Gibbon, Cozad & Western - "The 100th Meridian Line"

[pdx1955]

Your space is truly impressive, studio and all, not to mention the layout. I can see why you need 4' tall backdrop sections - you need something that captures the full viewing angle in all directions. Now I can see the overall scope of the project especially when matching up the plan to what has been built so far.

I figured the GG1 was "visiting power" but it definitely has a lot of pulling oomph too. The shot with the GG1 has a "Midwestern" feel to it especially with the water tower in the background and the Canadian hopper car in the train. Throw some C&NW F-units on the front and you'll be all set .

[C855B]

... I figured the GG1 was "visiting power" but it definitely has a lot of pulling oomph too. ...

Yes, the GG-1 was impressive once the balance was right with the spacers to prevent the couplers from riding up. 25 cars up a 2% grade is no slouch. The 30 cars in the full test train required a helper up the hill, however. If it wasn't for the incompatibility between the stock coupler on the Kato NW2 and the Bachmann boxing glove (no self-coupling), it was otherwise a great demonstration of easy helper operations afforded by WiThrottle and JMRI layout control. You can just make out the paired units in one of Fred's pics, with Glenn and I standing in the corner near Daggett.

[C855B]

OK kiddos, time for our thinking caps. Subjected to much interference with progress, all the track and turnouts are finally down in Daggett. Now it's time to gap detection blocks. Here's the AnyRail representation of my current thoughts, with each block color-coded and signal placements approximated:



I count ten blocks. The approaches (gray) are of concern elsewhere. Signals, from left to right:

• Triple-head mast facing EB trains on EB track, protecting entry into Yermo EB track (is also a yard switch lead) and double crossover.
• Double-head mast facing EB trains on WB track, protecting crossover.
• Single dwarf facing WB trains on Yermo EB track/yard lead, protecting entry to ATSF EB track (against normal traffic direction).
• Cantilever with two double-heads on EB and WB ATSF mains, protecting crossover and Yermo EB entry switch.
• Three-track bridge all facing EB trains: single-head intermediate on WB ATSF main; triple-head protecting crossover to EB Yermo and switch to WB Yermo; single-head protecting crossover.
• Double-head dwarf facing WB Yermo traffic entry to EB Yermo lead and protecting crossover to EB ATSF main.
• Cantilever with two single heads facing WB ATSF trains: intermediate on WB track in advance of #4 above; protection for Yermo crossover and WB switch.
• Single-head mast facing WB Yermo trains protecting entry to EB ATSF main.

Considering 1960s practice and that traffic here is ostensibly directional, this seems to work, although I have a couple of doubts. First is #7 - do I need to indicate Diverging Approach for the #4 signals, or just throw a yellow? The former might be case for WB trains, that is, the normal direction, and the other is against flow and is OK with a single head. Same situation goes for #8, will I need two heads to show Diverging Approach or maybe even call it a higher speed route and allow Approach Diverging?

The center and right heads on #4 will have lunar (Restricted) aspects mostly to indicate yard track entry from the EB Yermo lead. I could see lunar used as a permissive indication for a yard switcher.

Signals are a long way away, but I need to do detection blocks now based on the anticipated signal plan.

[jagged ben]

I gather that you have no wishes to put in extra sections to plan for automatic train operation or 'brake on DC' or anything like that. 

If so, the one thing I don't get is the extra detection section at the east end of the westbound ATSF main. (the brownish color)  There's no operational significance to that gap that I see, nor a reason to have a third signal there (on #5) for eastbounds on that main (especially if it's ostensibly directional the other way!).   So unless there's a prototypical reason for having that signal, I wouldn't have that gap.

Other than that, I don't think your signalling choices affect your detection sections.   So as far as proceeding with trackwork, I think the questions you posed might be entirely moot.  Which doesn't mean we can't discuss them... 

My main question on the signals would be 'what is the purpose of the LH crossover at the west end?'  If west are CTC and westbounds would use that crossover frequently, and eastbounds would use the RH crossover,  then the signals seem right the way you have them.  If everything remains directional through this whole map, I would think you don't need the signals at #2 (maybe just a dwarf), or the lower head on the westbound main at #4. 

Was lunar a thing in the 1960s?  My impression was that it came a bit later.

[C855B]

Yes, lunar was definitely a thing then. For that matter I have an SP SA relay from the '50s ('40s?) that is R-Y-L; UP practice was similar.

