Any suggestions or experience on describing a spiral curve in a legal description to keep it simple for future retracement? Surveying to describe the remainder from a 100 acres with a dozen paper only cut-outs. North line is Railroad R/W. RR deed is fee simple from parent tract and deed actually calls for B&D to a point, thence 198 feet along a spiral curve to the right, thence 250' along simple curve to the right, radius of 2500 feet, thence B& D, again. Deed is from 1899. I made up the data because it's not in front of me.
I can't make the data work on paper using the record bearings as tangents for either curve (ordered tract plans for additional curve data besides deed) but some monuments at the begin and end of the R/W take on one side helped create a radius point for the simple curve, and start working the spiral back in (radius of simple curve = end radius of spiral I think). Tangent distances still don't work by (50-75 feet to retraceable end points) Based on fence and a few monuments from a 1970's survey, thinking of calling the curves non-tangent and keeping the radius record. This fits fence remains on both sides of RR +-4 feet at the worst Fits existing tracks +-3' at worst where we can check rail with reflectorless.
The 1970's survey (no plat, only a description) just called a spiral curve of 198 feet, then gave a chord bearing and distance to the PC of the simple curve. This makes sense to me, but not sure if it's conventional. Thinking he used the field evidence, but BS'd the spiral in without calcing it. Hard to tell a difference in the acreage. Trying to do my due diligence, but client could really care less where the R/W is, fence is good with him He needs a retraceable description, and an accurate area though, even if he doesn't care. If the curves were field fit with tables in the first place, is it reasonable to use field evidence, call them non-tangent and just move on stating my uncertainties?
Thanks for any words of wisdom or criticism.
corey
I'd dig a little deeper. Although the center line of the tracks follow spiral curves many times the ROW uses simple curves. The math doesn't work for offsets to spiral curves. So many times the ROW will follow simple curves and the tracks will be spiraled and the RR center line won't be centered thru the ROW curves. Just my limited experience.
I agree with LR Day. Even though the Center-Line is spiral (it has to be for engineering purposes) it doesn't mean that the right of way is spiral. I have made row's simple curves along spiral highways and railways to simplify the description. I'd go with a simple non tangent curve for the whole shootin shabang or maybe a compound simple curve (which ever fits the located row).
Good to know. I am just starting a similar project where there is a spiral, but so far I don't even have enough curve data to reproduce the C/L. I just have the stationing on the TS,SC, etc. The adjacent section, on a tangent, yes. But then they extended the project into the curve area, and I cannot get the additional data as of yet (gov't agency). I just need to show where one side of the ROW is. I was hoping that the ROW was a simple curve, now this indicates it probably is. The railroad dates back to mid 1800's, then realigned in this section in the late 1800's. Still active, but just a single track now. I think it had three or four tracks at one time.
The enabling legislation, takings, deeds usually have language somewhere requiring the RR to maintain fences along the ROW. Therefore, RR fences are very strong evidence of the original ROW lines. In my view they should be used to clear up an ambiguity such as you have here.
Here is a part of the deed. I had never heard of a spiral being actually called for in the on the R/W like this. We usually have strip descriptions. Maybe it's more common in other areas. Field evidence (fences) are leading me to believe it was laid out as a simple curve or compound curve also. I guess regardless, by using a controlling call along the RR deed line I can cover creating a gap/overlap with my "surveyed" description. Just trying to figure out how much more time to put into it. 
Thanks,
Is that the original RR ROW grant? Seems like it is only going along one side of the ROW. I'd seek out the RR ROW plans and the original grant deed to the RR. Get in touch with the RR.
Keep It Simple: Spiral Curve in a Railroad R/W
"Any suggestions or experience on describing a spiral curve in a legal description to keep it simple for future retracement?"
==> In order to keep it simple "for future retracement," use the original description. Any attempt to "simplify" the original can only serve to mislead and confuse others. A spiral curve, given its defining parameters, IS SIMPLE.
If the "center line" curve is a spiral and the right-of-way lines are "parallel" as the description states, then the right-of-way spirals would by implication be evolutes of that centerline.
The description, from my perspective, lacks only the defining parameters of the "center line." In any drawings, reports or descriptions I would prepare, I would add those defining parameters and state my source for the information.
Because, the railroad center line curves are tangent and the right-of-way lines are parallel (three references to parallel on the description presented), then the right-of-way line curves should also be tangent. The thought of introducing non-tangent curves should not even cross one's mind!
