Tehachapi, BC

[GaryHinshaw]

Keen eye on the Cameron crossover Coxy.  (Say that five times fast.)  I do indeed need a second aspect, but didn't draw it in the diagram.  That will break with the prototype bridge, but I'm ok with that for the sake of making the model operations more authentic.  I have to say, as much as I enjoy scenery, detailing, and weathering, the tech and ops side of the hobby is very appealing too!

Cool idea on the switch locks; that would be pretty easy to implement.  And your are on the list of potential dispatchers.

Thanks for the feedback.  I'd love to hear what you have been up to lately too.

[Coxy]

...  I do indeed need a second aspect, but didn't draw it in the diagram.  That will break with the prototype bridge, but I'm ok with that for the sake of making the model operations more authentic. 

I'm surprised to hear that the original north end bridge at Cameron did not have a signal head for both tracks. Google shows two masts at either end of the Cameron interlocking which is normal practice. Do you have a photo of the old signal bridge there?

Interesting too, I had always assumed there was a double crossover there at Cameron, not so apparently. I wonder if it was mainly intended to return northbound trains back to their normal track after running around trains stopped at Summit cutting out helpers? It seems the double track south of Tehachapi is designed to be very directional. Cameron crossover is the only one between Mojave and Tehachapi and even at the north end of Mojave, there is no way to cross a northbound onto the left hand track.

Thanks for including me on the dispatcher roster. Speaking of tech and geeky ideas. I, and perhaps others, would be interested to tune in to listen to your ops session once you have dispatching -just like listening to a scanner!

My limited time spent model railroading has been split between youtube and envying other people's layouts! So not much change there.

I did start a project at Christmas to build CTC dispatcher panels for a friend in California who has an N scale layout based on the B&OCT and BRC in Chicago. There is a junction that needs a local and remote version of the same panel to facilitate dispatcher and solo control. The panels are laid out in the typical CTC style and will control signals and turnouts at the junction. They'll each be controlled by an Arduino clone called a Teensy and will communicate with one another such that when the dispatcher panel is in charge, the local panel just shows status but cant be used to set routes. I have about half of the software written and still have to build the physical panels. If I get some time, I'll create a thread in the Eng Report section.

Along similar lines, I also developed an arduino controller to manage routes through interlockings. I started out wanting it to handle routing for the staging level of my unbuilt layout. Having operated on a few layouts with staging, I realized it is important to have a really easy method for a visiting operators to get trains in and out of staging. Layouts often have peculiar rules about directions and routings associated with their staging trackage and it seemed to me to be an avoidable stress moment at the start and end of running a train worth eliminating. My own plan called for a multi-track helix feeding staging tracks and the
interlocking included connections to a reversing balloon track. In looking at it, it was immediately apparent that no visitor was likely to become familiar with all the turnouts and crossings. Enter the microcontroller!

As I've developed it, I've made  the controller applicable to any interlocking with multiple possible routings and particularly suited for those where more than one live valid route is possible. The idea is to avoid having to set individual turnouts, instead, just select inbound and outbound tracks for the interlocking and let the controller deal with conflicting routes, turnout potions and signal indications.

There's probably ways to do this with JMRI, but I was looking for a simple method that did not involve a computer interface that an operator could master in a minute.

- Coxy.

[jagged ben]

[Long post] ....

But a good one!

... 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.

My only criticism is regarding this part...

Next is an intermediate at MP 355.7, just because the prototype had one,  ...

To my mind this location better corresponds to MP 325.5, and the signals there would be correct for your layout as well.

To be consistent with the prototype, you should have a double-headed intermediate wherever it's the last signal before a control point.  See 350.7 just down the way, for example.  This is so you can display 'Approach Diverging' which warns a train that it will be taking the diverging route (i.e. siding, usually) at the next signal.

Thus at this location on your layout, (if you're going to have exactly one set of intermediates between Cable and Walong) you should have a double-head signal in both directions.

