What rail is now being laid on the Class 1s? That probably would be divided between mainline, secondary. branch, and spur. I know a lot of the lower locations would be relay. Around Georgia it appears that CSX is installing 141# on mainlines and used 136# until about two years ago. The A&WP sub had pre WWI welded 112# relay until 4 years ago. Replaced with 131# then two years ago replaced with 141#.
157 is eastern railroad (LV? - not Crane rail) along with the 155. Santa Fe never went much beyond 136. It had an affinity for 110# (bad choice, head wobbled under tonnage) and 119# (just odd)...100# to me smells of UP and CRIP as 113# is SP/SSW, 122# is Canadian and 133# is UP. ATSF was for the most part 85-90-110-112/115-119-131/132-136. You occasionally saw war surplus 101# Buffalo in yards as well (think 90# with a bigger base and no tie plates)...
The step joint I refer to was seen (and as far as I know still in place) at a crossing frog at Norwood (East side of Cincinnati), OH, N&W crossing PRR near Clare Yard (Now IORY crossing NS)...What also got me was the top of the ball actually bent down instead of being level.
Both you and Mud Chicken (above) refer to 157 lb. rail. That's a new one for me - I'm glad I ddin't repeat the oft-seen description of the 155-PS as the "heaviest T-rail used in North American railroad service", or similar. (Note: I'm excluding here - as is usually done in these discussions - both "Crane Rail" which comes as heavy as 171 & 175 lb., and "Girder Rail" for street trackage, which comes as heavy as 179 lb., if I recall correctly.)
So what is the 157 lb. section ? Can you provide any more details ? I haven't even seen it in a rail section dimensions table or chart. I recall that Mud Chicken has AT&SF service in his background, so I'm presuming it's a Santa Fe section - is that right ? Let us know when you have a moment. Thank you.
- Paul North.
That's one thing I forgot to mention in my earlier post - the transition from the 155-PS rails to the 100-ASCE rails. As I recall, we used "4 pairs" of compromise joints, which were shop-welded from joint bars from each rail section that were cut approximately in half, though with the 100-ASCE bars overhanging a couple of inches past the actual rail joint so as to allow for a generous "fillet" underneath to avoid stress concentrations at a sharp angle.
That change was pretty dramatic - I'm sure you're right that a step-weld of the 90 - 155/157 rails was bizarre - I've never seen that, but I can just imagine it . . .
Here's why you will often see heavier rail in the vicinnity of road crossings than in the rest of the track structure:
Grade crossings are miserable at best, and are always potential weak spots in the track structure because of their inherent lack of good drainage such as an open ditch alongside. As a result, they tend to hold water, which can lead to fouled ballast and "pumping", premature failure of the rail from corrosion effects (rusting out or separations of the rail head from the web, etc.), and are subject to abuse and other impact loadings from the cross-traffic of cars and especially trucks. Also, the grade crossing surface is usually more susceptible to damage from the "pumping" of the track structure under train loads - even if the track could tolerate the pumping OK, the crossing surface might not.
All of which can be mitigated or reduced by using a heavier / larger rail section in the crossing area, which stiffens the track structure to spread the train loads, reduce the pumping effects on the ballast and the crossing surface, less vibration from traffic inpacts, and reduced stress in the rail itself and hence risk of breaks or separations, as well as on general principles. I believe that it is generally accepted - at least among track maintenance personnel and engineers - that the modest additional cost for a few dozen (or even hundred) feet of slightly heavier rail and 4 compromise joints (or compromise or "transition" rails) per track at each such crossing is well justified for the better performance and longer service life of the entire crossing before maintenance or reconstruction is again needed.
This is commonly done even when there are no plans to replace the rails in the "open track" between the crossings with the same heavier section of rail. I believe one of the local lines has multiple crossings in the range of a mile apart with this type of installation, but I want to confirm that before I post anything to that effect.
To some extent, the same analysis and justifications apply at other high-maintenance areas in the track structure, notably such as turnouts, track crossings, and especially open-deck bridges.
Hope this is helpful and informative.
Nearby, I believe the Norfolk Southern Lehigh Line
Soo 6604 wrote: Speaking of weight of rail, the mainline at Neenah Wi is at 112, while the road crossing is at 136.....why is the rail heavier at the road crossing? Paul
Paul
Best guess is that the crossing was replaced in the past few years. Next time the rest of the rail is due to be replaced, it will likely be done with 136-pound rail.
