Creative use of spikes
| Railway Preservation News https://www.rypn.org/forums/ |
|
| Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track https://www.rypn.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33047 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | railfan44 [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:47 am ] |
| Post subject: | Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track |
Now for some fun. You are not going to believe this one: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=392342 |
|
| Author: | PaulWWoodring [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:11 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track |
You have to maintain track if you want to carry passengers. I'm sure this is FRA "Excepted" trackage, which prohibits the operation of live passenger trains. |
|
| Author: | railadventures [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:11 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track |
FRA "exempted" should not an excuse for just plain "unsafe"...what if a crewman or citizen was injured in a derailment? That track is a candidate for "embargoed", not "exempted". Craig Brinkman |
|
| Author: | Bobharbison [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:14 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track |
The correct term is "Excepted", not "Exempted" Sec. 213.4 Excepted track. A track owner may designate a segment of track as excepted track provided that-- (a) The segment is identified in the timetable, special instructions, general order, or other appropriate records which are available for inspection during regular business hours; (b) The identified segment is not located within 30 feet of an adjacent track which can be subjected to simultaneous use at speeds in excess of 10 miles per hour; (c) The identified segment is inspected in accordance with 213.233(c) and 213.235 at the frequency specified for Class 1 track; (d) The identified segment of track is not located on a bridge including the track approaching the bridge for 100 feet on either side, or located on a public street or highway, if railroad cars containing commodities required to be placarded by the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR part 172), are moved over the track; and (e) The railroad conducts operations on the identified segment under the following conditions: (1) No train shall be operated at speeds in excess of 10 miles per hour; (2) No occupied passenger train shall be operated; (3) No freight train shall be operated that contains more than five cars required to be placarded by the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR part 172); and (4) The gage on excepted track shall not be more than 4 feet 10 1/4 inches. This paragraph (e)(4) is applicable September 21, 1999. (f) A track owner shall advise the appropriate FRA Regional Office at least 10 days prior to removal of a segment of track from excepted status. |
|
| Author: | Mike Swanson [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:05 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track |
PaulWWoodring wrote: You have to maintain track if you want to carry passengers. I'm sure this is FRA "Excepted" trackage, which prohibits the operation of live passenger trains. You have to maintain track if you want to carry anything, period. Even excepted track sees some occasional maintenance, and it's obvious that this line hasn't seen any in far too long. I'm surprised they can even keep that Geep running, much less avoid having a serious derailment and/or being embargoed. |
|
| Author: | railadventures [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 2:20 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track |
I am not sure I feel better that it is still regulated but "excepted" considering the photo and these aspects of the "excepted" regulations: (3) No freight train shall be operated that contains more than five cars required to be placarded by the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR part 172); and (4) The gage (sic) on excepted track shall not be more than 4 feet 10 1/4 The old adage applies: Governmental regulation isn't about "making things better for us all"...its about forcing some of us to behave in ways that make someone else feel better or that covers their posterior....in this case, the FRA's Craig Brinkman |
|
| Author: | Ron Travis [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:03 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track |
railadventures wrote: I am not sure I feel better that it is still regulated but "excepted" considering the photo and these aspects of the "excepted" regulations: (3) No freight train shall be operated that contains more than five cars required to be placarded by the Hazardous Materials Regulations (49 CFR part 172); and (4) The gage (sic) on excepted track shall not be more than 4 feet 10 1/4 The old adage applies: Governmental regulation isn't about "making things better for us all"...its about forcing some of us to behave in ways that make someone else feel better or that covers their posterior....in this case, the FRA's Craig Brinkman Gage can be spelled that way. In any case, I agree with your main point about the inconsistency of regulating track for safety, but then allowing exceptions to the point where trains derail. Item #4 about the gage being no larger than 4'-10 1/4" is very interesting. Why stipulate the gage must not be too wide when there is no requirement to have ties under it? |
|
| Author: | PaulWWoodring [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:26 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track |
railadventures wrote: FRA "exempted" should not an excuse for just plain "unsafe"...what if a crewman or citizen was injured in a derailment? That track is a candidate for "embargoed", not "exempted". Craig Brinkman Guess I should have been more specific in completing my thought about excepted track. My point was that "your" tourist railroad could not get away with having track like that to carry passengers, not excusing that specific railroad for their track conditions. Although, I remember riding a couple of down-in-the-mouth tourist operations in the early '70's where you could not really discern where the rail was for the grass (the late Cadillac & Lake City when ex-CPR 1278 was there as "127" comes to mind immediately). |
|
| Author: | Harry Nicholls [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:48 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track |
This track reminds me of the old MKT track from Dallas to Waco - about 100 miles. A trip on that line took 2 days at less than 10 mph with a crew time out over night when half way there. The "dog catcher" picked the crew up and transported them back to Dallas in the evening and then took the crew back to the train the next day. |
|
| Author: | J3a-614 [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:12 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track |
That photo got me curious, and it turns out the Maumee & Western is, not famous, but apparently at least mildly infamous for the track, at least if what I found on YouTube is any indication: How does this road get anything done in any reasonable amount of time? At the same time, track like this really lets you see springs and equalizers work: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TaNeam-J-g It's been a long time since I've seen trains negotiating track that looked like this, going back to the bad days of Penn Central and Conrail secondary routes; this is on the Elkhart & Western: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtT2-FU6vSE About the worst I've seen, on the Minnesota Valley, and 6-axle locomotives, too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en ... 11qWro1LzQ I wonder how steam engines would fare on such track? |
|
| Author: | CREEPING DEATH [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 10:18 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track |
Harry Nicholls wrote: This track reminds me of the old MKT track from Dallas to Waco - about 100 miles. A trip on that line took 2 days at less than 10 mph with a crew time out over night when half way there. The "dog catcher" picked the crew up and transported them back to Dallas in the evening and then took the crew back to the train the next day. No wonder it was abandoned, or did it just fade away? CD |
|
| Author: | Harry Nicholls [ Tue Mar 20, 2012 11:35 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track |
Take your choice: it was finally abandoned and then removed. The ballast was sold to a gravel company and they "mined" out about 5 ft deep ballast for a good portion of the line. It was an old main and the ballast depth had no direct bearing on the track alignment. The tie condition and tamping on top was not well maintained and the track just gave out. |
|
| Author: | Bob Davis [ Wed Mar 21, 2012 2:39 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track |
I presume that photo was taken with a telephoto lens (which can make even a Class I main line look bumpy, and a branch such as this look like a roller coaster.) I remember reading about the latter days of some midwestern interurbans that were running 40-ton interurban cars "on track on which main-line railroad officials would be reluctant to run a handcar.......". (from The Interurban Electric Railways of North America by Hilton & Due) |
|
| Author: | Terry Harper [ Wed Mar 21, 2012 7:25 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track |
Creative use of spikes
|
|
| Author: | JimBoylan [ Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:09 pm ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Proof You Don't Have to Spend Money on Maintaining Track |
Ron Travis wrote: railadventures wrote: (4) The gage (sic) on excepted track shall not be more than 4 feet 10 1/4 Item #4 about the gage being no larger than 4'-10 1/4" is very interesting. Why stipulate the gage must not be too wide when there is no requirement to have ties under it? |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/ |
|