Hey Leonard, your exactly correct - I'm looking at my copy of the manual from that seminar right now. It says the center of the track is NOT the center of the right-of-way.
Except in this case the centerline of the track is specifically called out as a monument of the right of way.?ÿ?ÿ
We all understand the principle that a called for monument, undisturbed,?ÿ is to be held. And further that a properly restored monument has all the dignity of the original. Nevertheless, we get that a restored monument may not be in?ÿexactly?ÿthe same place as the original.?ÿ
While individual rails might move this way or that in use, and when replaced in maintenance, it seems to me that the over all best fit course of over a quarter mile of straight tangent would be constant, or nearly so.?ÿ?ÿ
I'm sure that the 2012 railroad construction surveyors would have made a special effort when restoring the track to extend the existing straight tangent. And they had well over a thousand feet of undisturbed track to line up a few hundred feet of replacement track on.?ÿ?ÿ
So I'm thinking that there is a very good chance that the current track is right were it was in 1942. At least, I think I've made a case for it.
The monuments, 3 of them,?ÿ are common?ÿ 5/8" iron rods and pipes along about 200'. They make a line +/- 0.5', and said line agrees with the rails to about 0.08'. So I'm not a long way off, but, as I said, this is high priced real estate (it sold this spring for $675,000) and 0.08' is enough to debate about.?ÿ?ÿ
So the best fit line of the monuments have a half foot of error between them but that line works with in 0.08' of the c/l of tracks.?ÿ?ÿ
I'd have to say using only the information given in the op.?ÿ Not taking into account any other pertinent information, I'd hold the c/l of tracks and let someone prove me wrong.?ÿ
?ÿ
The monuments, 3 of them,?ÿ are common?ÿ 5/8" iron rods and pipes along about 200'. They make a line +/- 0.5', and said line agrees with the rails to about 0.08'. So I'm not a long way off, but, as I said, this is high priced real estate (it sold this spring for $675,000) and 0.08' is enough to debate about.?ÿ?ÿ
So the best fit line of the monuments have a half foot of error between them but that line works with in 0.08' of the c/l of tracks.?ÿ?ÿ
I'd have to say using only the information given in the op.?ÿ Not taking into account any other pertinent information, I'd hold the c/l of tracks and let someone prove me wrong.?ÿ
?ÿ
That was an erroneous statement. The monuments make a line +/- 0.05' .
Sounds like you're working on the BNSF tracks around the 39th St. overpass. Depending on phases of the moon, they claim the center is between the 2 sets of tracks or the center of the main track whichever gives them the most property. Historical evidence (Spanish American War era) on the east side showed it was the center of the main tract but a recent survey they contested was from the center of the?ÿ2 tracts until they were shown the deed granting an easement or property to the western adjoiner which stated where it was at. Look at the Plat recorded under Bk. 311, Pg. 935 to get more information from that surveyor.
Sounds like you're working on the BNSF tracks around the 39th St. overpass. Depending on phases of the moon, they claim the center is between the 2 sets of tracks or the center of the main track whichever gives them the most property. Historical evidence (Spanish American War era) on the east side showed it was the center of the main tract but a recent survey they contested was from the center of the?ÿ2 tracts until they were shown the deed granting an easement or property to the western adjoiner which stated where it was at. Look at the Plat recorded under Bk. 311, Pg. 935 to get more information from that surveyor.
Right tracks but further south. I'm around Jefferson @ 7th.?ÿ I'll check that ROS?ÿplat out, thanks for the tip.
I'm sure that the 2012 railroad construction surveyors would have made a special effort when restoring the track to extend the existing straight tangent. And they had well over a thousand feet of undisturbed track to line up a few hundred feet of replacement track on.?ÿ?ÿ
So I'm thinking that there is a very good chance that the current track is right were it was in 1942. At least, I think I've made a case for it.
I'd be surprised if the RR folks didn't accept anything within 0.1 or 0.2 in 200 as being "straight"
One of the main reasons the USA does not have a super high speed?ÿ rail system is that our present system will not work?ÿ
It barely accommodates our present system.?ÿ
I have found that most of the local rails are within several tenths of planned location and most mile markers an momuments are gone.
"This is by the square foot urban property, so hundreths are at issue."
You're only as good as your control. Both would be justifiable, especially if you get a hold of the construction surveyor's data for the previous project. Such evidence would make me feel much better. If there is no such data I would probably use the R/W monuments.
When I make decisions like this I put myself on the stand.
Would I rather defend an old monument I have no record of being disturbed?
Or a new 'monument' I know was recently disturbed and no one has evidence (data) showing how they put it back in the same place? Blind luck?
Steve
You are on the right 'track'. The original monument was removed and replaced. Now you need to evaluate what best represents the original location.
The rods don't line up 0.5' in 200'. If the tracks were that far out originally it would have been an issue. I would say they cannot be relied upon as the best evidence. Next up tie portions of tangent original rails or original structures to recreate the rails. The bolt holes on trestles will give a defiinitive location within hundredths if there are any.
Don't be shocked if the evidence puts you back on the rails. Also don't be shocked if your error ellipses come close to your 0.08' on your rail locations.
Good luck, Tom?ÿ
The monuments, 3 of them,?ÿ are common?ÿ 5/8" iron rods and pipes along about 200'. They make a line +/- 0.5', and said line agrees with the rails to about 0.08'. So I'm not a long way off, but, as I said, this is high priced real estate (it sold this spring for $675,000) and 0.08' is enough to debate about.?ÿ?ÿ
So the best fit line of the monuments have a half foot of error between them but that line works with in 0.08' of the c/l of tracks.?ÿ?ÿ
I'd have to say using only the information given in the op.?ÿ Not taking into account any other pertinent information, I'd hold the c/l of tracks and let someone prove me wrong.?ÿ
?ÿ
That was an erroneous statement. The monuments make a line +/- 0.05' .
Oh, well that is a horse of a different color.?ÿ
?ÿ
You can't measure within 0.08".?ÿ All measurements are theoretical.?ÿ In 1942 they weren't using T-3's and using a lovar tape.?ÿ Get real.?ÿ That's why we use monuments, they have a physical presence (measurements do not have a physical presence).
I would say that you have done it as well as it could have been done by anyone.
? cheers
You can't measure within 0.08".?ÿ All measurements are theoretical.?ÿ In 1942 they weren't using T-3's and using a lovar tape.?ÿ Get real.?ÿ That's why we use monuments, they have a physical presence (measurements do not have a physical presence).
0.08 inches? You are right. If I claimed that somewhere I apologize.?ÿ 0.08 feet? Yes,?ÿ I got that.?ÿ
