W.W.&F. Discussion Forum

WW&F Railway Museum Discussion => Museum Discussion => Topic started by: Matthew Gustafson on June 12, 2012, 04:15:40 PM

Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Matthew Gustafson on June 12, 2012, 04:15:40 PM
Pardon me to ask this but I cant find the topic about this but does the museum long range plan on crossing Highway 218 and continue rebuilding the ROW until it reachs Head Tide? It seams like a possible objective in the long run with the right amount of money needed?
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Ed Lecuyer on June 12, 2012, 04:28:48 PM
Hi Matt,

Reaching 218 is in the current Long Range plan - which is available for download on the main web site. Going further than that (in either direction) is possible, but would (as you correctly point out) take money and volunteers.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Matthew Gustafson on June 12, 2012, 04:40:55 PM
I see well I thought that if the museum was to go further past Highway 218 to Head Tide since looks like a good reasonable location to stop the rebuilding of the ROW once finish the rebuilding the ROW from the Top Of The Mountain to Highway 218. With the amount of equipment we have now, that would look like a good place to stop the progress north with like you said the right amount of money and volunteers.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: John McNamara on June 13, 2012, 02:07:11 PM
Matthew,

You are correct. Head Tide would be a reasonable stopping place in the distant future. In addition to the manpower and money considerations that have been mentioned, one should also keep in mind the maintenance requirements, especially mowing. While there have been several posts about power mowers, much of our right-of-way contains stumps, rocks, and small gullies, not to mention extremely steep slopes. ROWMOW1 is a good start, but only a start. Another factor to consider is rider  patience. While rail fans love long rides, the average family does not. Lenthening the line is what we all want, as it builds vounteer and visitor enthusiasm, but it is a complicated process involving manpower, money, and the factors that I mentioned

-John
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Matthew Gustafson on August 30, 2012, 03:47:47 PM
I see but there could be the option that there can be two types of trains you can operate in the future (once #9 and possibly #11 are complete restored). You can have the short trip which could operate from Sheepscot Station to Alna Center and back. The you can also have a longer trip that could operate from Sheepscot Station to Head Tide and back. (look at the Virginia & Truckee Railroad operations as a example).
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Pete "Cosmo" Barrington on August 30, 2012, 10:00:02 PM
You could do like the Valley RR and run a dinner train...  ;D


[DUCKS!]  :P
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: John McNamara on August 30, 2012, 11:07:03 PM
I see but there could be the option that there can be two types of trains you can operate in the future (once #9 and possibly #11 are complete restored). You can have the short trip which could operate from Sheepscot Station to Alna Center and back. The you can also have a longer trip that could operate from Sheepscot Station to Head Tide and back. (look at the Virginia & Truckee Railroad operations as a example).
An excellent idea. ;)

-John
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Ted Miles on December 12, 2016, 04:22:29 PM
for those who want to research a crossing of route 218 with gates, flashers etc,

The Connecticut Trolley Museum has been running through a couple of fully equipped crossings for many years. Somebody there might provide exact costs of the whole deal. I suspect that liability insurance will cost much more than the small amount of electrical power used in the signals.

Remember that different State Departments of Transportation might have different regulations.

Ted Miles, WW&F Member
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Wayne Laepple on December 12, 2016, 05:56:50 PM
Because of the acute angle where the track would cross Route 218, very long gates would be necessary. In addition, because Route 218 is a state highway that also receives federal funds, the flashing light system would have to meet current MUTCD standards and the road surface would also have to comply with current standards. Due to the curves approaching the crossing area, additional advance warning signals may be required. My guess, based on my experiences over 20 years of dealing with crossing rehabilitations while working for railroads, is the whole project would cost between $200,000 and $300,000. And then the railroad would have to either employ or contract with a certified signal inspector to make monthly inspections from now until the end of time. You are correct that the electric bill itself would be minuscule in comparison to everything else. Finally, at our current rate of northward expansion, Route 218 is probably at least 8-10 years in the future, and who knows what may happen by then.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Joe Fox on December 12, 2016, 06:58:12 PM
At one point in time we were able to build 1200' of track in one weekend. Hopefully we can continue to build as much as we can each year. I would like to see us reach 218 by 2022.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: John Kokas on December 12, 2016, 07:47:19 PM
I hope that once we reach Head Tide, (short of 218), we focus on going towards Wiscasset.  Reaching there will, IMHO, increase ridership by a factor of at least 5X, maybe more.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Allan Fisher on December 12, 2016, 08:05:57 PM
Sorry John - but going towards Wiscasset will not increase ridership. We own about two miles of right of way to the Wiscasset town line - but there is 1800 feet in the middle of this that we do not own. We own 500 feet of right of way in Wiscasset, but three miles of right of way reverted to the original landowners. And there are three houses built on the right of way with no room to build shoo-flys around them.

