Tehachapi, BC

[Chris333]

That cubby hole will get darker once there is scenery/light block in place.

[Scottl]

It amazes me what a fascia and some simple scenery does to make the scene. I still really like your copper wire contours on the loop 

[basementcalling]

It amazes me what a fascia and some simple scenery does to make the scene. I still really like your copper wire contours on the loop 

Scottl, I wonder if the family that owns the ranch knows they could open a copper mine?

[Smike]

Excellent! Love the ops photos and seeing trains working their way through the loop on to a destination (even if a stagging yard) must give a great sense of accomplishment.

[jagged ben]

Note the Conrail power in that last shot. 

Yeah, that's one of my favorites.

[GaryHinshaw]

It amazes me what a fascia and some simple scenery does to make the scene. I still really like your copper wire contours on the loop 

I know, right?  A clean fascia and believable land-forms are both very important to me.  I'm counting on you to call me out if I ever fall short in this regard! 

And now...  Notes on session #2

Capacity - When the full plan is in place, I've been expecting to have 4-5 trains on the line at any given time to keep the road jobs interesting.  This probably requires 6-7 operators (plus a dispatcher - likely in the house or remote) to keep it going. I think both the layout and the room will accommodate that.

Track reliability - There were a few derailments in the temporary Atlas turnouts on facing point moves.  These occurred turnouts that did not have ground throws installed, so they were risky to start with.  There was one auto rack that derailed at summit switch for no known reason.  I haven't been able to reproduce that.

Throttle management - We had at least one documented case where a (pusher) loco was being controlled by two throttles simultaneously, causing unpredictable performance.  There was also at least one instances of an apparent radio glitch, where a throttle was not controlling very well.  I wonder if that could actually have been due to a "two-throttle problem" as well?  I need to be more vigilant about dispatching locos from unused throttles…

Speed curve programming - I need to re-map the speed curves on my Kato locos.  They do just fine on the DT402 throttles, but they tend to be jack rabbits on the UT4 throttles.  Does anyone have a favourite reference for this task?

Pusher ops - I think I have a lot of flexibility here depending on the preference of the crew:
* No pushers.  Most trains can cope without them, so people who want a low-stress job can choose that option.
* 1-person crew.  This requires watching the whole train, but does not require crew communication.
* 2-person crews. This let's the operators focus more, but requires coordination.  One particular issue that led to a derailment was vague terminology: one observer commented that the middle of the train was "tight" by which he meant it was in compression, but the engineer interpreted it as being in tension.  We'll be sure to have 2-person crews agree on terminology ahead of time.

Equipment reliability - The main equipment issues relate to couplers:
* Standard-issue long-shank couplers on the locos cannot be used for pushers.
* Some stock models would not reliably stay coupled, especially those with McHenrys.  They need to be weeded out.
* The Kato and Bowser (Z scale) couplers automatically mate to each other just fine, but they don't mate to the other brands automatically.  This is annoying and the path forward needs to be assessed (see below).
* I also still have some equipment with *really* crappy plastic wheels.  There were no real issues related to them, but they still need to be replaced.


New goals for the next session in late June:

* Temporarily install the full track plan for Monolith using Peco track and run the full proposed cement job as part of the session, to see if that configuration works well.

* Try to get enough stock equipped with Bowser couplers to test a full ~40 car train with pushers.  Can slack be gauged?  Is there enough to allow some slop in train handling?  If not, my coupler plan will have to be re-thought.

* Add a corner mirror to the right rear corner of the Loop shelf for viewing the south staging approach tracks.  I think a ~4x6" inspection mirror on a gimbel mount would be about perfect as it would be easy to mount, adjust, and then remove between sessions.  Anyone know of a source for a larger version of something like this?



Thanks for looking,
-gfh

[GaryHinshaw]

Excellent! Love the ops photos and seeing trains working their way through the loop on to a destination (even if a staging yard) must give a great sense of accomplishment.

It's hard to know what is more satisfying: having the layout itself begin to take shape, or being able to hang out with, and share it with a very talented group of modellers. 

[mark dance]

 Anyone know of a source for a larger version of something like this?



