Okay, I'll bite. Why is it that anytime I propose using old railroad ties for landscaping forms, I'm reminded that without proper drainage, they'll rot. Yet here we have load bearing wooden trestles being buried intentionally? What am I missing?
Erik_Mag tree68 One extremely large fill on the MA&N probably still has a trestle under it. The chief reason for building the trestle was to reach a spot on the other side from which fill could be obtained. A perhaps even more important reason was that it was easier to create the fill by dumping carloads of dirt from the trestle, than doing it lift by lift with material carted in. One strong incentive to cover a trestle with fill was to elminate the possiblity of the trestle burning down. FWIW, the Central Pacific had a number of trestles that were filled in after the transcontinental line was finished.
tree68 One extremely large fill on the MA&N probably still has a trestle under it. The chief reason for building the trestle was to reach a spot on the other side from which fill could be obtained.
One extremely large fill on the MA&N probably still has a trestle under it. The chief reason for building the trestle was to reach a spot on the other side from which fill could be obtained.
A perhaps even more important reason was that it was easier to create the fill by dumping carloads of dirt from the trestle, than doing it lift by lift with material carted in. One strong incentive to cover a trestle with fill was to elminate the possiblity of the trestle burning down.
FWIW, the Central Pacific had a number of trestles that were filled in after the transcontinental line was finished.
Reportedly they took the top off a hill to get the material needed...
One story regarding the trestle was that the state bridge inspector noted that it didn't look all that healthy, to which the reply was that it was going to get covered anyhow.
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...
SD60MAC9500 I imagine BNSF has improved its former MILW lines. I'm assuming the BNSF line you're mentioning is probably the Mitchell Sub. All CRI&P routes into South Dakota were branches hence the elevation change you're seeing. Branches are built much more cheaply for the most part than mainlines.
I imagine BNSF has improved its former MILW lines. I'm assuming the BNSF line you're mentioning is probably the Mitchell Sub. All CRI&P routes into South Dakota were branches hence the elevation change you're seeing. Branches are built much more cheaply for the most part than mainlines.
BNSF has certainly improved the track in terms of rail, ties, ballast, and bridges, especially after buying the Core Lines outright from the state about 15 years ago. But I don't think they altered the profile or alignment in any significant way.
Dan
The Sioux Falls line of the RI was built by the Burlington, Cedar Rapids & Northern Ry. That railroad became part of the RI in 1903, although they had control of it about 10 or 15 years earlier.
Jeff
diningcarThe original location of tracks was dictated by more than capital funds. The need of water for locomotives, the lack of tools to excavate deep rock cuts, the flood plains of certain rivers or streams, plus the politics of states or towns and large land holdings.
Capital available dictated each and every aspect you mentioned. Everything needs the lubrication provided by money (or the lack thereof). If there was enough money to 'do the job right', it was; if there wasn't the job got done in the lease expensive way possible. It has always taken money to lubricate politicians - some have gotten very rich standing in the way of progress until they were sufficiently lubricated.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
diningcar... the lack of tools to excavate deep rock cuts, ...
Rock cuts on the Mohawk and Malone (NYC Adirondack Division, now Adirondack Railroad) are usually just wide enough. Accounts of early operations indicate that occasionally fittings would be knocked off steam locomotives, and even today we worry occasionally about whether cars like the dome will clear.
A common practice was (and still is) to use the dirt from a cut to fill in a dip. As noted, sometimes the economics would not allow for "outside" fill to be brought in.
The original location of tracks was dictated by more than capital funds. The need of water for locomotives, the lack of tools to excavate deep rock cuts, the flood plains of certain rivers or streams, plus the politics of states or towns and large land holdings.
timz Murphy Siding In general, was the Milwaukee Road ... No one knows any general rule. Maybe if you tell people what lines you're talking about someone will know when they were built. Rock Island redid its lines at several places.
Murphy Siding In general, was the Milwaukee Road ...
No one knows any general rule.
Maybe if you tell people what lines you're talking about someone will know when they were built. Rock Island redid its lines at several places.
Most rail companies in the 19th century were created as undercapitalized entities and built as much mileage as they could and moved as little earth as possible to build that mileage. As more capital became available, sometimes it was reinvested into the physical plant to minimize changes in line elevation and increase the radius of curves.
Murphy SidingIn general, was the Milwaukee Road ...
Murphy SidingA bike path near my house is on top of an old Rock Island rail bed. The parallel former Milwaukee Road line 100 feet away is graded much better. For example, in a half mile stretch the Rock Island ROW rises and then drops 12 feet. The Milwaukee Road ROW- now the BNSF line through town- is flat as a pancake. I've seen other ROW from both in the area. In general, was the Milwaukee Road usually built to higher standards than the Rock Island in the same area?
Did you look at the line history of each to make sure they were constructed by each instead of merged in railroads? Just curious.
A bike path near my house is on top of an old Rock Island rail bed. The parallel former Milwaukee Road line 100 feet away is graded much better. For example, in a half mile stretch the Rock Island ROW rises and then drops 12 feet. The Milwaukee Road ROW- now the BNSF line through town- is flat as a pancake. I've seen other ROW from both in the area. In general, was the Milwaukee Road usually built to higher standards than the Rock Island in the same area?
I find this a little bit troubling, as I'd always heard that the Rock Island line was a mighty good road.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.