Trouble on the Western Maryland Scenic

That's sad news. Hope they can get it squared away quickly.

just read a few days ago there was going to be a couple photo specials with 734 in April.  Wonder how this will effect those runs?

superwarp1 posted:

just read a few days ago there was going to be a couple photo specials with 734 in April.  Wonder how this will effect those runs?

Didn't even the 734 make its final run not to long ago?

ES44AC posted:

superwarp1 posted:

just read a few days ago there was going to be a couple photo specials with 734 in April.  Wonder how this will effect those runs?

Didn't even the 734 make its final run not to long ago?

Not yet. The "photo charter" in April should be the final trips for 734.

Just a guess, I would think the charters will go on, they just will not be able to go all the way to Frostburg.

Most of the route can still be used. And, they do need the money. I hope they do, because the old gal

will be just 100 years old in April.  A perfect ending for her, in this era of her life. And, I'll miss 734.

Can you imagine, a doggone steam engine like a member of the family!

Ed

Maybe on a shorter run. Have not visited yet, but its on the list.

Posted on another site:

"I know some you have seen we had an erosion issue near the number 9 swich. We will however still be having the photo freight and adjustments are being made for the trip so we still have the same excitement."

Does anyone know how to get in on this photo charter? If it is open to the public.

This kinda puts a crimp on a very enjoyable excursion. 

Although it has been a couple of years, I very much enjoyed the our ride to Frostburg, watching them turn the engine, and then grabbing a bite to eat from one of the restaurants before the ride back to Cumberland.

Hope they get the track repaired soon.

Jim

PennsyPride94 posted:

Does anyone know how to get in on this photo charter? If it is open to the public.

Yes.

Oh,,,,,you mean YOU want to know.    Try WMSRphoto@WMSR.com

Here ya go....Choo Lookie

Ed

Thanks Ed and Jack!

Any pics of the slide

superwarp1 posted:

Any pics of the slide

Yes. Posted on TrainOrders.com, some days ago.

Kelly Anderson posted:

Does anyone know how long this subsidence is?  Having the track drop 2' to 4' doesn't sound like that big of a deal unless it is over a mile or two.  On the Heber Valley RR, there is a fill perhaps a hundred yards or so long that drops (or at least used to) a foot or two every winter.  A standard part of the spring start up was to haul ballast out there, dump it, and jack up the track.  No big deal.

 

 

Apparently the problem area is only about 80 feet long. The railroad must be REALLY cash strapped if the superintendent is as worried about paying to fix it as the article above suggests.  This photo of the erosion was taken by jlg759 over on Trainorders.

2/25/16: photo trips announced on Trainorders
2/27/16: trips posted on WMSR facebook and WMSR Foundation facebook
2/27/16: trips announced on TRAINS Newswire
Trips limited to approx. 60 persons/trip; $180.00 w/o lunch, $200.00 with lunch, limited amount of cab rides available.
A lengthy phone conversation with the organizer, Joe Goodrich, revealed that in case of the line blockage into Frostburg, photo trips will run to the #9 switch area (this is where the WMSR trackage transitions from the x-WM Connellsville Sub R-O-W to the x-Cumberland & Pennsylvania trackage into Frostburg) more time will be spent around Ridgeley yard, and participants will get a shop tour of #1309.
Regarding the roadbed slippage on the x-C&P, this is just east of the first girder bridge over the x-WM ROW (now GAP trail).
Many people don't realize that this area is adjacent to a former coal mine complex, Consol#9 (hence the name Switch #9 on the old WM and C&P).
In fact, the embankment directly across the tracks in the attached pics is actually a "gob" pile, i.e. mine spoils.
Few people know that the C&P trackage through here is actually a relocation c.1910 when the WM built through.
The C&P had already been here 60 years and originally ran around the hill at a lower elevation than the current trackage. This is all visible by going to historic aerials, and bringing up the 1966 aerial photo of this area.
I grew up in Frostburg, and tromped all through here as a kid, the mine mouth of #9 was still visible in the mid-1970s.
I feel that assistance will be sought from federal and state sources regarding this situation, Governor Hogan and his administration are very aware of WMSR's importance to the local economy, in fact Lt. Governor Rutherford and his family spent time on the WMSR last year.
I hope that some attention is given to the xC&P trackage before #1309 starts running, the roadbed may need some
reinforcement, as Jack Showalter's 4-6-2s were the biggest engines to ever run on this particular trackage.
Here are 3 pics of the roadbed undermining, courtesy Joe Goodrich/WMSR Foundation.