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
im gonna recant about the heaviest rail i have seen
176pd rail at El Dorado Kansas on the Santa Fee Hi-speed transcon track.
http://www.youtube.com/user/pavabo
http://www.flickr.com/photos/paulvbox
The heaviest rail I have seen was in Henrietta Mo at 157pd. That was on the Santa Fe/Norfolk Southern shared trackage northeast of Kansas City.
CN mainline thru Neenah is at 112pd, checked that 2 weeks ago.
Speaking of weight of rail, the mainline at Neenah Wi is at 112, while the road crossing is at 136.....why is the rail heavier at the road crossing?
Paul_D_North_Jr wrote: But the really weird thing - that is best appreciated by those who walk or inspect track regularly - is how it the completed 155-PS rail installation looked. We all felt that walking down that track was like walking with a handrails on each side ! Sure, that's an exaggeration, but when you're accustomed to seeing mainly 90 and 100 lb. rais sections, occasionally some 130 lb. - the difference in appearance was really startling. It also almost started to look like narrow gauge - the proportions of rail height to the gauge (track width) were that different ! - Paul North.
I think you've just explained to me why the track gauge looks wider on older photographs--it's just as wide, but shorter!
PRR excluded, of course!
Wait till you have seen 155/157 step welded to a piece of 90# - bizarre!
track modulus!
Butch -
Yes, generally heavier rail is taller than lighter rail - that's one reason why or way in which it's heavier. Since the density of steel is relatively constant (at 3.4 lbs. per square inch of cross-section, per foot of length, x 3 = 10.2 lbs. per square inch of cross-section, per yard of length), the only way to make rail heavier is to make it bigger in some way or place. There are lots of ways and places to make rail larger in some respect - really, that's the evolution and history of rail section design over the years - but the most obvious one, usually with the most benefits, is simply to make the rail taller = stronger.
But, not always, although these could almost be considered to be the proverbial "exceptions that prove the rule" (aside from various height variations within a given "weight" classification, or really minscule differences from one weight class to another). For example, consider the following:
127 lb. Dudley (a common New York Central System rail): HT = 7"
130 lb. AREA (American Railway Engineering Association, also sometimes designated as "RE"): HT = 6-3/4"
Note that although the 130 RE is 3 lbs. per yard heavier, it is 1/4" shorter. That's mainly because the 127 Dudley's "web" - the vertical part of the capital letters "I" or "T" that rail is shaped like - at 4-5/32" for the "Fishing" (D)istance ("FD") is about 1/2" (15/32", actually) taller than the 130 RE's 3-11/16" FD. Also, the Head Depth ("HD") of the 127 Dudley is about 1/8" (5/32") thinner than the 130 RE's.
For this and more information, and other examples, consult a "rail chart", more properly a "Tee Rail Dimensions Table", such as this one on the A&K Railroad MAterials website:
http://www.akrailroad.com/OnlineCatalog/RailJointBars/TeeRailSectionsData/tabid/76/Default.aspx
-Paul North.
This may be an incredibly stupid question, but is heaver rail TALLER than lighter rail. I live on the DM&E where they have already installed welded rail on a couple of 100 mile stretchs and 1 guy I know swears that the heavier welded rail is taller than the old stuff.
I want to hear the correct answer from somebody who REALLY knows.
Reality TV is to reality, what Professional Wrestling is to Professional Brain Surgery.
Great post, Paul:
I've read about that huge rail before, but never got so much information. The whole thing makes more sense now.
It all certainly goes with the PRR spirit of not thinking small.
Thanks.
The PRR ("The Standard Railroad of the World") was never one to do things halfway. 155-PS section rail was developed as a step up after 140-PS (yup, that's for 140 lbs. / yard Pennsylvania System type rail) - not 132-RE. There was also the "interim" 152-PS section, but the 155-PS with a slightly thicker head portion superseded the 152-PS because the 155-PS then provided a longer headwear life (under traffic and tonnage) before it had to be replaced (and most likely relaid elsewhere).
Why so heavy ? The 155-PS was designed as mentioned for heavy traffic main lines. Not only coal, but especially iron ore trains - the PRR had quite a fleet of ore jennies to haul it from ports - esp. Philadelphia - to the steel mills in Bethlehem, Pittsburgh, and other places. As you may know from seeing the ore cars, they're short because of the heavy density of the ore and its weight as a load (and hence the cars themselves) quickly achieve the maximum allowable loading on the truck's axle bearings, and the maximum wheel/ axle loadings on the rail. (The PRR classified all of its coal, ore, stone, etc. trains - which were all pretty heavy, always pushing the maximum loading limits for maximum efficiency - as "mineral traffic".)
