Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module

[svedblen]

Great detail om the tunnel portal molds! Did you actually build stripwood forms? Amazing. But the result is really convincing.

About custom tieplate etchings on curves: Don't you think it would be possible to bend the connecting pieces, the parts between the actual tie plates, and use them on curves aswell? The proto:87 tieplate frets, in comparison, are fairly thin, and if the connecting part is not made that wide? Just a thought.

Another thought; what about deliberatly make the connecting parts longer than the tie spacing. That would ease bending on curves and make it possible to let the etching "take a dive" between ties, both on curves and on tangent track, instead of sitting tight to the underside of the rail base. It would also let you wary the tie spacing, if you don't want your track to look too neat.

By the way, what does PPD stand for?

/Lennart

[ednadolski]

Hi Lennart, thanks for the kind words.   Yes, I made the forms from stripwood, using Midwest HO scale 2x3, glued onto a backing substrate, sanded flat, and then hand-etched all the lines with an X-acto blade so they would leave the right kind of form line impressions in the poured cement.  Using the right amount of glue took some trial and error -- too much glue and it oozes up between the boards, too little glue and the wood comes off the substrate when the cement is poured  (ask me how I learned that  ). I mix the cement on the watery side, the standard mix ratio is a little too stiff to flow well enough into the forms.  Also, to keep the cement from grabbing onto the wood as it sets, I sprayed a paper towel with some WD40 and rubbed a thin layer onto the raw wood prior to pouring.  The forms are only good for a single use, but making the RTV molds from these masters will save me from having to make new forms for each & every tunnel.

For the tieplates on curves, the trick is that the tieplates under the inner rail will have a closer spacing than the tieplates under the outer rail, and spacing will also vary with the curve radius.  The P:87 tieplates are designed to be laid down in a jig, and the ties themselves are likewise laid in a jig that holds the spacing.   I'm wondering if it would work to lay the ties and tieplates in some kind of jig, then glue one rail in place with the Pliobond to make a sort of flextrack but with one rail.  Then lay the track/ties in place on the roadbed, and add the second rail.  Seems to me like a delicate proposition, as I've never worked with the Pliobond before, I'm not sure how well it will hold with that first rail.   Time for some more experimenting I think 

PPD is the company that does custom photo-etching.   Gary used them for the coupler pocket project.

Thanks again!

Ed

[GaryHinshaw]

[I thought I had replied to this thread a few days ago, but just found this minimized on my desktop...sorry.]

Ed, I love seeing the progress on the portals, especially the surface detail, but I'm a little confused about what we're looking at.  Are you planning to make an RTV mold from these pieces, then insert dams in them as necessary to get the shape you want?  Why is the rectangular master so big?  I'm not grasping how that fits into the plans...  Also, are you planning to make full length liners for these short tunnels?  That's what I'm hoping to do (possibly making them removable from underneath in case of disaster), but I'm not sure how yet.

RE the code 40 on ME concrete ties, I was indeed thinking of shaving the clips off entirely.  I don't think it's absolutely necessary to heat the Pliobond to have it fully cured, but even so, I don't think the few seconds of heat it would require will melt the ties.  In all the feeders I've soldered to the track now, I've never come close to melting a tie, so you're probably fine there.  It might actually be worth looking into etching rail clips for this application: start with something like .015 stock the size of the indent in the concrete tie, then half-etch all but two clip stubs that nestle around the rail base (and maybe even clip on to it).  Then you could glue the plate to the tie.  But it's an extra glue joint between the rail and tie...

Have you ruled out ME code 40 flex for the wood tie portion of the line?

Cheers,
Gary

[ednadolski]

Are you planning to make an RTV mold from these pieces, then insert dams in them as necessary to get the shape you want?  Why is the rectangular master so big?  I'm not grasping how that fits into the plans...

Yes, precisely.  I'll be making the dams out of styrene for the vertical, horizontal, diagonal, and stair-step shapes to try to match the proto.  Every proto portal is unique, tho I should be able to get several uses out of most of the dams.

I made the larger master for a few reasons:

 - I needed something long enough to use for the elongated wing walls on Tunnels 14 & 16 (and 17 as well, if I ever decide to make that one).
 - I was hedging against the chance of small defects in the casting.  The stripwood can occasionally refuse to let go without taking some of the cement with it, and I've also had cases where a bit of the stripwood peeled off the backing substrate during the pour, resulting in a waffled surface. This casting seems to have come out pretty well, fortunately.
 

