Track Layout at Alna Center

[Troy Congdon]

There are plans to restore the top of the mountain track layout after the railhead reaches 218. This causes me to wonder what the original layout of Alna Center was. If it was originally a passing siding, why? Was there enough traffic to justify the siding or was the siding for spotting cars and if so, what regular freight load at Alna Center would warrant spotting a car? If Alna Center was originally a single track affair, is there a plan to single track the current WW&FRy? There has been mention of a sawmill or similar display at the location but I believe that it was mentioned that the land was not available. Was timber still being served by spurrs off the WW&FRy in the time frame the museum is attempting to portray?

[John McNamara]

I'm pretty sure that Alna Center was single track throughout the original railroad's existence. The passing siding was added by the WW&F Railway Museum. While not original, it does serve several purposes including the run-around (now unneeded), staging for ballast delivery, special events such as the Ice Cream Social, etc. If trains were ever originated from both 218 and Sheepscot, it would make a good meeting point. Some people have discussed offering both a long ride (Sheepscot to 218) and a short ride (Sheepscot to Alna Center). In short, the siding has proved so useful I doubt it will ever go away.

[James Patten]

Between Wiscasset and Head Tide, only Sheepscot and top of the mountain ever had sidings, and those were single-ended.  As John stated, we added the siding to provide run-around capability.

[Andre Anderson]

I would be real hesitant to remove the siding at TOM, the operating flexibility is well worth the non historical track layout. It's there and will cost nothing to leave it and if for some reason that the track gets blocked between it and 218 then you are set up for passenger operations. If I remember there is both a slide and a washout, both of these things tend to repeat themselves.

Andre

[Joe Fox]

Two train would be nice, however I believe the trip could be run every hour and a half. However it may be nice to pick certain days where trips to Alna Center is offered.

Our current schedule is set up for 10mph, so if we keep to that scheduling, a round trip should take around 1 hour from Sheepscot to 218 and return.

[Wayne Laepple]

Two and a half miles at 10 mph. That takes 15 minutes. Let's call it 20 minutes to allow for acceleration and deceleration. So 40 minutes for the round trip. Ten minutes to run around at Top of the Mountain. That leaves 10 minutes for the runaround and water at Sheepscot.

When I was a volunteer at the WK&S here in Pennsylvania, the schedule called for 12 minutes to do 2.57 miles from Kempton to Wanamaker, a 10-minute runaround/layover at Wanamaker and 12 minutes back to Kempton. That left 26 minutes to take water, run around and do the brake test, which was done every trip.

Questions: (1) Does No. 10 need to take water after every trip? (2) Does the fire have to be cleaned after every trip? (3) How will use of No. 9 affect the schedule?

[James Patten]

Actually when I wrote up the schedule, I used an average speed of 12 -15 mph over part of the line, with lesser speeds on the heavier grades.  It works out to be 35 or 36 minutes per trip.

A few years ago I drew up a timetable for track to Head Tide (using a lot of assumptions about distances), using much the same speeds on the existing line but slower speeds on the Mountain and a 10-minute layover at HT.  It ended up being a few minutes over an hour.  So I built in a meet at Alna Center for a second northbound train meeting the southbound train, allowing for a short trip for folks that didn't want to spend the hour plus on the train.  This also meant a sizeable chunk of time for the returning steam crew to service their engine.

[Wayne Laepple]

Round trip, I presume?

[Benjamin Campbell]

I like the idea of end of track at Head Tide more than end of track at 218!

[Bill Sample]

I like the idea of end of track at Head Tide more than end of track at 218!

As I see it -
The pluses include a nice scenic ride near the river north of ME route 218, which is hikeable thanks to Fred and company's clearing efforts on the R O W.
The minuses include having to cross 218 to get there ( and whatever regulatory issues that may bring ), and land issues north of the Head Tide cut.
My wife (and I'm sure others have as well) suggested a separate track north of the crossing area with a Model T ride on that stretch, with no grade crossing link.
But a new Head Tide Station would be nice if it could be a good fit in some way with scheduled operations.

[Joe Fox]

Wayne, #10 currently gets watered every other trip, with roughly half a tank of water used after two trips. Same goes with coal.

Head Tide would be very nice, however after passing the head tide church and cut, there are many obstacles that lie ahead after crossing the road. the railroad grade is currently about 7 feet higher than the road, and the house near the old right of way dug out the old railroad grade. So all of that will present a very high cost along with building a railroad crossing there.

[Mike Fox]

Nothing is unachievable Joe. Just takes time, determination, and money

[Benjamin Campbell]

Hopefully we are close enough to 218 now that it is irrelevant but was there ever talk
years back of laying some rail there to promote the museum? People seem to feel
the visibility the 218 location offers will promote the museum well. 100 +- of track
and possibly even a box car would have gone far to do that years back. Did
we own that section of ROW then?

[James Patten]

We did not own that section until 2001, right before Harry died.  Prior to that, it was owned by Harry and/or the W&Q.

[Philip Marshall]

For what it's worth, the historical WW&F (per public timetables) allowed 17 minutes from Sheepscot to Head Tide in the northbound direction, and 15 minutes going southbound. That includes station stops at Alna Center.