Top of the Mountain

[Wayne Laepple]

In the Department of For What It's Worth, I think when track reaches Top of the Mountain, we're at a logical stopping point, or at least a place where we can pause for a year or two. That hiatus will give us time to repair the landslide, figure out how to bridge Carlton Brook, what we're going to do when we reach Route 218, etc., etc. We'll also be able to turn our attention to development of the next phase of the Sheepscot terminal area.

The run to Top of the Mountain will be about 2.5 miles each way, a good trip for a one-hour turn, and there are ways to get an engine from the north end of the train to the south end using the single-end siding, without endangering life and limb.

[Ed Lecuyer]

there are ways to get an engine from the north end of the train to the south end using the single-end siding, without endangering life and limb.

There are?

The only ways I know involve gravity or momentum - and I doubt we would ever try that with a train full of passengers; or polling, which is just plain dangerous.

[Wayne Laepple]

My thought was to station no. 51 there so that it could pull the train into the siding once the road engine is cut away. That's the safest way to do it.

[Ed Lecuyer]

Oh, use TWO engines! Slick.

Or, we station #10 there - since #9 just pulled the train.

(Wait, now *I'm* lapsing into practically nonsensical dreaming)

[Stewart "Start" Rhine]

Wayne is right about stopping mainline construction at TOM for a couple of years.  There are many projects that should come first.  (1) We need to build an access road from 218 to the grade in order to have truck access to the large washout.  (2) Start design engineering, DEP permits and abutment planning for Carlton/Trout Brook bridge.  (3) Cut a new switch in the mainline at the Sheepscot Yard Limit and start building 90 - 120 feet of the spur that will feed the roundhouse and car storage building.   We really need more storage/siding space.  That would fix the problem of all the stuff on the team track.  (4) Sheepscot restrooms and the parking lot should have priority as well.

[Wayne Laepple]

Nothing at all wrong with using no. 10 to pull the train into the clear, Ed. It's just that no. 51 is a lot easier to start and stop and cheaper to run.

[Ken Fleming]

Why not have a run around track at TOM?  No need for second engine.  Would make even more sense if TOM is the EOL for a few years.  Add a very simple shelter with a bench for folks who might want to hike a bit and return on a later train.  The switch and shelter can always be removed later to keep with original track plan.  I think the ghosts of the old W.W.& F. won't mind.  Our name train could be "The Mountain Flyer", LOL.

As for the washout, are the Marines (or Army Reserve) available for the challenge?  Most State National Guards have heavy construction units, who may need a training exercise.

[Mike Fox]

As long as there are only 2 or 3 car trains, a run around at TOM might be ok. But the grade changes right there too. That might make things interesting if the brakes aren't applied tight enough.
  One thing I was thinking, pehaps stop at Alna Center on the way up, run around the train, and push it to the end of track. The siding could still be constructed as it was originally and actually left lined for for the siding as it ran uphill a little and could be used like a run away track.

[Keith Taylor]

Gee...nobody wants to fly the loaded passenger cars into the stub end siding? Sounds like the "fun" way to do the "run around" to me!
Keith

[Matthew Gustafson]

Why not have a run around track at TOM?  No need for second engine.  Would make even more sense if TOM is the EOL for a few years.  Add a very simple shelter with a bench for folks who might want to hike a bit and return on a later train.  The switch and shelter can always be removed later to keep with original track plan.  I think the ghosts of the old W.W.& F. won't mind.  Our name train could be "The Mountain Flyer", LOL.

I Agree with the idea too. It would be better off to just run around the train then firing up 2 steam locomotives. Plus having 2 engines running on there own section of the WW&F 2.5 mile main line do make a 2 steam operation on a short 2.5 mile line might make it like weird.

[Wayne Laepple]

Let me see if I can respond to some of the questions raised by Ken, Mike and Matthew.

There's nothing wrong the TOM siding being a runaround, except that it never was "back in the day." The operation there would be more interesting with a second engine to pull the train into the clear. However, dropping cars into the siding, if the train crews are properly trained, should not be a problem. In fact, passengers might enjoy observing this procedure. The original WW&F did this every day at Albion (and perhaps at Winslow, way back when), as did the Strasburg Rail Road for the first couple of years it operated.

I suggested getting around the train at TOM rather than Alna Center because of the grade at AC and the time it takes to get around there.

Making the TOM siding double-ended wouldn't be that hard. The north end would have to be graded down to meet the main line, but that's what they make dozers for. Park the coaches against a skate with a hand brake on, and they aren't going anywhere while the engine is running around.

And if no. 51 was stationed there to effect the move, it would only run for a couple of minutes each hour, just long enough to couple to the train and pull it into the clear and cut away. The engineer or fireman on the regular train could run the gas engine.

And we could conceivably run two trains on special occasions, with the trains passing one another at Alna Center.

[Vincent "Lightning" LeRow]

I like the 2 train idea and the "running the switch" idea.  i think it would be rather wastefull to re-re-re grade the land for that siding.  first for a runaround then back to a stub when we move on.  besides, running switches was regular railroad practice back in the day...  Isn't that what we're trying to represent?  A little extra training shouldn't be too much for the train crews.

And even if that doesn't work out the second loco makes a whole lot of sense.  I just don't know if 51 can pull 2 fully loaded cars, 

[Wayne Laepple]

You'd be surprised how powerful those little Brookvilles are. I once used a standard gauge 5-tonner to pull two loaded boxcars and it didn't miss a lick.

[John McNamara]

In addition to the problem of moving two cars full of people, I would be concerned about the braking capabilities of the Brookville. I know that the cars have brakes, but it would be nice if the locomotive had really good brakes. Also, the Brookville has link and pin couplers, which would be nasty to deal with on a grade.

[Wayne Laepple]

It is my thought that the TOM siding is level or slightly downgrade away from the switch, and the Brookville could easily handle two cars at slow speed for 150 feet to pull them into the clear of the road engine, which would have stopped at the switch, cut away from the train and moved north on the main track.

As for a coupler, I am sure our talented shop staff could fashion a dummy coupler out of some plate and pipe. I think I may even have a photo of such a coupler in use on a standard gauge Brookville.