Author Topic: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module (Read 22510 times)

ednadolski · « **on:** September 05, 2012, 12:15:32 AM »

This is a first for me, starting a construction blog for a project, and I'm hoping to accomplish a couple of things. First of course is to share the experience with others. Second, as always I'm looking to learn more and improve my modeling through the advice and feedback of others. And third, I think this will help me to keep focused and motivated toward completion.

A large part of my inspiration comes from two other TRW layout blogs: Gary Hinshaw's amazing Tehachapi, BC thread, and M.C. Fujiwara's breathtaking Free-moN Shoo-fly Module thread. These are great examples not only of great modelling and attention to detail, but these both also epitomize many of the benefits of the TRW blog process. Of course, the fantastic and inspiring work of many others here on TRW is also a huge factor, but to list these with due accolades would make this a very long post indeed.

The concept for this project is a very simple: a 10 foot long shelf style module representing the present-day "Upper Tunnels" portion of Tehachapi Pass on the UPRR Mojave Subdivision, just north of Tehachapi, CA. On my proto, the railroad runs parallel to Tehachapi Creek and Highway 58, while climbing a grade in excess of 2%. The 'Upper Tunnels' section is a single-track mainline encompassing Tunnels 14 thru 17. There are no sidings, stubs, or turnouts. My trackplan (the term is almost too generous) is simply a satellite image of the proto with the model track superimposed over it. I've scaled it down to fit on the 10' shelf, and re-mapped a more detailed 'zoom' image for each tunnel area over the base image. My hope with this approach is to capture some sense of location and proportion of the proto, within the requirements of scaling down for a model. By keeping things simple, I want to allow for a high level of detail without it becoming an excessively large or involved effort.

Another part of the concept is the come-and-go idea, where a train appears on one side from 'off-stage', and then disappears going off the other side. With this in mind, tunnels 14 and 17 become the entry & exit locations, so only one side of these tunnels is actually modeled on the shelf. Yes, railfanning is indeed the theme here -- and it comes here with the added benefit of not having to constantly dodge the high-speed truck traffic on CA 58

Modularity is a key feature, so that I have the option to use it either stand-alone (with staging), or with my existing Tehachapi Loop layout, or with a future, expanded version of a Loop layout (should I ever have the opportunity to build it). I don't see much need to conform to any existing module standard, so my interfaces are just what what I think I need to make the aforementioned uses work. I would always have the option of making end adapters for say Free-moN, so long as internally the module meets standards for minimum radii, rail code, wiring, etc.

So here is a track plan that I came up with:

Cheers,
Ed

GaryHinshaw · « **Reply #1 on:** September 05, 2012, 03:48:52 AM »

Good to see you commit Ed! Does this mean you'll want your portal masters back soon?

If you have the space, give some consideration to adding the other portals to 14 and 17. It wouldn't be too hard to have the turn-back curves be part of the scene, and the south portal of 17 has quite the distinctive wing wall. But you'd probably need another 4' in that case.

Good photo roundup too. There were a couple I hadn't seen before.

Cheers,
Gary

James Costello · « **Reply #2 on:** September 05, 2012, 05:13:46 AM »

Great to see Ed.

I've always thought this section would be great for a scenery-focused diorama, so I am look forward to see your results.

Happy to help fund any additional tunnel portal castings too, with this area being included in my future dream layout.

svedblen · « **Reply #3 on:** September 05, 2012, 05:24:24 PM »

I really look forward to seeing this layout come alive.

About tunnel portals: I did some simple one-time molds for my own interpretation of the Tehachapi tunnels. Rough castings but I don't think that matters. I few cracks and some chipping looks rather realistic. Here are some pics for inspiration, or the opposite

http://blog.lsvedberg.se/#category5.9
http://blog.lsvedberg.se/#category5.6

/Lennart

Scottl · « **Reply #4 on:** September 05, 2012, 05:30:10 PM »

I am really looking forward to this module build. Based on your modelling work, I know you will set the pole high!

