinking about possible future operations, once I finish the track and wiring, and in parallel with doing scenery. 

One idea would be to experiment with a “sequential” operating scheme, based on my sketchy knowledge of the prototype.  By sequential, I mean that events would not occur simultaneously as in real life, but sequentially. Sequences would be specified in advance of each session.  The operator would focus in turn on each event, at the layout location where it occurs.  When an event is completed, the operator would move on to the appropriate portion of the layout for the next event.  The fact that nothing else would be moving on the rest of the layout would be acceptable, as he/she wouldn’t be looking at the rest of the layout, but just at the portion where each event is occurring.  The advantage of this is that I could operate things by myself in the worst case.  I could also modify the idea to accommodate 2 operators (most likely number).  Below are 2 possible one-operator example sequences (track plan reposted below to illustrate): 



1)   Sequence 1:  Edison Local + eastbound Daylight (#52)
a)   Edison Local made up in Bakersfield Yard.
b)   Edison Local departs Bakersfield.
c)   Edison Local arrives Edison, and begins switching. 
d)   Daylight arrives Bakersfield.
e)   Daylight motive power change. 
f)   Edison Local clears eastbound main at Edison.
g)   Daylight departs Bakersfield.   
h)   Daylight passes through Edison (past Local) and proceeds upgrade to East Storage. 
i)   Edison Local finishes switching and returns to Bakersfield Yard. 

2)   Sequence 2:  Edison Local + SP eastbound freight. 
a)   Edison Local departs Bakersfield.
b)   Edison Local arrives Edison, and begins switching. 
c)   Eastbound freight arrives Bakersfield Yard from Fresno Sub.
d)   Valley power cut off and serviced; crew change. 
e)   Freight broken up and remade in Yard to degree specified.
f)   Mountain power and helper added. 
g)   Edison Local clears eastbound main at Edison.
h)   Eastbound freight departs Bakersfield.   
i)   Freight passes through Edison (past Local) and proceeds upgrade to East Storage. 
j)   Edison Local resumes switching 
k)   Helper cut off at East Storage, and proceeds back down mountain. 
l)   Edison Local clears westbound main.
m)   Helper proceeds downgrade through Edison (past Local) to Bakersfield Yard service area. 
n)   Edison Local finishes switching and returns to Bakersfield Yard. 

MH

[GaryHinshaw]

This seems like a perfectly reasonable approach to ops.  (I assume you are thinking about having westbound moves at some point too, no?)  One comment: at least in the 70's, the eastbound helper power was generally added at Bena (between Edison and Caliente),  so it would not typically pass through Edison.  But your proposed scheme would add interest to your ops (and it may have been the way things worked in the 50's.) 

-Gary

P.S. I'm very curious to see how the Edison local fares on my pike, where I plan to have quite a bit of mainline traffic competing for track time.

[mark.hinds]

<snip>
(I assume you are thinking about having westbound moves at some point too, no?) 
<snip>

Yes, the above were just examples.  I was thinking of putting a 52 on the right numberboard of my passenger engines, and a 51 on the left, since the same model will be representing both east and westbounds. 

<snip>
But your proposed scheme would add interest to your ops (and it may have been the way things worked in the 50's.) 
<snip>

I don't remember the exactly where it says this (somewhere in the Signor "Tehachapi" book probably), but I remember reading that the Bena helpers were post-1950s.  Caliente helpers stopped being used even earlier (30s?).  So this implies that in my era, helpers were added at Bakersfield.  The Dill "San Joaquin Valley Line" book on page 92 mentions that the first RSD-5 helpers were added to the Bakersfield helper pool in 1953. 

BTW, you mentioned in your layout construction thread that you had collected soil samples from the area (I should have done that...).  I am still trying to decide on my base soil color.  In my slides, it is difficult to distinguish the base soil color from shadows and debris.  Even worse, I lack experience with scenery, and am therefore not sure if I can more easily darken a light color or lighten a dark color, when adding grout, ground foam, etc. over the base color.  To date, the closest thing I have done to layout scenery is the DBA terrain board shown below.  Note that the soil color is very light, but it works because of all the yellow and green ground foam, and perhaps because of the small (micro-armor) scale.  No idea if this would work for the larger and more detailed layout scenery.  I don't suppose you have identified a latex paint color match for the soil samples?   



