Talk:Mount Washington Cog Railway

Questions

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.247.97.25 (talk) 16:35, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

Peppersass

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

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)

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)

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.205.13.171 (talk) 23:51, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I have added that information to the article, unsourced however. - DavidWBrooks 11:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Oh, wonderful. Thank you. That helps a lot. (I then wonder why they didn't just use standard gauge... ;o) ) --Thogo (Talk) 03:32, 24 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)

Just a remark: I've collected some other dates of the gauge... ;) Poor's Manual 1911: 5ft 7.5in (surely a typo), Poor's Manual 1931: 4ft 7.5in (1410 mm), Official Guide June 1893: 5ft 3in (1600 mm), Official Guide September 1906: 4ft 8.5in (standard gauge). *gg* --Thogo (Talk) 06:37, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth mentioning these erroneous reports in the article, with these references - it's mildly interesting that so much wrong information is out there, and including the reference would prevent future editors from thinking the number is wrong. - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I did include this information in the dewiki article. It's the only railroad that I'm aware of with so many different gauges provided in the literature (especially in the primary literature). :o) (Well, there are typos sometimes. For example, the Silver City and Northern Railroad had a gauge of 8ft 8.5in (that would be 2654 mm) according to the 1893 Official Guide, but it was surely standard gauge.) --Thogo (Talk) 05:16, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Route map

I am amused that somebody has put up a route map for the Cog! - DavidWBrooks (talk) 11:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Devil's Shingle

The article mentions how the slideboards were banned after the death of an employee in 1906. A list of deaths on the mountain in the book "Not Without Peril" lists three slideboard deaths, but none in 1906. Two happened before that year, and one after. Does anyone know more about their history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by DirkLangeveld (talk • contribs) 00:47, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Mount Washington Cog Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071011053635/http://mountwashington.com:80/cog/engines/index.html to http://www.mountwashington.com/cog/engines/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:04, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Intervention

Is it worth mentioning that the railway is the setting for a couple of scenes: in Julian May's Intervention ... ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuddy2977 (talk • contribs) 15:26, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mount Washington Cog Railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110816080122/http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5600.pdf to http://files.asme.org/ASMEORG/Communities/History/Landmarks/5600.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:41, 7 February 2018 (UTC)