Sheepscott property plan

[Vincent "Lightning" LeRow]

I would like to make a suggestion,

especially seeing as this is a planning thread at the momment.  When we cross cross road, I think it would be a good idea to move the south switch of the runaround to south side of the crossing. this would take it out of the middle of the platform and streamline the runaround process.  This would also allow passengers to board/disembark the consist whithout forcing the engine to wait for everyone to get off.  This would also afford more time to tend to the locomotives needs between runs.

[Mike Fox]

Vincent, that would require two highway crossings. Moving it south would be a good idea, if we ever cross Cross Road, maybe just North of Cross road.

[Ed Lecuyer]

Other than maintenance, would there be an issue (regulatory or otherwise) with a two-track crossing of Cross road?

Another option to consider would be to stub-end the siding in front of the station, and move the whole passing siding to the south side of Cross Road. This would make the track layout in front of the station appear more like it did back in the days of the original railroad.

(Of course, we are several years away from doing any of this - if ever.)

[Bill Sample]

Another very long-shot option would be to "simply" move the buildings and platform northward so that
a usable length of platform would be along the existing trackage, cutting down on the multiple
moves currently needed to run around the train.  This would eliminate the problems involved
with crossing Cross Road.

[Eric Bolton]

Or just add extend the platform. No crossing needed and the buildings stay where they are.

[Mike Fox]

Moving the station North is probably out. The Station is in the location of the original station.

[Josh Botting]

But the freight shed could move!

[James Patten]

I agree with Vincent with putting the south runaround switch south of Cross Rd, should we ever decide to cross it.  Operationally it would make life much easier.

The station building was built as close to the road as town set backs allowed - 50 feet.  The original station was probably much closer.

[Allan Fisher]

The one thing that we do not need is a double track crossing through a paved public highway.

That leaves the most sensible option already suggested that we extend the passenger shelter another 50-60 feet towards the water tower. This extension might not even need protection from the weather to save construction costs.

With our present ridership, we won't need to do this for another 5 to 10 years.

[Wayne Laepple]

I was thinking exactly the same thing, Allan. During my railroad career, when I reconfigured track layouts, I always tried to reduce the number of tracks through a crossing to one if at all possible.

[Mike Fox]

Adding 20 or 30 feet to the platform would do it. The only thing you would save by doing this though is about 5 minutes. And that is on the arrival time. This allows enough time to unload, and the locomotive to shove the cars north, then uncouple to move onto the run around track for servicing. When we get a little longer, that 5 minutes might be an issue, but right now, it works for us.

[Vincent "Lightning" LeRow]

Perhaps we can combine everyones desires for a nice round compromise.  When we finally cross Cross Road, we move the switch to just north of cross road, extend the platform with no cover. 

This gives us No double track crossing, and extra boarding space to leave a 2 car train off of the switch.

Well?

[Matthew Gustafson]

Perhaps we can combine everyones desires for a nice round compromise.  When we finally cross Cross Road, we move the switch to just north of cross road, extend the platform with no cover. 

This gives us No double track crossing, and extra boarding space to leave a 2 car train off of the switch.

Well?

I like it. Lets do it.

[Vincent "Lightning" LeRow]

since this is the planning thread, i was wondering...

I didn't see any plans for a coal loading method, either a large bucket on a crane (KCRR) or some kind of overhead hopper thing.  I don't know about anyone else, but personally the 5 gallon bucket method can get verry tiring.

[Ira Schreiber]

If you look in some of the WW&F books, you will see a coal ramp at Wisacasset.
Basically an elevated track parallel to the other tracks. There the coal was shoveled down to where needed.
So, if and when, we will have a coal ramp track at some point and get rid of the non-time period 5 gallon plastic buckets.