A Dam Fine Walk

[dillon]

Being a fellow Dodge owner, I can only advise Carl that all the tech gadgetry he shuns are not the things that will break down on his vehicle!

[crfriend]

I believe you lads are reading me incorrectly about my "aversion to modern gizmos". In point of fact, "modern gizmos" like computerized engine-management have simplified the internal (infernal?) combustion engine to a simpler state than it was in the late 1800s by virtue of fewer moving parts. Fuel-injection and distributor-less ignitions have been a boon, and the capability of modern fully-instrumented and managed engines dwarfs what their mechanically-controlled brethren are capable of.

I am also a very keen driver, and actually very much enjoy the act. This means I need to feel the road, I need to know precisely what my vehicle will do in all regimes in which I may decide to drive it in, and I need visibility. What I DO NOT want is bad design that reduces visibility necessitating cameras and other sensors; I DO NOT want distractions in the cockpit that may divert my attention from the task at hand (that is, of course, driving); and I do not want all sorts of "extras" that make the cockpit more like a living-room couch than the operating area for a dangerous machine operating in dangerous conditions.

Every time the modern appurtenances have kicked in on my cars they've been wrong and have caused more hassle than bringing added value to the experience. I know all about threshold-braking, pumping the same, and even heel-and-ball control of the brake and accelerator (this blew some minds when I was driving minivans). ABS, when driven by a skilled driver can be more dangerous than old-school brakes. The modern frame of mind seems to be "jam the pedal to the floor and hope the car gets it right"; the old-school type felt when it was about to lock up and either backed off or pumped to retain directional stability. I've already found myself asking my new one, "WTF are you doing?" when it makes a decision counter to what my years of experience have taught me. (The transmission is supposed to be "adaptive"; we'll see if I can teach it things.)

Inside the cockpit, there should be NO distractions that might tempt the driver to do anything else other than pay attention to the task at hand. This means NO sat-nav and absolutely NO cell' 'phone integration (Cell' 'phones, in my opinion, should stop working 100% of the time once one gets to more than about 10 MPH, with just perhaps an exception for calls to emergency services). DVD players are right out. Controls should fall to hand naturally, and have a distinctive "feel" to them so they can be identified without taking one's eyes off the road; touch-screens fail this absolutely. Commercial airliner cockpits are so designed. What's so difficult about translating that to automobiles? Cars are just a deadly as airliners (statistically deadlier, actually) save for the fact that when cars bang into each other it's only a couple of deaths per incident instead of hundreds, and that hardly ever makes the evening news.

I have always regarded car and driver as extensions of each when driving is happening. To detract from that, I feel, not only cheapens the experience but also makes it quite a lot more perilous. Pay attention, dammit!

'Tis sort of interesting that this thread has gone to cars and driving techniques instead of that positively amazing piece of late-Victorian design which dominates a local valley just a wee bit up the road from me.

[r.m.anderson]

Gee with all that being said - perhaps a return to the thrilling days of yesteryear - how about an Amish horse and buggy - some bells - only manual
whistles and absolutely no buzzers.

[crfriend]

Gee with all that being said - perhaps a return to the thrilling days of yesteryear - how about an Amish horse and buggy - some bells - only manual whistles and absolutely no buzzers.

One problem: horse "exhaust" is solid.

[pleated]

Gee with all that being said - perhaps a return to the thrilling days of yesteryear - how about an Amish horse and buggy - some bells - only manual whistles and absolutely no buzzers.

One problem: horse "exhaust" is solid.

But it would be good for your garden

[crfriend]

Getting back to the original dam topic, and that of the railway bridge, here's a shot of it, probably not taken too far afield of where a couple of mine were, before it was taken down in 1973 (or thereabouts):

200402151141279772.jpg

Here's another, taken from almost precisely the point where my shot shows nothing but valley, river, and footings:

2004021511440810173.jpg

Note: The photo is not plumb; I believe the original photographer got a little bit disoriented by his surroundings or had a mild case of vertigo -- which, based on personal experience, would be entirely understandable!

The deck of the bridge is actually slightly higher than the dam itself. This shot:

2004122509172512171.jpg

shows it from the southeast side of the valley just slightly uphill from the tunnel portal. The dam, still under construction when the photo was taken is to the left. Downstream is to the right, the nascent spillway is to the right of the trestle, and Clinton is downstream and not shown to the right.

Finally, a postcard view of the thing:

200610151558267838.jpg

The postcard view dates to the time the dam was still under construction; the two tower structures to the left were part of the materials-delivery system used during construction. They are gone now, taken down when construction finished. The road is what is now State Route 70.

[Kirbstone]

Lovely old train, Carl, shown off to best advantage almost in silhouette like that. Here they tend to convert old railway lines into cycle tracks, the sort of traffic an old bridge could take easily.

Tom

[crfriend]

Lovely old train, Carl, shown off to best advantage almost in silhouette like that. Here they tend to convert old railway lines into cycle tracks, the sort of traffic an old bridge could take easily.

The postcard view is a painting, and in looking back at the photograph that I put immediately before it I wonder if the artist wasn't referring to the photograph to execute the painting on the postcard. The similarities are quite astounding, even given the different vantage-points.

The "Rail Trail" we have here in town is on the old ROW that the bridge once fed, and I think it's a pity that they brought the bridge down as it would have made a positively spectacular vantage point for views of the surrounding area.