Thanks Ben. I still have much to learn about the track alignment of the period. I changed the track using the plan from the La Mesa club, and although they're supposed to be modeling the 1950s, it's probably more accurate that they model a mixture of eras. An yes, I saved a copy of the original plan.
Looking real good now Marc. I hope this plan comes to fruition, and that I get a chance to come see it some time. A few more questions/comments: * How does the staging work? Looped yards under Arvin and over Summit? * Have you considered replacing Summit wye with the Monolith cement plant? If there is access in the doorway area, it would make a great stand-alone switching assignment for someone in that nook, and the cement train could then head out over the line when its ready. If needed, you could probably still accomodate a wye on the opposite side of the mainline (a bit closer to the curve). This would be accesible from the doorway area. * One thing I notice about the diagram is that the benchwork edge follows the track edge quite closely. It might be visually nicer to have a little variation in depth, in spots where aisle ways can accomodate it. Looking forward to seeing this come together! -Gary
Hi Gary, I hope to extend the building out 7' to allow for a place to work and relax while not running trains (might even add a "railfan" sitting bar at Walong at the bottom - always dreaming!). If I can squeeze it in, I'll certainly consider Monolith. Right now, my thought is to add staging above and below the main peninsula (Arvin/Cable), and then some storage tracks along the shelf at the top of the plan. I have enough room for 6 tracks on 2" centers, with the minimum @ 16" radius (two full size trains per track with a bit of extra space between using #7 or #8 switches). I'm not sure if this is too tight of a curve though, so some testing of passenger equipment is required. One of the featured locomotives will be the Intermountain AC-12, so this too needs to be able to negotiate all track. Regarding the edging - I simply drew out a line that extends a minimum of 4" from track centers, thereby ensuring that I don't encroach into valuable aisle space. I'll be sure to fill nooks and crannys wherever possible, however.
I decided to give a northward view a try. I only have the middle level drawing roughed-in, but I believe it's shaping up rather well: (Note: the box at the bottom of the image is a door clearance guide. I might move the door it to the other side of the building depending on what direction I take with the plan (top of the image at Bealville). Some adjustments to the length of Cliff might be needed - it's at 13' right now, and the sidings at Caliente are drawn at 1.25" spacing. This will be changed later. Bench work outline is only a rough guide.) Since this is my favorite area of the pass, I might not go beyond tunnels 7 or 8 (staging would be above Allard above, and Bakersfield staging below Bealville). I lose Edison, but I believe I can still get Illmon and Bena below Cliff. I calculated some rough grades just to see where I'm at, and using Tunnel 1/2 as a base of zero, 1.0% yields a 14" rise to Tunnel 7, 1.5% = 21", and 2.0% = 28" (this is with the yard at Caliente and the spur at Bealville level). If I set the lowest level at 40", then the entrance to Tunnel 7 @ 2% would be at 68". Not too shabby.
I like the look of this alignment a lot better than the previous one. This definitely captures the flavour of this key stretch of the line much more closely. I'm having trouble seeing how this plays with the other deck or decks, but I'd be keen to keep some switching opportunities in place, such as Edison or Monolith, for operational interest. Cheers, Gary
Hi Gary, My original thought was to either place the loop over Bealville, and then Illmon, Bena and Edison on the bottom deck, but I'm having a tough time getting anything that looks right. I could adjust and rotate a few areas for the middle deck, but not without compromising the sight lines I envisioned. I can make the middle deck look OK, and everything else seems to go to pot. Fix the other levels and the middle deck goes out the window. Maybe I should switch to Z Scale... Not! I'll keep at it though. I know there's a layout in there someplace - I just have to find it. :bear-confused: Cheers! Marc
Better than I could have hoped for... After lengthy negotiations with the "boss", it's been decided that instead of modifying the existing building (4' extension at the bottom of the plan to bring it to the 21'-11" width of the original plan), that a new addition will be added. Budget is yet to be determined, but I'm aiming for a DIY of $20k: The original structure needs some roof adjustments to accept the new addition, but I don't foresee any serious issues. The Caliente image I showed previously would need to be rotated 90-degrees to fit in the space, but there should be plenty of left-over room for doing what I want to do (and perhaps reduce the number of decks from three to two). I've already located a company in PA (APM Pole Building, Garage Kits) that can build a wood pole building kit to spec - that is, if I don't design and build it myself, and the price seems reasonable at $6,500 for the complete shell (roof, siding, etc., but not including shipping or concrete & other prep work). Also, not having to pay taxes on the kit should help offset the cost of shipping to CA. (I looked around for a company here in CA, but the ones I found, and within my budget, only made steel buildings.) The above image is only a preliminary sketch on how I envision the interior space. The "boss" especially liked the separate entrances and the Lounge/Study and Laundry areas, plus I had to promise some other development on the other half of the property - that might have clinched the deal. I still can't use the house funds, but no worries - I'll just have to work extra hard to see this to fruition. New designs to follow... Cheers! Marc
