 |
Re: Wire height standards
Author: Dr Zarkoff
Date: 08-19-2009 - 19:19
> . . . And speaking of Key System, my good Zarkoff, I don't believe your statement about the 19 foot thing. Raised it from 19 ft to what ??
I don't really care if you believe it or not, but about 25-30 years ago I read the PUC report on the project, ISTR it was raised to 22'. The report was silent on raising wire on the other lines, which saw no freight movements. This figure, BTW, has to do with switchmen and brakemen riding the roofs of boxcars. Nowadays, it auto racks and double stacks.
> 19-feet was already taller than the 4449 so what's the point ??
The point, which apparently you overlooked, is that things like the 4449 had nothing to do with it; Calif State regulations did (and still do).
Clearances around tracks (pole lines, switch stands, toe paths, trolley wire height, etc.) are regulated by the individual States, not the ICC/STB nor FRA.
I don't really care if you believe it or not, but about 25-30 years ago I read the PUC report on the project, ISTR it was raised to 22'. The report was silent on raising wire on the other lines, which saw no freight movements. This figure, BTW, has to do with switchmen and brakemen riding the roofs of boxcars. Nowadays, it auto racks and double stacks.
> 19-feet was already taller than the 4449 so what's the point ??
The point, which apparently you overlooked, is that things like the 4449 had nothing to do with it; Calif State regulations did (and still do).
Clearances around tracks (pole lines, switch stands, toe paths, trolley wire height, etc.) are regulated by the individual States, not the ICC/STB nor FRA.
