Top Of The Mountain Siding - Official Work Thread

[Mike Fox]

Mike, perhaps it was you. I don't recall. Who ever made the suggestion, this is what I came up with that will best fit the location without changing the grade and enabling us to return the siding to it's original configuration at a later date with minimal effort. The crossover is only temporary and can be removed once another is installed farther North. The clearances still need to be checked and this is only a suggestion. I roughly put in the camp road and all locations are not final. Subject to approval from the roadmaster.

[Stephen Hussar]

Wow, very cool. Thanks for drawing that up, Mike.

[Wayne Laepple]

That's exactly what I had in mind, Mike. I don't have the knowledge to draw on my computer. A temporary ramp from the northern end of the siding down to the main track elevation could later be removed. If there can be 120-150 feet of safe side clearance between the tracks, we'd have plenty of room to run around. The north end tail track would only need to be about 60 feet long beyond the switch.

[Stewart "Start" Rhine]

Very nice drawing Mike,   There are 3 switches and I suggested using a spring switch only for the south switch.  There are good and bad things about spring switches but if the ss has a high level switch stand with large targets the safety factor is improved.  The ss would only be in service until the mainline reaches Head Tide at which time it is converted to a standard switch and the other two (crossover) switches are removed. 

[Stephen Hussar]

Just to keep the discussion going, could the "temporary" crossover switch on northern end of the siding be a stub switch?

[Paul Horky]

Stub switches in this application would not be a good idea couse if the switch is not lined correctly a move through one would cause a derailment. A better idea would be to make these 2 switches V switches. A V switch is like a spring switch only when trailed through it stayes alined to the way it was originally set the points do not change. This means if a move is made through the wrong side the switch must be alined by hand if a backup movement is made unless the move is completly run thru the switch.
The good thing about a V switch is it can be trailed thru from either side with no harm no foil.

[Mike the Choochoo Nix]

Nice job Mike,
 That is exactly what I was thinking might work.  It's good to hear that an onsite inspection shows that it is possible.
Mike Nix

[Allan Fisher]

Racor 22 switches are even more difficult to maintain than Spring Switches.

Let's cool off this siding and switch discussion from afar - We must not let our enthusiasm get us into a situation at the top of the mountain that possibly might someday cause an incident that could jeopardize the future of the museum.

I say this as a transportation officer at Penn Central in the 70's who spent all his time rerailing cars, and as the System Director of Operating Rules for 18 years at Conrail who spent much of his time working with the FRA & NTSB trying to prevent catastrophes.

Risk Management and Safety are not new tools in the railroad industry or at the WW&F.

[Dwight Winkley]

The only on site inspection was to dig around and find the location of the switch. Some slide plates were found. No other measurements have been taken. Here's the problem for thoses on this forum who have not seen the lay of the land...
There is very little room north of the switch site before the down grade begins. At the location of what we think is the location of the spur end.(again no measurements taken) the spur track is located  more than 6 feet higher than the main line.
An other problem is from the old ditch lines, you see that the spur track left the main line at a very slight angle. So you lose lots of track space to get to the clearance point. This location (of the switch) may be the top of the mountain, but it is the location of some very wet land.

[Dana Deering]

Adding to what Dwight said:  Bob Longo and I went to TOM a couple of years ago with a metal detector and found some slide plates for the switch and I took measurements from there to the woods road.  I have them written down but not right in front of me at the moment but 256 feet seems to clatter around in my cranium.  And that was just to the woods road.  We also went along the mainline and siding and found spikes in situ that gave us a pretty good idea of the angle of the siding as it left the main and, as Dwight said, the angle is very acute, making the fouling point quite a distance north of the points. Finding space for running around there would be a challenge. If the Board were ever to decide to put some sort of crossover/runaround there it would have to be just enough to get a locomotive around because there just isn't much room there unless the ditches are all reconfigured.  Even then there just isn't a whole lot of space.  The track pitches downgrade very sharply after crossing the woods road and that further limits what can be done there.  I would not recommend any kind of permanent runaround arrangement there for safety reasons.  Even a temporary arrangement would require train crews to be extra cautious and alert when making a runaround move there.  We still have some time before we reach the TOM with rail so there is plenty of room for discussion.

[John McNamara]

Back in the days before we did run-arounds at Alna Center, I was operating a train with #52 and coasted to a stop roughly where the north switch is now. As I disengaged the clutch in preparation for reversing, the train promptly started to roll backwards. It was very unnerving. I guess my point is that Alna Center, where the grade is imperceptible to the eye, is plenty exciting. Switching at TOM would be REALLY exciting.

-John

[Robert Hale]

Why not run all the way to TOM, the do a reverse move to Alna and then run around the train? At TOM build a small siding long enough to have a tank car, flat car and a loco (fire train or work train) parked there. Use a earthen birm at the end and a locking de-rail and switch to protect the main and siding. Also at the end of the siding install a large pole so you can attach a heavy chain to secure the equiptment as well for added safety. Just my .02 worth.
Rob

[John McNamara]

Why not run all the way to TOM, the do a reverse move to Alna and then run around the train?

That is what we currently do, although we have taken to doing the runaround first and pushing to the end of track. This permits passengers in the open car to see the end of track and to view the TOM, which is only a few hundred yards further ahead. It has worked just fine. Since we used to back all the way to or from Alna Center before the runarounds were installed, we have considerable experience doing that. There are only two crossings between Alna Center and TOM, both of which have good sight lines and essentially no traffic. The safety tradeoff here is between a one mile backing move and a possibly very dangerous runaround. I favor your backing move suggestion.

-John

[Wayne Laepple]

Deleted by author.

[Vincent "Lightning" LeRow]

Just from observing what people have said on this topic, including myself, i think backing up is the safest.  It's something all of the brakemen have experience with.  also, it seems as if a runaround at the ToM would be verry tricky.  The grade does some funky things around that area.  what looks level to the eye is really a steep grade!  that leaves verry little wiggle room.  while backing upp at least you can look ahead of the train and anticipate whats hapening.  It's a lot easier to signal an engineer to slow down than a free rolling consist!