Also, are you planning to make full length liners for these short tunnels?

After more than about an inch, there's not much detail to see, so I'll just line the interior with perhaps plain styrene or cardstock, painted flat black.   Just enough to keep a derailment contained.

RE the code 40 on ME concrete ties, I was indeed thinking of shaving the clips off entirely.  I don't think it's absolutely necessary to heat the Pliobond to have it fully cured, but even so, I don't think the few seconds of heat it would require will melt the ties. 

I'll definitely try this out & see how it works.   I just got my order of wood ties, so I'm itching to get to it 

It might actually be worth looking into etching rail clips for this application: start with something like .015 stock the size of the indent in the concrete tie, then half-etch all but two clip stubs that nestle around the rail base (and maybe even clip on to it).  Then you could glue the plate to the tie.  But it's an extra glue joint between the rail and tie...

Sounds like an interesting approach.  I've been sketching up some tieplates in Draftsight, so I'll add some clips and post them soon.

What do you think is a good tie spacing for the wood & concrete ties?   I was thinking 19" OC for the wood, and 24" for the concrete, but I'm not exactly sure what the proto uses.

Have you ruled out ME code 40 flex for the wood tie portion of the line?

I've been trying a little of that out too.  I just have a tough time getting painted plastic to look as good to my eye as the real wood.  I guess I could always use it inside the tunnels      There is one slight difference - the ME flex uses a 9' tie, rather than the 8' 6" which I believe is what UP used on the Hill.  It's subtle, but to me the longer ties contribute a little bit more toward the 'branch line' look as compared the the mainline look.

Thanks for the comments and great ideas ! 

Ed

[ednadolski]

I've been working on a couple of different things and I figured it's time for an update.

First on the RTV molds.   I've been prepping the masters for the RTV pour, which involved airbrushing some clear gloss over the concrete, since the RTV doesn't like porous materials.  I've also got the mold boxes in place, but I've just found out that my RTV has been on the shelf for too long.  Something like three years, where its shelf life is supposed to be one year.  So it's off to pick up another batch of the RTV.

I've also been trying out a few approaches for the track, comparing Code 40 vs. Code 55 rail, and wood ties vs. painted flextrack ties.  I've added a few pix below - sorry that these are so large, but again it's a matter of showing as much detail as possible.  Sorry too that the white balance isn't great in some of the pix.  The samples were made on scraps of blue foam insulation, which confuses the camera

In all of these pics the rail is either ME weathered rail, or painted with the Woodland Scenics Tidy Track paint pens (Steel Rail or Rusty Rail colors).  Likewise for the spikes/tieplates and rail clips.  I really like these pens for this application, the paint goes on neatly and quickly, esp. compared to hand-brushing.  Weathered areas on the track are AIM Powders: Medium Gray with some Black down the center.  (Probably not my final choice for weathering, but I wanted to do the same thing for these samples, for comparison purposes.  In particular, the black looks a little too strong to me on the concrete ties).


Picture A: This is Code 40 rail on wood ties, spiked with P87 spike (no tieplates).


Picture B:  Like A, with a bit more focus on the wood ties:


Picture C: Same as A and B, on a non-weathered part of the track:


These next couple of shots are the ME Code 40 flextrack that I am trying out a new way (for me) to paint and weather.   It's basically derived from a Lance Mindheim technique.   I start by spray-painting the track with a base coat Model Master light gray, then I do a wash of artists bunt umber oil paint thinned with mineral spirits.  I follow this up with some additional washes of raw umber and a bit of black, and dab again with mineral spirits to flow & blend the paint together.   After it dries (not all that long if I leave it out in the Colorado sun)  I glue it to the roadbed with adhesive caulk, add ballast, paint the rails/tieplates/spikes, and add the weathering powders.


Picture D:


Picture E:


Picture F:


Overall I'm pretty pleased with how the flextrack looks with this technique.  I still think that the real wood ties look better in the close-up pics, but I've found out that in-person I cannot tell the difference without magnification, especially after the track is weathered with the powders.   The real wood samples here do not have the tieplate details or spikes on every tie, and it would be a photo-etching project to make them.   After this comparison, I'm thinking that the code 40 flextrack is the way to go for me, for the portions of the track that have wood ties on the prototype  (which is about  70% of the track for this shelf module).