There are two other alternatives between Cable and Walong...
a) no signals (nooo, don't do it!)
b) model MP 355.7 at the south end of your tunnels, and MP MP 354.7and 354.6 at the north end.   (The latter two are really one set of intermediates, not sure why they got separated so much on the prototype, probably practical construction reasons).   

With regard to Woodford, I don't recall if you are actually going into a siding there or at the next signal.  If not, then neither of the two signals for northbounds at MP350.7 or at Woodford need to be double-headers.  However, it is less problematic to model a double-header when it matches the prototype scene than to have a single-header where it conflicts with your layout's actual operation.  The bottom head will just stay red (or dark) and should not confuse anyone as to the rules.  If I were you, I'd keep both of those as in your plan just in order to have a recognizable scene.  You can pretend that you didn't have to sacrifice Woodford to the layout planning gods.   

[jagged ben]

...It seems the double track south of Tehachapi is designed to be very directional. Cameron crossover is the only one between Mojave and Tehachapi and even at the north end of Mojave, there is no way to cross a northbound onto the left hand track.

That is correct.  The prototype has been Double-Track between Tehachapi and Cameron.  That is, it is not CTC, and trains all run right-hand here except in unusual circumstances.  (I don't know if this is staying the same with the new PTC system upgrades.)

In fact, between Cameron and Mojave, I believe it is CTC on one main and Double Track on the other.  That's why MP 374.5 looks like this.  I believe the main motivation for this was that trains would stall going up-hill on the right-side, so the dispatcher needed a way to bring other trains around uphill on the other track.  Down grade didn't present that problem. 

Gary, you could avoid having a double-head on the MP 377 signal bridge if you decided to follow this prototype inspiration and make the section between Cable and Cameron double-track instead of CTC.  It would be a bit weird in the other direction though, because logically you'd have one signal for southbounds, and that would be the only signal on the bridge. 

By the way, I agree about switchlocks for Monolith.

[C855B]

... (The latter two are really one set of intermediates, not sure why they got separated so much on the prototype, probably practical construction reasons).  ...

The reason was operations compensation. Pre-notice of switch alignment at the west end of Walong was needed at a certain distance so an eastbound hogger could know whether to continue at full throttle and keep his train moving into the siding, or if he was facing a red over red and would need to stop. Messing with throttle settings under that much load because you couldn't see the entry signal around two sharp curves and down in a cut was invitation for broken knuckles or worse.

EDIT: Oops... you said exactly that in the previous post:

To be consistent with the prototype, you should have a double-headed intermediate wherever it's the last signal before a control point.  See 350.7 just down the way, for example.  This is so you can display 'Approach Diverging' which warns a train that it will be taking the diverging route (i.e. siding, usually) at the next signal.

This signal was a special case at one time, incidentally. The bottom signal did not have a target, and only illuminated (fixed aspect... either green or amber... have forgotten) if the control at the west end of Walong was red over not-red.

[GaryHinshaw]

Excellent feedback guys, thank you!

I'm surprised to hear that the original north end bridge at Cameron did not have a signal head for both tracks. Google shows two masts at either end of the Cameron interlocking which is normal practice. Do you have a photo of the old signal bridge there?

I used Cameron in quotes because it is the closest prototype crossover to my modeled location.  But the area I'm capturing on that shelf is closer to MP377 and the classic signal bridge there.  I am breaking with the prototype by having this bridge be a Control Point for a crossover, but it makes good sense in the context of the layout.

Interesting too, I had always assumed there was a double crossover there at Cameron, not so apparently. I wonder if it was mainly intended to return northbound trains back to their normal track after running around trains stopped at Summit cutting out helpers? It seems the double track south of Tehachapi is designed to be very directional. Cameron crossover is the only one between Mojave and Tehachapi and even at the north end of Mojave, there is no way to cross a northbound onto the left hand track.

