N-Scale Vignette-Style 1955-1959 Tehachapi Layout

[GaryHinshaw]

For both you and Gary (just in case it had been overlooked), here's some info and a track arrangement from Jim Lancaster's site:

http://coastdaylight.com/cnc/b-ssp/cncph_edison.html

Great reference.  I've had my eye on this packing house for Edison:

http://coastdaylight.com/cnc/b-ssp/edison_progres_9-08_01_jl.jpg

Love the openness, complexity, compactness, and general old-timey-ness of it.  Edison still seems like a bit of a time warp.

[C855B]

Great reference.  I've had my eye on this packing house for Edison:

http://coastdaylight.com/cnc/b-ssp/edison_progres_9-08_01_jl.jpg

Love the openness, complexity, compactness, and general old-timey-ness of it.  Edison still seems like a bit of a time warp.

Yet the name of the business is "Progressive". 

[mark.hinds]

Thanks for posting your plan; I have a much better idea of what you're up to now, and quite like it.

That said, have you thought about making the plan a continuous loop with hidden staging behind Bakersfield, serving both directions?  I don't see the operational advantage to the dog-bone; and the upper loop over the turntable seems like it would make the roundhouse scene really claustrophobic.  You could also do away with the helix at Tunnel 1/2 and put Caliente at a lower level, which seems like it might be desirable.

Thanks Gary; that's actually a good suggestion.  It would greatly simplify construction.  I had actually considered this myself, but so far it appears to cause more problems than it solves.  Firstly, I have already (mostly) built the layout to the current plan, and reducing it to a single-level continuous loop would require a major rebuild (note the elevations on the "track plan").  Secondly, it complicates the operating scheme, since most trains swap power and crews at Bakersfield (remember, 1955-59).  Power used on the hill is often quite different than that used in the valley, and in fact this is a major part of the operating scheme envisioned.  The upshot of all this is that you kind of have to turn trains at each end.  Thirdly, for a given footprint, it would halve the number of available storage tracks to put storage on a single level.

Your "claustrophobic" concern is also valid.  I have mocked up the Bakersfield scene, including a cardboard upper valence, and it looks OK.  However, the Caliente scene risks being a bit claustrophobic.  In this latter case, I think that the scene will be saved by the fact that the interesting elements are all at the front.  I hope that the "light box" effect produced by the integral behind-the-upper-valence LED lighting will help reduce that risk even further. 

Trying to figure out how the upper storage and return loop will work.  Is it on a seperate deck above Bakersfield or is it in Bakersfield?  What is the height difference betwen the two tracks/levels??

Storage is along the back wall, behind the backdrop. The storage tracks are all straight. Both upper and lower are 4 tracks deep, although 1 or 2 of the 4 will need to be empty if continuous running is desired. (Actually, my latest thinking on possible operating schemes doesn't involve continuous running or fast clock, but instead merely requires a specific sequence of events which can take however much time the operator(s) desire).  Anyway, the lower storage tracks are already operational; see the photo near the beginning of the thread; also see the markings on the main control panel. Upper storage will be about 9" above lower. Both are accessed from the rear if necessary (note the layout is on castors, and moves away from the wall, although one needs to be careful when pulling it out so as not to strain the structure).

The lower return loop is already operational, and can be seen in the image near the front of the thread, at the far end, under the "Edison" and "Caliente" scene areas. The upper return loop will be superimposed over the 16" radius curve visible on the left side of the "track plan", but will be above eye level behind the valence. A perquisite of being the layout builder is that I have positioned the valence so that I will not be able to see the upper return loop structure. Shorter people may be able to see it, but I hope to make it unobtrusive by painting the bottom of the plywood subroadbed blue, etc.

One thing to keep in mind is that the entire layout is free-standing, and disassembles into 3 major pieces.  This is why I have been able to take it with me when I moved (twice so far). 

Great stuff, Mark. Here's a photo of the facility I found on Flickr:
<snip>

Thanks Marc.  I photographed as many as I could of the surviving buildings which I hoped to model, back in 1985.  I even spoke with some of the owners.  (For example the fertilizer plant guys let me photograph a 1950s-era aerial photo of their plant located on the wall of their office).  I also photographed a lot of backgrounds, to help with backdrop painting.  (2-300 Kodachrome 64 slides in all I think).  However, even with all that, I see that at least a few of your images will be useful supplements.

MH

[GaryHinshaw]

Thanks Gary; that's actually a good suggestion. 

