No body will ever see the

No body will ever see the Tehachapi loop as it completely covers the Isle wall to wall unless it's in a different room or is this more than one plan?

Dan

How many decks is this layout?

I think you're going to have major deck separation issues with this design. What are their elevations?

It seems a bit strange having San Francisco staging on a Tehachapi loop layout.  Maybe LA would be a little less geographically disjoint?

I can't seem to understand how the trains get to the actual loop. Perhaps a little more explanation would help?

Best regards,

Charlie Comstock

no offence, BUT.....

your plan makes no sence, San Francisco is a LONG way from Bakersfield (about 280 miles by car).

I would run the trains from Bakersfield, head past the general store into the horseshoe at Caliente, going through the town and station of Tehachapi and past the ONLY real industry at Monolith through to Mojave. Mojave is about 60 miles from Bakersfield, and Walong is just about half way, and Tehachapi is 7 miles from the loop.

There is some real neat opperations going over the pass, from helpers to engine hops. You can really model from the mid 80's to the mid 00's with out really having issues since the loop ranch and the Calente store/post office really have not changed much.

Too ambitious?

So, is un-drawn Tehachapi, etc. (with east-end staging?) section in another room?  How does one get from one room to another and follow a train?

Could be too-much layout for one guy.  And operating alone, how are you going to manage multiple trains simultaneously?

I wonder how the layout would work scenically, given the probably-short distance between deck levels.

I think I got it...

I think I see how the layout flows.  Coming up from staging the trains move clockwise: Bakersfield - Edson- Sandcut - Bena then up the helix to limon.  The upper deck goes, again clockwise, limon - Caliente - horseshoe curve thence into a tunnel to the adjacent room/space and pops out on the far side to enter the loop then exit on the near side back towards the main room.  Whats unclear to me is where it goes after that. 

I don't think its a bad design at all, maybe some tweaks here the there. I'd be hesitent about the long stretch of hidden track going to the loop. Its not the worst idea just that if you have a dereailment it'll be a bear gaining access to the train.  Even though its technically a triple decked layout deck height should be normal for the upper and middle decks as I'm assuming the lower deck is staging which, assuming it's not active staging, the height for lower deck is of less importance (IMO). 

As for operating by yourself, it may be quite challenging if you were to just operate with a dual cab throttle, or double fisted with two seperate throttles. However there are other options.  You can use Train controller to automate some of the trains and signaling whereby the computer effectively becomes another opartor and dispatcher leaving you free to operate a single train. 

What scale is this?

You are correct sir. It is in

You are correct sir. It is in a seperate room next to the primary train room, and will be dedicated to the "Loop."

Jim

Mr. Comstock, I really enjoy

Mr. Comstock, I really enjoy your site. Thank you for all of the information I have recieved from you. I am a big fan.

There will be 4 levels in the train room. The Distance between the Staging and Level 1 is 12", the distance between level 1 and 2 is 15" the distance between level 2 and 3 is 15". SO the total is staging, level 1, 2  and 3 gives a total of 4 levels in the train room. The loop room is one level and is adjacent to the train room.

The lower levels will be run by sitting on stools with wheels. This is why I have plenty of isle space (3 feet with one spot 30"). With my back the way it is this is and has been  a great way to work on this project. The taller regions will have steps that roll out and roll back in.

As far as staging North or South OK "LA."

Getting to the loop room from the train room goes from Caliente (Level 2) and will loop over the Helix back out to the "Patio" (Room not built yet). Once the train has gone through the loop, it will go back into the train room (main) to Tehachapi, Monolith etc...

The last level mainline has not been finished. that is why it is not listed yet. This may have added to the confusion.

Thanks for looking.

Jim

Ambitous? I don't think so. I

Ambitous? I don't think so. I am 45, I think I can do this. If I need help I cvan get it, but i have not so far. It has been alot of fun. The room is done, with insulation, air conditioning. The bech work for the lower staging and return loop are finished. I will have the track and the helix to level one done in 4 weeks. I am a teacher, so I have the time. But we will see. Perhaps you are right.

Yes the undrawn last level Tehachapi is where the North end staging is going to be located at. But it will be in the main room.

As far as getting from one room to another, if you look at the upper left of levels 2 and 3 there is an area that will swing open and closed. Not my favorite solution, but I do not want a "duck under." Level 4, at the same point is a "nod under" depending on how tall you are.

This entire layout is designed to fallow you trains as you go through the mainline. So in that regard I think this will suit me well. When I am running trains by myself, I will not be measuring my layout against the prototype, But If I do have people over, there will be plenty of action to keep us busy.