J 611 posted:

Kelly Anderson posted:

Does anyone know how long this subsidence is?  Having the track drop 2' to 4' doesn't sound like that big of a deal unless it is over a mile or two.  On the Heber Valley RR, there is a fill perhaps a hundred yards or so long that drops (or at least used to) a foot or two every winter.  A standard part of the spring start up was to haul ballast out there, dump it, and jack up the track.  No big deal.

 

 

Apparently the problem area is only about 80 feet long. The railroad must be REALLY cash strapped if the superintendent is as worried about paying to fix it as the article above suggests.  This photo of the erosion was taken by jlg759 over on Trainorders.

They have a lot of eggs tied up in the 1309 basket...

Plus it looks like the roadbed is undercut by the erosion.  It'll probably take a little more than just hauling some ballast out there and filling in a hole.

Rusty

Eh, a little "duck tape" and she'll be good as new!  

I was looking for an excuse to donate and Mother Nature complied. 

With spring thaw, and spring rains coming I'd bet it get worse.

Interesting story and historic locomotive.

Gary

AS I expected, WMSR has appealed to the MD. State gov't for financial aid, article in today's Cumberland Times-news.
Frostburg's mayor and the local state delegates are "on board" to get assistance.
One idea being considered is a runaround track at #9 switch.
Another is extending tracks west along the x-WM ROW as far as the former Frostburg depot site, which is a trail head for the GAP trail. I'm not sure there is enough surplus rail on the WMSR to pull this off,
over 1 mile of track materials would be needed (hello,CSX?).

Borden, could you provide a link to the article you mentioned.

Borden Tunnel posted:

AS I expected, WMSR has appealed to the MD. State gov't for financial aid, article in today's Cumberland Times-news.
Frostburg's mayor and the local state delegates are "on board" to get assistance.
One idea being considered is a runaround track at #9 switch.
Another is extending tracks west along the x-WM ROW as far as the former Frostburg depot site, which is a trail head for the GAP trail. I'm not sure there is enough surplus rail on the WMSR to pull this off,
over 1 mile of track materials would be needed (hello,CSX?).

A couple of interest items regarding the slide.

This is not the first time this area has slid.  This same area slid in April of 2014 (as I recall, two weeks before opening day).  Working with the Bureau of Mines (BoM) for emergency repairs, we were able to restore the hillside with 1.2M lbs of rock and dirt and maintain our schedule.  However, due to funding constraints, this was only a temporary fix with a permanent fix coming in FY 2016.  On Feb 4th, the BoM hosted a gathering for interested bidders on a number of projects which included the permanent fix for the slide area.  The expected fix (at least on the 4th) is to inject concrete into the mine in areas which test as a high risk for subsidence at an expected cost of $1-2M.   Some have stated that the slide area is different, but the witness marks on the rail web in the pictures were being used by the BoM to measure the deflection over the past two years, indicating this is the same slide.  For those with a real interest in the coal mining region of the area, it is suspected that the Pittsburgh seam is causing the problems, despite it being deeper than the nearby Tyson seam. 

The appropriation request in question was started back in the August timeframe when we hired a lobbying firm to help us secure funding.  A visit by Governor Hogan in December 2015 was key to his support of the WMSR, and helped secure a budgetary earmark.  Mayor Flanigan and I testified to the State of MD Senate Subcommittee on Public Works on Feb 11th, 2016 (Public Works is where the money would flow from) on the importance of the funding to the WMSR.  The issue highlighted in the newspaper article was first raised by the staffing analyst for the appropriation during this meeting, but the issue received strong support from the Senate members in attendance.  The next hearing was with the State of MD House Subcommittee on the 25th of February, which I understand went very well.  The appropriation request was for $400K for FY 2017 to help support #1309's rebuild, with a 5-year appropriation request for $250K per year starting in 2018 to help rebuild the physical property (equipment, R-O-W, etc.).  Depending on how the appropriation is written, WMSR may or may not be able to use the funding for other purposes.    I hope this helps other non-profits out there on the governmental funding process. 

