| Grade per Station | Value of Rise & fall per foot | Value of distance per foot | Value of Curvature per Degree | Power of locomotive in drawing loaded cars per ton on Drivers. |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| .0 | 20.40 | 7.85 | 3.086 | |
| .1 | 22.90 | 7.95 | ||
| .2 | 25.44 | 8.06 | 7.00 | 1.60 |
| .3 | 28.02 | 8.16 | 7.00 | |
| .4 | 30.64 | 8.27 | 7.00 | |
| .5 | 33.30 | 8.38 | 7.00 | 1.20 |
| .6 | 36.00 | 8.50 | 7.00 | 1.05 |
| .7 | 38.74 | 8.62 | 7.00 | .95 |
| .8 | 41.52 | 8.74 | 7.00 | .87 |
| .9 | 44.34 | 8.86 | 7.00 | .791 |
| 1.0 | 47.20 | 9.00 | 7.00 | .737 |
| 1.1 | 50.10 | 9.13 | 7.00 | .688 |
| 1.2 | 53.04 | 9.27 | 7.00 | .642 |
| 1.3 | 56.02 | 9.41 | 7.00 | .60 |
| 1.4 | 59.04 | 9.56 | 7.00 | .561 |
| 1.5 | 62.10 | 9.70 | 7.00 | .525 |
| 1.6 | 65.20 | 9.86 | 7.00 | .492 |
| 1.7 | 68.34 | 10.01 | 7.00 | .463 |
| 1.8 | 71.52 | 10.18 | 7.00 | .436 |
| 1.9 | 74.74 | 10.34 | 7.00 | .411 |
| 2.0 | 78.00 | 10.51 | 7.00 | .388 |
| 2.1 | 81.30 | 10.68 | 7.00 | .367 |
| 2.2 | 84.64 | 10.86 | 7.00 | .350 |
| 2.3 | 88.02 | 11.05 | 7.00 | .331 |
| 2.4 | 91.44 | 11.23 | 7.00 | .315 |
| 2.5 | 94.90 | 11.45 | 7.00 | .30 |
| 2.6 | 98.40 | 11.62 | 7.00 | .29 |
Comparison between the located line and Old '71 Survey. On page 1 - * line, I state that we had saved 7.02 miles of distance. This statement needs explanation or it may mislead. We had saved that much distance from our starting point on the Colorado River to this connection spoken of. This includes the 87 Stations saved by the "A" line over the "C" line, then taking our adopted line as the stakes are marked until we reach the "N" line, which it takes to the connection. So, in reality, should the 1.8 grade line be adopted opposite the "N" line which is 10815 feet longer than the "N" line there would be but 4.98 miles gained from our point of beginning to the end of the Second one hundred miles. On the first one hundred miles we gained 10907 feet + 2.06 miles so on the second one hundred we have saved but 2.92 miles. Should our main line be adopted opposite N. or in case the 2.6 grade line is adopted, we have saved 4.96 miles. On the old Survey there was 4084 feet rise and 1530 feet fall. On our Survey there is 4201 feet rise and 1999 feet fall. To realize the difference one must compare their profile with ours. They have laid this grade across country regardless of expense, taking excessive cuts and fills. At Mesa Gap their summit is 83 feet above their grade, and at the Jara Divide it is 87 feet above, while I have laid undulating grades to conform more closely to the surface to save work. There are two tunnels on the old survey as well as on ours. On their line their profile calls for 4200 feet of tunnel. On our line we have but 521 feet of tunnel. Besides they have very long and expensive approaches and it must be further remembered that when Mr. Blichensderfer noted on his profile that a 1.9 grade might be obtained by supporting, he ment a 1.9 grade without compensating for curvature. His 1.9 grade on 10 degree curves is equal to a 2.4 grade compensated.
I do not consider this comparison any great recommendation to my line. It rather shows how hastily the old survey was made and condemns their route beyond resurrection.
It is gratifying however to know that, while avoiding their tunnels and heavy work, we have at the same time saved distance.
Mr. Kingman supplemented his report of October 15, 1880 to Mr. Holbrook, by his reports of October 20th and 24th, which now follow:
a portion of page 202 and all of page 203 Splinters Volume 14 transcribed in altered form for the Web by Russell Crump
ATSFRY.COM |
Junction Records |
Plans & Plats |
Oral history |
Train Orders |
Photo |
Clicbooks |
Available |
The |
Meades |
Site maintained by Russell Crump all rights reserved© 913-962-4556 73077.2356@compuserve.com, 10808 W 76th St., Shawnee, KS 66214