Russo Loco Wrote:
> 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
In the spirit of compromise, if a trestle can't been seen under normal conditions,(without back packing in miles from a public road for instance) then maybe when it's time is up it should be replaced in the most cost effective way possible. Those trestles which are easily accessible and visable, like those you've mentioned, should be maintained in their historic configurations. All costs aren't just in dollars and cents. Saying bridges ties are much more expensive than they once were doesn’t take into consideration what the loss means historically. What is required is a
formal maintenance program designed to extend the longevity of the trestles. The new FRA regulations require an annual inspection and the program would be an extension of that. The Chama coal tipple is a prime example of what an ongoing maintenance program can accomplish.
