Author Topic: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...  (Read 23636 times)

Keith Taylor

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
« Reply #30 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

Mike Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Empire Builder
  • ********
  • Posts: 5,338
    • View Profile
To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
« Reply #31 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.
Mike
Doing way too much to list...

Benjamin Campbell

  • Museum Member
  • Switchman
  • **
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
« Reply #32 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?

Keith Taylor

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
« Reply #33 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.

Bernie Perch

  • Museum Member
  • Hostler
  • ***
  • Posts: 248
    • View Profile
To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
« Reply #34 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

Keith Taylor

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
« Reply #35 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

Tom Casper

  • Museum Member
  • Brakeman
  • ***
  • Posts: 192
    • View Profile
    • Sandy Ridge & Clear Lake Ry.
Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
« Reply #36 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.
Later:
tom_srclry_com

Keith Taylor

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
« Reply #37 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.

Joe Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,247
    • View Profile
Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
« Reply #38 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.

Keith Taylor

  • Museum Member
  • Engineer
  • ****
  • Posts: 722
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
« Reply #39 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.

Ed Lecuyer

  • Administrator
  • Superintendent
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,874
    • View Profile
    • wwfry.org
Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
« Reply #40 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."
Ed Lecuyer
Moderator, WW&F Forum

Benjamin Campbell

  • Museum Member
  • Switchman
  • **
  • Posts: 77
    • View Profile
Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
« Reply #41 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.

Mike Fox

  • Museum Member
  • Empire Builder
  • ********
  • Posts: 5,338
    • View Profile
Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
« Reply #42 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.
Mike
Doing way too much to list...

John Kokas

  • Museum Member
  • Supervisor
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,596
    • View Profile
Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
« Reply #43 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?
Moxie Bootlegger

Ira Schreiber

  • Museum Member
  • Dispatcher
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,075
  • Life Member
    • View Profile
Re: To Cross or Not to Cross (or to Cross Cross Road?) That is the question...
« Reply #44 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.