SO - getting 2 miles closer to Wiscasset does absolutely nothing to increase ridership.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: John Kokas on December 12, 2016, 08:31:22 PM
Just like the case at TOM, real estate does come up for sale once in a while.  Didn't say it would be easy or done quickly.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Joe Fox on December 12, 2016, 09:22:16 PM
The nice thing is we already have permission and or own up to 218, and we have the rail. Biggest slow downs now will be obstacles such as land slides, wash outs, and a bridge.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Joe Fox on December 12, 2016, 09:24:33 PM
And going south by the big pond would be a nice a scenic view point, but that is about it.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Wayne Laepple on December 12, 2016, 09:57:38 PM
It has been suggested that obtaining a waiver to cross Cross Road at Sheepscot would be a lot easier than crossing Route 218.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Ken Fleming on December 13, 2016, 12:07:02 AM
Weighing the distance that we actually extend ROW South of Cross Road versus falling under FRA rules.  I think staying bounded by 218 (North) and Cross Road gives us nice length Mainline and NO FRA.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Joe Fox on December 13, 2016, 12:22:22 AM
The problem is Ken customers want scenery. And the best scenery lies on either side of a public road. And I actually believe crossing Cross Road would be as simple as two reflective cross bucks and a flagman to protect trains crossing. So in reality crossing Cross Road would be cents on the dollar as compared to crossing 218. However we will not know for sure until that day comes.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Mike Fox on December 13, 2016, 10:32:49 AM
Wayne,
Long gates would not be needed. The signals could be put far enough away from the crossing so the gates are at a 90 degree angle. I have never seen a gate on an angled crossing that comes down parralell to the tracks.

Traffic counts may play into the requirement for signals and gates.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Ira Schreiber on December 13, 2016, 02:12:56 PM
Bear in mind that the local governing body as well as The State of Maine will determine what protection is required. Since service will be very sporadic, it may be as simple as cross bucks and a properly attired flag person. This really makes the most sense, to me.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Wayne Laepple on December 13, 2016, 04:36:38 PM
With the angle at which the track would cross the road, long parallel gates would be necessary. Otherwise it would be too easy for stupid people to drive around the gates!

And just for the record, you'd never get me out in the middle of that road with a flag or a fusee! I've had entirely too many close calls with yahoos who think it's fun to try to scare the flagman.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Joe Fox on December 13, 2016, 06:05:25 PM
Route 218 doesn't have nearly as much traffic as Route 16 in the Conways. I would be very surprised if they require us to have gates. I really think the advance warning lights and red lights would suffice. Only way to find out is when we get there.

And gates usually only go to the yellow center lines, so no matter what, angled rail crossings are easier to swerve around the gates any way. The only real way to prevent that would be quad gates and I know for a fact 218 does not have that kind of traffic.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Bernie Perch on December 13, 2016, 06:11:38 PM
I do not understand why people would want the railroad to cross Rt. 218.  It would increase the ride by about 4 minutes time and once you get beyond the "cut", the fill is cut off by a road which is several feet below the level of the roadbed and someone's depressed back yard is beyond that.  If there was the remote possibility that several more miles could be built beyond the 218 crossing then it could be worth it.

I believe that when the railroad reaches the 218 crossing, the railroad will be long enough to satisfy the average tourist.  Also, track maintenance, especially on the hill is going to be considerable.  Will the next generation be willing to do that kind of work?  At what point will the railroad reach when only all the work will be just maintenance and there will be no time for building.

As far as traffic goes, it takes only one of Wayne's yahoos to do considerable damage.  On our trips up to Maine, he has discussed some of these incidents.

Bernie
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Paul Uhland on December 13, 2016, 06:18:27 PM
The 64-mile, 3-foot gauge Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railroad runs May-October,  crosses NM/CO 2-lane Highway 17 at 4 places, also a forest road, US 285, various unprotected,  private mountain ones.  
The major crossings have only unlit sawbucks, no gates, pavement markings and round crossing warning signs along 17 and at 285.
Used to help flag them.
Gasoline tanker semis never stopped at the crossings, per federal law.
Luckily, never witnessed a serious incident., had a few close calls, though.
 
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Benjamin Campbell on December 13, 2016, 09:00:49 PM
A couple of vintage ‘wig wag’ crossing signals would be awesome (in addition to modern flashers?). I would think that the regulatory powers would be happy with red flashers rather than gates. The Rockland branch is built for relatively high speeds and has very few if any gated crossings.

