I know tamping machines typically raise the track bed about 2 inches. I recently read about a track supervisor who was about to retire, stood beside the tracks with a measuring stick showing that during his decades of service, the trackbed had been raised 4 feet.
Why was it raised so much? What would happen if you came to a bridge of tunnel?
Well, how much a line is raised may depend on where exactly it should be, and what the conditions are like prior. When the local B&P line got reconstructed, some parts were still in such good condition, even after all these years, that they were the last to receive additional stone and required very little tamping. Then, just a few miles up the track, there was none left, and the roadbed itself was even in bad shap with humps and all. You really needed to see a before-and-after to see just how much stone got used there. Another 4-feet situation. Really. Most maintenance likely just needs a couple inches, but with major work like that, anything goes.
(1) The surfacing gang may raise 2 inches, but it consolidates initially about half an inch and settles another inch over time as voids are eliminated. Stabilisation machines (Vibrators) are basically a product of the last 20 years, but they are still not a part of many surfacing operations.
(and then there is the issue of ballast degradation - slag ballast turns to dust, limestone slowly turns to sandy ooze and harder rock (quartzite, granite, basalt) breaks down at a slower rate)
(2)Bridge or tunnel? - bring out the sled or undercutter and get busy.
(3) Not sure if I buy 4 feet, a foot maybe. Most skinlifts and crack & line operations will raise at most half an inch. If there is any shoulder at all, the folly of that claim would show.
A surfacing machine can raise up to 6 inches in a single pass, but it is rarely done as it is a waste of ballast and subject to multible voids and unstable track.
Kinda sounds like poetic license to me.
I believe I’ve seen that picture - it was the PRR’s track supervisor who had the territory that included Horseshoe Curve for many years, and that may have been where the photo was taken. They named one of the nearby curves after him - it was an Italian name, but I can’t remember it right at the moment.
I too would normally be skeptical of that amount of a raise - even over time, but in that context - with repeated widenings and upgradings of that track from the 1920’s through the 1950’s or so - it did make sense and seem plausible, once I knew the whole story. I’m pretty sure that the photo and the narrative is in the museum at the bottom of the funicular/ stairs at the curve, and/ or also in either Dan Cupper’s book or another one about the Curve and Altoona. Give me a couple days to retrieve them and I’ll see if I can provide the details.
That made my eyes take note…Quite a few years ago I read an article, not sure if it might have been in TRAINS…or some other publication, but the statement sounds exactly as what I saw…He was talking about thru the years, how much with the constant care of the road bed, etc…the story how it then was 4’ higher now compared to so many years hence…The location was on the old Pennsy at Horseshoe Curve just west of Altoona.
Edit: I just now noted Paul’s post, and I too remember seeing the photo…He was standing along side {believe the outside of the curve}, and had a measuring stick showing the low {originally, and present} state of the track height. Still think it might have been in TRAINS mag. Can’t really put a date on it, but I’ll guess at least 10 years ago,perhaps more.
Edit {again}: Paul, might the Bennington Curve be the one named for the Supervisor oldtimer.
Four feet? Over how many years? I wouldn’t doubt it…all I have to do is look at the now NS Southern Tier along the original Erie roadbed to see the rise from even what I remember it was back in the 70’s. So, yeah, it is possible.
Don’t remember just how many years the Supervisor was on the job, but I’d wager it was in the range of 40 some years.
Agreed - that comports with my recollection. So it would be just over 1 inch per year on average.
The 2 curves in that vicinity that have recent names - and so might have been named after that Track Supervisor - are Brandimarte Curve, and Salpino Curve - it’s one of those 2. See the map from Horseshoe Curve to Gallitzin at -
http://www.trainweb.org/horseshoecurve-nrhs/gallit-cress_A.htm
Brandimarte Curve is 13 on the map, and Salpino Curve is 18.
My money is on Brandimarte - but we’ll see later on.
There’s a spot on our line that is clearly higher than it was at some point in the past, as illustrated by the difference between the current main and the switch location for an industrial siding of many years past. It’s not on the order of four feet (nor did the line handle the amount of traffic of Horseshoe Curve), but it is noticable.
I’ve always wondered how many “bottoming out” road crossing accidents are the result of this. Traveling along US30 in Nebraska next to the UP’s triple track it is quite obvious when you look at the roads that depart from the adjacent highway at 90 degrees to reach an elevator or farm road that the original roadbed was much lower.
John.
From the caption to a photo in the chapter Working on the Curve on page 54 of Dan Cupper’s April 1992 book, Horseshoe Heritage**:** The Story of a Great Railroad Landmark, 1st Edition, 1st Printing, Withers Publishing, Halifax, Penn., ISNB 1-881411-00-1 [sic - probably should be ‘‘ISBN’’ for ‘‘Internbational Standard Book Number’’ instead]:
‘‘Using a tape measure, Brandimarte indicates that the main line has been raised four feet through successive building up of the ballast sub-base, 2-1/2 inches at a time, since he began working for PRR. The rail on which he is standing is an old scale siding that wasn’t raised. PRR, Collection of John Brandimarte.’’
Giulio Brandimarte started working for the PRR in 1903 in Philadelphia, and came to the mountain in the fall of 1905. He retired in the spring of 1957, which amounted to 52 years there - he died in 1970. His successor was Oscar Salpino, who ran the gift shop/ informal visitor’s center at the Curve for many years.
You think they would have undercutted the route at some point and dropped the track level.
As MC pointed out, there are reasons for doing that, but out on the “open road,” if the sub-bed is good and all is needed is some resurfacing, I can see just dumping more stone, lifting the track, then tamping it. The only place you really need to consider the actual elevation of the track is in places where you’re dealing with an unmovable fixture, like a crossing or a bridge.
If there weren’t any vertical constraints nearby, and if the ballast wasn’t fouled or contaminated by either mud from below, or coal, iron ore, or other mineral ‘fines’ from above - both big ‘ifs’, I’ll grant you - but then, why ? What would be gained by that ?
In contrast, what would be lost is the advantage of the positive drainage provided by that much elevation above the surrounding ground. Specifically, the approx. 2.7 ft. of the track structure below the bottom of the tie (4 ft. - 8’’ rail - 7’’ tie - 3/4’’ tie plate, etc.) was then above the adjoining track, and would have water flow out of it quite readily, so it would be fully drained. Further, the effective width of the ballast section that is supporting the track at that depth would have been apporoaching 15 feet (8.5 ft. long tie
Bennington Curve is named after the small settlement of Bennington. There actually used to be a small village called Bennington near it’s name sake curve.
The two curves named after two former track supervisors are:
Salpino Curve, which is the last curve on the east slope before tracks 2 & 3 enter Allegheny Tunnel
Brandimarte Curve (which is the supervisor in the photo), is located on Allegrippus. There is MG Tower, then AG Curve, Greenough Curve, Brandimarte Curve, Alleggrippus Curve, Cold Curve, and then Bennington Curve.