Shockingly.     Let me poke at this a little more - then I'll be quiet.  (I'm not really trying to push you one way or another, just floating some options.)   I agree that you'd lose storage capacity if you retained the same footprint - definite negative.  But you could regain much of it with a pretty modest footprint extension.   I'm not sure I follow what you're saying about the ops. plan.  If you had a wye or retained your existing reverse loop - and were able to tie it to both ends - you could still turn power at either end, and possibly whole trains.  I don't picture this requiring trains to loop continuously.

Your "claustrophobic" concern is also valid.  I have mocked up the Bakersfield scene, including a cardboard upper valence, and it looks OK.  However, the Caliente scene risks being a bit claustrophobic.

I'm not sure I follow the point about Caliente.  Is that because the scene is closer to the valence?   Could you raise the valence on that side? 

RE the current elevations: is the current return loop actually under the Edison tracks?   If not, it doesn't seem like it would be too hard to bring everything closer to level.  Even without that though, I'd wager that you could start back down grade after Edison (think Sandcut) and get back to the staging level without too steep a grade.  Since it looks like you haven't laid track in the helix - or even the roadbed in Caliente - yet, that doesn't seem like a very major change.

Again, just tossing ideas out.  I think your plan could work quite well as is.

-gfh

[mark.hinds]

Shockingly.     Let me poke at this a little more - then I'll be quiet.  <snip>

No problem; keep the comments coming.     I greatly enjoy reading your posts, even if I my perspective is occasionally different.  Looking at the other side of the coin, think how we would feel if nobody commented on our layout threads!  I have considered commenting on your thread, but have been a bit intimidated by the excellent quality of the design and construction so far. 

<snip>
I'm not sure I follow what you're saying about the ops. plan.  If you had a wye or retained your existing reverse loop - and were able to tie it to both ends - you could still turn power at either end, and possibly whole trains.

What I meant is that operationally one often wouldn't want the same train which exited eastbound to reenter (even representing a different train) as a later eastbound.  For example, in 1956 the Daylight exiting eastbound uses F7s, but westbound uses a GS4; power is changed at Bakersfield.  So, when the Daylight pulls into the Bakersfield passenger station (off-scene, just to the left of Beale Street, with the locomotive stopped just to the right of the overpass) it needs to be powered by the GS4.  The GS4 is then cut off and replaced by F7s for the run over the hill to LA.  The westbound Daylight would reverse this process.  If I used a continuous loop scheme, this operational pattern would be difficult to portray.  Even if I could cram in a common return loop in back, getting down to it from the "upper" Caliente end would be difficult.  And even without the need for a helix one would still want to model the grade which exists on the prototype, and thus Caliente would still be a couple of inches above Bakersfield, which is in turn 2 inches above the lower return loop. 

I'm not sure I follow the point about Caliente.  Is that because the scene is closer to the valence?   Could you raise the valence on that side?

The Caliente track is 6-7 inches higher than in the Bakersfield scene, and thus for a given upper valence height, is "thinner" vertically speaking.  I assumed that when you used the term "claustrophobic" (and a very valid point it is), you were referring to that type of issue. 

And, yes, I have reluctantly considered that I may have to raise the valence on that side (great minds think alike  ).  However, I will put off that decision until I actually start building the valence (after the track is in place).  Raising the valence presents a number of new issues, though.  Two of them are causing the valence to be above (my) eye level, and eliminating its pleasing visual continuity with the Edison valence (see perspective sketch). 

RE the current elevations: is the current return loop actually under the Edison tracks?
<snip>

Yes; you can actually see this if you click on the 2nd image in the thread in order to get the larger version of the image. 

MH  (EDITED numerous times to correct my numerous errors...)

[mark.hinds]

Well, I actually spent a fair amount of time on the layout this weekend, but not much visible progress.  Most of my time was spent in unanticipated "overhead" type tasks, such as getting my airbrush up and running.  Here's an image showing my attempted improvement to the paint feed.  Hopefully this will allow me to keep paint for a significant amount of time in the same bottles I spray from. 



MH

[C855B]

... For example, in 1956 the Daylight exiting eastbound uses F7s, but westbound uses a GS4; power is changed at Bakersfield. ...

I enjoy seeing that somebody else "gets this". Bakersfield-L.A. was operated as an isolated power district up until roughly the completion of the Palmdale-Colton cutoff (1968) and mostly West Colton yard (1972). With the exception of passenger B-B's, the '60s on SP was SD35s, SD39s, SD9s, a dozen SD40s... and very little else. SD45s were rarely-seen celebrities, the Alco Centuries that normally plied The Valley were worth ditching school for (and the day of suspension that followed ).

