KCS to fight proposed VIcksburg Bridge Park

[SALfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by M.W. Hemphill

JOdom: Not so. Derailments are LESS likely on bridges, because you don't have subgrade issues that take track out of alignment. A track-caused derailment on a bridge is virtually always going to be the result of a broken rail, which don't respect location. The rigidity of the bridge structure is a benefit to the track structure.

Ballasted-deck bridges are preferred for short spans because track alignment is much easier to maintain. The transition between track resting on soil and track resting on a rigid and unyielding bridge results in a continual problem with soft spots immediately adjacent to the bridge abutments. Lateral alignment on curves is an issue, too. Long-span bridges are almost entirely open-deck instead of ballasted deck because the weight of the ballast bed and the pan that holds the ballast becomes an issue.

Thanks for setting me straight. As always, I learned something from your post.

[SALfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel

I do not understand why thea don't use the space left to double-track KCS. Bikers and hikers can cross the river on a ferry.

I think the point of the trail would be to enjoy being over the river, not just get to the other side.

I wonder if the bridge could be reinforced enough to allow two trains at once.

There are a zillion places where roads run parallel to tracks on solid ground. Why would it be more dangerous on a bridge?

I'm not burdened by any actual knowledge, but I'll take a crack at answering your question. Anyone who actually knows, please feel free to add to/correct my explanation (Mudchicken, where are you?).

Derailments are more likely on a bridge because track on ballast on the ground reacts differently to the forces a train generates than track rigidly attached to a bridge's structure. I assume that's the reason for ballasted-deck bridges (but again, I'm guessing).

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by martin.knoepfel

I do not understand why thea don't use the space left to double-track KCS. Bikers and hikers can cross the river on a ferry.

I think the point of the trail would be to enjoy being over the river, not just get to the other side.

I wonder if the bridge could be reinforced enough to allow two trains at once.

There are a zillion places where roads run parallel to tracks on solid ground. Why would it be more dangerous on a bridge?

[martin.knoepfel]

I do not understand why thea don't use the space left to double-track KCS. Bikers and hikers can cross the river on a ferry.

[railman]

I think a even a 12' bike trail would be a lesser threat than a highway next to the tracks...someone could get on the tracks from their car, they could do it on a bike. I think a fence would help considerably.

[vsmith]

It also seems to me I would be less worried about trespassers on the RR ROW and way way more concerned with trespassers climbing into the bridge structure trying to play "Tarzan, King of the Chimps" or using the bridge for Olympic high dive bellyflop competitions.

[SALfan]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lonewoof

Do I understand this correctly -- there used to be a TWO LANE HIGHWAY alongside the tracks on this bridge? Seems that would be considerably more hazardous for the railroad AND the highway, than a park and a few cyclists...

You are correct - there used to be a two-lane highway alongside the tracks. The bridge was built in the 1920's or 1930's (I believe), long before today's litigious mindset took hold. The highway lanes were very narrow, and the bridge became a serious traffic bottleneck. I think the replacement highway bridge was built in the 1970's, and presently carries Interstate 20 (and some other highways) across the Mississippi to Vidalia, LA. (Note to Piouslion: AFAIK, no onions are grown in Vidalia, LA)

[lonewoof]

Do I understand this correctly -- there used to be a TWO LANE HIGHWAY alongside the tracks on this bridge? Seems that would be considerably more hazardous for the railroad AND the highway, than a park and a few cyclists...

[Anonymous]

There is more to this than just a fence. Imagine what a derailment on the bridge would do on the parallel highway portion. Also, I would imagine in even daily useage the roadway would be needed for MOW access.

LC

[oltmannd]

Re-reading the article, sounds like the county may have some leaverage to do what they want. The minimum condition is that they have to "discusss' proposed changes with KCS. KCS's lease does not give them a veto, sounds like... The county owns the bridge and the county-appointed bridge commission runs it.

[fuzzybroken]

Neat bridge!

That being said, the railroad's say on the matter is spelled out in the 999-year lease (wow). They said no. So unless the commission and the municipalities involved can change the railroad's mind (not very likely), that still means no.

They probably would have been better off selling the bridge to KCS -- eliminates the owner's liability and gives full control to the major user of the line, KCS.

As a railfan and cyclist myself, I would love to see a bike trail on the bridge, and I think that KCS is probably being bull-headed about this. They would be a better corporate citizen of the area to work with the community on a compromise, if such a compromise could be worked out.

As said before, this will definitely be worth watching...

One final question: is this line ex-MidSouth/ICG/GM&O/??? ? "...its successors and assigns..." comes to mind. (DISCLAIMER: I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV.)