>...the one thing I don't get is the extra detection section at the east end of the westbound ATSF main.

Occupancy for the leftmost head on the bridge, the intermediate. That head is too far away from the right side of the junction switches, so I need to block it to indicate properly at the signal location.

>what is the purpose of the LH crossover at the west end?

Concerns off-scene - option for running around something in the block to Leon, and access for a WB train making a pickup at Victorville Cement. Interesting thought, tho', given that a WB picking-up at V'ville Cement could use the crossover at Leon. OTOH, that plan would block both mains during the switching moves. Track is theoretically too busy for that and the DS would not be happy.

>...I would think you don't need ... the lower head on the westbound main at #4.

That gets a little complicated, where activity in Yermo is going to affect UP EBs. While there is the appearance of a double-track junction off the ATSF going into Yermo, the bottom-most track is a combined siding entry and yard lead. The east end of Yermo becomes single track (again, off-scene). So both UP tracks are bidirectional. What I see on that triple-head in the center of the bridge is a slight corruption of what you'd expect in that the middle head indicates for the rightmost switch, the bottom head indicates the crossover into the siding/yard lead. A UP train cleared on the main all the way through Yermo would see R-G-R, if cleared through the siding (for something sitting in front of the station on the main) they would see R-R-Y. Any switch thrown into the siding would display R-R-L, this aspect also DS/yardmaster controlled for switching moves where there may be occupancy in the siding.

[jagged ben]

>...the one thing I don't get is the extra detection section at the east end of the westbound ATSF main.

Occupancy for the leftmost head on the bridge, the intermediate. That head is too far away from the right side of the junction switches, so I need to block it to indicate properly at the signal location.

What I was saying is I don't see why the leftmost signal on that bridge (#5) needs to be there.  It could be on the #7 bridge facing opposite the other signals, or on a mast between the mains there.   Conversely, the signal for westbounds could be moved from the #7 bridge to the one at #5 (facing opposite the others), or a mast nearby.   

But I suppose that there's no harm in putting in that detection section, and any decision on those signal locations could be deferred.

>what is the purpose of the LH crossover at the west end?

Concerns off-scene - option for running around something in the block to Leon, and access for a WB train making a pickup at Victorville Cement. Interesting thought, tho', given that a WB picking-up at V'ville Cement could use the crossover at Leon. OTOH, that plan would block both mains during the switching moves. Track is theoretically too busy for that and the DS would not be happy.

>...I would think you don't need ... the lower head on the westbound main at #4.

...

I'd have to review the other parts of your trackplan again to fully understand.  I think the point is, if westbounds will use that crossover as a part of regular operations, then you want the signals you already have and yes, you want to show Approach Diverging at #7.   If it is pure double track to the west and the LH crossover is only used for emergency moves where the dispatcher talks the engineer through a red, then you don't need all those extra heads.

You just typed whole paragraph about UP routing but I don't see how that has anything do with it.   We're talking about the ATSF westbound main.   UP is at the bottom right and ATSF is at the top right, correct?  (i.e. flipped from the prototype).

[C855B]

What I was saying is I don't see why the leftmost signal on that bridge (#5) needs to be there.  It could be on the #7 bridge facing opposite the other signals, or on a mast between the mains there.   Conversely, the signal for westbounds could be moved from the #7 bridge to the one at #5 (facing opposite the others), or a mast nearby.

Of course. Makes perfect sense. There is a little bit of motivation for it to justify the triple bridge, since a cantilever would then do the job for the remaining tracks, but I already have two in the scene.

I'd have to review the other parts of your trackplan again to fully understand.  I think the point is, if westbounds will use that crossover as a part of regular operations, then you want the signals you already have and yes, you want to show Approach Diverging at #7.   If it is pure double track to the west and the LH crossover is only used for emergency moves where the dispatcher talks the engineer through a red, then you don't need all those extra heads.

Yeah, I was getting all caught-up in the complexities of the EB traffic. Let me dwell on your thoughts about over-signaling for WB traffic through that crossover. Thanks.

[C855B]

Warning: this topic has not been posted in for at least 30 days.
Unless you're sure you want to reply, please consider starting a new topic.

Nag, nag, nag.