Bremner · « **Reply #5 on:** September 05, 2012, 07:35:23 PM »

looks like a great project, how long will it be? will you run light loco's heading railroad west?

Coxy · « **Reply #6 on:** September 06, 2012, 09:45:55 AM »

Great concept. Also looking forward to seeing the plan for the return loops and how this layout fits into your Tehachapi layout.

ednadolski · « **Reply #7 on:** September 07, 2012, 08:05:15 PM »

Thanks to everyone for looking, and for your responses. Let me see if I can respond to your specifics.

Gary, it feels good to finally commit to this! After the move & other home projects, and such, I was beginning to wonder if I would ever get to kick this off. At this point I don't think I'll need those masters - I just did some preliminary work with the stripwood forms and anchor bolt cement and had some encouraging results, so I'm planning to delve deeper into that direction. Stay tuned! Also I love the idea of the additional tunnels but I don't think I'll have the space that it would take. Of course, if I ever go the Free-moN route, that would be a great idea for the 'adapters' sections (would be cool to do a really long 'Marcel Siding' like that too - like 20' or so)

James, that's one thing I really like about Tehachapi, that the scenery is so modelgenic. I'm hoping to have some results before too long

Lennart, thanks for the links. I've always been impressed with the work you show on your blog, and how well you captured the feel of the Jim Kelly pics. Thanks for sharing!

Scottl, thanks for your kind words. wrt setting the pole, hopefully I won't disappoint you! That of course is the great thing abut TRW, the shared advice and knowledge is something that makes us all better. To me it's kinda like one of those 'team' things. (Is the 'A' in 'team' for A-hat?)

Bremmer, this plan for this module is 10 feet long. I'll probably end up running more 'power moves' for a while in both directions, since I expect to be in a catch-up mode with weathering enough rolling stock for trains

. But that actually fits in, since a part of the motivation is to come up with something that works as a setting to run finished models. (The Kalmbach book, "Classic Railroads You can Model", discusses the idea in the context of Tehachapi Loop, and I think it can apply here too.) I've never really been much of the operator type, maybe that makes me more of the "railroad modeler" as opposed to a "model railroader".

Steve, glad you're liking it, amigo. The staging I have in mind is pretty flexible (read: cheesy) and can be whatever fits into the available space. Once I get my Loop layout set back up (it's still sitting on its side after the move), I should be able to connect this new module right to the Tunnel 10 side with a short piece of connecting track.

Cheers, all! And thanks once again!

Ed

Smike · « **Reply #8 on:** September 08, 2012, 04:51:30 PM »

ED!
I love this. When space is limited take something cool, and make it the complete space, instead of craming in 25 #4 turnouts, 3 X crossings, figure 8 fly overs etc..

I'm in the same boat, and need to commit to a plan! (in general I'm thinking it would be the same, have a single well done scene with loops and staging hidden)

Coxy · « **Reply #9 on:** September 08, 2012, 06:31:00 PM »

Ed, What are your thoughts around era? This stretch would support multiple eras though concrete ties would give it a modern feel.

Tunnels 14-17 create a perfect scene for some grimy SP '45s '40M's and tunnel motors slogging up the hill with a lumber train. Could be fun to rig some sensors to trigger some flange squeal sounds while the train is passing through.

ednadolski · « **Reply #10 on:** September 09, 2012, 06:54:31 PM »

Howdy Smike, glad you're liking it. I'm trying to take a page from the 'keep it simple' strategy. For me that works better since I tend to work sporadically, and flit from one thing to the next and to the next. So if I take on something that's too complex, that's a good recipe for me never to finish it.

Steve, I'm thinking present era, tho that gets a bit involved for this little stretch of the line. The UP laid concrete ties over the pass ca. 1998-2002 or so, but then found that the concrete ties in the tunnels didn't hold up well because of water problems. So they tried steel ties, which also ended up having issues. They have now gone back to wood ties for the tunnels, extending out 100' (or so) from the portals.

