Tehachapi, BC

[ednadolski]

Wonder if the plastic could first be scuffed with steel wool or sandpaper? Just trying to think of something faster than building a mold.

The board-form look is very distinctive on the proto tunnels.  The form lines are about six scale inches which makes them pretty hard to replicate with anything other than scale stripwood. (I used HO 2x3s for those masters.) I recall at one point trying to scribe lines into plastic but it was too hard (and slow!) for me to get them uniform and parallel.

I could see using the printed portals as a substrate for photo-printed decals.   The difficulty with that, of course, is obtaining actual, usable photos. Most of the proto tunnels are inaccessible vis a vis detailed photography, and you would have to compensate for lighting, shadows, angles, etc.   

ED

[svedblen]

I've done one-time tunnel portals molds from extruded foam and styrene. I then scribed the form lines in the foam, which was quite easy. The portals themselves were not that great, but it was a handy way of making form lines in modeled concrete.

[GaryHinshaw]

Not much progress lately due to a busy school term.  But that is over now and the summer construction season is upon us!  Ballast crews are back on the hill working their way up the main line at Walong:





It's a bit reminiscent of the double-track work taking place on the prototype right now. 

Other odds and ends are underway with a plan to host 2-3 sessions this summer, starting in June.  The next big construction push will be Bakersfield staging and the Edison fruit packing district.  The final phase will be to decommission the temporary north staging yard and connect the lower deck main line between Edison and Bealville, through Caliente.

[Cajonpassfan]

Dang Gary, that looks good! Even if you picked the wrong era
Best, Otto K.

[svedblen]

Gotcha! There is a stone on one of the ties 



But seriously, great work!

[GaryHinshaw]

Gotcha! There is a stone on one of the ties 

Well I haven't managed much construction progress yet this summer, but I have gotten some more ballasting done since the last post, and I have sorted out a few computer issues I was having, such as losing access to my track planning software after upgrading my Mac to El Capitan.    That is sorted out now, so I can get back to finalizing my plans for Bakersfield staging, a topic that was last discussed here.

After sketching a number of permutations inspired by the suggestions in the link above, I think I have resettled on a variant of the original balloon yard with a few important changes.  Here is the new proposal:



To see it in context, here it is with the first mainline deck superposed above it to show how Bakersfield sits mostly under the footprint of the Tunnel 2 peninsula above it:



The main changes to the yard from its previous incarnation are:

* Tracks extend closer to the end of the peninsula for longer staging tracks (18-20' each) and easier access,
* Track spacing is enlarged to 1.5" for easier derailment access,
* Loco tracks have been moved to the lower right corner next to the doorway.  Previously they were inside the balloon and hard to reach, (this may become a short branch line instead).
* Easier access to the interior of the balloon in case of trouble,
* One more crossover at the yard entrance for better traffic flow:



I like how this plan lets me pretend that the two ends of the yard mimic the UP and BNSF yards in town, and I haven't come up with anything substantially more interesting than this, so I'm inclined to go with it.  Last call for comments!

Thanks for looking.  -gfh

P.S. I'd welcome comments on the idea of making the loco storage area a branch line instead. I would love to have something like an oil terminal and/or scrap yard there.  On the other hand, the loco facility would give operators the task of picking up or dropping off their power at the beginning or end of their runs.

[C855B]

... losing access to my track planning software after upgrading my Mac to El Capitan. 

Yikes! I certainly know this particular pain. I'm still running Yosemite and have been avoiding upgrading... does it hose BootCamp somehow? 10.12 (Sierra) is around the corner, too. (Not to mention I have a really bad attitude about Apple OS upgrades. I can't recall the last upgrade... must've been back in pre-OSX days... where I didn't lose major functionality or a feature I used daily. Hell, even the recent incremental 10.10.x update killed QuickTime for me. Bastards. )

I had a question about that added crossover at Kern Junction for a moment. I have a couple of similar instances where an additional crossover looks nice and makes transit into the yard smoother, but in terms of actual train movement doesn't do much. But now I visualize the entry and exit situation, and while the left crossover is now slightly superfluous in terms of trains entering and exiting simultaneously, it does facilitate "reverse" entry into the yard.

[ednadolski]

* One more crossover at the yard entrance for better traffic flow:

Would a double-slip be of any benefit there?

What is the clearance to the upper tracks at Bealville/Tunnel 2?