The funding article address is:

http://www.times-news.com/news...25-4b0cd423e9bd.html

Most distressing is that the article stated that "Railroad officials announced Monday that excursions to Frostburg have been suspended indefinitely after a landslide between Switch 9 and the Frostburg Depot."  However, a Facebook post today on the WMSR page indicated that trips will continue, just not all the way to Frostburg--an important clarification.  I expect that Heather just misquoted Mayor Flanigan.

Hope this helps.

Mike Gresham

trainroomgary posted:

Interesting story and historic locomotive.

Gary

Former Lake Superior & Ishpeming #34,  those LS&I connies are greta engines!

A few pictures near Frostburg on the Great Allegheny Passage bike trail.  #9 Switch to the Frostburg Station probably gains 100 ft. elevation.  You would see fall trains stuck on wet leaves on this grade.   A re-direct of the rails, to the bike trail, would require a hike to the station, up several existing switch backs.  My grandson did a header off his bike, down the switch backs, several years ago.  I had the same experience a few years earlier, with one of my scout group, on a (50 mile) bike ride over the mountains from Rockland.

This old signal bridge would be an indication of the approaching  location of the #9 switch.

The railroad crosses the trail, twice after the #9 switch,   the climb to Frostburg.

Left to right.

And back, right to left.  My guess is the area of concern is between the two bridges, I could be wrong.

I've seen the fall trains stuck on leaves, second bridge into the station.

Great Allegheny Passage Trail terminal, just below the Frostburg station. 

Frostburg Turntable.

Note the existing run-around at the Frostburg station. Turntable accesses the run-around.  Some trains are too long for the run-around. 

I thought I had a picture of the switchbacks, from the trail to the station, but can not find it. It's a climb, as is the trek to main street Frostburg. Usually a bus is provided, for train passengers, to access Frostburg from the train station.  Bike trail access lot is small, may be 4 to 5 cars at the most. 

Lots to concerns and engineering if things change. Existing bike trail would also be part of the planning. 

It is interesting to note that the Great Allegheny Passage trial group was able to acquire funding to refurbish/rebuild the Big Savage tunnel, which was opened to the trail 2006.  That project was a several million dollar project. 

IMO

Mike CT

This picture, posted previously,  shows the area of concern is between the #9 switch location and the first bridge, crossing left to right of the bike trail. First bridge top left in the picture.

Hopefully this topo map of the location northeast of Frostburg will help clarify.
The PALE YELLOW area just to the left of the Switch#9 on the map is the erosion area.

The area between the blue marks is where the proposed runaround track will be constructed.
Also attached is a short summary of the Switch#9 area

Borden Tunnel posted:

Hopefully this topo map of the location northeast of Frostburg will help clarify.
The PALE YELLOW area just to the left of the Switch#9 on the map is the erosion area.

The area between the blue marks is where the proposed runaround track will be constructed.
Also attached is a short summary of the Switch#9 area

What is your source of a run around track at Switch 9? All indications point to the WMSR reopening the track to Frostburg sometime this summer. That'd be a heck of a lot of $$$ to spend on track that, arguably, would be unnecessary. I know there is/are plans to re-do much of the track at Frostburg to accommodate the 1309 and larger trains. Building a runaround track for a few months doesn't seem cost effective, especially when, with their diesels, you could put one at each end and operate as a "pull-pull". Obviously if it becomes clear that the track to Frostburg will be abandoned and no longer used from Switch 9, you'll need a way to turn the engine but...I haven't seen any really liklihood of this. 

Another point, I recall the WMSR saying that the 734's rear wheel flanges where thinner at one point than the rest as a result from backing/being towed down the mountain in reverse. It isn't/wasn't uncommon for them to turn the 734 and couple nose first to the back of the train while the diesels pulled the train. Running in reverse that long distance also isn't ideal.....