It further turns out that these tunnels are so closely spaced that UP simply went with all wood ties between some of them. AFAICT, that means today it's all wood ties from Tunnels 15 thru 17 and in between, but there is a stretch of a few hundred feet between 14-15 that remains concrete. The latest Google maps images have enough resolution to see individual ties, and one can see the differences at say Tunnel 10 and the west side of 14. In yet another twist, however, there was a stack train going thru the rest of the upper tunnels right when the images were recorded, so I can't be too sure about exactly what the case is for those locations. I did find an older image without a train, and while the resolution isn't as clear, but it does seem to confirm what I suspect.

So one thing I am trying to decide now is exactly what kind of track to use. For the wood tie sections I'm very tempted to use Code 40 rail handlaid over the Mt Albert wood ties, using the P87 spikes like I did in this experiment a while ago. Of course, that opens up the question of what to do for the concrete tie section, since that only comes in Code 55 flextrack, and I wouldn't want mixed rail sizes. If I can't think of a solution, I may (trying to follow that 'keep it simple' thing) just go with the all handlaid code 40, but I'm still scratching my A-hat over this one.

(That's a pretty long-winded and convoluted response to a simple question, eh?)

Na dzrowia!
Ed

Coxy · « **Reply #11 on:** September 10, 2012, 09:10:45 AM »

Ed, interesting background on the ties. I was aware of the steel tie experiment but couldn't recall the timing (late 90's?). I think the short stretch of concrete ties nicely symbolizes the track challenges of the region.

I took a quick look at google street view of the area. The freeway is a little low for the google car to capture the ties unfortunately. But the images they have caught give great views of the whole scene under perfect blue skies.

https://maps.google.ca/maps?q=Tehachapi,+Kern,+California+93561,+United+States&hl=en&ll=35.177823,-118.482743&spn=0.001381,0.003347&sll=49.303974,-84.738438&sspn=17.964548,54.84375&geocode=FRwTGAIdspzw-A&hnear=Tehachapi,+Kern,+California,+United+States&t=m&z=19&layer=c&cbll=35.177823,-118.482743&panoid=Uf2YiNyy45UL5i0pPAMPLw&cbp=12,250.26,,0,-2.31

The grades on the access roads and the way the ballast and dirt spills down the hillside are nicely captured.

c40 definitely the way to go for rail as long as your wheel flanges are c40-friendly. It will look great, especially in photos, which I assume is at least one goal of this layout.

For the concrete ties, have you considered using styrene strip? The challenge there may be the scalloped section between the rails, but for a short stretch, it's probably viable to carefully sand them with some sandpaper around a dowel before laying in the c40 rails. That being said, wood ties may also work if the grain on the ties is tight enough.

Again, great choice for a shelf layout and an excellent choice of scene out of the 50-odd rail miles from Bakersfield to Mojave.

GaryHinshaw · « **Reply #12 on:** September 10, 2012, 11:09:14 AM »

Ed, the Bing aerial photo of the region seems to corroborate what you're saying: dark ties (wood?) between tunnels 15-16 and 16-17, except for maybe a very short stretch between the former. And it definitely looks like concrete between 14-15. Great attention to detail... I circumvented this question on my pike by putting this section at eye level

, but I could still lay wood ties from 15-17 without too much problem. I'm not sure anyone would notice though.

RE concrete tie with code 40: you could use the ME ties and slice off the clips, then glue the rail with Pliobond. You might even try fashioning new clips from the rail braces that proto:87 sell, but that would be quite tedious. However, it appears you only have a few feet of track to worry about.

-gfh

svedblen · « **Reply #13 on:** September 10, 2012, 12:33:01 PM »

Code 40, wood ties and Proto:87 tie plates - I love it!

How long stretch of tracks are we talking about? How would you attach the tie plates to the ties? I did about a yard of such track a few years ago, and the track looked really cool, but it sure was a tedious task. Fortunatly a house move interrupted work and on the next layout I skipped the tie plates

But I still think you should give it a go. I glued down the tie plates one by one, but if you could use some kind of jig things would certainly go faster. Any ideas on that?

