shoofly

08/16/2010 11:05AM
When I re-read other threads I found the original post that got me thinking about this shoo-fly. My plan does not require a new bridge but uses the hi-way culvert already in place. Credit should be given to Tomstp for the idea, I just expanded on it. Refer:

[ngdiscussion.net]
Posted by: Tomstp (IP Logged)
Date: July 02, 2010 09:42AM

"Hate to start a preservation "war" but, from looking at Google Earth it appears that just a few hundred yards north of the Lobato trestle the creek narrows considerably and it appears a much shorter bridge could be located there. Then the track would have to turn left after crossing and go back south to rejoin the current track alignment. There would be some earthwork to do to cut out a right of way back to the old trackage but I would think this would be a cheaper alternative than total rebuild of Lobato.

Now, I will duck while the flames fly overhead!"
======================================================================

My original post below

This is one way to get the line back up and running. I am afraid if they use this plan they might not fix the bridge. The original builders didn't use this alignment because,I think, they wanted to maintain the same downgrade to avoid changing the handbrake settings for the short upgrade. Also the builders would avoid cut and fill work with scoop and mule manual labor. As to being too close to the road, I used the same radius the builders used but slightly tighter radius would give more clearance (Uintah used 66 degree curves; D&RG used, I think, 20 degree curves here). At the closest point to the road the fill would be on top of the highway culvert already in place and the top of the fill would be only 10 feet above the road, engineers would pick the best option here.




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2010 11:16AM by jhp43hot.