Tehachapi, BC

[SAH]

I like this version because you're not trying to do too much in the limited width available.  I have 13.5' and have just enough room for a peninsula, which is the bulk of the layout in my case.  The sections against the walls play minor supporting roles only.  10' wide?  Man, I just think you'll feel real crowded quick in there with more than two operators.  The short peninsula effectively blocking the view of the rest of the layout as one enters the room is a real plus too.  A great visual space expanding trick.

Great thread guys.

Steve H

[ednadolski]

Impressive plan, Ed. Just a couple of concerns. First, the location of the door, lower right, doesn't appear to correspond with same on Gary's drawings, so it might put a crimp in the placement of the loop. Second, the upper right corner of the third level looks like it might have accessibility issues, not to mention something of a waste of real estate. FWIW...

Great points David.   You're right, the door location is a bit different in the later images than in the original.   I think this plan could be adapted by about as much as a foot, for example the Loop could be slid upwards by shortening the tangent track atop Tunnel 9, and likewise for the staging level turnouts.

You're also right about the access, this too was a concern in the original plans.   I think that an access hatch as discussed could be fit into the upper corner (it's a littler easier to see when the views are superimposed over each other), plus there is also some flexibility in the geometry of the Loop and Walong siding.  The upper level track is meant to sit behind profile-board hills rather than a full-height backdrop, and the curved area can also be reached from below.  Another less typical option for access in the case of say a derailment might be a (modified) extension pickup (e.g., [1]);  and for track issues the entire strip of upper level track could be made as a lift-out section that could be removed when needed.

I think some amount of real estate inefficiency is inherent in the modeling the Loop. The space above the Loop generally isn't usable without distracting from the scene, but some level of mitigation is possible by using the underlying space for staging and storage.

HTH,
Ed

[1] http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11525047&whse=BD_827&Ne=5000001%204000000&eCat=BD_827|11116|28411&N=4012997%204294900415&Mo=0&No=0&Nr=P_CatalogName:BD_827&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&lang=en-US&topnav=bdoff

[GaryHinshaw]

Ed, there's a lot to like in this plan!  [I'm delighted to see that you're so inspired - it's part of my plan to make sure you keep a hand in N scale... ;D]  A few quick questions if I may:

* How does the transition from the mid to upper level work?  Is there a helix loop in there, or is the mid-level grade enough?
* Is the main helix clockwise down?
* Do you know how long the mainline run is?  With 3 levels it must be quite generous.

I think I have time this weekend to mock up the loop shelf bench work and roadbed in my drawing, so I might have some concrete test results to report on soon.  I also have a few details of the sub-Loop "plumbing" fleshed out.  I'll post those after I get back from my sunset picnic at the beach...  :

Cheers,
Gary

P.S. Steve, thanks to the feedback I've gotten here - including yours - the longitudinal peninsula is gone.

[DKS]

Here's a thought grenade I'll toss out... I wonder what would happen if you located the loop on the top level, and placed the helix under it, connecting to the top level at the opposite end of the layout via hidden trackage. I realize the loop should logically be at some midpoint in the plan, but this might simply mean the levels are not sequential bottom to top. BTW, this also places the loop nearer eye-level for maximum dramatic effect.

I'd render something with pixels to explain what I'm trying to describe, but it's a bit late just now. Perhaps in the morning...

[GaryHinshaw]

A few quick snaps of the helix detail as it currently stands.  The first snap shows the Cameron/Mojave track entering from the upper right, a few inches higher than the Woodford turnout, then dropping to 1.7" below the Tunnel 9 approach track, where it then turns into the helix which is centred below the Loop proper:




I think all the clearances work, and essentially all of the blue track would be out of sight, but accessible.  (I'm trying hard to keep the area around the helix clear for access to the helix itself and Loop shelf above.)

To gain deck separation, it is also possible to add 1-2 helix turns to the hidden Woodford stretch, shown here in green:




The 56.2" mark refers to the elevation of the exit from the uppermost green loop, so it does fit under the uppermost blue loop.  Clear as a bell, right?    Two loops would give me 7" of additional separation without too much transit time spent in a helix.

Now back to thinking about Ed's new sketch some more...

-gfh

[ednadolski]

Hi Gary, glad you like the plan, let me see if I can answer your questions:

 - Transition from mid to upper is simply a direct connection, where it says +25.7"  on each level.
 - Yes, clockwise down.  My thought was that descending trains would take the inner track and ascending trains would take the outer, but either way should work.
 - Total mainline run from bottom to top (including staging but not the helix) is approx. 197 feet, almost exactly 6 scale miles. At a scale 20 mph, a train would take about 18 minutes for a one-way run.

I was thinking a bit more about the reach-in and the depth of the Loop shelf, and I recall the solution the La Mesa guys came up with.   Basically they built the entire layout so that a person could walk on any part of it.   Obviously you wouldn't need to do the whole layout that way, just enough of an area so that track at the back of the Loop shelf could be reached.   In this case I think it would mean the section where the Loop Ranch is, from the front edge of the shelf to the Walong siding tracks.   That may turn out to be easier than building removable access panels.


Ed

[ednadolski]

A few quick snaps of the helix detail as it currently stands.  The first snap shows the Cameron/Mojave track entering from the upper right, a few inches higher than the Woodford turnout, then dropping to 1.7" below the Tunnel 9 approach track

Hm, are you sure that's enough?   I just measured a stack car with containers and it came to about 1 5/8" height.   If the 1.7" is railhead-to-railhead, then you'll also need about 3/4" or so for track/roadbed/subroadbed height.  It may help to reroute the blue track a bit, so that it doesn't cross underneath the yellow track until they've vertically diverged a bit more.

