Plans for a new wye in Traverse City

[Rick in TC]

See link for plans for a new wye on the Grawn branch about a mile south of Rifken scrap yard. Existing one in boardman yard would be torn out to make room for a new road. Looks like MDOT approved plans (see very last pages for details and very first pages (middle pages are old 2004 documents). City has th eproperty set aside already...

http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/agend ... 101213.pdf

[SW]

I don't see a link.

[Rick in TC]

Let's try again...

http://www.ci.traverse-city.mi.us/agend ... 101213.pdf

[AARR]

I don't have time to read the whole letter right now. Can someone tell me if it says why they need a wye?

[Rick in TC]

No, AARR, it does not, except to say it's used to change direction of a "train". The city first wanted to leave the existing one, but that would result in 4 new grade crossings. The MDOT says if you add a crossing you have to remove a crossing. So, the city offered land in the Airport Industrial Park on the Williamsburg line, and MDOT and railroad were against that location. So, they have land on the Grawn branch (across from the shcool bus garage for those familiar), and the MDOT and railroad agreed to this. The city will fund the project, and then when completed, the old wye will be ripped out and transferred to the City.

[AARR]

With a passing siding to run around the train I don't know why they need a wye but I'm probably missing something

[PAT.C]

Post by AARR ...but I'm probably missing something

NOW THAT IS A STATEMENT I TOTALLY AGREE WITH.
WE'VE KNOWN THAT FOR YRS.


MR.IRRELEVANT ROCKS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Raildudes dad]

The MDOT says if you add a crossing you have to remove a crossing.

They will say that but it is not true. I've added a new crossing in 2 separate jurisdictions and did not remove any crossings. The regs actually say "remove a crossing with less than 100 vehicles per day." Both times the jurisdiction involved did not have a crossing less than 100 vehicles / day. The traffic count on one was 101 - they were suspicious of that count but it had been taken before the new crossing was even an idea The crossing removal goal (USDOT wants crossing numbers reduced by 25% IIRC )is a good one on high traffic main lines but a lightly used branch line?

[TrainWatcher]

Unless, there is more to this story that meets the eye, and it also accompanies the recent track upgrades with trackage in the vicinity... oddity to say the least. I mean why spend the $$$ for a new wye for a locomotive and 1-3 Centerbeams.

[sd70accsxt700]

Just a idea as I have never been there before, but was there not a lumber company that got lumber in boxcars also? Maybe the boxes need to wyed some times before delivery to be facing the right way to unload. You see boxcars all the time that say unload this side only.

[Clay320]

Whatever the case it seems like GLC sees potential in the line. Possibly signs of things to come?

[Raildudes dad]

Just a idea as I have never been there before, but was there not a lumber company that got lumber in boxcars also? Maybe the boxes need to wyed some times before delivery to be facing the right way to unload. You see boxcars all the time that say unload this side only.

GLC does have a wye in Cadillac

[Rick in TC]

The lumber company in Williamsburg does also receive boxcar loads. But, they have the wye in Cadillac like Raildude's dad says plus one on the lead to the Traverse City branch (Walton Junction). They used the TC wye a month or two ago to turn a locomotive, and ocassionally to turn the snow plow. Very rare to be used though. The GT Dinnner train used it daily when they were around.

[KVERBERK]

I wonder if it could be in anticipation of passenger service some day? I don't mean to start a debate about weather or not passenger sevice is realistic, but GLC's website does mention a round trip passenger train from Ann Arbor to TC as part of their wish list...

[MIGN-Todd]

A new wye will not be cheap even if they use the rails off the existing one. Unless the passenger train ordeal is more than likely a go or, some other business might be eyeing the line I cannot see any reason to waste the money. GLC hasn't used the line in a year now.

[MIGN-Todd]

Interesting read. They spent alot of coin on all these studies without much earth churned. The plan regarding the new stretch of road coming off 14th and continuing to 8th seems great. The nit-pickers at the condos along the Boardman will love all the new traffic going right by them.

[AARR]

Just a idea as I have never been there before, but was there not a lumber company that got lumber in boxcars also? Maybe the boxes need to wyed some times before delivery to be facing the right way to unload. You see boxcars all the time that say unload this side only.

Cars can be unloaded from both sides in Bates

[C&O6088]

No, AARR, it does not, except to say it's used to change direction of a "train". The city first wanted to leave the existing one, but that would result in 4 new grade crossings. The MDOT says if you add a crossing you have to remove a crossing. So, the city offered land in the Airport Industrial Park on the Williamsburg line, and MDOT and railroad were against that location. So, they have land on the Grawn branch (across from the shcool bus garage for those familiar), and the MDOT and railroad agreed to this. The city will fund the project, and then when completed, the old wye will be ripped out and transferred to the City.

Tossing this out there, even though I know Grawn and Cherry Growers isn't currently shipping....why not remove all of the track south of Airport Road leading to Grawn(Still could leave Sara Lee....alwaying hoping), and connect Grawn track just south of Beitner Road/Keystone Road. http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=44.677 ... ty%2C%20MI

The tracks have to be within a 1/4 mile of each other at that point and would eliminate the need to go all the way in town and back out to Grawn....if CG ever re-ships. This pulls alot of parallel rail in TC on streets and crossings and if MDOT is going to spend money on a wye, put it out at this new connection. I'm sure there's some wetland matters that may make this a moot point. From a "crossings elimination viewpoint" this is a no brainer. My .02 on a snowy Saturday Morning



C&O

[AARR]

Tossing this out there, even though I know Grawn and Cherry Growers isn't currently shipping....why not remove all of the track north of Airport Road (Still could leave Sara Lee....alwaying hoping), and connect Grawn track just south of Beitner Road/Keystone Road. http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=44.677 ... ty%2C%20MI

The tracks have to be within a 1/4 mile of each other at that point and would eliminate the need to go all the way in town and back out to Grawn....if CG ever re-ships. This pulls alot of parallel rail in TC on streets and crossings and if MDOT is going to spend money on a wye, put it out at this new connection. I'm sure there's some wetland matters that may make this a moot point. From a "crossings elimination viewpoint" this is a no brainer. My .02 on a snowy Saturday Morning

C&O

This was proposed and discussed. It had some support. For all I know if may still be an open topic. As much as I like rail traffic it seems a lot of money and time is invested in an area with little traffic and little prospective for growth.

[C&O6088]

This was proposed and discussed. It had some support. For all I know if may still be an open topic. As much as I like rail traffic it seems a lot of money and time is invested in an area with little traffic and little prospective for growth.

I agree with you AARR. I'm just saying, if the monies are going to be spent and the "Wye" is the project anyway, regardless if it makes sense, as 95% of us agree it doesn't, then I'm just saying use these monies for this instead. Neither project makes sense, but with Governent and Allocated Funds many times they either need to be used or their lost.

C&O