Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
the disappearing telegraph poles
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="riprap"]Hi again,<br><br>Sorry to use the term "contractual obligation". When you described the installation of the pole lines, you used the noun "renewal" so I thought there was some paper obligation that existed for the RRs to keep using the pole lines, whether they wanted to or not. Also, when you cited the years, it sounded like they had to keep the lines over, let's say, a 10-year period of time before they could be replaced, which sounds like a contractual obligation.<br><br>I understand your logic about reduction of maintenance costs. In the way you describe it, though, it sounds like individual pole lines could be adversely effected by the weather or individual wire thieves (i.e., a wire thief probably wouldn't go to the trouble of stealing ALL the wire from a long group of lines) could target individual poles. So, would it be worth the trouble to take ALL of the upper arms down, for example? On this same topic, with the advanced technologies you cite, aren't there certain individuals who would or could try to tap into these systems as well, just to PO the railroads? I'm not at all familiar with how secure these technologies are, so pardon me in advance if this sounds like a silly question....<br><br>Riprap<br>[/quote]<br><br>Since the railway owns the pole line, the "contractual obligation" you mention doesn't exist. The railway has freedom to do whatever it wants with its physical plant (just like you can choose to dispose or preserve your own possessions) unless that portion of the physical plant is encumbered by liens, or as restricted by ordnance or law. In general local government bodies are happy to see the pole lines disappear as they consider them an eyesore and a hazard.<br><br>The reluctance to remove pole lines you inferred as "contractual obligation" is actually that there's a limit to how much money railways can invest in modernizing and improving their physical plant. Money for improvement is always scarce and it's invested where it will create the maximum return. Signaling systems get prioritized for renewal based on unreliability, availability of parts, maintenance costs, changes in operating patterns, changes in traffic density, availability of someone else's money (e.g., government investment in a line for use by commuter trains), and a route's long-term potential. Thus you can see pole lines persisting on some very heavily used routes and even undergoing programmed renewal, because, for example, the traffic patterns are stable and projected traffic growth won't exceed the capacity of the signaling system, maintenance costs are not excessive, and -- most important -- there are more urgent demands for the railway's dollars elsewhere.<br><br>Probably within 20 years pole lines will be about as rare as cabooses are now. <br><br>S. Hadid<br>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy