Portageville Bridge Replacement, Future Tier Traffic

There are a couple ways to discourage trespassers. One is something like cattle guards, which are ridges between and to either side of the rails, running cross-wise, that make for very uneasy footing. They keep cattle from wandering out of fenced areas where tracks pass thru the fenceline. Having such right where each end of the bridge meets land will help. Also, having no walkway for 20 feet out and crossties made of rounded pipe will make casual walking onto the bridge nearly impossible.

My concern though is that once the new bridge is in use and the train speeds are 3 1/2 times greater across it, this will be hazardous to anyone that has ventured out onto the structure and hopes to get off the bridge before the train passes.

More hazardous than some of the trails in the park? How about standing on the edge of the gorge along Trail 7? I think it's all relative.

Why not build the new bridge with park patrons in mind, and give them a relatively safe walkway with reasonable separation from the railroad, one that would accommodate people and trains simultaneously? Use of the bridge by people doesn't need to be *encouraged* but it's hard to deny the spectacular view the current bridge offers. For liability reasons it is unlikely to happen but one can dream right?

JBlaisdell wrote:There are a couple ways to discourage trespassers. One is something like cattle guards, which are ridges between and to either side of the rails, running cross-wise, that make for very uneasy footing. They keep cattle from wandering out of fenced areas where tracks pass thru the fenceline. Having such right where each end of the bridge meets land will help. Also, having no walkway for 20 feet out and crossties made of rounded pipe will make casual walking onto the bridge nearly impossible.

Nice idea... but here's the catch: the railroad will need a walkway so MOW employees can get on the bridge.

Although it's very unlikely, I feel the state should keep current bridge for pedestrian use after the arch bridge is completed.

siliconwafer wrote: Why not build the new bridge with park patrons in mind, and give them a relatively safe walkway with reasonable separation from the railroad, one that would accommodate people and trains simultaneously? Use of the bridge by people doesn't need to be *encouraged* but it's hard to deny the spectacular view the current bridge offers. For liability reasons it is unlikely to happen but one can dream right?

I really like this idea but the problem is this isn't the 1850's when rail roads were proud of their accomplishments by bridging a canyon over a roaring waterfall. It is so sad sometimes when I think about how many freedoms we have had taken away from us. When the original wooden bridge was placed in Letchworth Park, it was considered a marvel of engineering and it was common for trains to stop on the bridge and allow passengers to get off the train and explore the bridge. There were several walkways throughout the bridge where passengers could go to see the inner structure and to get a good view of the Falls and canyon beyond. This is how the Park's namesake was first introduced to the area. William Pryor Letchworth was passing through the area from Buffalo and the train stopped on the bridge to allow passengers to get off and see this wonderful structure. It was during this stop that Letchworth spotted a small tavern on the left side of the canyon above the middle Falls. He inquired as to the ownership of the property and found that the owners were looking to sell the tavern because they were unable to keep up with the taxes. Letchworth purchased it and made improvements to the building over the years. This became the Glen Iris Inn in 1859.

I have personally asked some of the people in Letchworth in charge of the Park why they don't want the old bridge and their safety officer seems to be the one that is most dead set against the Park managing the bridge. Like stated above, what is the difference between having a walkway that is about 234 feet above the canyon for a distance or about 800, compared to a 17 mile canyon with steep walls on both sides?

-Paleoman52-

Paleoman wrote:

siliconwafer wrote: Like stated above, what is the difference between having a walkway that is about 234 feet above the canyon for a distance or about 800, compared to a 17 mile canyon with steep walls on both sides?

-Paleoman52-

The difference is $$$$.
Trails, for the most part, dont require much upkeep or maintenance..
(sure, there is *some* maintenance involved, like controlling or fixing erosion issues)
but for the most part, the trails dont cost the park a lot of money..

the bridge on the other hand would be a constant maintenance liability..
granted, it would no longer have to support the weight of trains, only people..
but still, I doubt the state will want to take on the responsibility..

hmmm..maybe they could charge admission to the bridge? like they do in Poughkeepsie..
could at least raise some money to support the bridge..
but then you have to have a big gate..the bridge would be "closed" much of the time,
would have to have some kind of staff to sell tickets to the bridge, etc..