HTH,
Ed

[GaryHinshaw]

Hm, are you sure that's enough?   I just measured a stack car with containers and it came to about 1 5/8" height.   If the 1.7" is railhead-to-railhead, then you'll also need about 3/4" or so for track/roadbed/subroadbed height.  It may help to reroute the blue track a bit, so that it doesn't cross underneath the yellow track until they've vertically diverged a bit more.

HTH,
Ed

Hi Ed.  I wouldn't say I'm sure about anything in this plan...   But I checked the drawing and the clearance at the point where the blue track crosses under the Tunnel 9 approach is 2.6", which is technically enough. But it may indeed be desirable to route the crossover a bit further down line.  One nice thing is that the blue track is downgrade and the buff track is upgrade, so the vertical separation is changing rapidly.  I'm getting antsy to try it out!

Cheers,
Gary

P.S. Do the La Mesa guys walk on the scenery??

[AlkemScaleModels]

FWIW here is a Tehachapi plan I looked at for my basement about 8 years ago, before I started the Tennessee Pass Project.


I also considered a double deck design, but thought that a single deck would be sufficient.

[ednadolski]

I checked the drawing and the clearance at the point where the blue track crosses under the Tunnel 9 approach is 2.6", which is technically enough.

Yes, 2.6" sounds much better than the 1.7".

Do the La Mesa guys walk on the scenery??

Yes, unless I'm mis-remembering what Jason was saying.  Of course it would only be for very rare cases, but that's what we're talking about anyway.   I recall a comment from a while back about "zip textured" scenery, perhaps the durability is one of the reasons?

Rather than walk on the finished scenery, one other possibility is to make the scenery as a removable section that when in its normal place covers up a sturdy access surface (e.g., a plywood platform).  Remove scenery section, walk on access surface, perform maintenance/retrieval task, leave access surface, then replace scenery section.   Not terribly different from the idea of a pop-out section, except that you don't have to worry about squeezing up from below.

Here is a semi-crazy thought: build a cleat or anchor section into the wall that can support one end of a scaffold plank. Then, for emergency access, one end of the plank goes on the wall anchor and the other end is supported by a ladder, like this:  http://www.homedepot.com/catalog/productImages/400/2a/2a4326cc-511a-4b7a-a927-e33be1152419_400.jpg

This talk of access reminds me -- this applies to lighting too.   Don't put any lights where it would be very hard to access them to replace a bulb or a ballast

Ed

[GaryHinshaw]

FWIW here is a Tehachapi plan I looked at for my basement about 8 years ago, before I started the Tennessee Pass Project.

Cool Bernie, thanks for posting that.  Is that a 12" grid in the drawing?  If so, you really let that plan spread out (and you have an enormous basement).  Were you envisioning any ops with it (or the Tennessee Pass plan)?

Ed, I was the one who made the zip texturing comment. 

Having lived with my propped up shelf for a while, I have been finding it fairly easy to get under it to access stuff, but having other access options will definitely be useful.  (Good point about the lights too!)  I think I have the lumber I need to try making a better trail bench, along these lines:




As I think it through though, I have to make sure I have a way to fit the helix under there without colliding with the benchwork.   :-\

-gfh

[AlkemScaleModels]

Cool Bernie, thanks for posting that.  Is that a 12" grid in the drawing?  If so, you really let that plan spread out (and you have an enormous basement).  Were you envisioning any ops with it (or the Tennessee Pass plan)?

-gfh

The basement is about 1,000 sq ft total but I use about 400 of it for the layout.  I took out a few sections of wall to expand my current O Scale plan. See http://usmrr.blogspot.com/2010/11/updated-track-plan.html for a recent version.

The ops I envisioned were primarily getting trains up and down the hill with some switching at Monolith and Bakersfield.

[PGE_Modeller]

Greg, how do you get the 10x per person?   Seems that would depend greatly on the specific layout design & operation, and how many people need to be in overlapping spaces at the same time.

Thanks,
Ed

Hi Ed,

Sorry to be so slow responding, but I have essentially been off-line for the past week and a half while attending the NMRA National Convention in Sacramento.

My 10X the area occupied by "reference man" is a very subjective figure that is based on my own perception of ease of movement on a variety of layouts on which I have operated.  It takes into account the number of people present in the layout room at the same time and the floor area of the aisles.  Sometimes it was as simple as saying "gee, this would be a lot more fun to operate if the aisle space was about 1 1/2 times greater" and then mutiplying the actual aisle space by that amount.  The planned operating crew for my layout is 5 to 7 people and the "people space" is 116 sq. ft.

I will admit that the figure is very empirical rather than rigourously scientific, but it does seem to provide a reasonable estimate of how freely the operating crew can move around.

Hope this helps.

Cheers,
Greg Kennelly
Burnaby, BC

[GaryHinshaw]

I did a very crude estimate of the people area in my current draft plan by computing the area inscribed in the (faint) blue polygon shown below:




and it works out to about 77 sq.ft.  If I take reference man to be 2 sq.ft. and allow a factor of 10, then I should only be having 4 operators in this space.  Somehow the six shadow figures shown doesn't seem to be outlandish, but that's probably the limit.  And I'm definitely trying to avoid operational hot spots anywhere close to the middle pinch point.

-gfh

P.S. No progress on any trial benchwork yet.  Had to rebuild the steps to the garage over the weekend, which ended up requiring much more demo work than planned.

[SAH]

I dunno Gary.  Sure, six folks will fit in the space, if they limit their activities to exchanging pleasantries.  I think four is a more accurate and maximum number for an ops session.  Subtract the loop benchwork dimension from the room length and you have about what I have for room length.  I have 3.5' more width than you do.  From an ops standpoint I believe three is the limit for my layout.  Four if I was able to go all the way around the room as you are doing.  YMMV but not by much I'll bet.

Regards,

Steve H