Author Topic: Tehachapi, BC  (Read 248479 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

GaryHinshaw

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5632
  • Respect: +757
Re: Tehachapi, BC
« Reply #45 on: July 02, 2011, 06:33:17 AM »
0
Thanks for all the comments!  I'm definitely worried about aisle space and will be taking this advice to heart.  Michael, I'd love to see a sketch of your layout footprint, with some indication of what portion is in the photo you posted.  (No worries if it is too much to ask for.)  Your points about space for doodads and schematics match my recent experience well.

Greg, alas I won't be going to Sacramento (just now heading home from Madrid and I'll be 'grounded' for a while afterwards.)  But I'd love to find a way to see your drawing.  Perhaps I can invite you over to see the space and consult.  And I hope you'll be one of the regular 5-6 if (when!) this gets far enough along.

Ed, soul searching is ongoing.  If I do get to Denver I'll definitely invite myself over though!  ;)

-gfh

John

  • Administrator
  • Crew
  • *****
  • Posts: 11174
  • Gender: Male
  • Respect: +724
Re: Tehachapi, BC
« Reply #46 on: July 02, 2011, 07:13:05 AM »
0
The "reference man" for model railroaders is likely to be closer to 5'8" and 220 :)

MichaelWinicki

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2071
  • Respect: +318
Re: Tehachapi, BC
« Reply #47 on: July 02, 2011, 07:51:54 AM »
0
The "reference man" for model railroaders is likely to be closer to 5'8" and 220 :)

That's what I was thinking too.

3DTrains

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 316
  • Respect: +6
    • 3DTrains
Re: Tehachapi, BC
« Reply #48 on: July 02, 2011, 09:41:17 AM »
0
Here's a drawing featuring a benchwork line, measured 3" from the nearest track. Pretty tight quarters!


MichaelWinicki

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 2071
  • Respect: +318
Re: Tehachapi, BC
« Reply #49 on: July 02, 2011, 10:57:17 AM »
0
Here's a drawing featuring a benchwork line, measured 3" from the nearest track. Pretty tight quarters!


Interesting drawing 3D.

Some reach issues there too.

The whole idea of figuring out how much floor space each operator takes up is interesting, but the problem I have with it, is that with every layout there are going to be "choke points" where folks congregate.

Recently I operated a massive HO layout recently (like 25' x 70') that can handle 20 operators, but there are two spots where it seems everyone jams up and having to work through an area where there are 6 operators standing doesn't make for a lot of fun.

Scottl

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 4084
  • Respect: +505
Re: Tehachapi, BC
« Reply #50 on: July 02, 2011, 05:46:37 PM »
0
Here's a drawing featuring a benchwork line, measured 3" from the nearest track. Pretty tight quarters!



I still like the loop scene and that seems to be a priority.  In my mind, shortening the peninsula would buy a lot of room for operators and still provide the same operational elements.

ednadolski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3330
  • Respect: +497
Re: Tehachapi, BC
« Reply #51 on: July 02, 2011, 11:13:57 PM »
0
Here's a drawing featuring a benchwork line, measured 3" from the nearest track. Pretty tight quarters!




Just a $0.02 worth of additional thoughts:

 - 3" track-to-edge is just 40 scale feet -- less than a modern boxcar.   Seems that may be a bit dicey, in that a derailment or errant hand could more easily land something (or several somethings) on the floor.   Also, for photography it seems that it would be really desirable to have more scenery than the 3".

 - Does shortening the Caliente peninsula really buy all that much in terms of aisle space?   Seems to me that the space issue is driven by the minimum radius of the Caliente curve, as that will determine the minimum width of the aisle.  It's another trade-off, since like Walong the Caliente curve is one of those scenic signatures that doesn't seem to want to be compressed too much.

 - The La Mesa Club has Caliente on the peninsula like what's drawn here (altho the equivalent curve radius in N scale would be approx. 26").  However I've been to Caliente, plus also I have a number of videos where the dominant view is actually from the inside of the curve, e.g. where the Caliente Post Office is.  You'd also need the walk-in approach if you wanted the Tunnel 2 photo scene as previously mentioned.