Ed

[GaryHinshaw]

I guess I'm not sure what your question is, Mike.  In any case, here is a bit more info on how I envision using the yard throat.  The mainline coming in from the left is shared (UP/BNSF, or SP/ATSF if you prefer) and is mostly right-hand running.  During a session, UP trains will enter/leave the lower throat of the double-ended yard and BNSF trains will enter/leave the upper throat.  The previous plan looked as follows:



This had the flaw that a UP train leaving the lower yard throat could not access main track #1.  The new configuration (above) corrects that.  A double-slip or double crossover in the above configuration would also work, though I've never been a big fan of them.

Strictly speaking, the right-most crossover in my current plan in not necessary, but it does allow for two trains to use the junction at once.

What is the clearance to the upper tracks at Bealville/Tunnel 2?

Good question about clearance: the separation at Tunnel 2 is 10", rising to 12" at Bealville.  There will be little or no classification in this yard, so my main access concern is when power is being added or taken off a train in the "UP side" of the yard.  I'm about to mock that up and try it.  I also realize it will take a bit of careful engineering to make the bench work that supports the Bealville roadbed. 

[eric220]

Would a double-slip be of any benefit there?

Probably not. The right hand crossover allows a train on the lower main to move to/from the UP side of the yard without fouling the ability of a train on the upper main to move to/from the BNSF

[wcfn100]

Always jealous of reverse loop staging.  Unfortunately doesn't work with circus style trailer ramp unloading. 


Jason

[mu26aeh]

Not much progress lately due to a busy school term.  But that is over now and the summer construction season is upon us!  Ballast crews are back on the hill working their way up the main line at Walong:





It's a bit reminiscent of the double-track work taking place on the prototype right now. 

Other odds and ends are underway with a plan to host 2-3 sessions this summer, starting in June.  The next big construction push will be Bakersfield staging and the Edison fruit packing district.  The final phase will be to decommission the temporary north staging yard and connect the lower deck main line between Edison and Bealville, through Caliente.

That ballast work is immaculate ! 

[MichaelWinicki]

That ballast work is immaculate ! 

It looks good too!

[jagged ben]

I admit to being a bit thrown for a loop (pun intended) when it comes to 'Kern Junction' and the staging.   Perhaps what baffles me is the 'UP Side' and the 'BNSF'.  (And yes, I prefer SP/ATSF, but no matter.   ) 

The new crossover definitely accomplishes having two trains moving in/out of the yard at the same time.  If that's all you want to accomplish, then that's fine.  And you can even have BNSF westbounds crossover the junction just like they would in the real world, and come around to the other end of the loop as eastbounds in exactly the right position. 

However, if the goal is to stage BNSF on one side of the junction, and UP on the other, and your dispatcher to be able to think about 'Kern Junction' prototypically, you're a bit constrained.  Namely, you can't have UP eastbounds and westbounds pass each other without crossing over as they can on the prototype.  Perhaps more problematic from a practical point of view, UP westbounds seemingly go to the same place as BNSF westbounds (unless you want to hold them for BNSF eastbounds and have them enter the BNSF side, which isn't prototypical and defeats half the purpose of the new crossover).   This potentially crowds all the 'UP Side' tracks with arriving trains and potentially causes you trouble getting trains off the layout.  Altogether, I think you'd likely end up abandoning the 'BNSF Side' and 'UP Side' concept, and having 'BNSF' be departure and 'UP' be arrival.  Or, to speak for myself, I think I might drive myself crazy deciding how to set up staging with your current trackplan.  Or your dispatcher may go nuts with not having one concept of how 'Kern Junction' works that lasts a whole operating session.

On the other hand, and perhaps this is just way too complicated, but here goes...

If you wanted to get more prototypical, and really have a 'BNSF Side' and a 'UP Side' you could do something like this:
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

At the cost of a couple more turnouts you could even give yourself a little more flexibility on how many tracks are 'eastbound' vs 'westbound'.
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

At the cost of a bit of yard space, these options would allow you to genuinely stage your BNSF and UP eastbounds to enter the layout from different origins, and have your westbounds exit towards different destinations.  It's very clear where all trains go.  And as on the prototype, the dispatcher has to hold UP eastbounds for BNSF westbounds (or vice versa) but not any other permutations of trains passing each other.

[jagged ben]

Upon further review, that second image should probably look like this:
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Subtle difference, but the idea is that a track on both sides can start as an extra 'departure track' and become an 'arrival track' later in the session.

Gary, I'm curious if you see these tracks handling one or two trains and if this yard will hold more or less train than the Vortex at the other end.  That could certainly affect one's thinking.