Thank you very much for the input.

Jim

Deck elevations...

I'm gonna guess that your deck elevations will be something like:

upper = 60"

middle = 45"

lower = 30" (operate from roll around chairs)

lower staging = 18"

I'm not clear on the elevation of upper staging.

I think the combination of roll around chairs with people standing up to look at the middle and upper decks will prove to be difficult if you are planning multiple crew operation.  The roll around chairs are likely to become major aisle blockages (or at least minor ones).

I also suspect that the swing bridge that allows you access between the main room and the 'loop' room will get old very quickly. If you go ahead be sure to interlock the track for at least 1 train length on either side of it so there is NO track power when the bridge is not installed and locked. Otherwise someone is going to drive or back a train into the gorge of eternal peril.

You have an interesting concept and have managed to pack quite a lot into a relatively small space.  Havng an 1100 sqft monster in my basement and seeing the actual work vs expectations, I think you may have a bigger project on your hands than you suspect (apologies if you've been there and done that before and are well aware of this phenomena).  Room prep and benchwork tend to go very quickly. Track work, also can go fast. Wiring slows things down a bit - especially if you're wiring for CTC control and detection (time and $$!). But when you start doing scenery and structures things get a lot slower.  Rolling stock and motive power will also consume huge amounts of time unless everything is unweathered RTR.

Not to say that the project scope is unmanagible for a lone wolf with occaisional help from his friends, but until someone has actually built a large layout they are unable to comprehend how much work is involved (Charlie's 2nd Theorem).

Back to deck heights.  Are those 15" deck separations railhead to railhead or the railhead to bottom of the next higher deck?  Allowing 3" (a minimum when switch machines and land contours are involved) deck thickness, that leaves you 12" for reaching into the middle deck to work, paint, build scenery, fix track/turnouts, install tortoises or equivalent in the next upper deck, add lighting, etc.  With a deck depth of 24" (or more) this will likely be a pleasant deck separation. I could be wrong of course.

My recollection of Calliente is that the station and town will be mostly in aisle given your orientation.

With the multi deck approach how will you be dealing with the geography beyond Calliente where it goes both up and down adjacent to the tracks.  Slinky (meaning 'thin') decks work best for Kansas where hills are few and slight - not for modeling mountains.

If you've not already done so, have you carved up a few major appliance boxes, and attached them in place to see what the view angles and accessibility will be?  How about mocking up those aisles with stacks of boxes of shelves, and trying out the roll around chair operations concept?  How about a guy in a chair meeting 2 guys (on different decks) without chairs?  How about 2 guys with chairs meeting each other?  When a train finishes it's lower deck travels and is embarking to higher ground, where does the crew's chair get stashed?  How many chairs are needed for an op session?  How many crew will participate in an op session (I'm assuming you're planning op sessions given the nature of your railroad...)?

How many crew are required to run the yard?  1 or 2?  Or more?  How will they do this while seated in chairs while interacting with other crews passing by?

What scale are you building this in?  I'm kind of assuming HO.  You said you'd already built a pile of turnouts for the staging level?  If you were willing to build more or less the same plan, but in N-scale, you could

1) do a great job of modeling all the wide-open-space between locations on this route

2) narrow the benchwork a bit, making more aisle space for those chairs and their contents as well as giving better access to the backs of the lower and middle decks.

Sorry if I'm sounding kind of negative.  This project reminds me a bit of the plan I had for the 2nd version of the BC&SJ. I think if I'd gotten that layout finished, it would have proven somewhat unwieldy to build and to operate. If you have answers to the above questions then by all means go ahead. If not, I'd strongly suggest thinking about those issues before proceeding further with construction.

Best regards,

Charlie

You got it. I will have to

You got it. I will have to add more explanation in the future.

It is an HO layout.

And I completely agree with you about the hidden track along the back wall of the loop. I am not crazy about it either. There are windows back there that will allow access. But that does not mean that I am happy about it. But it is what it is.

The layout will have a continuous loop. So one train can run around the track on its own. I read an article in one of the "special issues" about someone who ran trains by himself and he had trains running on the mainline that was his traffic. I imagine this is what I will do. As I have an NCE PH Pro-R, I will have a couple of controllers to go along the layout with me.

It will keep me busy. Thanks for taking a look. You are right I need to do a little adjusting, but that is why I posted it.

Jim

That is why I appreciate your

That is why I appreciate your site so much is the time  and thought you have put into it. Couple that with the experience, and there are quite a number of time savers.

