Author Topic: ATSF Los Angeles Division, circa 1949  (Read 924 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bob

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • Respect: +82
Re: ATSF Los Angeles Division, circa 1949
« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2019, 11:03:34 AM »
0
Thanks for starting this thread!  Have you posted the track plan some place?  I would love to see it.

C855B

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 7394
  • Respect: +784
Re: ATSF Los Angeles Division, circa 1949
« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2019, 11:12:35 AM »
0
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. :scared:
...mike

http://www.gibboncozadandwestern.com

We don't make mistakes, we have happy accidents. We just don't tell anybody. -Bob Ross

Cajonpassfan

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3311
  • Respect: +572
Re: ATSF Los Angeles Division, circa 1949
« Reply #17 on: April 07, 2019, 12:41:10 PM »
0
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

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3311
  • Respect: +572
Re: ATSF Los Angeles Division, circa 1949
« Reply #18 on: April 07, 2019, 01:28:56 PM »
0
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  :o 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
« Last Edit: April 07, 2019, 06:41:26 PM by Cajonpassfan »

Bob

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 91
  • Respect: +82
Re: ATSF Los Angeles Division, circa 1949
« Reply #19 on: April 07, 2019, 04:44:06 PM »
0
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

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 284
  • Respect: +76
Re: ATSF Los Angeles Division, circa 1949
« Reply #20 on: April 07, 2019, 04:49:55 PM »
0
Me too. I’d much rather learn from someone else’s mistakes... it’s much cheaper that way.

Cajonpassfan

  • Crew
  • *
  • Posts: 3311
  • Respect: +572
Re: ATSF Los Angeles Division, circa 1949
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2019, 06:07:51 PM »
0
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