Tehachapi, BC

[SAH]

Your execution of the overall plan is incredible.  The vision you had to get to this point is even more so.  Fabulous work.

I tend to agree with Scott regarding hidden staging.  I've already removed the simple hidden three track staging yard on the AC&Y in favor of moving it to an open location.  However, given the reality of Bakersfield being where it is I believe it can work for you.  Cameras work well for monitoring movements on layouts we operate here in central NC.  Testing on my AC&Y shows a 15" deep yard can be effectively operated with a 8" vertical window.  You can probably get by with 6 inches for staging access.  Even so, getting enough head room above the staging track level at the access hole is obviously the key.  How about an access hatch that rises vertically on cylinders or some other guide system?  Roll under the layout to the access hatch, raise the hatch by hand and lock it in place or if it's spring loaded, unlatch it and let it rise on its own.  Given all the other technical design challenges you've overcome to this point, such a design shouldn't be a problem at all.   

Steve

[Philip H]

piling on . . . . . . . . as you may recall one of the main challenges with Lee's former WM layout was the difficulty of reaching into staging, or watching it, especially the part under the Westvaco papermill and the part that became the "beast" on Eric's layout.  The dispatcher could sorta keep track f stuff under Hagerstown because he sat right there, but it wasn't at all easy for road crews. you seem to have a bit more vertical separation then @wm3798 built in, but I would worry about the same things.

 

[ednadolski]

When I go back and look at the overview photo in this post, the first word that pops into my head is "busy", which is not at all how I picture the final product .   When I designed the layout, I wanted a long, torturous mainline run, but I also wanted to feature a few big sweeping vistas: the Loop shelf and the (new) centre peninsula.  You can start to get a sense of the intended aesthetic in the foreground of the overview photo, where the Loop track is ballasted and basic landform are starting to appear.  Much nicer lines!  My vision for the centre peninsula is to evoke a scene like this.  The question is: can I pull this look off with partial scenery?   

I think it looks 'busy' because you are seeing the benchwork, clutter, and much more of the track than will be visible after the land forms go in.  If you were doing a lot of city/industry scenery it would be different, but the open mountains should really diminish that 'busy' effect I think.  Also, that last pic is not a normal viewing angle, so you won't usually be looking at the whole thing all at once.

One thing that suggested itself to me was, having the mountain for the upper tunnels area kind of 'waterfall' over onto the Tunnel 2 peninsula area.   The effect of a large land form would be to dwarf the trains, and act as a scenic divider while also breaking up the sight lines of the upper shelf.  All of these should help increase the sense of vista, distance, and separation.  Furthermore, you would not see the Loop immediately when entering thru the door, which again I think would enhance the sense of size and being in the Tehachapi mountains.  Maybe it simply will not work, but it may be worth mocking up with a couple of large cardboard sheets to see how it feels.

As for the lower staging - IIRC your operators would be using hand-held tablets?   Can those be set up to switch to a webcam view of the staging area when desired?

Ed

[Cajonpassfan]

Gary...I think you were targeting another shake down session in a week or so. Maybe try covering Bakersfield up with brown wrapping paper "scenery" for that session. Then you can get a feel for how much direct visibility you will need.

Md

By all means, Mark is correct, mock it up, absolutely. I always mock things up before I ef'em up  All I'm suggesting that adequate physical access should not be confused with direct visual access, and the camera/monitor route will only take care of the latter. Still, the beauty of an operating layout is that you can actually test things out before committing to any one permanent solution.
Have fun, Otto

[mark dance]

A compromise of course might be to design lift out/drop in out scenery to fit up tight against "permanent scenery strips" located +/- 6" around the mainline roadbed.  The full scenery could be put in place for photos and rail-fanning and removed should op sessions be simpler with Bakersfield largely visible.  This would require some careful design and construction of the drop in scenery, its support and safe storage...which all sounds like a fun challenge to me!

md

[GaryHinshaw]

Great discussion guys.  Any approach I end up taking will definitely be mocked up before committing.  I have a few comments and a few more photos to inform the discussion a bit more.

Gary...I think you were targeting another shake down session in a week or so. Maybe try covering Bakersfield up with brown wrapping paper "scenery" for that session. Then you can get a feel for how much direct visibility you will need.

