Finding Older Descriptions

[GH55]

Does anyone know of a way, convenient I hope, to see the older descriptions than those on the current datasheet. For example: MG0342 (T 70) has a 1962 description on the datasheet that is inadequate today. I suspect that the 1934 description could hold information key to recovering this mark.

 

Some of the key information lacking in the 1962 description include:railroad mile post; distance and direction from north or south C&NW main track; distance and direction from CMSTP&P main track (torn out by 1962); and whether the foundation is a separate piece of concrete set by the CGS, or a piece of a foundation set by the railroad for some other reason.

 

This is the only one I have come across so far with the particular problem of an updated description being so lacking in useful information. But then, I am pretty new at this.

[+PFF]

Per topozone, on south side of track. Aerial photo shows a dark area shaped like an upside down foot, with the toe pointing along the track, southeastward toward the road/track intersection. Station may be at the "toe" on this foot.

 

(I've never figured out how to insert a photo from my computer files, or I would post it for your reference.)

 

-Paul-

[GH55]

Thank you for your reply.

 

Per topozone, on south side of track.

 

The problem with this is that we are talking about less than 30 feet difference from being set on the north side vs south side. That is well within the normal error from the scaled locations taken from the datasheets.

 

Take into consideration also that "ABOUT 300 YARDS WEST OF THE U.S. HIGHWAY 30 OVERPASS " is extremely vague, it makes it tough. How hard would it have been to measure the distance, specify the point from which to measure on the overhead bridge, and specify the distance and direction from one of the tracks? And if you are not going to do that, why replace the original description? (assuming as I do that it would be more precise)

 

The mark, if it is still there, is covered with dirt and/or rock, making accurate measurements quite valuable for locating it.

 

Additionally, I suspect there are more instances like this where an older or original description, along with some historical knowledge, would be useful for determining the exact location of a mark. That is why I would like to have access to the older descriptions.

Edited September 17, 2004 by GH55

[+Colorado Papa]

(I've never figured out how to insert a photo from my computer files, or I would post it for your reference.)

Paul,

If the image you have is for MG0342 (T 70), you could enter a note to it then upload the image for that entry. Copy the address of the picture (right click - properties) then paste into IMG here.

 

Does that make sence?

 

Edit: This old man doesn't know his right from left!!!

Edited September 18, 2004 by Colorado Papa

[+PFF]

 

Thanks for the tip!

 

To our searcher, this info: On my computer, TopoZone puts a red X at the spot indicated by the coordinates. This only displays locally and does not copy/save. However, if you look on the south side of the tracks in this 1993 photo, you will find a dark area which resembles an upside-down leg and foot, with the toe pointing east. The red X was at the "toe" on the foot.

 

In the past, I have found TopoZone's X to be very close to the actual station. I hope this is helpful.

 

Best regards,

-Paul-

 

Note to Forum Gang: Next time, I'll crop the photo to take up less space.

Edited September 17, 2004 by PFF

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

The data you are seeking is on paper (if it still exists) in someone's field notes when they set the mark. It was not transfered to the computer database, hence the 1934 log that it was monumented then.

 

I don't know who would have access to those notes or even if they were filed with the NGS.

 

A suggestion for finding the benchmark in question though. If you have a metal detector you can measure out the given distances and then sweep the area. Use the detector at a known benchmark so you will recognize the correct tone for the mark.

 

Good luck,

 

John

[+Colorado Papa]

Thanks for the tip!

I see you figured out RIGHT-CLICK for properties.

Edited September 18, 2004 by Colorado Papa

[Bill93]

I've used a cheap metal detector (RatShack mid-model) on a railroad bed (abandoned) and right of way margins, and found it even more frustrating than searches in a park. Instead of just cans, pop-tops, and foil wrappers you also find liberally sprinkled spikes, bolts, washers, and other unrecognizable hardware when you are lucky. When you are unlucky you get a batch of iron-bearing slag that was used for ballast, irregularly distributed so you get changing readings everywhere you look.

 

Maybe the nonferrous discrimination is better on the expensive units, but the problem is still formidable if you have an area of many yards to search.

[Bill93]

Scaled coordinates vary routinely by 100 feet and occasionally by much more, in addition to having an average bias that tends to hold for a region. Over here a few counties west of the mark in question, it tends to be 150 feet NW from published to found location. So at best, after you know the bias, scaled coordinates get you a probable uncertainty that is 10% of his "about 300 yards" and the red X on the picture doesn't help much.

 

To comment on the description, it was written by the USGS, a different agency than the US C&GS (now NGS), and one with probably less experience in working with railroads.

 

The writer thought that 300 yards was good enough to let one find the concrete, which at the time was quite obvious, and he didn't see a need to tape it. I can forgive that as standard practice, although not very farsighted when dealing with foundations that were already abandoned at the time. Need for distance and direction from the track should have been apparent, though.

 

I would think 'tablet' means 'disk' because I haven't seen anything else that would be called US CGS standard from that era. Most descriptions say 'post' when they mean it. However I agree you can't rely on that, especially with a description that is otherwise vague.

[Z15]

Yes, tablet is an old name for what we now call a survey disk.

 

These types of vague descriptions are common in some area's, I see them here as well. If the old concrete foundation has been mostly removed or buried then it probably not worth any more effort to find it and it may be long gone.

[GH55]

If the old concrete foundation has been mostly removed or buried then it probably not worth any more effort to find it and it may be long gone.

 

Ahh, but if some of the pieces of concrete foundation are left at the location while others were pushed into the ditch, might there not be a reason that they are still there? Might someone have thought to leave the benchmark? Of course you cannot count on that, but it is a possibility.

 

Were I convinced the mark is gone, I could give up. With a possibility that it is still there, I want to do everything reasonable to find it.

 

[Z15]

On the subject of old descriptions.

 

Prior to the paper format that came along in the 1960's, the descriptions were typed in manuscript form. I recall when we moved our offices at the DOT I was tasked with cataloging all our survey records, among the many storage box's I found these old manuscripts on USC & GS Bench Marks arranged by counties if I am not mistaken. The were typed way back when. Since they were of no use, we may have tossed them out, don't know because I retired not long after that and have no idea what they did with them but the consensus at the time was to throw them out because the data in them was obsolete, coords and elevations.

 

Here is a image of the paper format before they when to computer db. We had these also but I have no idea where you might find the old paper copies anymore as chances are they were not that widely distributed and have been tossed out in favor of computer info

 

Edited September 20, 2004 by elcamino

[Bill93]

GH has been too busy with other things lately to post, but note that he did find MG0342 T 70, through perseverence with a probing rod, 91 feet north and 135 feet west (163 ft diagonal) of the scaled coordinates.

Edited October 15, 2004 by Bill93

[ArtMan]

My biggest issue with the current datasheet format is that it's all text, no pictures. And sometimes, honestly, the text descriptions are somewhat murky. Even the small inset map in the 1962 datasheet posted by elcamino would be of great value in locating a given station. In an ideal world I'd like to see on each datasheet a small map showing general location of the station plus a diagram showing its position relative to nearby streets and landmarks, especially those mentioned in the description.

 

-ArtMan-

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

Well on mine anyway there is sort os an Image,it gives you lines,and a descriptions.

I wrote and recieved thes data sets in the last 10 years.

Edited October 15, 2004 by GEO*Trailblazer 1