MH

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Just as a friendly reminder, real soil does not make good model soil. Even sifted, the texture is often too course.

That's why I love unsanded grout.

[mark.hinds]

Just as a friendly reminder, real soil does not make good model soil. Even sifted, the texture is often too course.

That's why I love unsanded grout.

Just the sort of suggestion I was looking for.  What sort of grout is "unsanded grout", and do you have any links to how you use it?  Does one just sprinkle it onto the wet latex paint? 

I have some tile grout left over from our bathroom floors, but it looks pretty fine-grained.  If it is finer-grained than the Sculptamold I use for my top terrain surface, I am wondering why one would want to use it.  Perhaps it counteracts the smoothing effect of the paint? 

MH

[GaryHinshaw]

The soil samples I collected were from near my Dad's house in Sonora, about 200 miles north of Tehachapi -- still a very similar climate and geography though.   The color is a good match, so I plan to go with it for now, but I also plan to try unsanded grout when I really get going on scenery.

When I use that soil I sift it with a micro screen so it really does have a very fine texture.  I don't know the mesh size, but my criterion for deciding if it's fine enough is to park a vehicle on it and see if the soil looks plausible, as in this test scene:



As Ed notes, scenes like this can often look like gravel.  You can decide for yourself if it looks believable.

I like the color you have on your terrain board.  There are also lots of good current-day photos of Tehachapi to guide you.  One thing to keep in mind that almost anything you do to the ground cover to adhere it will darken it a bit, so err on the light side to start with.  And do everything you can to keep it as dry looking as possible, unless you're modeling spring.

-gfh

[mark.hinds]

Request for information:

When I photographed the area back in the mid 1980s, it was October, and pretty dry with yellow grass, etc.  I could model this time period.  However, recently I have been considering the alternative of modeling the area as it looks in winter / early spring, as in my Tunnel 1/2 image (near the beginning of this thread).  From my reading, I get the impression that whereas there can be snow in the higher altitudes, that in the 3 scenes I am modeling, one sees rain.  The Tunnel 1/2 image gives me an idea as how to model the hills behind Caliente (my scene 3), but I don't know what it looks like down in the valley (my scenes 1 and 2).   

Does anyone have information (ideally images) showing lower Valley (Bakersfield / Edison) vegetation during this time period?   

MH

[C855B]

No photos handy, Mark, but memory can address this. January thru early March tends to be brown and somewhat beaten down from the rains in late fall. Nothing much greens-up until the second week of March, and then it will be the usual sparse wild grasses and wildflowers. Basically the same as what you know about in Caliente, tho' the SJ Valley floor might start greening-up maybe a week sooner. There's not going to be a lot of difference because you're still only a couple hundred feet above the valley; the elevation changes don't start in earnest until the climb eastbound from the horseshoe.

Yes, you're right - the Tehachapis can get snow up high, but still not a lot, and what does accumulate doesn't last all that long. Snow at the railroad elevations is infrequent. This definitely isn't Donner.

[GaryHinshaw]

Here's a video that was shot a few weeks ago (St Patrick's Day) on the hill.  The opening scene is looking towards Edison from the hill above Sandcut and gives a pretty good sense of the grass and soil color around Edison in March.

-gfh

P.S. This was posted by a 15-year old with a nice eye for photography.

[mark.hinds]

Excellent; thanks guys!!

MH

[Rossford Yard]

Mark,

As per the "Layout size" thread, I like the layout, might use it as a base model for my track plan.

I was wondering if you have implemented those simple op schemes you proposed (or other) and if the operations are satisfying for you?  This presumes you finished the loops and staging above and below.

Thanks in advance.

[mark.hinds]

RY:

Unfortunately, not much construction has occurred in the last 3 years, which is why this thread has no recent activity.  Sorry about that ...  In answer to your question, I believe that I personally will find the sequential operations concept workable for 1-2 operators.  I have played a lot of turn-based historical games (both miniatures and board games), so I am used to the idea of “freezing” the action at appropriate points.  (WRT your other questions from the layout size thread, I have updated the layout plan post (above; "Reply #9") to include design specs such as minimum radius). 