 - Is the double-track curve in the upper left corner supposed to be hidden track?   If it is then I'm not sure if it really needs to be set way back into the corner like that.  But if it is not hidden, then access seems rather difficult, as it looks to be back about 5 feet or more from the front edge of the upper level.   I'm not sure what the height if the upper level is there, but it doesn't seem like you could walk into that.   Also, it looks like the aisle into there would have a pinch point of maybe 16"-18" or so on the lower level.

 - The curve on the lower left (Allard?) seems to have a similar condition.   Have I missed something about the overhangs/clearances for the upper levels?

- Looks like there are several levels of track in the lower right-hand corner, where the door is.  Seems this will have to have a duckunder, or else maybe lift-outs.  What is the height of the lowest level track?   That will determine the height of any duckunder.  If it's lift-outs, are they OK with that location so close to the yard entrance, that removing them won't hinder operations too much?  Are there any turnouts that may straddle a lift-out joint?

- This drawing looks like you could enlarge the Loop itself considerably, without appreciably impacting aisle space or any other features/operations.  This would really help with the grade/clearance considerations.   If you could also eliminate the S-curve above the Loop, and instead just have the track follow the walls, then that could eliminate the overhang issue.   Likewise extending the East Walong area downwards could also open up that overhang concern.  That could also help eliminate a pop-up or two.

 - On the upper (27.25") aisle, how many operators are going to be there at once?   Seems there will be at least two stationary/switch operators, but will there also be guys passing in & out at the same time to follow their trains?

 - The lower aisle may be even more of a concern, as it looks like an average width of maybe 24" or so, but won't there be at least one operator for the yard, plus other operators constantly entering/exiting to watch their trains go up & down the Loop?

HTH,
Ed
« Last Edit: July 02, 2011, 11:35:06 PM by ednadolski »

ednadolski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3330
  • Respect: +497
Re: Tehachapi, BC
« Reply #52 on: July 02, 2011, 11:34:40 PM »
0

If I do get to Denver I'll definitely invite myself over though!  ;)


Awesome!  Think of the trip as an investment, if it could potentially save some reconstruction work  ;D ;D ;D

BTW another thought about the barstools -- it sounds like a workable idea to me as long as everyone is basically stationary.   But wouldn't guys sitting on stools just be kind of an obstacle to guys following thru trains?

HTH,
Ed

ednadolski

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3330
  • Respect: +497
Re: Tehachapi, BC
« Reply #53 on: July 02, 2011, 11:42:56 PM »
0
Based on an ellipse with the same dimensions as myself, 20" wide X 10" front-back with a triangular area representing the arms holding a throttle extending forward another 9", "reference man" may be considered to occupy 1.6 sq. ft. of floor space.  I generally think in terms of ten times that amount of space (16 sq. ft.) per operator when estimating operating crew size

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

nscalemike

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 387
  • Respect: +3
Re: Tehachapi, BC
« Reply #54 on: July 03, 2011, 12:06:27 AM »
0


Let me start out by saying I don't know a single thing about your prototype . . . . . other than when you are done it's going to look pretty cool!!  I love the modern mainline activity in this area, but I've never seen it is person, don't know if I've ever seen a video of it, and never seen a layout of it in person.  That being said, I think you will find you are going to be too cramped.

I think 3" from track to edge of benchwork is very limited, like someone said, only about 40 scale feet.  That will barely get you the right-of-way area and no extra scenery.  I would try and get at least 6" if at all possible.  Staging/visible yards you could probably get away with the 3" as it's more or less straight track and slower speeds.

Also, I think your aisle space is too narrow.  I think you should figure at least 3' if two people will be passing in the same area, more if they are working in the same area. 