I imagine that a railroad crossing at such an angle is tough on motorcycles and certainly bicycles. Would it be possible to lower the angle slightly while staying within our right of way?

I totally agree with Joe – scenery is key and some of the nicest stretches we have access to are on either side of the roads in question.  Between 218 and the cut is fabulous and paralleling the road for a stretch won’t hurt either. People love to wave to drivers and vice versa. Great visibility and advertising.

If only to the first bend -  I think it would be great (and educational) to see track south of Cross Road even if we didn’t immediately connect it to the main line. It would give visitors a sense of Sheepscot station being on the mainline rather than a terminus. We could trundle hand cars over the pavement and let visitors experience main line handcar travel down to the beautiful scenery at the bend.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: John McNamara on December 13, 2016, 09:21:29 PM
If only to the first bend -  I think it would be great (and educational) to see track south of Cross Road even if we didn’t immediately connect it to the main line. It would give visitors a sense of Sheepscot station being on the mainline rather than a terminus. We could trundle hand cars over the pavement and let visitors experience main line handcar travel down to the beautiful scenery at the bend.

There has been some talk about installing an isolated stretch of track south from Cross Road. Use of the Model T railar was mentioned, but handcars would be even better, as they are much more portable. :)
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Keith Taylor on December 13, 2016, 09:35:26 PM
How many folks on this list have been involved with a fatal grade crossing incident?
Well I have and it is something you live with for the rest of your life. Do we need to cross a pubic highway just so a tourist can take a scenic photo? And then run the risk of one of our crews having to live with the memory of a serious accident. And I can attest to the fact that we already have a beautiful scenic trip.
Keith
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Joe Fox on December 13, 2016, 11:47:24 PM
The difference is Kieth no matter what we run that risk. Secondly at slow speeds that risk is virtually zero.

The pros far out way the cons. I cross hundreds of crossings every day. All of which have more traffic than 218. Trespassers are far more of a concern than a vehicle ignoring crossing signals or flagman. Rules can always be set into place as well for certain things.

A more pressing issue is new volunteers, etc.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Bill Baskerville on December 14, 2016, 12:46:49 AM
Our crossing either road is, I would guess, at least five years away.  Doing so brings FRA oversight, which is a good operating goal, but actually having it might also bring lots of additional problems.

The suggestion that we build a section South of Cross road for the hand car or even the Model T Rail Car would provide a better solution to give folks additional scenery to visit, and perhaps additional motivation to purchase a second ticket that would not only give them a ride on a different vehicle, but new scenery.  It would also provide something do do between trains as the schedules would no longer be interconnected. 

More importantly, Bernie and Joe have hit key issues.  They both revolve around attracting volunteers.  We already have problems staffing for our current scheduled operating days and special events.  Additionally, we always get a larger turnout for 'new main line pushing north'.  Not so much if we are just maintaining what we have, or building sidings, etc. 

As Joe stated, our most pressing problem is attracting new volunteers to help maintain what we already have and have a larger pool of qualified operating staff.  I wish I knew the solution.  But I would think we need to focus on the next 5 years.

My two cents, and we all know what that is worth.

Bill
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Wayne Laepple on December 14, 2016, 08:22:10 AM
My concern isn't so much that our train might hit a vehicle on a crossing as it is that a vehicle would hit our train. There is a big difference between a 125-ton GP-40 and one of our little teakettles. The only sure protection would be those solid steel gates that rise up out of the pavement, like those that are deployed around some buildings in Washington, D.C.!

However, as some folks have noted, we have plenty of railroad as it is, and finding the people to maintain what we have is a problem even now.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Keith Taylor on December 14, 2016, 08:23:16 AM
The difference is Kieth no matter what we run that risk. Secondly at slow speeds that risk is virtually zero.

The pros far out way the cons. I cross hundreds of crossings every day. All of which have more traffic than 218. Trespassers are far more of a concern than a vehicle ignoring crossing signals or flagman. Rules can always be set into place as well for certain things.

A more pressing issue is new volunteers, etc.
Joe....in my career on the railroad I crossed tens of thousands of grade crossings, but all it takes is one that you will live with forever.
As to slow speed reducing the risk to virtually zero that is just not true. The last fatal accident I was involved with I was going less than five miles per hour when a car ran past the flashing lights. Not only was the woman lost, but her unborn child as well.
 
And another consideration everyone seems to forget...when we come under FRA jurisdiction that will be the end of wooden passenger cars. Wooden under frames were banned early in the Twentieth Century. So virtually ALL of our rolling stock will become useless.

