Tehachapi, BC

[C855B]

..., but at Tehach, ...

Uh... I'm from there, Steven. Natives don't shorten it that way, it's always "Tehachapi". It's from the local Native American dialect, and means "Land of Foamers".

[Coxy]

LOL, I'm not suggesting you change how you say it!

We Aussies like to shorten words when we can. "Tehach" has been working well on my end for a couple of decades. Think of all the time I've saved!

Cheers,
Steven

[GaryHinshaw]

Thanks for the comments.  I really like those last two shots too.      RE the inter-rail ballast, I've been pretty casual with that so far, but I think the latest test looks a bit too sloppy, even though I can cite proto examples that look similar.  On the next stretch, I'll pay more attention to that aspect.  Right now I'm leaning towards a nearly uniform thin layer, something along these lines:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=372675&nseq=190
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=371953&nseq=205
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=364641&nseq=270

This seems like the most common profile and relatively straightforward to pull off.  But with ~150' of track on the upper deck alone, I'm sure I'll end up with some variety whether I intend to or not. 

In related news, my sweep sticks order arrived from Fast Tracks today, so now I can really start coming to terms with the ME 'flex'.  First up is to see if .02" of superelevation causes a problem in the Loop.  (It looks really awesome on the test tracks.)  I need to come up with a way to lay the track temporarily with SE so I can run a few test trains.  Probably a few dabs of white glue that I can pop off later.

-gfh

[3DTrains]

We Aussies like to shorten words when we can. "Tehach" has been working well on my end for a couple of decades.

Ah, spoken like a true MRR - always looking to compress the prototype!

...but you should never - ever shorten that which is sacred.   

Cheers!
Marc - Riverside

[ednadolski]

First up is to see if .02" of superelevation causes a problem in the Loop.

That scales out to about 3" which is probably the maximum for a model.   What transition length are you thinking of using?

Here are some interesting links about how they did SE on Tehachapi.   While obviously a much lesser degree than the prototype, the effectiveness of SE on the model will still warrant some consideration of what a 'harmonized' train will be for you.

http://www.arema.org/files/library/2006_Conference_Proceedings/019.pdf
http://23136.vws.magma.ca/documents/AGM_2010/2010_10_19_JIgwemezie.pdf

(It looks really awesome on the test tracks.)

Definitely! 

[GaryHinshaw]

Awesome links Ed - thanks!  I'm sure a Z train has very different SE requirements than a grain train, on the prototype. 

The test tracks I have so far use .01 strips under the easements and .02 under the central curve.  I roughly line the strips with the outer edge of the ties, so it's less than 2 scale inches rail-to-rail.  Still needs to be tested though.  BTW, I'm very interested in making DPU's work on the pike, which will have some bearing on SE performance.

-gfh

[GaryHinshaw]

Changed my mind.  I think I'm going to include SE on my straight tracks too, and go for a bit more weathering:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=392342

[Bendtracker1]

Gary your test tracks look fantastic, can 't wait to see the trains rolling!

Not trying to hijack your thread, but in regards to the link to the picture perfect track work you posted, here's a few links on YouTube of some pristine track work in action!

http://youtu.be/g11qWro1LzQ
http://youtu.be/C9zwq-TnykA  jump forward to 1:35
http://youtu.be/ObzK91qWw1g 

[Coxy]

Here are some interesting links about how they did SE on Tehachapi.   

http://www.arema.org/files/library/2006_Conference_Proceedings/019.pdf
http://23136.vws.magma.ca/documents/AGM_2010/2010_10_19_JIgwemezie.pdf

Great find Ed. Very interesting reading. Cool project to work on.

Cheers,
Steven

[GaryHinshaw]

Thanks Allen.  Those videos are nuts!