Some other thoughts:

 1. From a design perspective, some would say that my yard is too large for my layout.  I feel that this is not a problem for 2 main reasons.  One is that staging can compensate for such imbalances.  However, the most important is that the yard does not necessarily have to function at full capacity during an operating session.  In it's simplest capacity, it just functions as “scenery”, through which the main line runs, and for AT&SF trains it is just that.  For SP through trains, it additionally allows for engine and crew changes typical of a 1950s division-point yard.  Any further yard operation, such as switching, etc., is optional. 

 2. I am using a complicated over / under arrangement for the return loops, because I need a point-to-point track plan to simulate Valley-versus-Mountain power changes, and don't want to allocate the floor space for the traditional implementation.  I have not yet actually built the upper return loop, but only mocked it up.  If you don't need this complication, it might be easier to combine east and west storage as suggested by Gary H, yielding a loop-like track plan. 

 3.  I have 1 foot of access space behind the storage tracks, which is barely adequate for my body shape.  If I need more space, the layout is on casters, and can be (with some effort) pulled out from the wall.  If you decide to do this as well, I suggest heavier-duty casters than those I used. I have an image of my caster design below.  A fall-back is to substitute heavy-duty bolts, as in the MR Clinchfield project layout.  These could still be slid across a floor, using those slippery plastic furniture caps. 

 4.  I really like the “light box” / “vignette” style design, and the LED light strips which have become available recently make this much more practical from a weight perspective.  (Remember, that everything on my layout rests on the casters, and nothing is attached to the wall or ceiling). 



MH

[Rossford Yard]

Mark,

Too much yard? Not possible!  In my case, it would be a nice workable size after building a much bigger (see the IHB thread) and underutilized yard.  I love yards, but 5-6 tracks is enough IMHO.

As I mentioned, yes, I want to avoid grades and complications, and might just do a turn back at each end, with staging behind a low backdrop, factories, etc.  I would have no room for that foot, my body type would require at least two feet, and that would crowd or eliminate my main aisle.  That causes a worry of access to the turn back loop, which would be about 3 feet deep on a 2 foot deep bench work for the yard  (yes, could be narrower, but am repurposing those cabinets below from the old layout) and worse yet, I would probably be compelled to use curved turnouts in that corner to get the longest possible staging track length, unless cooler heads (Doug, Wyatt) held me down while they laid it out, LOL>

The next question is whether all that reach and inaccessible complication is worth it to allow 2-3 trains to come from "off the layout?"  I have a friend with visible staging, and it works fine.  If I did the switching layout, I would presume the mainline train had already dropped off the cars in that 6 track interchange yard overnight, and the industrial complex switch crew starts from there.   MY past layouts had many staging tracks, so there would be more fiddle work for a real session on this new layout, but that's okay.  In reality, I had to fiddle to get the right cars in trains anyway on the last layouts. 

Speaking of real sessions, the sequential concept proved a lifesaver and I endorse that.  I had a complicated schedule worked out for four operators.  With different skill levels, and a pesky electrical issue that cropped up the morning of the session, one operator took all session for a longer run, while another (Coal Driver) made quick work in the yard.  So, things don't go as planned, and luckily, those done first could just take out another switch job.

Lastly, the IHB lacked some switching.  It had some interchanges, but somehow, that is not as satisfying as switching the 1-4 cars at individual industries.  Maybe my idea of a switching layout only, with no main, is a bit of an overreaction.  Not to mention, its hard to give up a yard and that beauty Walther's turntable, not to mention some continuous run option, albeit, visible for only a few feet.

Thanks for sharing.  You can tell I am conflicted, and your layout sure makes one think, since its the same size as mine would be and shows what can be done in N.

[mark.hinds]

Finished another set of modified Intermountain F7s.  Mods involve lowering the shell to put the roofline at the correct 14' height, lowering the fuel tank assembly, and close-coupling the A and B units to the correct 3'.  Since layout uses 1980's-style selective compression of prototype objects, each A-B pair represents a 4-unit set.  None of my equipment is lightened or weathered yet. 





Next up is to make several hand-laid turnouts so I can experiment with ME code 55 in scene 2 and the helix. 

MH