W.W.&F. Discussion Forum
July 25, 2017, 11:37:25 AM *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Notice: Chasing our tales.
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: Why a WYE  (Read 1407 times)
Ed Lecuyer
Moderator, WW&F Forum
Administrator
Supervisor
*****
Posts: 1,744



View Profile WWW
« on: September 16, 2010, 02:32:34 AM »

MODERATORS NOTE:
Why a WYE has been converted from the pre-July 2008 WW&F Discussion Forum.
Some formatting may have been removed or modified from the original postings that appear quoted in this topic.
Information contained within this post may be superseded by more recent postings and conversations.

Ira Schreiber wrote:
Quote
I thought you might like to see the WYE built by the Bucksgahuda & Western in PA.
Pretty compact but a lot of fill was required.

http://home.alltel.net/bandw/
Click on WYE

Ira in CO

Mike Fox replied:
Quote
Ira,
That is ok for them but it would take a lot more room for us to construct a wye. Their cars look toy like and probably can handle a sharper radius. For instance, look at the caboose or hopper car pictures they have and the wheels are a lot smaller. Ours are larger and set up into the car so if they were to take a corner like that the wheels would hit on the beams or the coupler box.
Mike

Stewart Rhine replied:
Quote
Ira,  A "North end" wye would be good once there is a turntable at Sheepscot.  It would be great to have the engine facing forward in both directions but the biggest problem is land.  You need alot of land to construct a wye that would suit our motive power and rolling stock.  As Mike said our cars would have a longer turning radius.  Now, if we decide that we will only turn the engines it still doesn't change things.  As you know, a Forney is a rigid frame critter.  Turning number 9 would take a good sized wye.  Wayne could tell the correct size and radius. When we build a number 7 (of course I'd like to see a number 6!) that adds a pony trucked engine to the stable.  I don't know where we would have enough room to build a correct sized wye around Head Tide / 218 unless we got alot more land.   I'm not saying that I don't want to see it happen but it would be costly.

Stewart

Wayne Laepple replied:
Quote
I agree that a wye at the north end (Route 218) would be cool, but I'm not certain there is enough land up there to build one. Just by my back-of-the- envelope calculations, it would require a piece of land at least 150 by 150 feet adjacent to the right of way, based on a 20 degree curve (287-foot radius) on both legs of the wye. Unfortunately, the land on the east side of the right of way adjacent to Route 218 would require a large amount of fill before track could be laid. A turntable at that end, on the other hand, could be constructed within the confines of our 66-foot right of way

Mike Fox replied:
Quote
I think a Turntable or a wye should only be installed at the north end when we have reached as far as possible. I myself think an armstrong turntable would look awfull nice next to 218.
Mike

Ira Schreiber replied:
Quote
I guess that the wye should be constructed at Weeks Mills, when we get there.
The more I think about it, the less I like the idea, especially at Rte.218. Just takes up too much room. Maybe when we get to Head Tide there we be enough land for a wye.
Ira Schreiber

Stewart Rhine replied:
Quote
Mike has a good point that a turntable at 218 would work (and look) great.  A wooden bridge, patterned after the one at Wiscasset would give visitors an idea of what the WW&F used.  We would only have to build an approach lead and set a center bearing.  The land around it just has to smoothed out enough for the crew to safely walk while pushing the bridge.  A turntable with this plan could be moved once the line is extended farther North.  As to building a WYE anywhere near the Head Tide area, the need fill would probably not be allowed by DEP.

Once we get to Route 218 we must make a decision such as:(1) crossing 218 and continuing North, (2) stoping there and then building South from Sheepscot, (3) stop building the mainline of the railroad, or (4) try another plan ... First a few facts - The state and FRA would require extensive warning signals with overhead flashers for the 218 crossing.  There would also have to be an early warning remote flasher at the top of the hill, South of the crossing.  This crossing would probably cost over $450,000.  There was one like this built on the Maryland Midland when I was there in 1992 and it cost over $125,000 back then.  Without state or federal grant monies we could not afford the crossing.

If we do not build the crossing, it does not stop us from building track on the other side of 218.  I think we should build on the available land up into the Head Tide cut.  We could then run track car trips on this scenic part of the line.  Case in point - The East Broad Top has recently cleared about a half mile of it's original mainline South of the Rock Hill Furnace yard.  No train has been on this trackage since 1956 but the railroad now gives track car rides for $2or $3.  People loaded onto the cars at a location down in the yard, so the cars did not have to cross the main road.  The last time Cindy and I were there, about as many people rode the track car trips as rode the steam train.  This is something we could offer our visitors as an added experience.  I think it would do well.