Keep It Simple: Spiral Curve in a Railroad R/W
Agree, use the existing C/L description and call for a parallel line to it for the ROW. A parallel ROW spiral being truly parallel with the C/L spiral does not exist because of the different rate of change of the radius points. So call for parallel and if you set points on the ROW, show only the chords between the offset points and the offset distance to C/L, detail what was done. The original description is good, trying to improve it is folly. We have surveyors here who think parallel spirals exist because their COGO programs will spit something close out, they should know better.
jud
M.L. & Jud
I agree with ML 100%!
Jud:
A railroad of that vintage (1899ish) in all likelihood used the Searles Transition “Spiral.” If that is the case, the the Right-of-Way IS (or can be) perfectly parallel to the centerline.
Remember, the Searles “Spiral” is just a compounding series of simple circular curves, therefore parallelism is no problem.
Loyal
paralells
Duan hits on my bigger concern regardng the fences, since the parcel is a fee simple take, and the railroad had power of condemnation (I assume), are they limited to the geometry of the "Deed" description, or can a Railroad acquiesce against a private land owner based soley on the fences. I know this project is not headed that direction, but I'm curious.
I think we do have a good geometry for the simple curve at least. Projecting it from the north line to the south line I hit fences at the overall offset distances called, so I may try backing some in from that, and let the fences be what they are. Trying not to teeter in to a deed staking mentality, but I do agree, "simplifying" the description likely will cause more confusion in the future.
Thanks all.
M.L. & Jud
> I agree with ML 100%!
>
> Jud:
>
> A railroad of that vintage (1899ish) in all likelihood used the Searles Transition “Spiral.” If that is the case, the the Right-of-Way IS (or can be) perfectly parallel to the centerline.
>
> Remember, the Searles “Spiral” is just a compounding series of simple circular curves, therefore parallelism is no problem.
>
> Loyal
Completely disagree. Boundary Surveying is not an exercise in advanced mathematics. So the farmer or rancher or adjoiner is supposed to know the geometry of a Searles spiral from the 1890's to properly locate her/his line? The fence posts locate the ROW as located on the ground and if a simple curve could describe it...simple enough. How many layers of the onion are you going to peel here?
M.L. & Jud
"The fence posts locate the ROW as located on the ground and if a simple curve could describe it...simple enough."
Not Hardly!
paralells
Just to be clear, I was not suggesting an agreed line but rather the best evidence to use for retracement of the original boundary. If, as is many times the case, there is language in the deeds, takings, legislation, etc. requiring a boundary fence, then those old RR fences are original monuments in my humble opinion.
If there is no language mentioning the fence requirement, there still is most likely historical evidence that it was common practice to place the fences on the ROW at or near the time of the acquisition. In that case the fences are accessories to the original monuments (either ROW markers or the track offsets/parralells themselves) and should be better evidence of the original line than a modern re-creation of a parrallel curve or line.
If the fences bear no resemblance to a recreated parrallel, then something may be amiss. This would tend to rebut the presumption that they are an accessory, or indicate they have been superceded as monuments by a subsequent acquisition. It is still possible the fence may be the boundary by some unwritten theory. In that case it would be important to know whether it was acquired by warranty deed or taking. RR's had the power of condemnation but many times a sale was negotiated before they needed to apply that power. Reversions and unwritten rights are handled differently depending on the actual method of acquisition and what statutes or enabling legislation were in place for the particular RR at the particular time.
Mr. surveyor, why are you charging so much, all you got to do is look through that little camera thingy:)
M.L. & Jud
> > I agree with ML 100%!
> >
> > Jud:
> >
> > A railroad of that vintage (1899ish) in all likelihood used the Searles Transition “Spiral.” If that is the case, the the Right-of-Way IS (or can be) perfectly parallel to the centerline.
> >
> > Remember, the Searles “Spiral” is just a compounding series of simple circular curves, therefore parallelism is no problem.
> >
> > Loyal
>
> Completely disagree. Boundary Surveying is not an exercise in advanced mathematics. So the farmer or rancher or adjoiner is supposed to know the geometry of a Searles spiral from the 1890's to properly locate her/his line? The fence posts locate the ROW as located on the ground and if a simple curve could describe it...simple enough. How many layers of the onion are you going to peel here?
True...but the farmer probably couldn't solve a simple circular curve, and run a line parallel to it either.
So how would he build his fence? He would simply measure the ROW width off of the track centerline at reasonable intervals, which would of course create a line parallel to the track centerline, and therefore a parallel spiral as well.
The "deed" clearly calls for a spiral, and IF that solved spiral fits the ROW fence (which it SHOULD), then altering the description to "simplify things," is anything but professional.
Loyal