I think the main function of the crossover north of Mojave is to allow access to the Lone Pine branch from the Mojave yard.  Otherwise, directional running is certainly the norm.

I would love to hear more about your adventures with Arduinos, so please do post when you have a chance!  I'll see what I can do to stream our sessions, in due time... I'm a scanner addict too.

To be consistent with the prototype, you should have a double-headed intermediate wherever it's the last signal before a control point.  See 350.7 just down the way, for example.  This is so you can display 'Approach Diverging' which warns a train that it will be taking the diverging route (i.e. siding, usually) at the next signal.

Excellent point jb.  Double aspect at 3557 it is.

With regard to Woodford, I don't recall if you are actually going into a siding there or at the next signal.

There is a siding right there:

Gary, you could avoid having a double-head on the MP 377 signal bridge if you decided to follow this prototype inspiration and make the section between Cable and Cameron double-track instead of CTC.  It would be a bit weird in the other direction though, because logically you'd have one signal for southbounds, and that would be the only signal on the bridge. 

Interesting point to consider.  Fortunately I don't think this affects my block detection plans.

Thanks again all,
gfh

[GaryHinshaw]

Session #3 is now in the books, and for the most part things went quite smoothly.   I had three goals for this session: 1) get JMRI/Decoder Pro set up and start using some of its features during a session, 2) continue to test helper ops with first-time TBC operators, and/or with a train full of Bowser Z-scale couplers, and 3) test the Monolith cement job with the full complement of track in place.  1) and 3) were fully successful, 2) was a partial success.

1) I installed JMRI earlier this week and started using Decoder Pro to re-program the loco fleet.   What a great program!  Very capable, and easy to use.   I remapped the speed tables in all my Kato locos to slow them down, and this made them much better behaved with the UT4 throttles.  (Previously, they had to be operated in ~1/4 of the throttle range and they could easily jack-rabbit on you.)  During the session I had the laptop hooked up and was running the Slot Monitor to follow how the command station slots were being allocated, and to see what units were consisted:



(This shot was taken this morning - we had over 20 slots in use last night.)  This screen was quite helpful because it could be very hard to get some of this information from the throttles.  For example, if I tried to acquire a loco that was last in a consist, and I couldn't remember which loco was the lead unit, I was out of luck.    Now it's easy.     Eventually I'll expand to Panel Pro, block detection, and all that.

2) We had two first-timers last night and I gave them a train with a 2-person crew.  That went quite smoothly, especially with the new speed tables.  Alas, I did not have time to outfit a full train's worth of Bowser couplers, so the testing of pushers with less slack tolerance will have to wait. 

3) The cement job at Monolith went very well, I think, but I did have a bit of an epiphany this morning that I'll try out next time.  More on this in the next post.

Back to 2) for a moment.  The reason I did not get the couplers installed is because I am trying to concentrate on new layout infrastructure, especially during the invaluable summer "construction" months.  The work of the past few weeks has been to install the storage yard "SY2" along the west wall (top wall in my plans).  After working with the Micro Engineering wood-tie flex track in the temporary yard, I decided to switch to Peco track for the rest of my staging areas, and I'm glad I did!  The ME wood tie track looks great, but that is it's only redeeming feature (at least the weathered rail version) because: a) it was nearly impossible to form a truly straight section, b) it has the offset tie problem, noted elsewhere, and c) the weathered rail doesn't seem to conduct very well.  (Thankfully none of these problems afflict the concrete tie track, which I need for the mainlines.)

Here is SY2 at a glance:





The remaining turnouts arrived yesterday, so the yard throat can soon be finished, then it will be on to the helix/sequential staging area that connects this to the Mojave end of the upper deck.  Finally, here's one from the "I'm not as young as I used to be" files:



I've wired up each of the nine tracks for (eventual) block detection since this will be a semi-hidden yard once the Edison deck is installed above it.  Under-layout wiring is much more awkward on a 36" deck than a 60" one, at least for someone of my age...