Finally here is a comparisons of the concrete tie track.  This is two parallel curved tracks, the outer track is the M.E. Code 55 flextrack with the railhead ground to a more narrow profile as described in this post.   (Picture K shows a scrap of the flextrack without the ground railhead).   The inner curve is the flextrack, but with the rail removed and replaced with the M.E. Code 40 rail, glued in place with Pliobond.   Here are some pics from various angles.  Again, note that this shows some portions are unweathered and other portions are weathered with the powders.

Picture G:


Picture H:


Picture I:


Picture J:


Picture K:


Here are some proto reference links for the concrete tie track:

http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/7/4/8/5748.1313542933.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/6/9/7/9697.1314724844.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/4/4/3/9443.1343702629.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/4/4/7/5447.1294860992.jpg
http://www.railpictures.net/images/d1/1/3/4/1134.1144249200.jpg

So after doing this comparison, my thoughts are that while the Code 55 rail is noticeably better with the narrowed rail head, it still looks like HO scale rail to me.   That holds in-person as well as in the pictures.   OTOH the Code 40 looks to me more representative of the rail in the proto pics (rather curious, considering that technically the C40 is undersized by about the same amount that the C55 is oversized).

It's definitely work to change over the rail, altho the cast-on rail clips do help with holding the rail in place until I set the Pliobond with the soldering iron.  This is the first time I've used the Pliobond and I'm rather impressed with its strength.  BTW this does call for some care with the soldering iron -- if left in place for more than about 2 seconds (YMMV!), it can heat up the rail enough to soften the plastic ties, and that can let the rail 'sink' into the ties.   That said, since I only have a small section to do this way, I think I'll try it together with the Code 40 flextrack and see how it works out. 

Thanks for looking!   As always, I'm very glad to hear thoughts, ideas, and feedback!

Ed

[svedblen]

Wow! It looks really good!

I agree, the real wood ties look better than the plastic ones, but the overall impression with the tie plate and spike details, and your superb weathering, makes the code 40 flex track a winner anyway.

For the concrete ties I like the code 40 version best. Although ground down, the code 55 track still looks a little bit oversized. But that might be because the code 40 track is there making a direct comparison possible. Also, the ballast might need to be even finer and some rust color spread on the concrete ties. But now I am nit-picking  And teasing you to make it even better.

[avel]

I also agree that the code 40 looks waaaay better.

I have an Atlas code 55 turnout butted to code 40 flex and that only makes the fat rail head even more apparent.

[GaryHinshaw]

You're just trying to make me switch to code 40, aren't you Ed. 

The code 40 in concrete looks really good there! Better than I would have guessed based on my 15 minutes of tinkering with it a while back.  My impression then was that it would get lost in the track detail and look undersize, especially given the size of the clips.  But it really looks great in your sample.

Have you had any issue with flanges hitting the clips?  Also, did you trim the bits that hold the ties together?  I had found those to be very visible under the code 40 rail base when I tried this.  Sadly, I'm afraid retro-fitting code 40 in concrete is not in the cards for me though - with 5 scale miles of mainline (much of it double track) it's just not practical.   I agree that the ME code 40 wood track looks really good.  The real wood ties themselves look better, but the lack of hardware is somewhat apparent.

Keep up the good work!  By the way, how did you lay the concrete track?  Did you strip the rail first, lay the ties, then glue the rail?  Did you have any trouble extracting the original rail?

-gfh

P.S. I agree with Lennart that a bit more rusty brown along the rail base would be good, and slightly less definition to the black streak down the middle.  But the effect on the concrete ties looks spot on! (especially in picture A)

[arbomambo]

Incredible!
I have a silly question...what is capable of running on the code 40 rail?
I have low profile wheelsets (either MT low profiles or Fox Valley wheelsets) on all my rolling stock...and late Release Kato and Atlas units for motive power....the only units I own that have difficulty on Atlas code 55 are the LifeLike E6's (which is gonna vex me-I don't know how to reduce the flanges on these).
Is code 40 a viable option for me?...I'm modelling 1950's Santa Fe in AZ, so the code 40 would certainly seem to look more scale than even the Atlas code 55...
Respectfully,
Bruce

[ednadolski]

For the concrete ties I like the code 40 version best. Although ground down, the code 55 track still looks a little bit oversized. But that might be because the code 40 track is there making a direct comparison possible. Also, the ballast might need to be even finer and some rust color spread on the concrete ties.

