Author Topic: Crossing 218  (Read 401 times)

Troy Congdon

  • Engine Wiper
  • Posts: 8
    • View Profile
Crossing 218
« on: July 21, 2016, 01:19:40 PM »
I have no idea if this has any value to the WW&F but maybe?

http://boston.craigslist.org/sob/mat/5680612782.html

They have a rubber railroad crossing for sale. If 218 or Cross road were to be crossed at the museum's expense or if there were value in a rubber crossing elsewhere on campus, this is a cheap albait standard gague one.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 07:05:35 PM by Ed Lecuyer »

John Kokas

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 706
    • View Profile
Re: Crossing 218
« Reply #1 on: July 21, 2016, 03:33:59 PM »
The problem with the rubber traffic crossing pads is their thickness.  They are designed to bolt on top of the ties and to match the height of the rail, this would require 123 or 132 lb rail.  Ours is way smaller, 56 lb.  If my memory is correct that would work out to about 4 3/4 to 5 inches (incl. tie plates).  Nice idea, but probably more trouble than they are worth.

Mike Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Superintendent
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,316
    • View Profile
Re: Crossing 218
« Reply #2 on: July 21, 2016, 03:58:44 PM »
Actual crossing design may require heavier rail. Depends on the State engineers.
Another thing is cost. We thrive on donations...(hint hint)
Mike
Doing way too much to list...

Ira Schreiber

  • Museum Member
  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,071
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
Re: Crossing 218
« Reply #3 on: July 22, 2016, 01:22:48 AM »
The rail and track expert at the Colorado Railroad Museum said that no lighter than 115# rail should be used in our 218 crossing. Reason: lighter rail will be pounded to death by the heavy truck traffic. He further stated it is an easy transition from 60# to 90# to 115#. He will even furnish the bars if we do the project.

Dave Crow

  • Museum Member
  • Hostler
  • ***
  • Posts: 296
    • View Profile
Re: Crossing 218
« Reply #4 on: July 22, 2016, 11:08:13 AM »
The Stewartstown Railroad, which uses 60# rail, did just that arrangement when Pennsylvania upgraded the grade crossing with Susquehanna Trail: they transitioned to 90# then to industry standard 115# rail, which most light rail systems use.

Stewart "Start" Rhine

  • Museum Member
  • Trainmaster
  • *******
  • Posts: 2,775
    • View Profile
Re: Crossing 218
« Reply #5 on: July 22, 2016, 12:52:21 PM »
Heavy rail in crossings helps prevent gauge problems from plow trucks.  Some railroads used to run six rails through the crossing with the center rail (of each three) being the running rail.  The outer rail is a plow guard and inside rail is the flange guard.

John Kokas

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 706
    • View Profile
Re: Crossing 218
« Reply #6 on: July 22, 2016, 12:54:51 PM »
Well as Mike said, if we can get the stuff donated (hint hint), then go for it....  If we end up not being able to use it, then I'm sure our able "dickering" members can trade it for something we need.

Benjamin Campbell

  • Switchman
  • **
  • Posts: 66
    • View Profile
Re: Crossing 218
« Reply #7 on: July 22, 2016, 04:11:52 PM »
Actual crossing design may require heavier rail. Depends on the State engineers.
Another thing is cost. We thrive on donations...(hint hint)

Mike - I'm saving up for a generous donation when it comes to crossing 218. That is the milestone I most hope to see.

Ira Schreiber

  • Museum Member
  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,071
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
Re: Crossing 218
« Reply #8 on: October 05, 2017, 06:56:43 PM »
As far as crossing Rt.218.
My track engineering guru say it should have 115# rail due to the gravel trucks.
He said he would donate, when needed, the 60#-90# and 90#- 115# comp joints.

Paul Uhland

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 583
    • View Profile
Re: Crossing 218
« Reply #9 on: October 05, 2017, 09:58:00 PM »
You don't realize the horizontal stress put on crossing rails...at Abq's downtown Lomas Blvd crossing, with, AFAIK, 136 lb former ATSF/now Amtrak-NM Rail Runner rail, you can see the rail is slightly bellied in the direction of auto  traffic. Probably good a 20mph train limit is in effect here due to coming track improvements.
« Last Edit: October 05, 2017, 10:15:47 PM by Paul Uhland »
Paul Uhland

Bob Holmes

  • Museum Member
  • Brakeman
  • ***
  • Posts: 165
    • View Profile
Re: Crossing 218
« Reply #10 on: October 05, 2017, 11:08:04 PM »
Can anyone talk about the regulatory requirements for crossing 218?  I was at both ends of the Belfast and Moosehead Lake RR during last month, and they don't have fancy crossing restrictions.  In fact, most of them were protected only by crossbucks and loco whistling.  Not even a brakeman flagging traffic.

From what very little I understand, we are probably not subject to FRA requirements, but only State of Maine.  I also understand the class of road may be an important factor (218 is a state road).

But it would be great if we don't have to have an electronically protected crossing....

James Patten

  • Global Moderator
  • Trainmaster
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,786
  • Loco for 6
    • View Profile
Re: Crossing 218
« Reply #11 on: October 05, 2017, 11:49:51 PM »
Maine Narrow Gauge in Portland became subject to FRA jurisdiction when they crossed Cutter Street, a very minor road that leads to a public ramp to put in your boat.  The FRA only chose to regulate their steam locomotives. 

Mike Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Superintendent
  • ********
  • Posts: 3,316
    • View Profile
Re: Crossing 218
« Reply #12 on: October 06, 2017, 12:00:54 AM »
Bob,
Usually crossing design is based on several factors, two of which being vehicle traffic and railroad traffic. Where our crossing will be new, the state most likely will determine what we need to do to cross 218.
Mike
Doing way too much to list...