-Mark
http://www.geocities.com/fuzzybroken

[Junctionfan]

Unless it was fenced up and barred, I woundn't want this on my railroad pretend or not. I does look like a decent place for MOW equipment can check the line and bridge without fouling the tracks with hi-rails. At the very least if the road portion is poor conditioned, inspectors can use it and it can be used for crew changes maybe.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Junctionfan

That would be like indemnification with onus on the local government as Amtrak has struggled with it. Local government doesn't want this. A few pedestrian bridges here and there is o.k but keep from the tracks.

I guess it's fair to say that nobody will voluntarily take on added liability for no benefit, so I can see why KCS is saying "no". But, the county, would get some benefit. They just have to balance the benefit against the cost. Doubt the liability issue it is a show stopper.

[oltmannd]

Here's are a couple of pictures of it:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=55802
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=67757

Doubt that vibration would be a serious issue. Biggest would be keeping people off the tracks - chain link fencing ought to to it.

If the county took the liability on, they could probably cover themselves with some insurance. The risk of a major catastrophe is pretty low....

[rrnut282]

Interesting. I think it would be a nice place to legally watch trains close up. The bridge belongs to the commission, so they should be able to do what they want. I also see KCS's point. In fact KCS has at least 3 points of contention. 1 Don't take my toll money to fund something I think won't work, or worse, makes my job harder. A toll increase from $4 to $10 is a 250% increase. The timing of this increase and talks about conversion sounds fishy. 2. I have to pay to cross, are they going to charge joggers a dollar, walkers 50 cents and bicyclists $2? What's good for the goose is supposed to be good for the gander. 3. The screen on the bridge is nice from a safety and liability point of view, but what happens at the ends of the bridge? They will have to erect fence some distance from each end to discourage trespassing. This one is worth watching to the (bitter?) end.

[CShaveRR]

Never having been to Vicksburg, I'm curious about how conversion of the highway portion of the bridge to recreational use would interfere with railroad operations, as KCS asserts.

As someone who's both a cyclist and a railfan, I'm in favor of the idea. As a railroader, I'd insist on some sort of barrier (which may already exist) between the track and the trail. They'll probably have to post "no trespassing" signs every few hundred feet.

My own concern would be with people falling off and going into the river, which I think would be more likely than them straying onto the tracks. But that wouldn't be KCS' problem. How would the vibration from a train crossing this bridge affect a pedestrian or cyclist. Would it cause a biker to lose control? Should cyclists be required to stop and hang on (to what?) when a train is on the bridge?

As long as the structure is safe and sound, I see no reason why the portion that has apparently outlived its usefulness as a roadway should not be opened to alternative uses such as this.

[Junctionfan]

That would be like indemnification with onus on the local government as Amtrak has struggled with it. Local government doesn't want this. A few pedestrian bridges here and there is o.k but keep from the tracks.

[lonewoof]

I agree with Oltmannd: if the RR can be relieved of liability, why not make it a park/bike trail? A nice 8' chain link fence should provide reasonable security.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by eolafan

One would think politicians would have MUCH better and more important things to worry about other than bike trails!

Like what?

If not the local politicians, then who should worry about local parks? Tourism is a BIG DEAL in Vicksburg and a fair sized chunk of the local economy. Isn't the local economy something the local government should be interested in?

[eolafan]

One would think politicians would have MUCH better and more important things to worry about other than bike trails!

[oltmannd]

Aren't hiking and biking legitimate leisure pursuits? Kinda like railfanning? Bikers and hikers have a much larger constituency than Amtrak supporters, so why wouldn't politicians listen to them?

I don't see any reason that the highway lanes SHOULDN'T be a bike/hiking path - except the liablility that KCS would be exposed to. WIth the free I-20 bridge right next to it, the highway portion of the KCS bridge is a redundant, obsolete asset, and with tourism being a big deal in Vicksburg, a trail over the river would be a nice addition.

The precedent here would be the Appalachian Trail crossing of the Potomac on CSX's bridge.

If a way could be found to eliminate KCS's exposure to lawsuits, I think it's a slam-dunk good idea.

[Junctionfan]

Why in the flippin heck are thease politicians so darn interested in having bike trails everywhere for? What is the blasted attraction?

KCS has the right idea; lawyer the heck out of them if they try it...........twits.

[Anonymous]

Check out the following link to the article in the VIcksburg Post today:

http://www.vicksburgpost.com/VICKSBURGPOST/myarticles.asp?P=804413&S=481&PubID=12831

Looks like the City in its infinite wisdom wants to convert the former U.S. 80 portion of the rail/highway bridge into a linear park... bunch of low watt dim bulbs...

LC