Yes, another session is set for Apr 22.  For that one though, I am first going to focus on having the train line-up better staged, track scrubbed, and other basics.  If I have time, I'll consider a mock-up, but I'm back in Penticton now for almost a week, so my goals are modest.

One thing that suggested itself to me was, having the mountain for the upper tunnels area kind of 'waterfall' over onto the Tunnel 2 peninsula area.

I love this idea.  It harks back a bit to the "horizontal fascia" discussion we had way back when (which generated a bit of heat), but with a twist.  To stimulate further discussion, here are some photos I snapped before I left town again.

An eye-level overview of the lower deck peninsula and the tunnel district above/behind it:



A top-down view of the peninsula to remind you that Bakersfield has access in the middle, and there is space for a corresponding hole in the peninsula above it, which could be left open for sight lines into Bakersfield:



Here is another angle on the tunnel district:



and a prototype shot from a similar angle*:



The scenery could waterfall down to the lower maintenance road (red arc), or possibly even down to the creek below.

*Not my photo.  I downloaded it from RailPictures, but it has since been yanked from that site.  I left the author anonymous....   

[Scottl]

You could cover the access hole for the yard with a discrete hill that would match the slope coming in from the left on that last photo.  It would break up the view on the peninsula and potentially give two long views along the track in either direction.  I think the waterfall fascia is also a good idea, with the creek acting as a natural seam.  Some copper wire contour lines are needed 

[ednadolski]

Those previous KVR pics are gone, but IIRC they stopped at the bottom edge of the upper fascia, was that right?   I'm wondering what it would look like to make a continuous mountain that spans across both upper & lower decks:

(Hope these sketch lines are not too hard to see)

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]


Ed

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Reminds me of Lee's Blob.

I'm not a fan, because it "breaks the illusion" of the multiple decks.

[Chris333]

If the lower scenery would almost touch the top. Why not connect?

[GaryHinshaw]

I'm not a fan of joining the scenery from the two decks.  When I first read Ed's idea, I was thinking that extending the upper hillside down could organically fill a void in the lower deck scene while leaving a gap that looks natural (maybe...) and allows sight lines into Bakersfield.   How that would actually look is TBD, but it's worth mocking up.

Another concept I've been thinking about is a clear fascia in segments.  Specifically, the scenery on the right side of the peninsula slopes up towards the fascia, so there could be additional sight lines into Bakersfield through the fascia.  If I did that, I would make the underside of the scenery look like it was excavated, like an archeology exhibit.  Maybe a bit to conceptual though....

[davefoxx]

My vote would be not to connect the scenery between the two levels, because it disturbs the reality that these locations are actually miles apart.

DFF

[Scottl]

At our club last night the presenter had a similar balloon staging hidden in a separate room.  The combination of detection (which is very effective on your tablets) and two cameras facing the outlets from the staging loop gave him a clear sense of what was coming.  After seeing his version, I'm less worried about getting visible direct access to the staging.  It might mean that operators need to be more dependent on the tablets, but I don't see that as a negative- it makes to the staging more removed.

[mark dance]

At our club last night the presenter had a similar balloon staging hidden in a separate room.  The combination of detection (which is very effective on your tablets) and two cameras facing the outlets from the staging loop gave him a clear sense of what was coming.  After seeing his version, I'm less worried about getting visible direct access to the staging.  It might mean that operators need to be more dependent on the tablets, but I don't see that as a negative - it makes to the staging more removed.

Depends somewhat on the pusher plans.  Independent pushing out of or in to Bakersfield would add to my nervousness as an operator, especially with talgo couplers...not sure if that is in the plans or not.  Pushers from Caliente to Walong would be ok as nearly all (save a portion of one turn around the  vortex) is visible.

If the lower scenery would almost touch the top. Why not connect?

And count me as one who wouldn't connect the decks scenically.  I worry the cliffs would be unnaturally steep and the transitions on both sides where the scenes go back to double deck would be awkward.  A bit too "G&D" for me given hyper realism is the objective.

Finally, if you use smoked plexi for the fascia and internally light Bakersfield it will be nearly invisible until lights are turned on.  This works very well in the C&W's storage yard. 

md

[GaryHinshaw]

Pusher concerns are noted.  Nothing will be baked in without testing.

Finally, if you use smoked plexi for the fascia and internally light Bakersfield it will be nearly invisible until lights are turned on.  This works very well in the C&W's storage yard. 

Yes, that is a good example.  Aesthetically pleasing and functional.