The track report was interesting.  In some places they were seeing 3/4" of railhead wear in 6 months!  Their codes recommended SE's that differed by more than 12": from +7" for heavy downgrade trains to -5.5" for heavy upgrades (to avoid string-lining).  The challenge was to find a combination of track speeds and DPU distribution that produced the same optimal SE for all trains - a tough problem.  Since upgrade and downgrade requirements are so different, I have to wonder if double tracking the whole hill - and enforcing directional running most of the time - wouldn't be cost effective.   Probably not though.

-gfh

P.S. I formed and laid down the first two tracks on the Mojave shelf last night, then spent half an hour running a short train back and forth, like an idiot.   

[ednadolski]

I have to wonder if double tracking the whole hill - and enforcing directional running most of the time - wouldn't be cost effective.   Probably not though.

I don't know much about the costs, but that double-track talk does seem to keep coming up from time to time.  At some point it might make sense for the UP to do that on at least some portion of the line.

BTW Gary I wanted to ask you something.   I recall reading recently that due to water problems in some of the tunnels, UP had decided to re-lay track in the all tunnels with wood ties, out to 100' from each tunnel entrance.   AFAICT, recent satellite pics seem to indicate that this has been completed on at least some of them.  Do you intend to model that on your layout?

Ed

[ednadolski]

... that double-track talk does seem to keep coming up from time to time.  At some point it might make sense for the UP to do that on at least some portion of the line.

Not to hijack this thread, but even as we speak....

https://www.therailwire.net/forum/index.php?topic=25759.0

[Coxy]

Hey Gary,

Are you planning to ballast before scenery? The boundary between scenery and ballast can work out better by applying ballast after scenery, assuming you have good access to the track. When ballasting after scenicking, the ballast falls naturally onto the adjacent "landscape", just as in the 1:1. Just curious, it can be done either way, what's your preference?

Cheers,
Steven

[GaryHinshaw]

Well, I'm not changing my track plan yet, but it will be interesting to see how double-tracking the hill goes.  Thanks for posting that news Ed.  BTW, I thought the ties in the tunnels were steel ties with clips; are they really planning to switch to wood?  Here is a shot of the transition outside Tunnel 10:

http://hewgill.com/photo/trips/tehachapi-loop/IMG_5466.JPG.html

In the interest of continuity and reliability, my plan right now is to just paint the concrete ties brown near the tunnel entrances.  If that looks too obvious, I'll consider switching to wood tie track, but I'd like to keep the number of unnecessary track joints down.

Coxy, I'm planning to ballast first because I really can't imagine doing a neat enough job otherwise.  Since most of the track will have simple graded dirt next to it, I will cover the immediate vicinity with soil prior to ballasting (like I did in the test section).  But, as Skibbe noted, even that needs to be touched up after gluing the ballast.  On the test section, it was simple enough to touch up and still have it look like the ballast came afterwards.

Cheers,
Gary

[GaryHinshaw]

A bit more progress to report.  I put the first three sections of track in place on the Mojave shelf and tried out various schemes for attaching feeders, joining tracks, and super-elevating.  I want to give a little shout-out to Jamie Schatte (aka CSXDixieLine) for his blog posts on this topic.  He wrote a really nice entry on his method for attaching feeders that is almost fool-proof and I've adopted that approach.  I'm also trying out Jim Reising's joinerless track joints (which Jamie also has a nice post on).  Here are a few close-ups of my first effort:





The nice thing about this approach is that the feeders and joints are almost invisible, but they're very robust.  In the first shot, the three ties to the right of the feeder belong to the track on the right: the rail on the left slides into their clips, and that's your joint.  With the ME flex, at least, this joint is quite smooth and stable, and you don't need to trim any clips off.  (I also need to enlarge the feeder hole a bit, so I can close the gap a wee bit more.)

So, without further ado, let it me marked that St. Patrick's Day 2012 saw the first train(ette) to ply the Hill under its own power:




-gfh

P.S. The super-elevation is pretty mild on that curve; I may beef it up a bit more.  The track isn't glued down yet.  And the power bus on the left is temporary!