We've been a little busy. Our son was completing his VISTA service in May and was due into town on 6/1 for an indeterminate time, so nearly all our resources were devoted to prepping the spare house as much as we could considering the kitchen was stripped to the walls and the new cabinets for it strewn about the living room. We were counting on his assistance to finish the kitchen while he was seeking work. Success came about two months too fast for our tastes (congratulations definitely in order). He departed for his first "real" job today.

Part of the plan while he was here was to depend on him for the daily tasks while I recovered from bilateral inguinal hernia repair, brought on by coughing so hard with bronchitis three months ago it sent us to the ER. Oops. Surgery was Tuesday. Doing fine, already off the pain meds, but that pesky 20-pound lift restriction for the next month is going to be a bugger. So much for finishing that kitchen anytime soon.

So it's back to the MRR. Thank goodness for pink foam. 

In anticipation of the surgery I made sure the next section of benchwork was down in order to run another 20' or so of mainline for Phase 0. I think that's going to wait a couple of more days until my gut feels up to the bending and stooping for feeder routing. There are a few other lightweight projects that could stand attention such as the C855 trio needing paint and detailing, with a slim possibility of being done in time for the UPHS meet at the end of July. Or maybe I could clear enough space on my desk to assemble the dozen or so BLMA signal bridges in the queue. Since I have sympathetic spousal permission to "keep out of trouble", now's a good time to work on the railroad.

The next stretch of track to be done is the top backbone between Daggett and Grant Tower. It is going to require resolving quite a bit of bus wiring since so far what is running has done well with blocks connected through the rails through temporary bridging. But at 50' of this the limits are on the verge of being exceeded. Again, bending and stooping, so next week, maybe. I also need to come to a final conclusion about grade separations around Grant which were poorly accounted for in the original plan. It looks like moving junction approaches only a couple of feet or so will result in reasonable (<<2%) grades in and out, and better scenery opportunities in the eventual "Utah" peninsula.

We'll work it out. RPM meet in a few days will help to inspire, as well.

[MVW]

Here's to a speedy recovery, Mike. Sorry about the "speed restriction," but glad it sounds short-lived.

I'd been wondering how things were going with your rail empire, so the update is most welcome. Good luck!

Jim

[C855B]

A couple of interesting developments on the long-term (...scenery...) front:

First was the result of talking to Jeffery of Central Valley Model Works at the Railroad Prototype Modelers meet last weekend. He informed me that his #1810 150' truss bridge was discontinued, although he was continuing with the very similar #1820. The primary difference is a bit of lacy bracing and gussets on the #1810 portals. I have one of each for the Mojave River crossing at Leon (ATSF), but from what I can tell, the several bridges on the Meadow Valley Wash portion (UP in southeast Nevada) are closer to the #1810. So instead of waiting until they were gone, I helped deplete MBK's backstock of #1810s by ordering four, which arrived this morning. That portion of the MRR is a long ways away, but you know how it is - get 'em while you can.

Second goody is an article in the August Model Railroader that arrived Tuesday. It is a rather nice piece on 3D modeling... of the UP Kelso station, planned to be a key LDE on my railroad. The model in the magazine was executed in HO, of course, but I sincerely hope the MR editors will pass my query to the author about making his designs available for resize and purchase in N, and that he does so. I also have my fingers crossed that he is open to modifications to the CAD files to reproduce the Yermo and Caliente stations (Caliente is still standing!), which were also in the same Mission Revival style, just smaller and larger, respectively.

[Cajonpassfan]

.........I also have my fingers crossed that he is open to modifications to the CAD files to reproduce the Yermo and Caliente stations (Caliente is still standing!), which were also in the same Mission Revival style, just smaller and larger, respectively.

Now, that would be HOT!
Otto

[jereising]

(Caliente is still standing!),

Where might it be, Mike?  Other than the residential on the north side of the tracks, I see only the post office and the building to the west of it...

[C855B]

Caliente, Nevada, Jim?

https://binged.it/2tvHnet*

https://goo.gl/maps/fhvqHh6v7Px

Your Caliente is on the SP. 

* Have no idea why the Bing view misbehaves.

[jagged ben]

Where might it be, Mike?  Other than the residential on the north side of the tracks, I see only the post office and the building to the west of it...

I think he is talking about Caliente, Nevada. 

Nice looking station.

[jereising]

Caliente, Nevada, Jim?

Cue the facepalm.

Talk about a one track mind!

Apologies.