Marc, Congratulations on the negotiation. I wish I had your negotiations skills. I don't have the space either, but that's beside the point. That looks like a fabulous train resort. Good luck with it, enjoy, and I can't wait to see the new plan and then constructions. Keep us posted. However, it does give the rest of us ammunition… "See Hun, look what Marc is doing… I am only asking for 3 more feet…" Michael
Check with the local building department before you order that pole building. As some areas of Cal pole buildings do not meet code unless for agg use only. plus you will be happier is a steel building in the long run. Plus depending on the size you can erect it yourself with some friends. Just rent a fork lift for a weekend or two. happy mine is steel over the neighbors pole barn. Thy look better last long, higher resale, cleaner inside among other reasons. rich www.rslaserkits.com
Thanks, but I believe it was more luck than anything else, Michael. It started with "Hey hon'? I was thinking of putting a garage in over here..." (points to north-side of shop), and she said "Well, why not put it over there?" (points to west-side of shop). I just grabbed the ball and ran with it. The "garage" soon turned into an extension. Cheers! Marc
Been busy with other tings... Time to get back to figuring this thing out. My last idea was to get a new building added to the shop. Due to the state of the economy however, my money would be better spent elsewhere (food, mortgage, etc.). Besides, I don't think I want to try and maintain such a large monster. It sounded like a good idea, but I know it would be more work than fun. So... Getting back to basics, looking at what others have done (especially Gary Hinshaw's design for his Tehachapi layout), and also operating on different layouts I came up with the following plan. The more I tinkered with different configurations, the more I realized that I wanted a layout I could walk into and run - a duck under was now out - and I tried to limit the number of decks to prevent a maintenance monster. I also wanted wider aisles and make the layout comfortable to operate with a minimum crew and still capture the feel of the pass. I envision the highest point to be 65", but some testing will be needed to know for sure, and why I added + and - values to the elevations marked in red. Also, as much as I would like to be able to include Bakersfield yard and all sidings to Tehachapi, it just wasn't going to work unless the layout was 4-decks and had swing/lift gates. Thus I had to eliminate Bakersfield yard and use it as a staging point and enter the layout at Edison: Lower Level Gone from the plan is the Arvin branch - I would've liked to keep it, but for now I'll not worry too much about it. While interesting, it's not really a hotbed of activity - I suppose it could be if I wanted it to, but for now I'll leave it out. Without the yard at Bakersfield, the operations would be limited to bringing cars in and out of Arvin (Di Giorgio, Algoso). If the yard was there, then the branch would be a more important feature. From Edison the mainline goes downgrade 1% through Sandcut and then enters Bena where helpers can be added. From Bena, the mainline climbs 1% around the peninsula, through tunnel 1/2, and then enters the siding at Caliente. At 12'-6", Caliente is the shortest siding on the layout. Train lengths, however, will be limited to around 10', but if couplers will hold, it's nice to know I can go as high as 12' if necessary. From Caliente, the mainline curves around the horseshoe, makes the first crossing of Tehachapi Creek, and then begins a 2.25% climb through a "nolix" to reach Bealville. The siding at Bealville should be a hotspot for activity with trains coming off the upper level, plus the scene appears doable with Caliente almost a foot below. Upper Level A previous design had tunnel 3, Clear Creek Canyon, tunnel 5, and finally a combination of Cliff and Woodford sidings. However, the scene appeared crowded, not to mention I prefer the scenery at Rowen to Cliff (I'm not sure why, but I do) and Rowen siding took less space than the canyon/Cliff scene. Rowen siding begins from the exit at tunnel 8, makes the second crossing of Tehachapi Creek, and then rounds the peninsula and enter Woodford siding. The single track section between Rowen and Woodford is fairly short, but then the prototype is too. A nice bottleneck to work through me thinks. While the layout represents SP and ATSF in the 1970s through early 80s, I could backdate the plan for steam and include the water plugs at Woodford. If I'm careful, I think it would make a neat scene. From Woodford the mainline crosses Tehachapi Creek twice again before reaching tunnel 9 at Walong. FWIW, the inside radius of the loop is 22" - I tried to squeeze a 24" minimum, but doing so would have encroached on valuable aisle space. I want the layout to be comfortable, not a series of claustrophobic passageways. At 22", I believe I can get 3-1/2"~4" of crossover clearance without too much worry, but this will increase the ruling grade so careful testing is required. From Walong the mainline enters tunnel 10, and then pops right out into Tehachapi. I would've liked to have had enough room to include Marcel, tunnels 14 through 17, or even Cable, but