Author Topic: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread  (Read 346638 times)

Richard "Steam" Symmes

  • Museum Member
  • Fireman
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
Re: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread
« Reply #1110 on: October 20, 2019, 10:46:39 AM »
Bigger things have been done before in many places.  As many have said, all it takes is "will" and lots of money.  How much of the ROW in that area was in the Percival holdings? 
  I think of the bridging of I-93 over the White Mountain Central ROW at Lincoln, NH, and the new ROW / highway location at Conway, NH which shifted the former MeC Mountain Division a bit.  Things CAN be done, but everyone's interests have to be considered. That's the tough part.

Mike Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Superintendent
  • ********
  • Posts: 4,730
    • View Profile
Re: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread
« Reply #1111 on: October 20, 2019, 06:50:49 PM »
I have learned to never say never.  It is amazing what can happen when local political will is exercised.  Moving a road over 30 feet for a 1/4-1/3 of a mile is not that hard.

Street running..
Mike
Doing way too much to list...

John Kokas

  • Museum Member
  • Inspector
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,391
    • View Profile
Re: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread
« Reply #1112 on: October 20, 2019, 07:03:00 PM »
Dang Mike,  why didn't I think of that !!!!  The Welsh Highland does it on their line, and it's right in the middle of town.  Count on you to be thinking outside the box... ;)
Moxie Bootlegger

Keith Taylor

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 649
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
Re: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread
« Reply #1113 on: October 21, 2019, 08:10:53 AM »
And there is still the issue of the missing bridge over the Sheepscot river before reaching Rt. 194.


John Kokas

  • Museum Member
  • Inspector
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,391
    • View Profile
Re: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread
« Reply #1114 on: October 21, 2019, 08:29:27 AM »
I seem to remember the same being said about Trout Brook...……….  Never say never...…………..  But let's get to Head Tide station first!
Moxie Bootlegger

Allan Fisher

  • Museum Member
  • Brakeman
  • ***
  • Posts: 187
    • View Profile
Re: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread
« Reply #1115 on: October 21, 2019, 11:15:19 AM »
Altho we need the property just across Hide Tide Road (used to be called the Red House) and the property between the Station Lot and the town line (which is owned by someone that would probably consider selling to us) the next stretch of ROW in Whitefield is owned by one of our member's family trusts with four or five relatives involved who are against ever allowing anyone to spoil their access to the River.
Allan Fisher

Ted Miles

  • Museum Member
  • Hostler
  • ***
  • Posts: 223
    • View Profile
Re: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread
« Reply #1116 on: October 21, 2019, 12:26:03 PM »
I think that Head Tide would be a great place to make the northern terminal of the railway. There would be a manned station building there and the historic church is another historic site to draw visitors.

It would mean moving buildings off the right of way and building a station building replica. As other folks have said, "Never say Never" Look what we have done in the last 30 years.

Ted Miles, WW&F member

James Patten

  • Administrator
  • Superintendent
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,626
  • Loco for 6
    • View Profile
Re: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread
« Reply #1117 on: October 21, 2019, 01:37:36 PM »
Baby steps.  These last two years have been the giant leap because of the time limit on the shore land zoning application.

Can we do a Head Tide extension?  I have no doubt we can?  Should we?  Maaayyyybeee...but not right away.  Lots of stuff to consider.

Mike Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Superintendent
  • ********
  • Posts: 4,730
    • View Profile
Re: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread
« Reply #1118 on: October 21, 2019, 01:59:31 PM »
 I said it Saturday night at the Board Meeting and will say it here. My biggest relief of the last 3 years was when track made it across the bridge. It has been a huge undertaking to do what we have done, and done it ourself. A lot of work. Planning, permits, tree clearing, construction, and finally track laying.

Either way we expand now we can expect more of the same. We will be heavily permitted. The track laying is easy. The prep is what takes the time.
Mike
Doing way too much to list...

Jeff Schumaker

  • Museum Member
  • Conductor
  • *****
  • Posts: 960
    • View Profile
Re: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread
« Reply #1119 on: October 22, 2019, 07:14:12 AM »
Well said, Mike.

Jeff S.
Hey Rocky, watch me pull a moose trout out of my hat.

