ATSF Los Angeles Division, circa 1949

[Bob]

Thanks for starting this thread!  Have you posted the track plan some place?  I would love to see it.

[C855B]

Thanks Jim. Concentric loops do take a lot of space, even in N. In this case I had 48" to work with, and even then, I had to cheat. The inside track radius is a very tight 11.75". Visually, the tall structures on the inside of the curve will mostly hide it from view. Operation-wise, there will likely be a steam power restrictions on the two inside tracks; my first generation, four axle diesels and mostly 40-50' cars have  no trouble there. The mainlines (and passenger train tracks) are on the outside loops where the curves are generous 21" plus. The temporary "control panel" has the tracks restrictions highlighted, see pic below.

Speaking of East Yard... I have a version of my plan with similar loop staging below my East Yard, via a two-turn helix. Over-designed (of course) with crossovers everywhere so up to 20 trains can be stored with ability to pull each one out without shuffling everything. I have scuttled that plan for the time being because of the over-the-top complexity. And then there's the minor (ha!) issue that the plans for East Yard and Cheyenne each have about 200' of yard capacity and are therefore staging yards in their own right. I knew all along that 50 years of accumulating rolling stock would have a purpose.

[Cajonpassfan]

Oh no, Mike, not another helix🙀
Hate those things, and hidden running in general. Takes the joy out of the joy of running imho.
I know hidden trackage is often a necessary evil, but I'd absolutely make an effort to minimize the length of it; anything over a train and a half or so gets a brownie in my book.

Another thing I'd think hard about is the notion of flexibility at the price of complexity. This layout, although big in many respects, is in its essence a simple double track dog bone, with substantial staging at each end, and one big yard. How many guys will it take to do a full op session? I figure 8-10, which is doable and manageable in my experience. And we can have fun with fewer. I've run on my friend Ted York's beautiful Cajon layout in Utah on a number of occasions, and it takes a minimum of 20 guys. It becomes exponentially more difficult to manage the people, let alone operations, if you can even get enough experienced operators to come more than once a year or two.(There's a nice write up on Ted's layout in this April's MRH digital issue btw). I prefer more frequent sessions with a smaller group of friends.

The reason I brought this up is that there hasn't been much in the hobby press about sizing layout and trackwork design in proportion to the optimal/desired number of operators/friends. Maybe with a smaller, more practical group, the trackwork complexity is less important? YMMV...
Otto

[Cajonpassfan]

Thanks for starting this thread!  Have you posted the track plan some place?  I would love to see it.

Bob, thank you for your interest.
I haven't, and don't plan to in the near future; too busy working on the layout...

There was a previous iteration of the track plan published 20 years ago  in 1999 in Model Railroad Planning I'm including below. But of course, the track plan has evolved substantially since then. I abandoned and bypassed the hated helix that used to connect the upper and lowed decks. This gave me about 70' of additional mostly open running in an adjacent portion of the room, with the "towns" of Ono and Verdemont added. I also added everything west of San Bernardino which used to end at the Mt. Vernon Viaduct with hidden staging loops beyond. The new LA staging yards under construction I already covered here.

If there's enough interest in this thread, I'll continue post photos with descriptions (such as dimensions etc.) as we move along the railroad, and may update the track plan eventually...
Otto

[Bob]

Hi Otto,

I hope you continue to post.  As a relatively new modeler, I have learned a great deal from following the Layout Engineering reports - these have given me ideas and saved me from quite a few mistakes!  Thanks for posting the plans -
Bob

[CRL]

Me too. I’d much rather learn from someone else’s mistakes... it’s much cheaper that way.

[Cajonpassfan]

Thanks guys.
Bob, for a "relatively new modeler", you're doing a bang up job on your Cumberland Division from what I've seen so far. Hope to see more as it progresses.
Otto

[Cajonpassfan]

Working some more on the long REA/Expess/Baggage/RPO building. The middle, 27 bay section still needs a canopy over the dock and I need to fiddle with the swinging backdrop to minimize the gaps. The whole thing is very shallow, but I'm thinking that with a decent backdrop (which needs to include the east elevation of the passenger depot with its distinctive tower) it should look okay, I think I got the proportions right, pics below.
Otto

[Cajonpassfan]

Which reminds me: in all my research about LAUPT, I've been unable to find vertical dimensions, specifically the height of the tower. The ticket wing (tall gabled structure to the left of tower in photo below) supposedly had/has a 62' ceiling. If that's accurate, that would make the tower what, 100-110' tall? Thoughts, or better yet, actual information appreciated.