During my time as a Road Foreman of Engines on Conrail I investigated many fatalities and almost all of them were at public crossings at grade.
Keith
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Mike Fox on December 14, 2016, 09:05:39 AM
My estimated timeline for the arrival of rail at Trout Brook is 2020. That is us doing the dirt work. Then there is the bridge. So at minimum, we are 5 years from arriving at 218, and many more years from crossing it.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Benjamin Campbell on December 14, 2016, 09:15:07 AM
There are no wood frame cars crossing public roads anywhere in the US? No special consideration for 'heritage' lines?
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Keith Taylor on December 14, 2016, 09:54:27 AM
There are no wood frame cars crossing public roads anywhere in the US? No special consideration for 'heritage' lines?
There are no wooden framed cars in FRA service anywhere in the US.
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Bernie Perch on December 14, 2016, 10:00:22 AM
Some things that have not been mentioned yet are:  it is my belief that if the FRA really wanted to regulate the WW&F and had the personnel to do it, they could.  If there was a serious enough accident on the railroad guess who would probably investigate.  The railroad carries passengers and I believe that could qualify for FRA oversight.  So far, in some cases, their concern is about the use of steam locomotives.  Someone could add more to this point.

Keith's mention of the wooden underframes being obsolete should bring into consideration that all NEW construction for passenger carrying cars should be built with steel underframes and a welded tubular body frame the way it is done on the WP&Y, across the pond on the many tourist lines in the UK, Puffing Billy down under, etc.  Many of the narrow gauge railroads in these areas had steel underframes under their new cars around the turn of the last century.

The unguarded crossings on the C&TS and on Joe's daily travels have been there for more than 100 years and have been grandfathered in by time.  Most people who live in these areas have lived with these crossings and are generally aware of what is moving on them.  Again, there are people out there without a clue.  Several years ago someone PARKED on the R & N's mainline crossing near my house.  "Oh, I didn't think those tracks were used anymore".  I generally do not stick my nose in things, but I felt compelled to tell her about the danger.  Fortunately, she listened and moved her car.  Less than 15 minutes later a train came through.

Something that has to be taken into consideration is that the crossing at 218 is of NEW construction and that has a whole new set of parameters than something that has been grandfathered in.

I don't understand this scenery thing.  When people drive to the railroad they see all kinds of woodsy scenery, the ocean, quaint towns, etc.  The railroad only offers trees and fields.  Touring the shop is fascinating, but how many people do it?  People come for the riding experience on an olde tyme railroad or just for the fun of riding behind a choo-choo.  When Joanne & I rode the dinner train at Wellsboro, PA, the scenery didn't do a thing for me compared to looking at the nearby "Grand Canyon of PA" scenery which I had to drive to.

Bill, after our experience of a few years ago, your 2 cents is worth $1,000,000,000.00 to me.

Bernie
Title: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Keith Taylor on December 14, 2016, 10:16:21 AM
Some things that have not been mentioned yet are:  it is my belief that if the FRA really wanted to regulate the WW&F and had the personnel to do it, they could. 
Bernie, yes you are correct in that the FRA can exercise it's authority over insular operations at any time they wish if they feel it is needed.
Keith
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Tom Casper on December 14, 2016, 11:49:45 AM
I don't believe wood frame cars would be obsoleted by coming under FRA rules.  Maybe if a new car was built it would need a steel frame but current cars can continue to use wood frames.  Look at the C&TS & D&S as the use both in regular service.

Tom C.
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Keith Taylor on December 14, 2016, 12:53:34 PM
I don't believe wood frame cars would be obsoleted by coming under FRA rules.  Maybe if a new car was built it would need a steel frame but current cars can continue to use wood frames.  Look at the C&TS & D&S as the use both in regular service.

Tom C.
They have been in continuous service since the equipment was built. The WW&F would be considered a "new" line as there is that little matter of all of those decades when no trains were run or on the property.
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Joe Fox on December 14, 2016, 02:48:21 PM
Maine Narrow Gauge falls under the so called "new" line, they have the same equipment as us and are FRA. As long as the equipment isn't traveling at high speeds it is ok. So there are indeed places that have wood cars under FRA jurisdiction. Their public crossings, such as Cutter Street has far more traffic over it than Cross Road and comparable to 218.

All this is just speculation, and the only real way to know for sure is to find out when we get there.