I would need to cross the door on the right of the plan, and as I mentioned, duck unders are out. Tehachapi is pretty basic - not much going on here except to cut-off helpers after the long climb to the summit. I did squeeze in Monolith, but only because of my plan to add the final level... Middle Level Because of the extra climb added by the loop at Walong, I figured there might be enough room to include Mojave. I tried making the transition from the loop to another scene, into the helix, and come up to Tehachapi, but it would be difficult to keep the decks at a reasonable level (unless I remove most of the grades over the line - I don't care for flat). Having Mojave where it is also allows for staging under the Walong peninsula, and while most trains simply pass through, there's some potential to run short trains up to Monolith or into and out of the Jawbone branch (not certain how to work in the branch, but it seems possible). Besides, my intent was to have trains stage under the Walong anyway, so I might as well make use of the shelf along the bottom of the plan. Note, while the plan says "Mid 1970s" for the era, I'm moving closer to nailing down a more specific time period - perhaps summer 1982, just prior to one of the major floods that altered a few points along the line. There's also not much room between Walong and Rowen on the other side, so I may move Rowen up a bit. I'm not certain whether I'll have a backdrop separating the peninsula - I'll likely just have the hills break things up if space allows. Anyway, that's my story and I'm sticking to it. While I may not ever get the chance to add a new building (or want to), I may bump-out a small section near the bottom of the plan for some storage space. There's already a roof in place, so all that's likely needed is the extra concrete and a few studs. We'll see how that pans out though. Ugh - now to find motivation for drywall.
Great plan Marc! I'm sure you won't regret downsizing the plan the way you have. You still have twice as much square footage as I do, and I feel like I've probably got about as much as I can handle now, given realistic time constraints and all. You've still managed to keep many key scenes and retain quite a bit of aisle space, so creature comforts should be fine. I have a few ideas I'll toss out there for you to consider. I won't be offended in the least if you don't nibble on them. 1) The first level looks great, with some good ops potential around Edison. My first comment is about the Bealville section: given how close it is to Caliente, I am reminded of this (crappy) picture I took in Caliente a while back: This shot was taken from the Caliente post office looking up towards Cliff siding, where a manifest is seen descending the hill in the distance. This is a bit reminiscent of how you have Bealville laid out now. Given how high the vertical separation is, it might be neat to make this Cliff instead. If you did, you could basically hide the right side of the siding behind the hills above Tunnel 1 (to let the scenery spread out there a bit) emerging at Tunnel 2 as drawn. 2) I would be tempted to spread out the Loop shelf a bit more. One possibility is to put Rowan in a little shadow-box underneath the approach to Tunnel 9, and expand that approach just a bit more so it takes up the whole shelf. Then you don't have to worry about those scenes colliding either. By the way, my Loop has an inner radius of 21" and a crossover height of 3 3/8". The grade is just under 2.4% which is about as steep as I dare go. You should get 3 1/2" no problem, but 4" is probably a stretch. I'm pretty happy with how it's turning out though. You have a pretty clever connection between Woodford and Walong in there now. I'll be excited to see this develop! Best, Gary
Thank you for your comments, Gary. 1) I like the idea of Cliff as you describe, but I might not have enough space to pull off such a scene. I believe the location of the manifest on the hill is where the original location for tunnel 6, and just to right would be West Cliff and tunnel 5. I may be able to slide Bealville to the right and allow enough room for a single track scene similar to the one in your photo, however. 2) I could reduce the climb from Caliente to the top of the wall to give some space for a shadow box at Rowen - just enough so so that the siding just clears 12" above Caliente, but the best I could hope for would be a vertical separation of 9" between the siding and the approach above at tunnel 9. It could probably work if the scene were very narrow - perhaps 6"~8" deep, but the loss of a few inches above Caliente might impact the scene for what I might otherwise gain from expanding the scene at Walong. Much of the approach to tunnel 9 can be viewed through a narrow slit between the 5th crossing of TC and the loop, so I may not notice any gain there. I believe a scale mockup of the scene is in order though to see how everything will fit. The only other thing I can think of is the radius of the curves. I'm not certain why I'm so stuck on 20" - perhaps I should reduce the minimum to 18" to reduce 3 or 4 of the curves on the top deck. There was little in the way of passenger ops, and I don't see the need to reduce the minimum on the lower deck just yet, simply reduce some of the curves further back from the viewer - the ones I'm concerned with most being from the 5th crossing to tunnel 9, and perhaps the section where the tunnel 8 portal is on the drawing (looking at photos, I think I goofed there). Any comments on curves? Thanks again. As a fellow fan of Tehachapi, your input is greatly appreciated.