Poughkeepise and the remains of the Kinzua viaduct are similar, ancient, bridges that are now walkways..
Poughkeepsie is run by a private group..although I think Kinzua is now owned and maintained by the state of PA..
although its no longer a complete bridge! just part of one..although for that state park, the bridge is really the main
attraction! so there was more incentive to build the walkway..not so at Letchworth..

It *can* be done..the problem is finding someone willing to do it..
unfortunately, these days, the state just probably doesnt care..too much money and liability issues to keep the bridge..
easier to just get rid if it..

Scot

Unless something has changed recently, there is no charge at the
"Walkway over the Hudson", other than some parking spaces near
the entrances. This attraction has attracted more than a million
visitors, since it opened in 2009. There is a 501-C3 corporation
set up to assist the state in funding operations and there is a gift
shop.

Matt Langworthy wrote:

malfunctjct wrote:
BTW, I was at Letchworth yesterday. It was shocking to see the number of trespassers who were walking on the bridge. Sleepy or not, the bridge is part of an active rail line... and private property, too.

Know what you mean, Matt. That comment made me decide to put all the photos, good and bad, together in one link/heading.

https://picasaweb.google.com/1123575824 ... illeBridge

Chris

Matt Langworthy wrote:

JBlaisdell wrote:There are a couple ways to discourage trespassers. One is something like cattle guards, which are ridges between and to either side of the rails, running cross-wise, that make for very uneasy footing. They keep cattle from wandering out of fenced areas where tracks pass thru the fenceline. Having such right where each end of the bridge meets land will help. Also, having no walkway for 20 feet out and crossties made of rounded pipe will make casual walking onto the bridge nearly impossible.

Nice idea... but here's the catch: the railroad will need a walkway so MOW employees can get on the bridge.

Although it's very unlikely, I feel the state should keep current bridge for pedestrian use after the arch bridge is completed.

The workers could simply bring something with them to span the gap, or it could be mechanized and retract.

The Poughkeepsie Bridge may be run by a private group, but it is now under the ownership of the NY State Bridge Authority, the agency that maintains the 5 highway bridges north of the Tappan Zee.

Recently, the NYSBA has said it will be raising its tolls, in part because it has to maintain the walkway. As a local commutter, I am not too pleased with that. I think it is time we start charging a nominal $1fee for bridge walkers.

hojack wrote:If CP stock has appreciated 1500 % since 2000, I must have missed it or my math is off. Canadian Picific was split up around 1998 or so. The resource unit, the pipeline unit, CP air, the shipping lines, and the railroad. The railroad was valued and began trading at $ 15.00 per share US. It's now oround sixty bucks, that's a 400% increase, not 1500 %. Still a good investment that has paid a dividend.

CP was broken up into 5 companies. CP still exists and trades under symbol CP. The oil and gas company (Pan Canadian) merged into Alberta Energy and then Encana (ECA) Encana recently spun off Cenovus (CVE). Fording Coal was taken over by Teck (TCK) and shareholders got cash and TCK stock. CP Ships was sold to Hapag Lloyd for cash. CP Hotels became Fairmont Hotels which was sold to a private buyout group.

Holders of the original CP still have the railroad and the other 4 companies were all acquired in the last 10 years. Pan Canadian became ECA and CVE, Fording Coal became TCK + cash, CP Ships and CP Hotels were all cash deals.

1000 CP shares which would have cost around $15,000 in 1995 would have been worth a total exceeding $250,000 counting the CP, ECA, CVE, TCK and cash distributed.

(Sorry, I know this is off topic, but I wanted to respond with the correct information.)

I bought 1000 shares on the first day of trading after the disolution in 1995. They cost me $ 15,000.00. They have paid a dividend but there has been no splits on those shares from the IPO ( if you will ) issue. As of yesterday the investment is worth $ 61,000.00 and some change at the close of trading.

Rochester paper is reporting today that bridge was offered to state as trail, but state turned down due to lack of funds. NS plans to demolish and build adjacent.

From TrainOrders:
http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article651143.ece

Here's a recent article from BuffaloNews.com discussing, not so much the new bridge, but the fate of the existing one.

http://www.buffalonews.com/incoming/article651143.ece

Pretty much just confirming everything we already knew.

One would think that the wizards who run New York State might want to take a look at what Pennsylvania did with the remains of the Kinzua Bridge. The bridge at Portageville actually overlooks a far more scenic environment that the bridge at Kinzua plus the bridge at Kinzua does not span the valley. Gotta hand it to the politicians who have run this state into the ground with their "forward" thinking.