MJ4562 Reading this thread I can't help but think about the FLEC Key West extension.
Reading this thread I can't help but think about the FLEC Key West extension.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
That's the "Key" point: It was his own money, thanks to Standard Oil. He didn't work to socialize the costs so he could privatize the profits, unlike these days.
This brings to mind the recent discussion here about railroads not investing much in their own infrastructure improvements and repairs.
Recently I was talking with 2 young engineers inspecting a W&LE bridge nearby that likely dates from about 1917. They observed that railroads, in general, repair and continuously patch-up their bridges. "They never replace them," he said. I mentioned the new NS bridge over the Genesee River in New York, and we all agreed that was the exception and not the rule.
Railroading needs more Henry Flaglers.
NKP guyI mentioned the new NS bridge over the Genesee River in New York, and we all agreed that was the exception and not the rule.
Overmod The original bridge IIRC was built over one and a quarter centuries ago -- as a hurry-up project to replace an earlier bridge -- and successfully weathered things like the advent of S-class Berkshires and then SD45-2s in multiple.
Anybody know the Cooper rating of the old Letchworth bridge?
Maintenance notwithstanding (and it is a significant factor), structures of that era were built without the extensive computer modelling used today, so they were generally over-engineered.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Overmod NKP guy I mentioned the new NS bridge over the Genesee River in New York, and we all agreed that was the exception and not the rule. But this is an exception in a different sense. The original bridge IIRC was built over one and a quarter centuries ago -- as a hurry-up project to replace an earlier bridge -- and successfully weathered things like the advent of S-class Berkshires and then SD45-2s in multiple. (And was not replaced for any reason of imminent failure that I could see...) Be interesting to see how much of that longevity was design skill, and how much was maintenance...
NKP guy I mentioned the new NS bridge over the Genesee River in New York, and we all agreed that was the exception and not the rule.
But this is an exception in a different sense. The original bridge IIRC was built over one and a quarter centuries ago -- as a hurry-up project to replace an earlier bridge -- and successfully weathered things like the advent of S-class Berkshires and then SD45-2s in multiple. (And was not replaced for any reason of imminent failure that I could see...) Be interesting to see how much of that longevity was design skill, and how much was maintenance...
[But] You rush in to contradict NKP with what exactly? His point, as I saw it, was that bridges are rarely replaced with new. Do you think that +100 year old infrastructures are generally just fine?
That one certainly was. Which is proof to me that regular watchful maintenance can greatly reduce a perceived need to replace even a 1917 structure.
Of course if the thing is demonstrably corroded or twisted past safe limits, it would best be replaced rather than 'watchfully wait' until some overt sign of impending failure.
OvermodThat one certainly was. Which is proof to me that regular watchful maintenance can greatly reduce a perceived need to replace even a 1917 structure.
I would suggest that public perception may have played a part in the Letchworth bridge replacement. It spans a very popular state park.
I'm not sure, but I think it was restricted to a very low speed, as well.
tree68I would suggest that public perception may have played a part in the Letchworth bridge replacement. It spans a very popular state park. I'm not sure, but I think it was restricted to a very low speed, as well.
I don't remember what the speed restriction got down to, but at one time it was gantleted, which might throw a wrench into either double-track with CTC or dual-main operation...
OvermodI don't remember what the speed restriction got down to, but at one time it was gantleted, which might throw a wrench into either double-track with CTC or dual-main operation...
10. also weight restrictions.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
Yes, the original wooden bridge was replaced in a hurry, it burned down in 1875. The iron bridge had a weight limit of 273,000#, making it obsolete for the 286,000# standard of today. As mentioned, the old speed limit was 10 mph. The new limit is 30 mph. They could have increased the speed, but that would have meant reducing approach curves, which would have increased environmental damage. This is according to the Trains book "Big Projects".
Another bridge getting replaced is the BNSF/ex-NP bridge at Bismark, ND.
MidlandMike Overmod NKP guy I mentioned the new NS bridge over the Genesee River in New York, and we all agreed that was the exception and not the rule. But this is an exception in a different sense. The original bridge IIRC was built over one and a quarter centuries ago -- as a hurry-up project to replace an earlier bridge -- and successfully weathered things like the advent of S-class Berkshires and then SD45-2s in multiple. (And was not replaced for any reason of imminent failure that I could see...) Be interesting to see how much of that longevity was design skill, and how much was maintenance... Yes, the original wooden bridge was replaced in a hurry, it burned down in 1875. The iron bridge had a weight limit of 273,000#, making it obsolete for the 286,000# standard of today. As mentioned, the old speed limit was 10 mph. The new limit is 30 mph. They could have increased the speed, but that would have meant reducing approach curves, which would have increased environmental damage. This is according to the Trains book "Big Projects". Another bridge getting replaced is the BNSF/ex-NP bridge at Bismark, ND.
blue streak 1 <SNIP> That end is about 2000 air miles from NENA on hwy 35 Mckensie hwy. In BC the tracks or ROW extend to Muskwa just south of Ft. Nelson. !!~~ 1500 air miles to air base. Also with some track work the narrow gauge White Pass & Yukon could connect with the standard gauge RR.