-gfh

I have the one that is pictured and don't use it.  You could tape or Velcro a larger mirror to it to try it.

md

[Baronjutter]

Love those BC Rail trains!  Really puts the BC in Tehachapi BC

[coldriver]

The layout is really taking shape nicely Gary.  My favorite stretch of BC Rail is the arid part between Lillooet and Pavilion - so seeing it on Tehachapi actually didn't seem that out of place. 

When you say that most trains could make it without helpers are you saying that literally - or that you would reduce train sizes to make it without helpers?  Reason I ask is that I have very few problems running helpers - as long as neither the head end or helper loco consists have enough power to move the entire train alone.   I've had a few instances where I didn't follow that rule and the inevitable (but occasional) hesitation of either the head or helper power made for really messy stringline derailments...

[GaryHinshaw]

Thanks Mark, I'll probably take you up on that.  The 44-tonner too.

Baron - it does indeed; and what a nice BCR train it was!  BTW, if you're ever on the mainland, be sure to look me up.

Coldriver, I think what I mean is that I don't need distributed power on most trains to make the hill, but any given train still needs a given amount of scale horsepower even if it's all up front.  For train management, there are definite advantages to helpers: less chance of string-lining up grade, and less chance of "accordian-ing" down grade, if the helpers are well controlled.  And for the most part I have had good luck with them.  The main point I wanted to make is that I plan to have enough train variety to accommodate a range of crew comfort levels.  Hopefully that makes it fun for all.

-gfh

[GaryHinshaw]

[Long post] As per a discussion in the DCC forum, I have been trying to plan ahead for signalling and block detection so I can make the necessary accommodations in my power bus wiring before I lay down any basic landforms and make access difficult.  Here is what I have come up with so far for the upper deck, and I'd love a sanity check from the experts/aficionados.  (Potential remote dispatchers: study up!)



The dispatcher controlled signals/interlockings are labelled CP etc. and the block-controlled intermediate signals are labelled with milepost numbers (to the nearest 10th of a mile).

If we start at the upper left and follow a northbound out of Mojave staging the first interlocking is a crossover at what I am loosely calling Cameron (since that is the nearest prototype crossover).  The north end of this interlocking is protected by the classic signal bridge at MP377.  On the prototype this bridge is an intermediate signal, but on TBC it will be dispatcher controlled.  For south bounds it is also the last signal on visible track, so it will be a convenient place for the dispatcher to throttle traffic into south staging.

Next is an intermediate pair at MP 364.6.  For a northbound, this gives a heads up for the crews as they approach single track at summit.  For a southbound, it also protects the switch at the south end of Monolith (the cement plant).

Next is CP SP357 at summit (loosely Cable on the prototype, since that is the end of double track for north bounds).  There is an additional complication that the north end of Monolith connects here too.

Next is an intermediate at MP 355.7, just because the prototype had one, then you are in to Walong (the Loop siding) which is protected at the north end by the classic signal bridge in the cut. 

Just beyond Tunnel 9 is the intermediate set at MP 350.7, then you reach the end of the upper deck at CP SP 350, the start of Woodford, which takes you down via the one- turn helix to the lower deck.

Happily all but a few of these signals are visible to the operator, so I think this might just work... Counting interlocking switches, there are 16 blocks to be detected on the upper deck, which seems pretty manageable.   Can anyone see anything glaringly wrong with this scheme?  Should I be adding dwarf signals at the two ends of Monolith?

Cheers,
Gary

[Baronjutter]

What are you using for facia? Some sort of hardboard?

[GaryHinshaw]

The fascia in this post is standard 1/8" hardboard (I call it Masonite, but I guess that is a brand name).

[Coxy]

Pretty good plan Gary.

Cameron looks like it needs two southbound signals for the crossover, only one shown presently.

I suggest a switch lock for the south end Monolith switch. No need for signals, same as prototype. In order for crews to use the switch to enter or exit the cement plant track, they would need dispatcher clearance to unlock the switch. Lance Mindhiem has some good thoughts on this (http://www.lancemindheim.com/) and here is an MRH link on the topic http://mrhpub.com/2013-12-dec/land/files/assets/basic-html/page83.html.

I'd be very happy to remote dispatch some time too!

-Coxy