Rialroad Curve problem

Leon,

It appears to be a Searles Spiral, therefore the "spiral" is actually a compounding series of 5 simple (circular) curves, each one having a chord of 30.0 feet.

Delta Degree Radius

0?ø10' 0?ø33'20" 10,313.243948 ft.

0?ø20' 1?ø06'39.7" 5,156.627428389 ft.

0?ø30' 1?ø40'00" 3,437.575679116 ft.

0?ø40' 2?ø13'17.4" 5,578.324622556 ft.

0?ø50' 2?ø46'35" 2,062.666243095 ft.

1,2,3,4,5 in and 5,4,3,2,1 out

@loyal

Thanks Loyal, I'll work it from that.

The default is to treat the right of way as a simple curve, the tracks will be on a spiral curve spiral for the Val (tax) Map, but the ROW should be a 3d simple railroad curve.?ÿ

I know it can be confusing, I've got different sets of Val Maps that show different right of ways depending on the time the Val Maps were created, and additionally deeds written decades after the railroad had been in operation.

Lots of conflicting data, but it always ended up that the curves were simple for right of way and spiral for the tracks,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,except for one trunk line built in the 70's with right of way deeds clearly written with spirals (there are always exceptions).

I doubt anyone will contest you using spiral curve spiral for the right of way, but I also doubt that anyone would contest you if you use simple curves for an 1890 right of way.?ÿ

?ÿ

Val Maps on the A&P alignment in Northern Arizona bear little if any resemblance to the original, legally defined easement created at the time of acceptance by the USA. In practice I have found that the railroad has no concern whatsoever over the location of their easement. As one of my partners said years ago "As long as the cows get on in Topeka and off in LA nothing else matters."?ÿ

@jamesf1

That's sort of what I've decided.?ÿ The RR's didn't get to technical about the location of their right-of-ways, especially in rural areas..?ÿ It's the track stupid!

?ÿ

The VAL Maps where more about taxation than right-of-way location.?ÿ It's just that without the VAL Map you have about nothing to go on as far as the RR center line math.

?ÿ

IF the government hadn't required the VAL Maps be done for taxation (public records),?ÿ what would we have for RR center line locations??ÿ Probably not very much!?ÿ Hard to get stuff from the RR.

?ÿ

There are GLO maps for many RR's that got right-of-way from the public lands.?ÿ On this particular RR there is very few ties to actual sections corners in the 30 miles.?ÿ Where they missed what section the RR was in in a few places the VAL Map states "statute of limitations" for ownership of the right-of-way.?ÿ By the time they figured it out they had possession for the time required.

@mightymoe

Loyal sent me a solution. It came out only two tenths different from my hacked solution using TBC. This curve is beyond where I need to establish the boundary of the abandoned RR. I was trying to check a section corner set by another surveyor about twenty years ago from the RR plans. The corner misses the center of a paved county road, fenced at about the same time as the RR by 12 feet. The one page corner record simply says the corner was reset from the RR plans showing the original stone. I see nothing in the val map calling out an original stone. After going up and down the RR more than a mile each way and fitting it over the physical remaining evidence I've lost faith that the RR Val map surveyors/drafter found the section corners and that they are scaled in. All the other evidence including Highway plans from 1947 show the section line in the center of the road and long fenced ROW. How you can replace a section corner offset from all the physical evidence in plain sight like that is a mystery to me. I've rejected the corner. Why the math from the RR plans doesn't fit I'm still not sure.

I haven't got the original RR deeds for that section of the RR but wouldn't expect them to show spirals for the right-of-way. Only a few of the curves on the VAL Map have spirals.