Talk:Mount Washington Cog Railway
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the New Hampshire Mountains WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of New Hampshire's mountains. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments) |
| Mid | This article has been rated as mid-importance within the Trains WikiProject. |
 |
This article is part of Project New Hampshire; an effort to create, expand, and improve New Hampshire-related articles to a feature-quality standard. |
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. |
| High | This article has been rated as high-priority on the priority scale. |
Please explain - what is a sprague clutch - the connection of Count Riggi and Niklaus Riggenbach; N. Riggenbach is Swiss and there are no Counts in Switzerland
~~NormanneWN
More detail on Peppersass's last run can be found here [ http://www.cog-railway.com/lastrun.htm http://www.cog-railway.com/lastrun.htm ] 87.74.48.203 12:50, 20 November 2005 (UTC) Mark Winder
[edit] POV issues - Environmental concerns section
I moved the text on smoke from the lead to a new section titled Environmental concerns. Since another editor tagged most of it with {{fact}}, I put {{POV-section}} there too. I don't see how this railway could be producing any more smoke than any other steam powered heritage railway, and the text as it is now, seems heavily biased against the railway. Yes, steam engines make smoke, and yes it does impact the local area; the text could be worded in a more professional manner. Slambo (Speak) 16:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- I agree that the text needs citations and more work. However it is also true that the locomotives on the Cog make significantly more smoke than traditional railways. The steep gradients involved mean that the locomotives are working extremely hard as they ascend and the smoke plumes are significant. This is of course true of all rack railways, but they do emit much more smoke and other pollutants than regular adhesion locomotives. Gwernol 17:02, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- The same environmental concerns apply to all steam powered heritage railways such as the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railway or the Durango and Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad. On my own trip to ride the C&TS last summer, there were several times when the smoke was very thick, and I was riding on the "easy" side of the pass. Further, every C&TS train is followed by a speeder with a large tank full of water to put out any fires that are caused by sparks escaping from the locomotive stack. I agree that the concern is valid, I just don't think it's as unique to this railway as the current text makes it out to be, and I think it could be worded better here. Slambo (Speak) 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the one source for this article is little more than one photo on a personal web site (a blog, maybe), and can hardly be considered an authoritative source by any stretch of the imagination. While no one has ever considered steam locomotives to be hospital clean, there's hardly enough "damage" done by them in this case to merit a mention. The section appears to be nothing more than an environmentalist's rant, and if no one can come up with more legitimate sources soon, I intend to remove the section entirely by January 10, 2006. Realkyhick 03:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- I found a Boston Globe article that tangentially talks about the pollution.[1] The New York Times notes that the Cog Railway has a special dispensation to exceed New Hampshire's air-pollution-control standards.[2] The University of New Hampshire also touches on it.[3] Its pretty obvious that its very environmentally unfriendly - 'Each train burns one ton of coal and consumes 1000 gallons of water on the 3-mile ride, which generates the necessary energy to climb the 6288' mountain.'[4] 1 ton of coal results in 3 Tons of CO2.[5] This is an incredible amount for just one journey. I suspect that the lack of articles about it suggest that local leaders value its economic impact. If the local papers started talking about its sketchy environmental record it might not last. I also have found several websites that quote hikers who do not care for its belching of black smoke.[6], [7], [8]. I asked the people at the top of the mountain why they could not convert to electric power and they said it would lose its 'authentic touch'. Sounds to me like all around denial. Sprew 17:25, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
- It seems to me that the one source for this article is little more than one photo on a personal web site (a blog, maybe), and can hardly be considered an authoritative source by any stretch of the imagination. While no one has ever considered steam locomotives to be hospital clean, there's hardly enough "damage" done by them in this case to merit a mention. The section appears to be nothing more than an environmentalist's rant, and if no one can come up with more legitimate sources soon, I intend to remove the section entirely by January 10, 2006. Realkyhick 03:52, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- The same environmental concerns apply to all steam powered heritage railways such as the Cumbres and Toltec Scenic Railway or the Durango and Silverton Narrow Gauge Railroad. On my own trip to ride the C&TS last summer, there were several times when the smoke was very thick, and I was riding on the "easy" side of the pass. Further, every C&TS train is followed by a speeder with a large tank full of water to put out any fires that are caused by sparks escaping from the locomotive stack. I agree that the concern is valid, I just don't think it's as unique to this railway as the current text makes it out to be, and I think it could be worded better here. Slambo (Speak) 18:29, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Not really "denial" - more like a different cost/benefit analysis; sort of like the one we use when we drive to work instead of bicycle. You raise some excellent comments and citations that I'm going to move into the article. - DavidWBrooks 20:10, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] Time?
How fast is the train? How long does it take to ascend and to descend? —Ben FrantzDale 14:31, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
- The train ascends the mountain at 2.8 mph and descends at 4.6 mph. It takes approximately 65 minutes to ascend the mountain and 40 minutes to descend. The railway is approximately 3 miles long. Wayne Presby, President, Mt. Washington Railway Company
- I have added that information to the article, unsourced however. - DavidWBrooks 11:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Gauge?
Poor's Manual 1911 says 5 ft 7,5 in (= 1714,5 mm). What are the sources for the strange 4 ft 8 in (1422mm) in the article? --Thogo (Talk) 10:12, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm afraid Poor's is wrong, its definitely 4ft 8in. Sources include [9] and [10] as well as Lindsell, Robert M. (2000). The Rail Lines of Northern New England. Branch Line Press. ISBN 0-942147-06-5.. Gwernol 00:09, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- A Locomotive Engineer's Album by George Abdill (p.81) gives the original gauge as 5-feet-3-inches. (There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there, unless the gauge may have been changed at some point.)Thewellman (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- I have a couple of books specifically on the history of the line, none give anything except 4ft 8in as the gauge. I'm pretty sure there wasn't a change of gauge at any time, nor is there any doubt that its anything except 4ft 8in today, Gwernol 07:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
- A Locomotive Engineer's Album by George Abdill (p.81) gives the original gauge as 5-feet-3-inches. (There seems to be a lot of misinformation out there, unless the gauge may have been changed at some point.)Thewellman (talk) 07:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
-