Stewart

Ira Schreiber replied:
Quote
Based on my initial research, the State of Maine would control the crossing throught the highway department. Only cross bucks are required for a minimal operation such as ours. Hand flagging would be highly desired.
When any form of automatic device is used, i.e. lights, bells, gates, the FRA steps in. If there are none of these, it is only between us and the State of Maine.
I have the documention outling this, from both the State of Maine and FRA.
Ira Schreiber

John McNamara replied:
Quote
I'm pretty sure that to avoid FRA juristiction, your railroad must be:

1. "Insular," i.e. not connected to, or within x feet, of another railway,

2. Not crossing a public hroad.

At present, the WW&F meets both of these requirements. However, crossing either Cross Road or Route 218, regardless of whether crossbucks or flashers were used, would put us under FRA juristiction.

Stewart Rhine replied:
Quote
John and Ira,  Thanks for the input.  I know the state and FRA would be involved with any type of crossing at Rt 218.  They would also be involved if we cross the Cross Road.   Let's use the EBT as an example.  They  cross some town roads, and are only using cross bucks.  Of course their track was never lifted which gives them a grandfathered crossing.  As John said they are insular as they do not connect with a common carrier railroad.  They are however under FRA rules for track and motive power.  Their Shade Gap Branch was recently extended (for the streetcar museum) down to - but not across Rt 522. That road, like 218 is a higher speed route with truck traffic.   I was told that the crossing would have cost close to $450.000 with the flashers and early warning system.  This is an instance where an insular railroad would have been required to build a highly protected crossing.  The streetcar museum informed the state that the crews would have stopped and proceeded with a flagman but it did not change things.  This is because of the speed limit and the truck traffic on 522.  As you know 218 has alot of gravel trucks on it every day.  This fact would put our 218 crossing in the same class as the EBT's proposed Shade Gap Branch crossing.

Stewart

Ira Schreiber replied:
Quote
Yes, John is correct, but the regulation applies only to the crossing, as I understand it.
That said, it would require alot of $$, which we don't have, and a moot point for at least two years. I am in favor of going north, but only if we can overcome the $$. There MAY be government funds to underwrite the bulk of the cost, but we have several years to research out that part.
On another note, I, too, like the idea of jumping 218 and building the next section.
Will the Trout(Carlson)Brook trestle be an exact replica of the original quarter truss?. If so, material should start to be gathered up. I know we have some large bridge timbers and these may be the start.
Ira Schreiber

John McNamara replied:
Quote
Yes, the crossing is what's important, but my understanding is that once you have a crossing over a public road, you are an FRA railroad. As such, there are various procedures that have to be followed throughout your railroad, such as documented periodic inspections of the equipment, documented crew qualifications, etc. Eventual FRA compliance is part of the Long Range Plan, per the last paragraph of the "Railroad Operations" section (page 6).

ETSRRCo replied:
Quote
I'm working for an FRA railroad now. I got my rule books last weekend. All six of them.. I swear one is over 100 pages. That isn't that bad except for the fact that you must have them on you at all times while on the railroad. You can get suspended for that.  Would the train have to be equipped with an automatic train braking system (aka air brakes)? I know the coach would be OOS right away because it has no brakes at all (unless hand brakes have been installed). Rumors are floating around that in a few years it wont matter. All railroads will be under FRA. So do yourselves a favor and get as close as you can as soon as possible. If anything it will make you look better in their eyes if you volunteer to become FRA. Also the gentlemen above was correct in saying that if you connect with or are 60ft from an FRA railroad you fall under FRA. However there are ways around that as well if you are say a plant or industrial railroad operating on your own property. Bottom line is if you touch the road "Big Brother" steps in and it gets really expensive. From what I have been told about crossing all of your estimates are low. You must take into consideration that you have to rip up the road, install track, electronic circuits, heavy rail, signals with gates, signal boxes, and replace the road. The railroad has to pay for all of that including the road repairs. Your looking in the $400K-$500K range after you factor in having to pay someone to do it all cause volunteers can't do that and the road will more then likely have to be back in service the same day or the next.

-Eric

John McNamara replied:
Quote
I agree with Eric; it would take a lot of money to build a suitable crossing. I guess that's what is so attractive about Stewart's suggestion of continuing on the other side with a seperate piece of railroad where one would run just a railcar.

How about this bizarre idea - imagine a railcar that is a Model T equipped as a hi-rail vehicle. You operate it on rails from Alna Center to 218, crank down the rubber tires, and convert back to rail operation on the other side. Of course it would have to be licensed for highway use.

Having hi-rail capability would also enable one to change direction easily by simply having a crossing at each end of the run where you could lower the tires, perform a K-turn, and re-rail.

I'm kidding, I'm kidding!  

Wayne Laepple replied:
Quote
Here's something else to consider: by the time the rails reach the vicinity of Route 218, the line will be around 3.5 miles long. That will be more than enough railroad to maintain, believe me. It's great fun and very exciting to build new track, but when it comes to changing out defective ties, raising joints, cutting brush, and all the other maintenance that comes with owning and opertaing a railroad, you'll find that just isn't as much fun. Just ask the "regulars" who are trying now to maintain the 2 miles we currently have.