My first suggestion would be to eliminate the center peninsula area and make the loop bigger and make that the main focus.  I think you could probably get close to a 45"-48" loop in and make that scene really pop.  My outside helix track is 40" across, and modern equipment looks real nice making that curve.  I also understand that eliminating track is not high on anyones wish list, so what would happen if you make the peninsula a little smaller and make the hidden track in the tunnel a tighter radius?  You could do two easements on the visible ends and much tighter in the center where it is hidden, maybe not get the actually benchwork any smaller but it would at least give you a bit more scenery on the outside of the track.  My other idea would be to tighten the peninsula down in the center area and create a little extra people room at the two ends of the aisle space but leave the outside curve area the same size.

A couple of other things to keep in mind is your air flow around the layout.  If you put several people in that sized room for an extended period of time it will warm up quite a bit.  Having a multilevel layout really affects the air movement, learning that first hand now.  Also, the higher you go with the benchwork, the tighter the same area feels.  For example, a single level layout with a 28" aisle will feel bigger than a 3 level layout with the same aisle space, it's like your walking down a tunnel, again, learning from experience. 

It's just my opinions and I'm certainly no expert!

Good luck and I really enjoy reading about this layout in the making!!

Mike

3DTrains

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 316
  • Respect: +6
    • 3DTrains
Re: Tehachapi, BC
« Reply #55 on: July 03, 2011, 04:49:43 AM »
0
Hi Ed,

- 3" track-to-edge is just 40 scale feet -- less than a modern boxcar.   Seems that may be a bit dicey, in that a derailment or errant hand could more easily land something (or several somethings) on the floor.   Also, for photography it seems that it would be really desirable to have more scenery than the 3".

3" was simply a guideline for a minimum of what could be squeezed into the space. Personally, I prefer 6" or greater, but a design with a peninsula in a 10 x 20 room doesn't allow that - at least not with an 18" radius.

- Is the double-track curve in the upper left corner supposed to be hidden track?   If it is then I'm not sure if it really needs to be set way back into the corner like that.  But if it is not hidden, then access seems rather difficult, as it looks to be back about 5 feet or more from the front edge of the upper level.   I'm not sure what the height if the upper level is there, but it doesn't seem like you could walk into that.   Also, it looks like the aisle into there would have a pinch point of maybe 16"-18" or so on the lower level.

The drawing is only for the operator area. Gary mentioned placing access hatches at various locations, so I didn't think I needed to draw those in.

- The curve on the lower left (Allard?) seems to have a similar condition.   Have I missed something about the overhangs/clearances for the upper levels?

That areas is a problem for me. If this were my layout - which it isn't - I would opt for a smaller section of Tehachapi - possibly staging-to-Woodford-to-loop-to staging arrangement, or perhaps staging-to-Caliente-to-Bealville-to-staging, and keep the railroad to no more than 1-1/2 or 2 levels.

- Looks like there are several levels of track in the lower right-hand corner, where the door is.  Seems this will have to have a duckunder, or else maybe lift-outs.  What is the height of the lowest level track?   That will determine the height of any duckunder.  If it's lift-outs, are they OK with that location so close to the yard entrance, that removing them won't hinder operations too much?  Are there any turnouts that may straddle a lift-out joint?

Gary started with his drawing having similar arrangements here, so I simply copied what he envisioned. If the door swings inward, then the available space is cut down by the width of the door and a couple of inches for finger clearance. Thus, Gary is left with a usable space of 10 x 17. I figured he might have already had a solution to the door issue based on his earlier sketches.

- This drawing looks like you could enlarge the Loop itself considerably, without appreciably impacting aisle space or any other features/operations.  This would really help with the grade/clearance considerations.   If you could also eliminate the S-curve above the Loop, and instead just have the track follow the walls, then that could eliminate the overhang issue.   Likewise extending the East Walong area downwards could also open up that overhang concern.  That could also help eliminate a pop-up or two.

Yes, although the only issue I see would be the length of Woodford siding and the tunnel areas would be impacted by the radius increase, both of which could be wrapped to the right-side of the plan, however.

- On the upper (27.25") aisle, how many operators are going to be there at once?   Seems there will be at least two stationary/switch operators, but will there also be guys passing in & out at the same time to follow their trains?

