A decision on the west switchback should be judged by what happens at the west switchback above the mule rest. The docket is at step 7 of the current review. Its latest entry reads: The affected crew has tried the revised procedure under ordinary working conditions. A rule that looks complete in the chamber can still leave the people who use it carrying an unmeasured cost.
22 switchback closures lasting longer than one bell were entered this cycle, compared with 19 in the prior file. That comparison matters because the public summary counts entries. The open question is whether to reopen the route between inspections or hold all freight until the retaining wall is rebuilt.
Carriers call short closures manageable; masons say repeated traffic shakes loose stone from the same seam. The current record does not settle that disagreement. The objection deserves a direct answer, but it is not a reason to make the rule permanent before the affected residents can check the method.
Varda Kin checked the road crew’s stonefall notices and the mule train delay book against the field notes. The method is to trace the route from the first signal to the final gate receipt; it confirms the entries, but not every interpretation attached to them. The practical evidence is a fresh fan of chips below the retaining wall’s third drain; any new measure should record that condition beside the total.
The chamber should approve a limited trial with a published end date, a way to record exceptions and a named reviewer. The route marshal will time a loaded test after the drain has been cleared. That is the narrowest decision that can be defended from the evidence now available.