Ah, If only Micro Engineering would make a C40 flextrack with concrete ties!    While the grinding helps, I agree about still seeing that same 'oversized' look in the C55.  I find that I tend to notice even when it is not adjacent to any C40 track.

The ballast is the Arizona Rock & Mineral brand, but this is actually their HO scale ballast.   I've used their N-scale ballast on my old layout it looks more like sand rather than rocky aggregate.  I'm with you too about this HO ballast looking on the coarse side in the close-up pics, tho in person & weathered, it's less noticeable to me.  I'm also recalling some impressions from past visits to Tehachapi, and noting that the ballast on the prototype there looked rather on the largish side (at least as far as ballast goes).

All that said, I'll still probably try some of the Scenic Express ballast at some point.  It would seem kinda wrong for me to do all this work with the rail, yet not look at all options for the ballast

Thanks!

Ed

[ednadolski]

I have an Atlas code 55 turnout butted to code 40 flex and that only makes the fat rail head even more apparent.

My old Loop layout has the Atlas C55 flextrack, and more than anything else on the layout that wide & shiny railhead jumps out every time I look at it.   It gets like a recording of an off-key singer - every time you hear the recording again, the mistakes seem all the more magnified, esp as time goes on.

That's probably why I'm putting this level of effort into this. Just like that recording, once that rail goes onto the layout, that look will be 'trapped' on there for the life of the layout.  So while the finer rail is more work, even for just these samples I find that I look at them when done and I think about how much I like the look, not how long it took me to do it.

(Of course, that's all just a matter of personal preference, but that's what this hobby really is all about anyways ).

Ed

[ednadolski]

You're just trying to make me switch to code 40, aren't you Ed. 

Heh, you're on to me!  <insert evil laugh here>

But really it is like you said -- unless you really like laying track, this approach is better suited for a limited scope like this shelf diorama.  Three feet is a lot less than five scale miles! But more so, I really want to see your layout finished! 

My impression then was that it would get lost in the track detail and look undersize, especially given the size of the clips.  But it really looks great in your sample.

The weathering helps soften the effect of the beefy clips.  Without that they do tend to stand out.

Have you had any issue with flanges hitting the clips?  Also, did you trim the bits that hold the ties together?  I had found those to be very visible under the code 40 rail base when I tried this.

I tested with a couple of trucks (BLMA and FVM wheels) and a Kato C44-9W out of the box.   No problems where I installed the rail correctly, tho as previously alluded there was one spot where I overheated the rail & sank it into the ties (something that can't happen with wood ties! ).  While I can easily sand down the clips, correct installation really is the key.  Next time I'll know how to avoid that mistake! 

I did trim away the web between the ties. Sounds tedious but a cutoff wheel in the Dremel make it go faster than you might think.

Removing the web let me ballast it before laying the rail, which actually made the ballasting a little quicker.  I've found that for the C55 track, I have to be pretty careful about applying the ballast, otherwise the light-colored plastic web under the C55 rail will be apparent.

I did lay the flextrack first, and then cut away the rail. My theory is that doing it that way makes the C40 rail come out smoother and better aligned.

I agree that the ME code 40 wood track looks really good.  The real wood ties themselves look better, but the lack of hardware is somewhat apparent.

I toyed with making photo-etched tieplates and spikes, but found it rapidly goes down that 'diminishing return' curve.  While I like the P:87 spikes, the tieplates don't have spike holes and are so small that they are very hard to work with. Also they are basically invisible without magnification, even without weathering.

P.S. I agree with Lennart that a bit more rusty brown along the rail base would be good, and slightly less definition to the black streak down the middle.  But the effect on the concrete ties looks spot on! (especially in picture A)

It's interesting how much the proto track varies, depending upon its age and use.   Even just a few years make a substantial difference, and you can see in some pics how the Walong siding track looks nearly new, while the main track right next to it is pretty gray & grimy.   I'll be avoiding the black powder on future work -- it's just too stark, and a medium-dark gray would probably work out better.