<SNIP>
That end is about 2000 air miles from NENA on hwy 35 Mckensie hwy. In BC the tracks or ROW extend to Muskwa just south of Ft. Nelson. !!~~ 1500 air miles to air base. Also with some track work the narrow gauge White Pass & Yukon could connect with the standard gauge RR.
Fred M Cain Backshop I'm doing an Alaska Railroad trip from Fairbanks to Seward in a week, so I've been doing a little bit of research. Right now, the ARR only has 51 locomotives. When you subtract the ones that pull the passenger/sightseeing trains, there seems to be relatively few hauling natural resources. That should tell you something right there. If enough were located near the ROW, I'm sure they would be transported down to one of the ports and loading infrastructure built there. That would be a lot cheaper than building a long railroad through Canada. "Backstop", I think that sounds like an absolute blast. Please post something either on this thread or another and tell us how it went. Some pictures would be nice too. I hope you have good weather. Checking Accuweather for Fairbanks this morning, it looks nice. Cool, but I like it cool. Good luck ~ !
Backshop I'm doing an Alaska Railroad trip from Fairbanks to Seward in a week, so I've been doing a little bit of research. Right now, the ARR only has 51 locomotives. When you subtract the ones that pull the passenger/sightseeing trains, there seems to be relatively few hauling natural resources. That should tell you something right there. If enough were located near the ROW, I'm sure they would be transported down to one of the ports and loading infrastructure built there. That would be a lot cheaper than building a long railroad through Canada.
I'm doing an Alaska Railroad trip from Fairbanks to Seward in a week, so I've been doing a little bit of research. Right now, the ARR only has 51 locomotives. When you subtract the ones that pull the passenger/sightseeing trains, there seems to be relatively few hauling natural resources. That should tell you something right there. If enough were located near the ROW, I'm sure they would be transported down to one of the ports and loading infrastructure built there. That would be a lot cheaper than building a long railroad through Canada.
"Backstop",
I think that sounds like an absolute blast. Please post something either on this thread or another and tell us how it went. Some pictures would be nice too. I hope you have good weather. Checking Accuweather for Fairbanks this morning, it looks nice. Cool, but I like it cool.
Good luck ~ !
We took the train from Fairbanks to Anchorage the first day. It was only nine cars but was pulled by 3 of 4300-series SD70MACs. They appeared to be freshly painted. There were a couple of GP38s and GP40s in Fairbanks for local work. Four of the 4000-series 70s were there and appeared to be used mainly for freights, looking at their exterior paint. We passed several passenger trains on the way to Anchorage, they were turns that had a SD70 on one end and a 40 on the other. Our "boat train" to Seward was also a push-pull with a 70/40 combo. After 12 hours the first day and 4 the second, I was ODed on trains. The guidebook had an interesting comment. There was a high maintenance trestle halfway to Seward. With the new diesels, they got rid of it and just looped the line, making it a 3% grade. The shorter Anchorage-Seward portion had as much scenery as the longer day. Unless you want to see the whole line, I'd suggest just doing it. I didn't see any freight trains moving at all, although there were plenty of coal hoppers other freight cars. A couple more points--leaving Fairbanks, you run around a couple mile long balloon track, so you pass by the depot that you just left. Also, even though I didn't see the engine facility in Anchorage, between the one in Fairbanks and the other trains, I saw 20 of their 51 locomotives.
Thanks for the report.
BackshopThe guidebook had an interesting comment. There was a high maintenance trestle halfway to Seward. With the new diesels, they got rid of it and just looped the line, making it a 3% grade.
IIRC the trestle was to avoid a glacier, but the glacier melted back, and they rerouted the line on the dry ground.
Backshop I didn't see any freight trains moving at all, although there were plenty of coal hoppers other freight cars.
According to the ARR website they run the mainline freight 5 days a week. I know that at one time they ran the freights at night to avoid the passenger trains. They also used to haul a lot of oil products from the refinery in North Pole near Fairbanks, but the refinery closed.
MidlandMike According to the ARR website they run the mainline freight 5 days a week. I know that at one time they ran the freights at night to avoid the passenger trains.
According to the ARR website they run the mainline freight 5 days a week. I know that at one time they ran the freights at night to avoid the passenger trains.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.