No one knows until it's built, but I can't picture any more than three operators in the room at any one time. If Gary is anything like me, however, he will be doing most of the running and switching as a lone wolf. :)

A good compromise to the whole affair would be to take a page from Gary's drawings from a year or so ago. In it, he had Caliente up against one wall, and here I think it would work nicely in the upper-portion of the drawing, with Beallville on the lower portion (trains emerging from tunnel 1/2 to Caliente). The tracks could then extend through Cliff and hide back into staging, eliminating the loop entirely. The loop takes up quite a bit of real estate, and if Gary wants others over, he'll need to limit the number of folks to 2 or 3 + himself.

Cheers!
Marc

GaryHinshaw

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5632
  • Respect: +757
Re: Tehachapi, BC
« Reply #56 on: July 03, 2011, 11:03:38 AM »
0
Whoa.  An 18-hour trip home and a good night's sleep, and now I'm way behind on this thread...  I really appreciate all the input and will hopefully have some new thoughts to share soon.

-gfh

GaryHinshaw

  • Global Moderator
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 5632
  • Respect: +757
Re: Tehachapi, BC
« Reply #57 on: July 03, 2011, 02:43:30 PM »
0
Hi again.  Motivated by the worked example in Michael's photo and the track plan he so kindly posted, I took the footprint of his benchwork and superimposed it on one of my draft plans:




In the drawing, I translated the footprint until his aisle space best matched mine.  Note that his benchwork extends beyond my available area on 3 sides.  Next, I made 'shadow people' of size 12" x 24" (hopefully generous) and populated the aisles with the 'Winicki 7', as in his photo:




Pretty snug. If I am committed to ops, it's probably wise to eliminate the peninsula. My experience in BC so far is that I would have no trouble rounding up 5 or 6 folks every month or two, so I'd really like to leave that option open. 

As I think about trade-offs, I'm still very fond of a plan that incorporates the 'boring' stretches on either side of the hill, along with enough of the hill itself to impart a struggle.  I still rather like the Loop shelf as drawn.  I'm now wondering about replacing the peninsula with something like one or the other of the following two footprints, shown in gold.  The track drawn over them is just copied from the peninsula to get a sense of scale, not to indicate an actual arrangement.  Both would require some form of access for rescue missions.  I'll submit some more concrete ideas after I take care of some chores today.







Cheers,
Gary

P.S. It's great to see the Layout Engineering forum fill out so nicely.

DKS

  • The Pitt
  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 11930
  • Dead Man Modeling
  • Respect: +3169
    • David's Modeling Journey
Re: Tehachapi, BC
« Reply #58 on: July 03, 2011, 02:50:21 PM »
0
Gary, what if you kept the peninsula, but instead extended it out from one of the long sides? This would preserve a fair amount of modeling real estate while also creating more generous operator space.



Apologies if this has already been considered--I'm admittedly coming in on this thread a bit late.
« Last Edit: July 03, 2011, 03:11:02 PM by David K. Smith »
“Everyone leaves unfinished business. That's what dying is.” —Amos, The Expanse

Bendtracker1

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 1082
  • Remember The Rock!
  • Respect: +305
    • The Little Rock Line
Re: Tehachapi, BC
« Reply #59 on: July 03, 2011, 05:48:52 PM »
0
Gary, what if you kept the peninsula, but instead extended it out from one of the long sides? This would preserve a fair amount of modeling real estate while also creating more generous operator space.




David,
The peninsula as you have it drawn would also make for ease of access for the rescue missions that Gary mentioned.  You would have two if not three sides to to come in from if there was an access hole on the top.  Of course that would depend on the location of the track work.  It might even eliminate the need for access.

Another thing that it would do is give you the illusion of a larger layout since you wouldn't be able to view the entire layout from one vantage point.  The peninsula would act as a view block if the scenery/backdrop was tall enough.  This would depend on what level it's on as well.

Just my 2ȼ worth.

Allen...