Here's a few pics of scenes I hope to capture from the operator pov: Bena Helper: http://carrtracks.com/cateh327sp8801.jpg (perhaps seated) Tunnel 1: http://carrtracks.com/cateh337sp8740.jpg Tunnel 2: http://carrtracks.com/cateh338sp8563.jpg Tunnel 8: http://carrtracks.com/cateh345sf968.jpg Tunnel 9 Approach: http://carrtracks.com/cateh349sp8435.jpg (photo might actually be below the 4th crossing though)
Marc - You've got an awesome track plan going here. Interesting that you find Rowen more interesting than Cliff, it's the opposite for me . I used to mountain bike the hill alot when I lived out there, and one of my favorite places to hang out and take pictures was in Cliff, I think the scenery between tunnel 5 and 8 is some of the best on the hill, with the s curves, steep hills, and cool tunnel shots. You are really going to have a great layout going here, you've got all the worthy spots covered. I had to be very selective in my scenes, all I have is the loop area (from the 4th crossing to tunnel 10), and a Caliente scene, since I'm limited on space for the time being. Can't wait til you get going, this is going to be great!
Marc, good to see you back at Tehachapi... The new plan looks great. Only suggestion have is make sure you have enough staging. Best, Otto
Marc, I'm really impressed with your ability to come up with these plans. My only comments are about grades. I think you will find the loop is steeper than you want. Between where you say 21" and 25" I would try to get this down to 3" instead of 4. I would suggest putting more rise through Rowen so you need less rise at the loop. IOW add an inch or a little more to the three elevation markings below the loop. I might also suggest raising Caliente and Tunnel 2 about an inch, necessitating a slightly less steep grade up to Bealville. That's if you want a chance at seeing a train cross over itself at the loop. Otherwise I think you'll be running shorter trains.
Marc, I am concerned about yard duties. You stacked three major work areas on top of one another potentially, no most likely, causing operators to conflict with one another. This will become a sore spot on the layout.
Thanks for your comments, Ben. I believe, however, that the vertical spacing will be about 3-1/2", given the positions of the numerical values at the curves. My apologies that my drawings aren't better annotated. John - hard to prevent stacking due to my desire to keep the plan a walk-in one. If it turns out to be an issue, then I can drop Mojave as an active yard - perhaps model only the eastern yard approach as trains head toward staging? Else I could bite the bullet and move Tehachapi along the right wall and accept a minor duck-unde penalty. At 60" or so, it wouln't be too bad for me, but visitors might think otherwise.
Forgot to comment on this. With the space you have, I don't see any compelling reason to go below 20". I was pretty much forced to 18" given my space and the scenes I wanted, but it doesn't seem like you should be. FWIW, I don't especially mind 18" -- it does suggest the tightness of the curves on the hill, even though the proto curves would actually scale up to 44" or more in N. Another comment about grades: it seems to me that the grade from Caliente to Bealville is fairly steep as drawn: I estimate 16" in roughly 50' of run, for nearly 2.7%. Perhaps I'm underestimating the true length of the run though. Finally, I don't quite understand your staging scheme. Both the Edison and Monolith exits indicate 'Down to Staging'. The middle layer with Mojave makes sense, but I don't see anything comparable for Bakersfield. What happens at Edison? Also, depending on how you envision operating the staging, you might consider joining the Barstow and Colton staging into a big loop of staging. This might offer some ops flexibility. John's advice about stacking hot spots is worth some further thought too. You currently have essentailly all of the active switching areas stacked right on top of each other: Edison, Mojave, and Summit/Monolith. That could get crowded if you decide to have crews. All in all, it looks like great fun though! -Gary P.S. The photo you labeled Tunnel 9 approach is the short section between the 4th & 5th crossings, right next to highway 58. (It is on the approach to Tunnel 9 though.) P.S.^2 You misspelled Tehachapi in your plan title... :zip:
