Re: Wooden Trestles - To Save or Not To Save ...

Russo Loco Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> BillD Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > Russo, you mean to tell me that some
> > idiot replaced this with a 36" CMP???
>
>
> NOT some Idiot, Bill -
>
> Just a VERY good man following orders and doing
> his job to provide the C&TS with the best track
> that he could at a reasonable cost.   The
> real problem was that the Commission back then, or
> the Histöric Preservation Committee - or
> whoever - hadn't specified that ALL of the minor
> wooden trestles - not just Hangman's (aka
> Ferguson's) - were as important a part of the
> historic fabric of the railroad as the water tanks
> and coaling tower.  IIRC, 286.72 was
> "culvertised" during the 2008-2009 'off-season',
> and - much worse, IMHO - 287.50 was culvertised
> early in 2010 ...    
>
>
> See
> [ngdiscussion.net]
> et seq for a detailed discussion of the situation,
> which - SFAIK - has been addressed (see
> [ngdiscussion.net]
> 01184).  It's unlikely that the damage will
> be undone in my lifetime - if ever - but at least
> the march of "progress" has apparently been
> halted.  
>
> - Russ

I talked to John about the culverts he put in the following summer when he came up to inspect our progress on the snowshed and he was astonished at all of the flack he took at doing what he thought was a no-brainer on the culverts. He said that just ONE BEAM replaced on the old mini trestle would cost the railroad MORE MONEY (and they needed 5 of them) than the entire pipe cost. He said the steel culverts had been standard practice on the railroads for about 50 years so he thought he was following standard practice. I doubt he would ever do it again on the CATS though.