What to do at TOM

[Joe Fox]

The siding at TOM, is fairly level, or at least that is how it appeared the last time I was there. Shortly after the woods crossing, the main starts to go down hills, showing evidence of a very steep grade. I don't understand what everybody is concerned with for the 1. something back up move south to Alna Center. I would much rather see that, so that the railroad grade at TOM remains the way it was back when the railroad was in its glory in the early 1900's.

As far as spring switches, I personally would much rather to not see any ever exist on the railroad. Working with them at Conway, and seeing videos of Strasburg, they are very dangerous. I have heard of equipment going on the ground because of them, and also, if you have a spring switch, its been my experience, that the train crew doesn't look at the points, even though they are supposed. No offense to the museum or anything, but I personally feel that if spring switches are to be used, then I will stop being a member of the train crew. They may be faster and easier, but I just dont like them. Get down and throw the switch, and the funny thing is that the ones that want spring switches are the ones that aren't going to be throwing them.

[Pete "Cosmo" Barrington]

Ok,...
(wow, I go away for what was supposed to be 2+1/2 weeks, then turns into about 6 weeks and look what happens!)
I see a lot of good points in this discussion.
As far as spring vs non-sprung switches and or crossovers goes, there's an easy solution....
go with what we know WORKS now! The crews are used to the backup moves from AC already, so why change that? Why change the original config of the siding? I admit, the idea of a runaround SOUNDS neat, but would the added work and the questionable safety be worth it? Granted, it's not for me to say, but my vote would be "When in doubt, refer to the original manufacturer's specs!"
Maybe that's just the Navy in me, I dunno.
As for the tank and the fire train, I thik someone (Paul Horkey) is onto something here, but here's how I'd do  (or try to do) it:
1) Fix the "spare" tank and maybe line it with plastic or add metal (weld/rivet?) to it or both, but "make it fast." (and by "fast" I mean the Naval term for "secure", not the common term for "expediant."  )
2) Once the siding is in place at TOM, place the tank convenient to the siding.
3) Dig a well for a pump, ala the Sheepscot WT, and use the "spare" tank to store water for filling the B&H tank, and possibly locomotives if.when needed. (I'm anticipating this could be a right-handy arangement once steam locomotives start working the Mountain grade.)
4) Station the fire train at TOM durring the times of highest fire-danger (as was previously suggested.)
5)Drain the tank at the end of each summer, prior to the freeze.

Well, that's my $0.02 worth. Mere opinion, far from "Law."

[John McNamara]

Cosmo-

Rather than drill a well at TOM, how about filling the B&H tank at Sheepscot, running it to TOM, and using a gasoline powered pump to transfer the water to the stationary tank for the "seasonal fill". All other steps the same as you suggest.

-John

[Pete "Cosmo" Barrington]

Well, that's a possibility too.... but...
do you mean using water from the tank at Sheepscot?
I guess that's plenty do-able, but I'd at least explore the well possibility first.
And since the statioary tank is supposed to be there to support filling the tankcar,... seem's kinda superflouous...
but then, so does hauling a bunch of folks into the woods just to turn around and bring them back. 

[Ken Fleming]

Another thought on TOM.  We all realize that going beyond TOM is going to be several years and many dollars away.  If having a run around at TOM is not practical,  then why not have a "temporary" run around as close to TOM as the ROW permits?  It can be removed in five or more years, when Head Tide is reached.  This would keep Alna Center open for two train operation, provide engine first operation for almost entire operating track and still leave room at TOM for tank car and with spur at TOM, place for work trains.  We could run engine first to EOT, then back only short distance to temporary run around.  Return to Sheepscot engine first with meet, if necessary, at Alna Center.  Picture a #9 train meeting a #10 train at Alna Center, both running engine first.  The siding itself could use some of the lighter rail that we all ready have.  After all this just another thought, don't kill the messenger!

[James Patten]

At Friday night's board meeting the vote was to restore the Top of the Mountain as it was - with a single siding, one switch.

[Ira Schreiber]

Good decision as it stops all the "what if's" from many sources.
Now, what is the timetable for TOM?

[Mike Fox]

Misinterpreted post. Removed by author

[Ed Lecuyer]

I'd like to thank the BOD for considering all of the options that were presented both in this discussion forum, and by the other members. As a non-BOD member, I appreciate the time, care, and dedication that goes into making decisions that affect the entire railway. It is also appreciated that the BOD has chosen to announce this decision via the discussion forum - so to end the speculation as to what we should or should not build at TOM.

Now that the decision has been settled, let's all look forward to building to the TOM and beyond.

[Mike Fox]

I had envisioned a plan for the train to stop on the siding, uncouple the engine and run around the train. This would be the safest way to do the runing around if at all possible so the cars are in a safe location, in a spot with less of a grade than Alna Center. Cars won't roll uphill, and on the siding, it is uphill in either direction. As has been pointed out before, TOM will probably be the stopping point for passengers for several years, while we repair the washout and install the bridge.
   Laying the track in it's original location has been part of my thought all along. Remove the switches when we reach a new end to be used in another temporary runaround.
   So, to the Board, Thanks for the early decision. We know where you stand and it gives me plenty of time to make my case.

[Ken Fleming]

I agree with the BOD decision as to "restoring" the railway to its original ROW and track plan.  I however there is a lot of difference between restoration and reality.  Having a operable track plan until we are ready to restore makes sense, also.  We have two wash outs, a landslide, one very big bridge to build and the problems of getting the FRA's blessings to cross route 218.  Any switches used would move to Head Tide.  Five or more years of smooth operation while "restoration" takes place would make real revenue sense.  I agree with you Mike, but spitting into the wind, only gets one wet.

[Matthew Gustafson]

Mike, perhaps it was you. I don't recall. Who ever made the suggestion, this is what I came up with that will best fit the location without changing the grade and enabling us to return the siding to it's original configuration at a later date with minimal effort. The crossover is only temporary and can be removed once another is installed farther North. The clearances still need to be checked and this is only a suggestion. I roughly put in the camp road and all locations are not final. Subject to approval from the roadmaster.

Nice idea Mike. I think this is a great idea. 

[Tom Casper]

I need to nit pick on labeling.  Sidings have switches at both ends, Spurs don't so that is the spur at TOM.

Tom C.

[Allan Fisher]

Afraid you have possibly used a local or regional definition - but google the standard dictionaries and railroad definition books, and you will see that siding can be used to define either a passing siding or a siding to set off cars.

A Spur can be a branch line, a track to set off cars for an industry, or a siding.