Railroad Curves Question

[Derek_9672]

I'm working on a rail survey wherein several curves are involved. I'm familiar with taper curves and the differences between right of way centerline and rail centerline. In the attached snip, a 100-foot wide strip was condemned to the railroad.

It is clear to me that the intent was to describe the rail centerline, and that the right of way centerline (and sidelines) should then be constructed from the taper curve tables. No external documents are referenced in the condemnation, and I know that I shouldn't make too much of intent when reading a deed. It appears in this case that I must hold the taper curves and offset them, being definite and ascertained particulars in the description.

However, I also want to argue that the arcane but standardized nature of railroad curve boundaries means that constructions such as these automatically imply reference to the taper curve tables. The description is clearly referencing the rail centerline "as staked on the ground". Is there any argument to be made in that vein ? Are there too many presumptions involved in this line of thinking ?

Any thoughts much appreciated.

[hellsangle]

Derek,

Do any rails, set vertically, exist along the right-of-way? If so, those may be/are your "as staked" monuments.

Good luck,

Crazy Phil

[CBarrett]

You mean you want to ignore clearly described geometry and turn the right of way into a circular curve because it is a bit of a drag to calculate all this and you want to hang you liability hat on a non-standard ambiguous term of "as staked on the ground"?

What if by "as staked on the ground" meant "in a position where you find the rails", rather than 600 feet north of the rails?

[David Kendall]

You mean you want to ignore clearly described geometry and turn the right of way into a circular curve because it is a bit of a drag to calculate all this and you want to hang you liability hat on a non-standard ambiguous term of "as staked on the ground"?

What if by "as staked on the ground" meant "in a position where you find the rails", rather than 600 feet north of the rails?

I read it as he is trying to interpret the best available evidence for the location of the right of way.

Cubicle kooks sit in the office and calculate 'clearly described geometry' to hang their hat on

Land Surveyors gather evidence.

In my experience, monuments maintain greater priority for matters of physical location in legal descriptions than geometry

[Mike Mueller]

I would defer to railroad experts, but from my understanding of their lectures and reading etc the taper/non taper debate seems pretty moot here. The exterior geometry of that RoW is a taper. The heart of the debate seems to be as follows:

1. Tapers were developed late, IE 1890's 1910' iirc, and individually by each railroad. If your RoW was created before that railroad developed their taper tables then the boundary of the RoW can't be a taper. Even if the RR re-aligned the tracks once they figured out tapers, the RoW would not change. Yours is clearly after tapers were established and it even gives you both degree of curve and actual radius at the non-even footed sizes, IE 5729.61' for a 1° curve

2. Most of the maps folks use to re-create the RoW are like the State Board of Equalization maps that were often done later, and were often the engineering maps of what they wanted tracks to do. So if you are using a map for your geometry it might be different than the actual deeds/RoW

3. You have a specific deed, with clear geometry. No ambiguity. The shape of the 100 foot strip is settled. Finding stuff in the field should only be used to figure out where that geometry is placed on the ground.

Does that section of rail still have discoverable ballast? The curves are all pretty big, and you got a 1900' long straight section, so I am assuming its flat land with not a lot of hills etc, so you prolly don't have cuts or trestles? That straight section should give a few points to check the bearings?

Good Luck!

Mikey Mueller, PLS
Sonoma County