We can all sit here and argue all day long, but we wont know unless we try, and I honestly believe it is in our best interest to cross the roads.
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Keith Taylor on December 14, 2016, 03:46:20 PM
We can all sit here and argue all day long, but we wont know unless we try, and I honestly believe it is in our best interest to cross the roads.
Could I ask you just why you think that? Insurance cost will go up dramatically as the potential for a serious accident will go up exponentially. What will the museum gain? Another third of a mile beyond 218, with a view of the inside of a cut?
Or south of cross road where you will see swamp and mosquitos?
Keith
P.S. As you may have guessed I don't think any advantage gained will offset the problems of dealing with the FRA, increased potential for a serious accident and most importantly....the probable indifference of the public.
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Ed Lecuyer on December 14, 2016, 05:20:52 PM
[Moderator's Note]

I think this topic has been debated enough. The truth is we have a 5-10 year project just to get to Route 218. Let's focus all our energy on this first, then we can debate this further when that day comes.

Personally, I really like the idea of laying track south from Sheepscot, but not connecting it to the main line. That stretch would make a nice handcar ride (without interfering with yard operations), and tie into the thought about making the museum campus far more than "just a train ride."
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Benjamin Campbell on December 14, 2016, 05:39:34 PM
When or if we decided to lay an isolated stretch south of cross street maybe it would be nice to lay it with rail of a weight similar to what the W&Q was first laid with and ballast it as it was ballasted then(sand?). This would give folks an idea of what the early line looked like. Should we decide to connect it to the mainline at some point in the future upgrading the rails would be fairly easy.
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Mike Fox on December 14, 2016, 08:05:53 PM
We have talked about an isolated track south of Sheepscot before. The biggest problem is material handling. We would have to change our way of hauling in the ballast. Tip cars? But it would make a nice ride.
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: John Kokas on December 14, 2016, 08:23:56 PM
Would it make sense to get/make/adapt a couple of Fairmont style utility carts with side stakes that we could just roll across the road empty and then use with #53 to handle ballast?  We could use the tractor/loader to fill up next to the road.  Granted its a lot less material per load and more trips but it would make the logistics of setting up a whole lot easier if we wish to avoid having a crossing at this time.  Thoughts?
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Ira Schreiber on December 14, 2016, 08:54:54 PM
Just for information.
At most angled crossings the gates are perpendicular to the road, not parallel to the tracks. This allows standard length gates.
218 should not require gates.
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Benjamin Campbell on December 14, 2016, 09:24:40 PM
Say we built south of Cross street and wanted to use one of our flats for ballast - could we get permission to block the street for half an hour or so - lay the snap track - push the flat across and remove the track?
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Mike Fox on December 15, 2016, 08:57:03 AM
It is possible, but no good way to load a flat car over there. There is also a wetland issue. In my dealings this fall so far with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Maine DEP,  they have very strict guidelines when dealing with these areas. We will be limited as to what we can do around Sheepscot. Carefully building up the ROW without filling in or disturbing any of the wetland areas.
And crossing the pond will be another issue. It can be done, by obtaining special permits. I touched on the subject with the Army Corps rep when we had him for a visit, just for an idea of what could be done, if anything. Not planning anything on the south side of 218 currently, but the thought was there so I asked.
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Roger Cole on December 15, 2016, 02:36:13 PM
As to the wooden car argument, the Strasburg Railroad has wooden passenger cars and crosses several state highways with flashing lights, but they may have steel frames (I'm not sure).  Another thing to consider is the length of the ride.  Familys with small children, pregnant women and old geezers with BPH (I know one) might not necessarily enjoy a longer ride.  I don't think your coaches have rest room facilities, do they?
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Mike Fox on December 15, 2016, 02:56:47 PM
They are wooden cars, but are they on metal frames.
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Kevin Madore on December 15, 2016, 05:09:14 PM
As to the wooden car argument, the Strasburg Railroad has wooden passenger cars and crosses several state highways with flashing lights, but they may have steel frames (I'm not sure).  Another thing to consider is the length of the ride.  Familys with small children, pregnant women and old geezers with BPH (I know one) might not necessarily enjoy a longer ride.  I don't think your coaches have rest room facilities, do they?

All of the crossings that the Strasburg Rail Road's regular tourist trains use are both lighted and gated.  
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: Glenn Christensen on December 15, 2016, 05:27:45 PM
I'm just looking forward to seeing what happens over the next 100 years or so ...

We can discuss.


Best Regards,
Glenn
Title: Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
Post by: John Scott on December 16, 2016, 11:48:20 PM
The heritage-correct achievements of the carbuilders of Sheepscot are to be highly applauded. I am not sure that there would be anything to compare being done elsewhere in this modern world of ours.

From my experience, the idea of constructing look-alike steel framed cars should be approached with very great caution. There is no softness in steel. Rather like the difference between track laid on concrete ties, rather than wooden ties.