SJC posted:

Borden Tunnel posted:

Hopefully this topo map of the location northeast of Frostburg will help clarify.
The PALE YELLOW area just to the left of the Switch#9 on the map is the erosion area.

The area between the blue marks is where the proposed runaround track will be constructed.
Also attached is a short summary of the Switch#9 area

What is your source of a run around track at Switch 9? All indications point to the WMSR reopening the track to Frostburg sometime this summer. That'd be a heck of a lot of $$$ to spend on track that, arguably, would be unnecessary. I know there is/are plans to re-do much of the track at Frostburg to accommodate the 1309 and larger trains. Building a runaround track for a few months doesn't seem cost effective, especially when, with their diesels, you could put one at each end and operate as a "pull-pull". Obviously if it becomes clear that the track to Frostburg will be abandoned and no longer used from Switch 9, you'll need a way to turn the engine but...I haven't seen any really liklihood of this. 

Another point, I recall the WMSR saying that the 734's rear wheel flanges where thinner at one point than the rest as a result from backing/being towed down the mountain in reverse. It isn't/wasn't uncommon for them to turn the 734 and couple nose first to the back of the train while the diesels pulled the train. Running in reverse that long distance also isn't ideal.....

My source was Chase Gunnoe, in his TRAINS NEWSWIRE story on 3/1/2016. His interview with John Garner, new WMSR superintendent, made up much of that feature.
I personally favor construction of a runaround track since IMO, it's cheaper to build trackage with surplus materials available on site than to run push-pull. WMSR will probably have to run shorter trains since ridership will be reduced without a steam engine operating.

I have a deep personal interest in this operation and do not have to "make things up". I also used the word "proposed". The affected trackage will be repaired, the question is who will pay...

On Feb 4th, the BoM hosted a gathering for interested bidders on a number of projects which included the permanent fix for the slide area.  The expected fix (at least on the 4th) is to inject concrete into the mine in areas which test as a high risk for subsidence at an expected cost of $1-2M.   Some have stated that the slide area is different, but the witness marks on the rail web in the pictures were being used by the BoM to measure the deflection over the past two years, indicating this is the same slide.  For those with a real interest in the coal mining region of the area, it is suspected that the Pittsburgh seam is causing the problems, despite it being deeper than the nearby Tyson seam. 

You would think, step one, would be a soils testing company with a drill to determine the actual extent of the problem.  A soils test report would indicate remedial work required, and being more definitive would specify the actual work required, then you could put a number on the fix, IMO.  All else, is speculation until you sink that drill and determine the extent of the  problem, especially since it was fixed before.   There appears to have been work/paper work, previously, on this location.   The testing and engineering , while expensive, would determine the correct course of action. IMO.  Could be the BoM does have good information on this event.   

Mike CT.

Mike CT posted:

On Feb 4th, the BoM hosted a gathering for interested bidders on a number of projects which included the permanent fix for the slide area.  The expected fix (at least on the 4th) is to inject concrete into the mine in areas which test as a high risk for subsidence at an expected cost of $1-2M.   Some have stated that the slide area is different, but the witness marks on the rail web in the pictures were being used by the BoM to measure the deflection over the past two years, indicating this is the same slide.  For those with a real interest in the coal mining region of the area, it is suspected that the Pittsburgh seam is causing the problems, despite it being deeper than the nearby Tyson seam. 

You would think, step one, would be a soils testing company with a drill to determine the actual extent of the problem.  A soils test report would indicate remedial work required, and being more definitive would specify the actual work required, then you could put a number on the fix, IMO.  All else, is speculation until you sink that drill and determine the extent of the  problem, especially since it was fixed before.   There appears to have been work/paper work, previously, on this location.   The testing and engineering , while expensive, would determine the correct course of action. IMO.  Could be the BoM does have good information on this event.   

Mike CT.

"The expected fix (at least on the 4th) is to inject concrete into the mine in areas which test as a high risk for subsidence at an expected cost of $1-2M."

Yes, testing is part of the contract.

Mike

You would hope with good engineering,  the price could be a bit more accurate that 1 to 2 million. IMO.  You could  build a bridge across the area pictured for less than a million, a nice bridge for 2 million.  IMO