Eric Bolton

  • Switchman
  • **
  • Posts: 89
    • View Profile
Re: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread
« Reply #1120 on: October 22, 2019, 01:29:23 PM »
More track is great and all but the question always needs to be asked will more track be a benefit or a detriment to the museum and it's other efforts. My opinion (for what that is worth) it is not worth taking on all that is involved with crossing 218 UNLESS the railroad can be sure they can get all the way to the Head Tide station site. Taking on installing a crossing and transitioning to FRA regs just doesn't seem worth it if the railroad ends less then a mile passed 218 in a cut short of the original station site. Crossing 218 will be no small task as I know most here realize but for those who aren't in the know a crossing  built to modern specs over a public road will cost close to if not $1 million. Also modern standards would have to be followed. The FRA and DOT make no acception in my experience for the use of older equipment. That is a massive undertaking and crossing a public road with heavy truck traffic adds a whole new level of risk to factor into things as well. I run freight trains for a living and I can assure you short of putting up concrete barriers that pop up out of the road you are running the risk of crossing incidents. It's a classic example of do the pros outweigh the cons? I would love to see the railroad cross 218 but that's a much more complicated discussion than "we need to keep the momentum and interest if expanding track going." Again just my opinion.

Eric Bolton
« Last Edit: October 22, 2019, 01:30:55 PM by Eric Bolton »
Trainmaster/Designated Supervisor of Locomotive Engineers
Pennsylvania Northeastern Railroad

Jon Chase

  • Museum Member
  • Gandy Dancer
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread
« Reply #1121 on: October 22, 2019, 04:08:42 PM »
Doesn't the museum own an easement over the trackbed (I hesitate to redundantly say "an easement over the right of way") northward from the end of the section owned in fee simple that ends in the middle of the cut, as far as the former crossing location at Head Tide Road?  I'm pretty sure there have been forum posts or newsletter articles in the past so indicating, and reports of occasional work to keep the easement area clear of brush.

From observation, the Head Tide crossing location, where the road itself appears to have been lowered by about four feet following track removal, seems to be about as close as the railroad got, in terms of walking distance, to Head Tide village.  Based on historical photos, the station itself was actually a fair distance further away.  Food for thought, as it seems to confirm that Route 218 remains the major challenge to reaching Head Tide in a meaningful location, not the existence of some property boundary within the cut. On the other hand, the numerous physical and other impediments to going on further to the original station site could well take many years to overcome, if ever, and ironically result in apparently-poorer pedestrian access to the historic village.  Making the nebulous possibility of one day gaining access all the way to the original station site the defining threshold for doing anything else is antithetical to the way planning, permitting, and fundraising processes all work - in effect, "we'll think about it someday."

However, I completely agree that the discussion of pros and cons of any extension in either direction is much more complicated than building more track just for the sake of doing so, in order to keep momentum and interest going. "We build track because we build track" is not a museum mission statement.


Fred Morse

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 585
    • View Profile
Re: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread
« Reply #1122 on: October 22, 2019, 04:51:36 PM »
We can build plenty of track without having to cross any roads. Theres will be a lot of repairs and ties to change for the next few years also. If we do want to cross a road, going south would be easier,

Bill Piche

  • Museum Member
  • Hostler
  • ***
  • Posts: 281
    • View Profile
Re: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread
« Reply #1123 on: October 22, 2019, 05:33:55 PM »
Operationally it makes more sense to build south, too. If you move the runaround switch south of the road and double track across the street (why cross just once when you can cross TWICE?) you can park the whole trainset at the platform and not have to re-position in order to run around.

You can also borrow a page out of the playbook of some other railroads and make the south track long enough for a full trainset to be able to be able to pass a standing train that's at the platform. You would pull the whole train south of the road then push back into the station (much more efficient than the current method of using the turntable for runarounds).
Engineer/Fireman, MNGRR/WW&F
"Any day with steam is a good day." - me

Wayne Laepple

  • Museum Member
  • Supervisor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,867
    • View Profile
Re: Mountain Extension - Official Work Thread
« Reply #1124 on: October 22, 2019, 05:35:31 PM »
Fred nails it!!