Thanks for looking, and thanks to the crew (including TRW members Tim and Andrew) for their help in bringing this thing to life!

-gfh

[GaryHinshaw]

Here is more than you want to know about the developments at Monolith.   I took advantage of my stock of Peco track to quickly mock up the proposed track arrangement for the plant so we could run that job last night.  First, here is an overview of the plant site:



It takes up about 7-8 linear feet of shelf.  The south end has a coal spur (loads in, empties out) for the power plant:



while the north end consists of two closed tracks, the back one for inbound empties, the front one for outbound loads:



This is very close to the prototype track arrangement, except that my plant is on the wrong side of the mainline, and (sadly) wrapped around a corner.  The front track has a loader that is served by a track-mobile on the prototype.  Since TBC has no track-mobile, the Columbia & Western RR has generously loaned us one of their 44T locos to take it's place, seen here running hoppers through the "loader":



When we ran the job last night, we were running the loader right to left (which is how it appears on the prototype, when viewed from the road).  This has two disadvantages: 1) it requires a brake to hold the outbound loads on what is nearly a 3% grade, and 2) there is only room for two hoppers and a 44T'er on the north-end tail track (w/o fouling the main).  This morning it occurred to me that it makes much more sense to run them left to right, and to store the loads on the flatter north end of the site.  Thankfully, the 44T 'er has enough juice to push 4 hoppers up the 3%, so the task of pulling empties out the back track and pushing them up into the loader is no problem for this little guy:



(It would also be fine to handle fewer cars per move.)  The minor down side of this arrangement is that the north end of the plant joins the main at the end of double track, just past the lower right in this shot:



so the task of spotting empties and pulling loads will require briefly fouling single track, but I think that's ok.  The remaining part of the job requires some maneuvering to serve the coal spur, but that can be done from the south end, where the main is double tracked.  It is permissible to park cars on the back main during some of these moves, if necessary.  It's also possible to use the 44T to help with some of the spots, especially if a move through the loader is needed.  Running the loader is a separate task that can be done by the same crew member, or a different one.

Here's an eye-level view of the scene:



The plan going forward is to validate the track arrangement, then replace it with code 40 track.  I also look forward to getting more serious about a permanent backdrop, structure planning, and actual structure modelling.  By coincidence, Pelle Søeborg has an article about his "Duolith" plant in the coming MR.

Thanks to Mark for the use of the 44T'er!  It really adds a nice touch to the scene.

[Baronjutter]

I can't believe how much space you have between your staging and the rest of the layout.  Such a change in elevation!  Really amazing layout, and such top notch track work.  I can't wait to start seeing scenery come in.  One day!

[Ed Kapuscinski]

If you've got to foul the main, how realistic is adding in a bit of a lead there that parallels the main and gives you the head room you need?

[ednadolski]

Fantastic work again there Gary!   Admittedly the signalling & ops stuff is out of my league, but I sure am enjoying how this is all coming together for you, and trying to learn a little bit in the process.  How many locos and cars do you have in service nowadays?

Ed

[GaryHinshaw]

I can't believe how much space you have between your staging and the rest of the layout.  Such a change in elevation!  Really amazing layout, and such top notch track work.  I can't wait to start seeing scenery come in.  One day!

Thanks Baron - I can't wait for scenery too!  The vertical space in the photo is 28" between decks; but where they meet in the big staging helix, the separation is a little over 21" with n+1/2 turns.  Right now I'm debating with myself over whether n is 6 or 7: n=6 gives 3 1/4" per turn at 2.1%, n=7 gives 2 3/4" per turn at 1.9%.  Since 2.1% is less than my ruling grade, I'm leaning towards n=6 for more clearance and less overall helix.  Eventually, the lower sceniced deck will about 8" above the staging yard, and that corner of the room marks the beginning of the southbound climb over the main: a haul of about 3.6 scale miles of nearly steady 2+% to reach that corner of the top deck.  Can't wait for that to be in service!