Very close you are off by only a couple of inches when it come to height. First of all, it is HO. I always forget that. Lower staging is 22" (bench not rail), Level 1 34", Level 2 is 49" and Level 3 will be 64" (not shown).

I have done experiment (as they said to do in MR Building Bench Work) and by droping the stool to a lower level and rising it up, the view of the track stays at an optimum level. After that a person/operator would stand up for level 3. I am not really happy with this completely, but it is a comprimise that I feel will work.

I don't think the project is too big (although it is a very long main line run), but if you look at the track, most of it is mainline. There will not be a great deal of complicated track work. Further, I am very much a "lone wolf" and I am prepared for this to take me a while to do. However, you are correct about the time and money it takes to put the wiring together. That is the reason I am not installing anything more complicated than SPDT switches with 2 LED's along the route.

As far as scenery and deck separation goes, I can't argue with you. This is mountain railroading, and I am not going to fool myself with the idea that I can portray the tall hills and long slopes of Tehachapi in such a small space. Further, as I was just discussing with my wife, as most of this route has a 2% plus grade, if I matched that I would be pushing the roof. The best I can do is give the suggestion/illusion that the trains are climbing a grade. This is where I will be putting the "up and down slopes" of this grade and area I am modelling. It will not be perfect, but it will be there. Again it will be another comprimise.

As far as Caliente, you are right the stores and such is where the isle space is, but I have seen Caliente represented by just the general store on some layouts. I think I will be able to do a little better than that. I can always add a few inches here and there.

I completely understand you concerns with Isle space, crews, stools etc... when it comes to this layout. It will be a problem. But I think it will be a problem on any layout. I was on a tour where there was only an 18" isle space to get by. that is why I have put an emphasis on a 36" isle space. I wish it could have been 72", but I did the best I could. However, most of the time (and ther will be exceptions granted) I will be running these trains by myself.

To answer the question about the yard. It is designed to have one or two people running it,that is why it is double ended. But of late I am wondering if I even need to have the yard. Since the emphasis is on running trains through this mountain pass, perhaps I could even get away with out it. But I have to admit, I love the look of a yard and an engine facility. They are just dirty, nasty, messy, NEAT places.

And Mr Comstock, you are not be negative, you are being thorough, and that is why I placed this plan on this site. Actually, this is making me feel better because most of the topics you have pointed out (not all) have been going through my head as well. I still have some work to do, but it is feeling better.

Thank you for your time and consideration. I really appreciate it.

Jim Lowery (Chesticus)

PS. As far as the "swing door", you only go through the swing door to enter the loop room and back again. The loop room is only one level attached to the second level. So this will be a minimum. But by doing this you will feel like you are actually going somewhere far away from the other action.

Scenery and other considerations

Jim:

A big part of how successful this layout will eventually be for you may boil down to aesthetics.  I imagine the track arrangement can be made to operate as you intend (a key being that you aren't anticipating much multiple-crew operation), but I'm betting the scenery will be very difficult to pull of with the deck separation involved.  Something most railfan photos don't convey is just how big the mountains are along the modeled route.  The depth of the benchwork will dictate slopes meeting the next higher deck somewhere between the track and the backdrop, and much of the scenery not modeled to its full height (either truncated against the next deck's benchwork or reduced significantly in height to allow some backdrop to be visible).  Note that the scenic treatment could easily pose additional access concerns by reducing the effective deck separation for reaching in to perform maintenance above a scene.  If you're willing to accept the compromises in order to get the longer mainline run, I suppose that's OK.

I'm not too familiar with the track arrangement of SP's Bakersfield yard, but I only see a lead on the west end on the plan, and it's very short.  Operating by yourself you may not see an impact from that, but it could be an issue if you want to host multiple crew sessions.

Also, I've operated on layouts where lower-level operators use roll-around chairs.  Even with the apparent three-foot minimum aisles such an arrangement can pose trouble for crew navigation.  It's easy to trip on or around the chairs, especially when an operator is paying more attention to his train than where his next step will be.

As in the other comments above, I don't wish to sound negative.  Provided you are going into this project with your eyes wide open you may be fine.  Good luck.

Actually, I agree with

Actually, I agree with everything you said. The scenery will be OK, but will not convey accurately the rolling hills of Tehachapi. Again I suspect it will be OK, but not great. However, that is the case with almost all of the mutideck layouts I have seen.

If I had the perfect life, I would have a double wide trailer to build this in with walk around all the way through. But I don't. I have a garage and a converted patio. Someday, this will be different.

Thank you for you post. Again, i don't disagree with anything you hav e said.

Jim