[mark.hinds]

So far, the scenery test module has not been as easy to do as I expected.  After many adventures, I am currently going through a series of trial and error attempts to find an acceptable representation of my prototype’s mainline track profile.

One of my problems was that most of the photos I examined didn’t show obvious drainage ditches for the Valley main line south of Bakersfield.  However, I didn’t feel comfortable leaving them out entirely, so I decided to define some sort of acceptable minimum representation.  I wasn’t able to find an SP Common Standard plan for this, but I did find something in an old Model Railroader article.  Based on the MR article, I decided to put in token drainage ditches in the indicated positions, “splitting the difference” between my prototype images (none) and the MR plan.   



My latest attempt to represent this is currently drying, and is as in the image below.  So far, it’s just my plywood sub-roadbed, cork roadbed, code 70 flex track, foam, and drying Sculptamold.  My attempt to represent the drainage ditches is barely visible on the near side of the track.  I don’t really have much of an idea if it will have the correct positioning and proportions when I add ballast.  However, it has to look better than my last attempt, where the outer berm was too high and made the roadbed look like it was partially submerged.  Although my slow progress has been depressing, I guess this sort of experimentation is the purpose of a test module. 



MH

[C855B]

The reason the photos don't show obvious drainage ditches is because there weren't any.

There was some elevation to the subroadbed, of course, but drainage was primarily with simple grading away from the roadbed. No ditches. Anyway, definitely not eastern-style roadbed profiles. This is pretty distinct in my mind, as having spent a fair amount of time trackside I cannot recall having to step down and then up very often, not like I do now, railfanning in the Midwest. This was (probably still is) the case pretty much everywhere in Southern California.

The only defined drainage I remember would be if the roadbed was against the side of a hill, and then there would be runoff control between the track and the rise.

[mark.hinds]

The reason the photos don't show obvious drainage ditches is because there weren't any.

I speculated the same thing on the Yahoo SP group, and ran afoul of a gentleman who is apparently a retired civil engineer.  However, I think you may be right, at least from a modeling perspective. 

MH

[3DTrains]

I speculated the same thing on the Yahoo SP group, and ran afoul of a gentleman who is apparently a retired civil engineer.

Hi Mark,

I saw that. I've run across very few individuals with John's knowledge of Tehachapi and era you're interested in. You would be wise to squirrel-away any info he provides on the subject.

[mark.hinds]

Hi Mark,

I saw that. I've run across very few individuals with John's knowledge of Tehachapi and era you're interested in. You would be wise to squirrel-away any info he provides on the subject.

That may well be, but the problem is he didn't address my question (i.e. , SP 1950s Valley track profile) even after I reminded him of it.  Instead he insisted on going off on a tangent.  I didn't want to hurt his feelings, so I let it drop.  BTW, the guy I'm referring to signed his posts "Bill Daniels". 

MH

[mark.hinds]

While waiting for the test module to dry, I am thinking ahead a bit.  The module is also supposed to provide me with scenery and backdrop practice, as all I’ve done previously is some DBA wargame terrain boards.  The module itself represents a section of mainline in between the Bakersfield and Edison scenes, about where the curve is on my track plan (page 1 of the thread).  Here’s an image taken from the SP mainline, looking east. 



Instead of a photographic backdrop, I wanted to try a 2-D / painted sky composite backdrop, with the 2D part just in front of the sky.  The “sky” would be a 2-foot by 24-foot continuous translucent plastic strip, running the full length of the first 2 scenes, and painted blue and white. In theory this technique would allow me to experiment with backlighting the sky in future, to represent twilight.  If this latter idea is possible, I would probably need to construct the structural members behind the backdrop with clear Plexiglas rod, in order to minimize shadows. 

On the actual layout, I have only 5 inches behind the rear track’s centerline at this location.  It seems to me that I might be able to make this work by using forced perspective with the fence posts, and possibly with the length and color of the static grass.  I can experiment with this on the module.  Here’s a Photoshopped version of the previous image, showing what I would have to work with, simulating what the module would look like once I attached a backdrop to it (as I plan to do).  On the layout, this area is about 53" above the floor, so the viewing angle would be lower. 



MH

[GaryHinshaw]

That approach to the backdrop looks very promising.  I am getting close to that stage myself on the upper deck, and will watch with interest.

[3DTrains]

BTW, the guy I'm referring to signed his posts "Bill Daniels".

Oops - I went back and re-read the posts and discovered Bill's were some of the ones I only scanned due to being off-topic.