guymonmd Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Russ,
>
> What do you propose? How do you propose we
> keep the C&T or D&S from replacing the wooden
> trestles? Letters to the board will only go so far.
> I suppose you could set up a fund and ask for
> donations for this cause? There would have to
> be a serious amount of $$ to get the attention
> of those who make such decisions.
Thanks ALL for your contributions, pro and con -
At this point my main intent was primarily to bring this issue to everyone's attention, so that it can be properly addressed as a matter of both RR Commission and Historic Preservation Board
* policy, and not just "swept under the rug" by choosing the least expensive option without the issue being addressed by
ALL concerned - including us railfans, preservationists and photographers.
It may be, as pointed out by more than one poster, that regular inspection and replacement of a few timbers per year may be more cost-effective than wholesale replacement of trestles by ugly, highway-style culverts. It may also be that replacement of timber with hollow square steel "tubes" would be a compromise - especially in the case of the often-photographed "Hangman's" and Los Piños trestles. It may be that the only affordable solution is to replace ALL of the wooden trestles with fills and culverts over the next five to ten years - but at least IMHO the decision(s) should be made in the light of day, perhaps on a trestle-by-trestle basis, with input from all those concerned - and not just by the "bean counters".
- Russ
* Sorry - I can't remember the name of the organization which has significant input over what's histöric and what's not, and what the C&TS - and The Friends thereof - can and cannot restore, replicate or replace.