/Lennart

ednadolski · « **Reply #14 on:** September 12, 2012, 11:59:33 PM »

Steve & Gary, thanks for those links. Those Google scenes are going to be really handy when it comes time to scenic the area. I don't think I've seen any other photos that can capture the whole of the panorama like that.

Gary, IIRC that Bing view is the one that I had in mind. The only other detailed view that I found is on the 7idea DVD that I got a short while ago. There is one scene right between 16 and 15, and as the camera pans to follow a train one can clearly see that all the ties in between are indeed wood. (That is one awesome DVD -- very highly recommended for any Tehachapi foamer!

).

You guys raise some great ideas for the C40 rail and wood ties - thanks for all your thoughts! That little test I did with the N scale tieplates from P:87 was kind of a mixed result for me. I liked the way it came out in that one picture, but in-person I've found the tieplates are very hard to see without strong light plus magnification, esp. if they are painted a color that blends in with the ties. Also since they are so small they are pretty hard to work with and to align. However I do like the look of the P:87 spikes even without tieplates, and I'm thinking of trying out some more tests in that area. For spiking, I'm wondering I'd need a homasote roadbed, or if the ties themselves will suffice in holding the spikes in place.

I'm also wondering if it would be feasible to do a PPD custom etching of some tieplates. I could make them a bit larger (say a scale 8" x 16") and also I think maybe I could lay them out with the proper tie spacings in lengths of maybe 1" or so. That should make them easier & faster to install, at last on straight track (curves & easements are still a one-at-a-time proposition). If you have any suggestions, I'd be most grateful.

For C40 rail on concrete ties, I think you've hit it Gary, that I could strip the rail from C55 flextrack and attach the C40 rail with Pliobond. However, doesn't Pliobond need to be heated to cure, and does that get hot enough to risk melting the ties? Another caveat is that the web between the ties is sized for C55 rail which is substantially wider at the base. So I'll have to clip away the web from every single tie. Tedious work, yes, but again we're talking about just 3' of track in this case. I'll also have to be sure to check on the flange clearance as you say Steve. If that turns out to be an issue then I'd have to either sand down or cut off the clip heads

.

On the tunnel portals, I have some progress to show. I've made two anchor bolt cement master castings from scratchbuilt stripwood forms. It took some time & effort (not without a few casting failures

), but I'm pretty pleased with the detailing that came out. One casting is for the main face wall of the tunnels, and is also usable for the elongated wing walls on Tunnels 14 and 16. The other casting is for the interior tunnel walls. My idea is to make an RTV mold of each, and then make plaster castings for each individual tunnel. Styrene spacers in the main mold will allow me to create the shape of each individual portal (or long wing wall). If these come out OK then I will go ahead and make masters for the triangular wing walls as well. Here are some pics, they are pretty large but that shows off the detail:

I did the HO scale portals in this way and I think it ought to work OK for N scale. However one thing that I did find is that the anchor bolt cement is fairly easy to abrade away the detail if it is over-handled. The same holds for the RTV rubber - after enough castings, it starts to get "tired" and loses the detail. So there is definitely a finite life to both the masters and the molds, and I think that will be more of a concern for N scale. I'll just have to see how long they last before I have to make a new set of masters. BTW that also goes for the plaster castings - a light touch and soft brushes are definitely appropriate for painting and weathering. Even taping them up to protect them during scenery-making can cause noticeable wear on them.

Anyways hope you like these so far, and thanks for looking!

Ed

Author Topic: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module (Read 22510 times)

ednadolski

Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module

GaryHinshaw

Re: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module

James Costello

Re: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module

svedblen

Re: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module

Scottl

Re: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module

Bremner

Re: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module

Coxy

Re: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module

ednadolski

Re: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module

Smike

Re: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module

Coxy

Re: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module

ednadolski

Re: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module

Coxy

Re: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module

GaryHinshaw

Re: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module

svedblen

Re: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module

ednadolski

Re: Tehachapi Upper Tunnels on a Shelf Module