Re: (erielack) Akron Questions

[Mike Spinelli <idrsspin_@_yahoo.com>]

I think the second to last paragraph is unclear, I think they mean "Loads over 17' 9" above top of rail...
   
  Because at the top, it says "Loads 19' 0" above top of rail should move over westbound track..." leading me to think that anything under that height was fine on the EB.
   
  And looking at the ROW, and the pic I sent out earlier, there may have been a 9" difference in altitude, but not a two foot difference.
   
  So, anything between 17' 9" and 19' 0" on the EB had to go at slow speed.
   
  Anything between 19' 0" and 19' 2" had to go on the WB.
   
  Anything taller than 19' 2" went over the Wheeling (NKP).
   
  Mike

Paul Brezicki <doctorpb_@_bellsouth.net> wrote:
  I don't know how to resolve these contradictory positions:

1. EL handled loaded trilevels with a height of 18'6" above the rail eastbound through Akron.
2. The eastbound track had a height restriction of 17'9" throughout EL years.
3. Keith doesn't recall eastbound trains with loaded trilevels crossing over to go through Akron.

Anyone?

Paul B

From: Mike Spinelli 
Subject: Re: (erielack) Akron Questions

The tracks are gone from the JO Tower area, but the ROW is still very much intact. 

The EB main does/did sit higher than the WB main in this area. Neither track was lowered, so the clearances in my 1961 ETT apparently stayed that way until well after the mainline was downgraded. 



The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
Sponsored by the ELH&TS
http://www.elhts.org
To Unsubscribe: http://lists.elhts.org/erielackunsub.html


 
- ---------------------------------
Sucker-punch spam with award-winning protection.
 Try the free Yahoo! Mail Beta.

	The Erie Lackawanna Mailing List
	Sponsored by the ELH&TS
	http://www.elhts.org
	To Unsubscribe: http://lists.elhts.org/erielackunsub.html

------------------------------