BTW, my LAUPT view angle/perspective is as if taken from top of the huge gas holder just east of the station in the period photo below. [ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Fun stuff,
Otto

[Cajonpassfan]

So the saga continues...
[ Guests cannot view attachments ] There are not a lot of photos of the LAUPT passenger depot taken from the track side during my era, especially not from fifteen floors up. But there are many of the iconic front elevation facing Alameda Street, so I'm flipping it around mentally, trying to get the components in proportion. The depot floor sits about 16' below track level, and its bulk is also partially screened by the express/baggage building, so only the top of it is showing. I raised the south (left) wing a bit to give it more presence, but I think it's probably too tall in this mockup. Thoughts?
Thanks for looking,
Otto

[Cajonpassfan]

Well, moving right along the L.A. backdrop clockwise, the next building is the US Post Office Terminal Annex, across what was then Macy Street and today is Cesar Chavez Ave. It's the big white building in the photo below, to the left of the RPO building and Union Station, with close to a 200' frontage. Unfortunately, I can't find any photos of the rail-side (east) elevation in its original configuration, before the upper story was added in the early fifties. I started laying out the elevation, second pic below, but I'm guesstimating the dimensions from modern era photos. Again, the vertical dimensions are the hardest to nail down.
There appears to have been no elevated dock along the building facing the tracks. Rather, I believe the RPO cars were unloaded directly onto tractor driven carts and wagons and  taken into the Annex at grade through the five large doors.  My current plan has the original parapet at 45' above railhead, with maybe a 15' drop to street level on the west, making for a 60' tall building, not including the two domes. Does that sound right, or better, does anyone have access to better information? (It's not unlikely someone will unearth the info I'm looking for after I build this thing wrong). Any useful input appreciated!
Otto [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[pdx1955]

Wouldn't it be more likely that RPO parcels/mail would go underground in a connecting passage to the basement of that building? I've seen that in a number of locations where the main post office facility is across a street from the RPO building.

On your station, I think the left side is a bit too tall. It's the lowest roof section in the station, so it seems that you wouldn't see much except for the the peaked roof on left which a bit of the wall section showing in arched window section. The real pictures have quite a differential between the waiting room area and the left side. Having been inside, I'd believe that 62' figure...it's pretty tall.

BTW, I love what what you're doing there as it comes together.

[Cajonpassfan]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ] Thanks for your kind comments Peter, I appreciate it. I think you may be right in relation to the depot building heights. This is as much art as it is science, and getting the proportions right in relation to other buildings in the vicinity is a challenge, and exaggerating or diminishing certain elements of the composition is the "art" part... or the hard part😬
The  horizon line on my backdrop is about ten floors up on the Hall of Justice building which sits up a hill, so I'm looking down at the depot and even the iconic tower a bit, making the courtyard to the left of the tower a little more visible. I think I'll raise the right side a bit, rather than lowering the the left; the tower and ticket office wing need to be prominent.
As to the Post Office Terminal Annex, it is a massive building (and was controversial at the time of construction in that it was feared it would diminish the visual presence of the depot). The only photos I have of the track-side are relatively recent and show a flat floor straight out to the tracks through the five big doors. It would be good to see period photos; so far no luck as every photographer apparently concentrated on the admittedly more attractive front of the building (see below) [ Guests cannot view attachments ] designed by the "starchitect" of the time, Gilbert Stanley Underwood. The back must have been boring...
To be continued, I'm sure,
Otto

[Cajonpassfan]

Seems I'm getting help from Google Earth... :

The backside of the Terminal Annex is shown in the first photo with the early 50's upper story addition, which I won't model, and the second pic is the LAUPT complex from a ways up, close to the angle I'm looking at it on my backdrop. Whoopee!  And the last one shows the relationship between LAUPT and the Terminal Annex, although the long REA/Baggage/RPO building is just a shadow of its former self and there are condos and offices on site. Still, very helpful with orientation and proportions...
So all I got to do now is build it/paint it
Otto

[jereising]

As you're finding, Google Earth and their street view are incredible modeling tools.  The last two scenes I've done were modeled using these tools.