Ed

[ednadolski]

what is capable of running on the code 40 rail?

I don't know how to reduce the flanges on these.

Is code 40 a viable option for me?

If it is something that interests you, then sure, why not?  The flextrack is available, and there are ways to hand-lay track too if you wish.  Turnouts do have to be handlaid, as no commercial C40 turnouts exist.  But that can be an opportunity too -- for example, you're not limited by the geometries of commercial turnouts.

Most recent locos and rolling stock will run just fine on C40 rail.   The MT pizza cutters are the obvious exception, but replacement metal wheels are a better choice than plastic anyway.  (I've never used the new MT lo-profile wheels, but again, I'd replace them with metal wheels anyways just because I like the metal ones better than plastic in general.)

Pat Sanders at Trainworx used to provide a flange reduction service.  Just send him the trucks, and he'll send them back with the flanges turned down, all re-assembled and gauged.  Not sure if he still does that, but again many recent locos don't need it even for the C40 flextrack with the molded spikes. It's also something you can do yourself if you wish.

The San Diego Society of N Scale has a huge club layout with over 1000 feet of handlaid code 40 track and hundreds of turnouts.   So it is definitely something that works very well for many people.   If you are really interested then I think a good approach is to start with something small & simple, and use it as a learning experience to get an idea of what works for you.


Ed

[svedblen]

The ballast is the Arizona Rock & Mineral brand, but this is actually their HO scale ballast.   I've used their N-scale ballast on my old layout it looks more like sand rather than rocky aggregate.  I'm with you too about this HO ballast looking on the coarse side in the close-up pics, tho in person & weathered, it's less noticeable to me.  I'm also recalling some impressions from past visits to Tehachapi, and noting that the ballast on the prototype there looked rather on the largish side (at least as far as ballast goes).

All that said, I'll still probably try some of the Scenic Express ballast at some point.  It would seem kinda wrong for me to do all this work with the rail, yet not look at all options for the ballast

About two years ago DKS mentioned, on his James River Branch website, ballast from a German firm (minitec). He said it was nice so I decided to test it. I actually compared two versions of their N scale ballast, their H0 ballast, N scale ballast from another German firm (ASOA) and finally some Woodland Scenics ballast. Here is a picture



Use the following link to open a larger, high resolution, version of the same photo https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgz85eXtMBBETwR0cGBmt35V-X-sbNORzvwEm9RLR66bPzwDvuX4rn0O-4jr_fJY-q8IMIirwhD7abtsW0-ZgorCaaJpQbrGYTx4_NqJkWo75t_dIs8zgSwS77wcWQaM_aEgHLjk2dHHmyOKrJP3InzJ3JziOYr0dt6XHsK6p504UB162055m15sOuy/s16000/IMG_2197_text.jpg

From left to right you can see
- Woodland Scenics Fine Ballast, Gray Blend, #B1393
- ASOA, Granitschotter, N Scale, #1609
- minitec, Standard-Schotter Phonolith N, #0311
- minitec, Gleisschotter Phonolit N, #0011
- minitec, Gleisschotter Phonolit H0, #0021
 
The ASOA ballast did not really measure up when compared to the others. It partly dissolved, and did no longer constitute single rocks.
 
The two minitec N scale samples were nearly identical. If I understood the minitec German-spoken web site correctly, one of them has the correct scale size rocks (Gleisschotter) while the other (Standard-Schotter) follows a German modelling standard (AGN) and uses slightly larger rocks, for better visual appearance. But the difference is not really visible.
 
The HO ballast was just thrown in for comparison, since the people att minitec sent me a sample.
I liked the minitec N scale ballast the best, and used it on my layout. To me it simply looked best, rock size-wise. Not too large and still not like sand. The minitec website is here http://www.minitec24.de/ and yoy can e-mail them in english, even if the compelte website is in German. But you get pretty far by just looking at the pictures 

My two pennies...
/Lennart

EDIT: I guess what I am trying to say is that I think you can find finer ballast, that still does not look like sand. There are a lot of different brands out there.

[Chris333]

You can also run your ballast through a screen to get it finer. I use plastic micro filter screens from Small Parts Inc. to filter out N and Z scale ballast. I think I figured 3" to be the max ballast size for each scale.

There was an article about this a long time ago in N scale mag.