J. Penry said he was going to figure the tracts as a spiral and the right-ofÛÒway on a simple curve. I agree with that at one time simple curve center line became spirals at a time when the speeds increased. Some old engineering books show only simple curves in the railroad chapters of them. When newer tracts were put in the ROW cannot be a spiral and parallel to the center line because spiral curves are not concentric.
If I treated each of my surveys that are next to a railroad as if it will be going to court, how can I defend it when I am not a railroad engineer and couldnÛªt find any records showing it to be a simple or spiral curve. Without a record or plan showing it a spiral or simple curve my survey would just be an assumption? Or S.W.A. G.
Art S, post: 345465, member: 8983 wrote: When newer tracts were put in the ROW cannot be a spiral and parallel to the center line because spiral curves are not concentric.
Absolutely true (in part), and generally false (in part).
Realigning the track [in and of itself] does NOT change the ROW limits, UNLESS additional conveyances, grants, or agreements are executed.
However, concentricity with the Central circular curve is not really an issue (in most cases around here anyway). The vast majority of ORIGINAL "spiral curves" that define ROW limits (around here), are Searles Spirals, which by definition are a compounding series of circular curves, which of course have corresponding concentric ROW "lines" parallel to the centerline of each of the individual circular curves that form the "spiral" transition.
This situation is NOT limited to Railroad ROWs either (at least around here), SOME Highway ROWs also fall into this category as well. Some are Chord Definition, some are Arc Definition, some are Searles "spirals," some are not! And...of course EACH curve must be evaluated based on the Documents and physical evidence controlling THAT particular Curve.
"It is a capital mistake to theorize before you have all the evidence."
Sherlock Holmes, A study in Scarlet, 1887
Loyal
Barring proof to the contrary; your assumption is more of an educated guess; based on all of the available evidence within your search.
Just because you can't prove it, doesn't mean it's wrong. If someone else can provide proof that you're wrong; then if it pleases the court, have them present it.
RADAR, post: 345472, member: 413 wrote: ..Just because you can't prove it, doesn't mean it's wrong.
Exactly. A determination of boundary location contrary to a so-called S.W.A.G. would have the burden of producing a higher level of contradictory evidence extraneous to that upon which the initial hypothesis was based. If you're a surveyor worth your salt...none should exist.
paden cash, post: 345474, member: 20 wrote: Exactly......If you're a surveyor worth your salt...none should exist.
That's exactly what I was going to say!
I just didn't say it...:-$
Good luck finding some of those documents. The oldest "creation" documents on much of the old local railroad in the deed records has no curve, tangent or sectional tie references. Also, they reference the EXISTING railroad.
They were filed decades AFTER the railroad was built.
Crearly there is an older document somewhere creating the railroad. The railroad has given me two old maps, in CONFLICT with each other and with the "deeds". Both of those maps are "VAL MAPS" and therefore neither can be the ROW map.
Charlie Tucker will tell you there is a ROW map out there that is the true creation document. It may be filed in the bowels of the national archives in virgina.
One thing is certain the railroad didn't lay out 2d02'15" type curves as the Val maps show. And both maps show different curve data, different spiral lengths, different statationing and more importantly different right of way widths.
Another routine problem is finding the description for the route on file in no way agrees with where it actually exists. Lots of pretty words from 1880 don't mean much after 135 years of occupation a long way from where the pretty words would put it.
MightyMoe, post: 345480, member: 700 wrote: Good luck finding some of those documents. The oldest "creation" documents on much of the old local railroad in the deed records has no curve, tangent or sectional tie references. Also, they reference the EXISTING railroad.
They were filed decades AFTER the railroad was built.
Crearly there is an older document somewhere creating the railroad. The railroad has given me two old maps, in CONFLICT with each other and with the "deeds". Both of those maps are "VAL MAPS" and therefore neither can be the ROW map.
Charlie Tucker will tell you there is a ROW map out there that is the true creation document. It may be filed in the bowels of the national archives in virgina.
One thing is certain the railroad didn't lay out 2d02'15" type curves as the Val maps show. And both maps show different curve data, different spiral lengths, different statationing and more importantly different right of way widths.
Mighty,
Nobody ever said that it was EASY to find [ALL of] those old Railroad Documents, although some are easier than others. And, as Holy pointed out... even when you do find them, some are more helpful than others. As you pointed out above, the Valuation Maps must be taken with a grain (or bucket) of salt, but some of the information contained within the Val Maps will usually point you in the right direction for further research.
As far as the National Archives go...IF (sometimes a really BIG IF), you can figure out what "box" they need to look in, the folks at the Archives can usually find just about anything. Rarely does a year go by anymore, when I don't have to get SOMETHING out of the National Archives. Sometimes it is THE game changer/silver bullet, sometimes it either doesn't help at all, or worse...muddies the water even more.
If it was easy, it wouldn't be as much fun.
Loyal
Very true, with this project I'm stuck for a while, ALTA, so I have to depend on THEIR title people for now. They don't want me involved, YET...
As soon as they get more frustrated than they are now, then........