As far as building a crossing over Route 218, who among us wants to get out there with a flag and try to stop a tri-axle loaded with gravel? I've flagged traffic on major highways, and you are very vulnerable. I've had many close calls, had beer cans (empty and full) thrown at me, been clipped by a side mirror, and had to leap into the ditch more than once! It just isn't worth it. And if a loaded tri-axle and our train tangle, the tri-axle will win! Even with gates and lights, such a crossing would be not be completely safe.

Stephen Hussar replied:
Quote
But...
By the time the railroad reaches Rt.218, the possibility exists that the membership will have doubled....

Mike Fox replied:
Quote
Stewarts Idea is a good one. Ride north on the train, get off at 218, walk across 218 and pump your way to end of track, (or ride a replica railcar), while the engine is turned and heards south. Then, one could take their time, probably 1.5 hrs for the next train by then, and explore the grade and Headtide cut. Even walk up to the church from the rails.
Mike

Stewart Rhine replied:
Quote
Dave,  You bring up a good point which I forgot to mention in the previous post.  The Brookville and small work flats would be taken up to the new area.  Once the remaining trees are cut off of the grade, the area where it approaches 218 would be a staging area for track materials.  We would start building the track about 90 feet in from the road.  A truck and trailer could back right onto the grade to unload ties and rail.

Also, a good portion of the grade is right next to 218.  There are a couple of pull-offs between the road and grade where ties could be unloaded from a truck to a waiting work flat or placed right onto the grade after it has been graded.  We may even be able to do this without the Brookville since everything would be arriving by truck.   I don't remember the grade in this section but the crew would be able to push any work flat with ties or rail.  The ballast would be the only problem - unless we have some type of small ballast car by then we would have to use tip cars or bring up one of our flat cars which is alot more work.

Another possibility is to spread the stone on the grade before placing ties and rail.  If this was done with a Bobcat, etc. then the grade would be all set for track laying.  Once the rails are down, stone is filled in around the ties with whatever car we use.  At least we would be hauling and shoveling less stone to complete the ballasting.

Stewart

Stewart Rhine replied:
Quote
I have enjoyed the discussion of what we should do when the track reaches 218, and everyone has seen what I think about it.   The thing to remember is before any of this happens we must build a 90 foot bridge at the Trout/Carlton Brook.  Ira asked about it's proposed construction type.  I think we should build a queen post span like the original but hide steel beams in the center, under the running rails.  The abutments cannot be like the original stone-filled wooden cribbing.  The new abutments will probably have to be poured concrete.  DEP will probably require an Environmental Impact Study on the area before anything is built.  As an example - a section of the original Maryland & Penna. RR line was approved for a TEA-21 grant to repair existing bridge abutments and a wash out.  The permit process took about 3 years.  The 5 mile section of the line is insular and the Historical Society runs track cars on it now.  The bridge abutments had to be rebuilt by a DEP approved contractor at a time of year that would not effect the fish.

I hope we have an easier time of it than the M&P Society!
Stewart

John McNamara replied:
Quote
Here's a picture of how we did it ten years ago. The ballast was indeed pre-spread. The location shown is just north of what is now Stockford's Crossing. Characters are Jason, John Bradbury, James, Fred, and Harry.


James Patten replied:
Quote
Regarding building track down the Mountain, it's my opinion that we should build ALL of it down the mountain before going back and ballasting.  Then the ideal situation would be to ballast from the bottom up, so that gravity will work for us in stopping us, whereas if we work from the top down gravity is working against us.

Regarding John's picture from 10 years ago - before we put any track down I remember putting ballast down on the ground using someone's dump body truck.  It wasn't your standard dump truck, because this had a home-built shallow wood dump.  We'd fill it with stone at Sheepscot, back all the way down to the end, and the truck would start dumping.

That was the only time we did it that way.  After that when we started going around the curve, we tried preballasting using the little tip car and temp track.  It was a slow way to do it, and rather awkward too.  Once we got beyond the curve we just put ties on the bare ground and ballasted afterward.

Dave Buczkowski replied:
Quote
Which brings up another question, won't we need a flat car and locomotive to lay the rail and ballast it if we skip over 218? Or does someone have a 2 foot hi-rail dump truck?
Dave

John McNamara replied:
Quote
For anyone interested in another photo of how we handled ballast in the "bad old days," here is another. This one is from August 1995.  Ballast was shoveled into the wheelbarrow, which was then run up the ramp at the left end of the work flat and dumped. I believe that the cast of characters is Roger Whitney, Frank Paul, Jeff Schumacher, and Jason Lamontagne.
Logged

Ed Lecuyer
Moderator, WW&F Forum
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2006-2008, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!