Author Topic: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?  (Read 17729 times)

Russ Nelson

  • Museum Member
  • Switchman
  • **
  • Posts: 56
    • View Profile
Re: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?
« Reply #45 on: October 14, 2017, 08:11:20 PM »
My apologies for not being able to give credit where credit is due, but a fellow standing next to me suggested that if we had a chute that guided the stone from the side of the flat into the gauge, that would let us unload the stone flats in record time. I added a few suggestions, like the chute should have wheels and ride on the rail head, and should be repositionable from one stake pocket to another.

But on my way home, I reconsidered that. On a day when you're laying ties and rails, you've got a lot of people. They can empty the stone train faster than it can be loaded, with six people to a side. I agree with my anonymous maker friend that it would be faster, but in terms of the system as a whole, it's an efficiency that's not needed.

A better efficiency, having laid track on both the Mill Spur on Saturday and the Main Line on Sunday, would be to get the grade as close to lined as possible. The Mill Spur was pretty darned flat. The Main Line was not, having had recently been culverted and filled with rip-rap.  I realize the world is not a perfect place, and that some improvements are already understood even if not always implementable. I'm just voting for a smooth railbed as my favorite.
« Last Edit: October 15, 2017, 12:29:57 AM by Russ Nelson »

Joe Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,173
    • View Profile
Re: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?
« Reply #46 on: October 14, 2017, 10:08:30 PM »
Bill, yes I believe to original railroads record was a half mile.

Carl G. Soderstrom

  • Museum Member
  • Fireman
  • ****
  • Posts: 418
    • View Profile
Re: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?
« Reply #47 on: October 16, 2017, 12:07:47 AM »
To read more about the track laying race read:

"Nothing Like It In The World"

It was a bet between The CP & The UP. There was considerable staging.
The CP waited till the UP had less than 10 miles to the meeting point so they could not
duplicate the feat.
The CP even took an hour for lunch.


Bill Sample

  • Museum Member
  • Fireman
  • ****
  • Posts: 329
    • View Profile
Re: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?
« Reply #48 on: October 18, 2017, 10:19:21 AM »
Somewhat related to Russ Nelson's comments on directing ballast into the gauge - occasionally we have had one or two ballast handlers on the flat car - usually after it's partially emptied - pushing stone off the side with someone on the ground holding a shovel up in front of them to reflect and direct the stone under the car. This does make life easier for the ground crew.  It does take coordination and doesn't work where the car's trucks are located.

Mike Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Superintendent
  • ********
  • Posts: 4,578
    • View Profile
Re: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?
« Reply #49 on: October 18, 2017, 02:54:25 PM »
I had thought of a simple deflector that hung on the stake pockets, but never got any further than the design in my head. Very simple.
Mike
Doing way too much to list...

Dave Rossi

  • Museum Member
  • Engine Wiper
  • Posts: 5
  • Brakeman in training - Life member
    • View Profile
Re: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?
« Reply #50 on: November 02, 2017, 04:45:46 PM »
As I have been fond of saying about track laying in the past: "You couldn't pay me enough to do this work, but, I'll volunteer!"

Been a long time since I've been up...  Hope to remedy that over winter. 

Countdown: 604 days -till I retire...

Joe Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,173
    • View Profile
Re: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?
« Reply #51 on: November 09, 2017, 07:03:57 PM »
As Russ, and many other often say during a work weekend, they would love to build as much track per day as possible any day, rather than shovel stone. A new way to ballast would be very helpfull for both track building and maintenance. Shoveling, even at my young age, kills the wrists and finding an easier way to ballast would not offend any of our volunteers.

Bill Baskerville

  • Museum Member
  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,051
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
Re: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?
« Reply #52 on: November 09, 2017, 07:15:26 PM »
In reviewing our track activities, setting ties and moving and laying rail are both team tasks.  Joint bars is hard on those who have trouble getting down and back up, but not physically tiring.  Unloading ballast from the flat cars, to me, isn't that difficult or exhausting, again a team effort.  I think the hardest thing we do with new track is driving spikes.  Second would be dressing the ballast.  Digging out old ballast to change a tie is probably the most difficult task we routinely take on.
~ B2 ~ Wascally Wabbit & Gofer ~

Joe Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,173
    • View Profile
Re: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?
« Reply #53 on: November 09, 2017, 11:24:24 PM »
Spiking is exhausting, but I am voicing what is commonly heard from the workers. My favorite comment, "you know Joe we wouldn't feel hurt at all if your dad or others build us a hopper car"

Ira Schreiber

  • Museum Member
  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,076
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
Re: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?
« Reply #54 on: November 10, 2017, 01:02:59 AM »
I had started a push for a replica Portland Company hopper car over 8 years ago. I still have not pushed hard enough.
Ira

John Scott

  • Museum Member
  • Baggageman
  • **
  • Posts: 109
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
Re: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?
« Reply #55 on: November 10, 2017, 05:49:53 AM »
Ira, do you know of a drawing or photograph?

Jason M Lamontagne

  • Operating Volunteers
  • Inspector
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,334
    • View Profile
Re: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?
« Reply #56 on: November 10, 2017, 06:27:31 AM »
We have Portland Co drawings for the hopper.  I’ve wanted this for a good 15 years; in fact as originally envisioned, flatcar 126 was going to be a PoCo hopper.  Needless to say, the project changed direction.

We’ve turned down a handful of steel hopper proposals in favor of a WW&F historically based hopper- someday.

See ya
Jason

John Kokas

  • Museum Member
  • Inspector
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,290
    • View Profile
Re: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?
« Reply #57 on: November 10, 2017, 07:01:05 AM »
Looking at all the trackwork upcoming, I would think that the hopper construction would get bumped up the priority list.  Maybe the BOD should take a fresh look at this requirement.
Moxie Bootlegger

Bill Baskerville

  • Museum Member
  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,051
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
Re: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?
« Reply #58 on: November 10, 2017, 08:31:44 AM »
In thinking of John's comment, perhaps the hopper car should move ahead of the tank car.
~ B2 ~ Wascally Wabbit & Gofer ~

Jason M Lamontagne

  • Operating Volunteers
  • Inspector
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,334
    • View Profile
Re: Improved Efficiencies & Mechanization for Track Building?
« Reply #59 on: November 10, 2017, 08:47:15 AM »
There is more at play which would affect this decision, including desired fire protection on the Mountain extension (and entire line), and the availability of components which are more conducive to the tank car project.

All are relevant topics...

Jason