Also, the 155-PS was developed back in the day of the PRR's monster steam locomotives, which were pretty heavy on their own, plus the vertical direction component of the "dynamic augment" and impact effects from the reciprocating rod assemblies.
But the other main reason is that the art of steel metallurgy and the science of understanding the internal distribution of the stresses inside the rail sections - back when the 155-PS was developed - was not as good as it later became when the 132-RE section was developed. As a result, practical engineers back then took the conservative path - they just made the rail section enough bigger so as to provide more strength and larger areas over which to distribute the loads and stresses.
I absorbed this information from 13 years (1975 - 1988) of working with a total of 3 former PRR Track Supervisors, 1 of who was responsible for the portion of the New York Division that included the Hudson River tunnels (the late Paul T. Trax, a fine gentleman in all respects), and another one of whom was Assistant Division Engineer of the Philadelphia Division when he left the PRR's service.
And, the 155-PS section is not gone or forgotten yet ! It can still be found (or the 152-PS) on former PRR branch lines in the coal regions of Pennsylvania (the Shamokin area comes to mind).
Nor is the 155-PS obsolete ! About 20 years ago I supervised the installation of a couple hundred feet of 155-PS in a thaw shed for an electric utility in the suburban Philadelphia area - replaced 100 lb. ASCE section, which was that utility's standard (even though almost no one else used it). But the reason for the replacement was that the utility used gas-fired heaters - shaped like cylinders, about 8 or 10 inch diameter and 4 ft. long as I recall - that lay between the rails to thaw the frozen coal in the hopper cars. The diameter of the cylinders was so large that they would foul the air hoses and possibly other running gear on the hopper cars. To remedy that, the utility had blocked the rails up on wooden shims about 2" high, which were the same size as the tie plates. But since the heaters would also burn up the shims and the exposed portions of the ties, the utility had developed a system of protecting the shims and ties by little pieces of asbestos sheet - about 1/4" thick - that were drilled with holes and then nailed to the shims and ties. This was a poor arrangement - the shims had to be replaced almost every year, as well as a few of the ties, and that too was difficult work. Plus, as everyone knows by now - but not then - asbestos and its dust are known carcinogens and have to be handled with special precautions, etc.
So we proposed and replaced that whole "Rube Goldberg" arrangement with the more typical and simpler format of 155-PS rails on its matching custom double-shoulder tie plates for its unique 6-3/4" base width, which made the whole assembly close to 9 inches high from top of tie to top of rail - the 155-PS is 8" high when new, and this rail had only minimal wear, and the tieplates were close to 1" thick if I recall correctly. (The 100-ASCE that was replaced was only 5-3/4" high when new, and was worn down a good 1/4" and on its thin single-shoulder tie plates was barely 6" high above the topo of tie.) You can see that with this change we gained almost 3" in clearance for the space below the top of rail and above the top of tie, which solved the thaw shed heater height problem. Plus, they're never gonna wear out that 155-PS rail there, and I doubt if they'll ever have a wide gauge derailment, or much pumping - it is so stiff in both the vertical and horizontal planes, and the long 6-hole joint bars really do the job !
But the really weird thing - that is best appreciated by those who walk or inspect track regularly - is how it the completed 155-PS rail installation looked. We all felt that walking down that track was like walking with a handrails on each side ! Sure, that's an exaggeration, but when you're accustomed to seeing mainly 90 and 100 lb. rais sections, occasionally some 130 lb. - the difference in appearance was really startling. It also almost started to look like narrow gauge - the proportions of rail height to the gauge (track width) were that different !
Anyway, I hope this is informative and helpful.
KCSfan wrote: I am no expert on this but I vaguely recall reading about the Pennsy laying some very heavy rail (possibly 155#/yd) on the Horseshoe Curve some years ago. I guess they felt it would hold up better than say 132# rail which was widely used elsewhere. Because of its steep grade and curvature the track in that area apparently took quite a beating from the frequent, heavy trains.Mark
I am no expert on this but I vaguely recall reading about the Pennsy laying some very heavy rail (possibly 155#/yd) on the Horseshoe Curve some years ago. I guess they felt it would hold up better than say 132# rail which was widely used elsewhere. Because of its steep grade and curvature the track in that area apparently took quite a beating from the frequent, heavy trains.
Mark
That sure makes sense to me.
Ted M.
got trains?™
See my photos at: http://tedmarshall.rrpicturearchives.net/
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.