If you've got to foul the main, how realistic is adding in a bit of a lead there that parallels the main and gives you the head room you need?

That idea is on my watch list, and addressing questions like that is one of my motivations for trying this out with temporary track.  I tried running this job myself last night and the only work that needs to be done by the road engine at the north end is to spot the empties: a very quick task, so I'm leaning against a separate lead.  The rest of the work is best done from the south end, where there is double track, so fouling one main is less impactful and adds interest (there is a crossover just down the hill to accommodate the constricted mainline).  Having the 44T available also adds quite a bit of interest to the job, because the two locos can coordinate moves.  I'm thinking I want two rules for this: 1) the road power cannot go through the loader and 2) the 44T cannot enter the mainline.  It makes for a fun puzzle.

Fantastic work again there Gary!   Admittedly the signalling & ops stuff is out of my league, but I sure am enjoying how this is all coming together for you, and trying to learn a little bit in the process.  How many locos and cars do you have in service nowadays?

I'm quite sure it's not out of your league Ed, but thanks for the kind words.  I'm really finding that there is almost no part of this hobby that doesn't hold my interest.  But, as I lay my 45th piece of flex track (and solder my 90th feeder wire...) in the staging yard, I'll note that it does require time and patience to build reliable capacity.  Speaking of capacity, my two main staging yards will each have about 135' of track, and the staging helix will have about 90'.  This gives me ~350' of full-up capacity, or about 775 60' cars.  I'm planning on having about 500 cars on line at any given time, so I'll be at about 2/3 staging capacity with an empty mainline.  Hopefully that will be sufficiently fluid....  I currently have about 200 cars on the layout, and 20 locos with decoders installed and programmed.  That has been fine so far for running the "schedules" we have been.

But only one loco is detailed and weathered! 

-gfh

[mark dance]

The vertical space in the photo is 28" between decks; but where they meet in the big staging helix, the separation is a little over 21" with n+1/2 turns.  Right now I'm debating with myself over whether n is 6 or 7: n=6 gives 3 1/4" per turn at 2.1%, n=7 gives 2 3/4" per turn at 1.9%.  Since 2.1% is less than my ruling grade, I'm leaning towards n=6 for more clearance and less overall helix. 

-gfh

Do you adjust your grade calcs for curvature Gary?

md

[GaryHinshaw]

So, I have been at least thinking about scenery, and for me, the first order of business is to get the landforms right.  Google Earth has become an enormously valuable tool in that regard, as this example (hopefully) shows.  Here are two difficult-to-obtain views of the Tunnel 14-17 canyon just below Summit, first looking SW towards the Loop:



(note, for example, the big slide above Tunnel 17), then SE towards Summit and the town of Tehachapi:



I think the most obvious features from this perspective are the three spines that form the need for tunnels 15-17, so I tried roughing in this basic feature on the layout, given the constraints I have:



Once I'm happy with the basic shapes, I'll remake the back-board and spines with something more substantive, then fill in the rest with lattice.  In this stretch I will use a "horizontal fascia", i.e. the scenery will extend down to the level of the bottom of the shelf, then stop.  One of the local HO guys has a similar (BC-based) scene on his pike and it looks really cool.

-gfh

P.S. I love the sense of anticipation that goes with an empty tunnel portal.  In this case however, it appears that the line is closed for an all-too-common maintenance window:



P.S.² My son and I are headed to Tehachapi late next week to take some better backdrop photos.   

[GaryHinshaw]

Do you adjust your grade calcs for curvature Gary?

md

Nope, those are the raw numbers.  For comparison though, the S-curve at the top of the helix (level 3 here ):



is 2.2% with an 18" curve coming out of it, so that really sets the ruling grade for this segment.  The curve on the approach to the Loop is also 18" at 2.2% (and some trains struggle there!).  Decisions, decisions...