Favorite surface for grade crossings

[pat390]

wood asphalt or rubber? rubber in my opinion is the best because it is smooth and is very durable

[jchnhtfd]

I'd take properly installed rubber -- rides better, lasts better. Wood next. Asphalt is horrible -- impossible to maintain. Properly installed concrete panels are OK too -- except they make lining and surfacing hard.

[spankybird]

WE have some in this area made of steel plate that seems to last very well.

[Anonymous]

There was a crossing in Hendersonville, NC on US 25 that was absolutely TERRIBLE that was made from asphalt. The entire car would shake and rattle as if it were about to fall apart even at 5 mph. It's now replaced with rubber, and is so smooth. Took me by surprise the first time when I didn't bounce halfway up in my seat and lose half a dozen bolts off the car. I wish all crossings had rubber installed instead of the pavement.

[Anonymous]

Being a former DOT inspector in NC who has had something to do with putting those things together (State Owned Railroad). In my humble but experienced opinion in this matter only, I go with pre-stressed concrete in heavy traffic areas and rubber in light (less than 35,000 lbs) traffic areas. Both have their strenths and limitations depending on loading and exposure

[CShaveRR]

I have seen rubber crossings that could not stand up to the highway loads (there was no way the railroad traffic on the line in question could do that). Besides, the rubber, surprisingly, is very slick in wet weather.

Around here, the crossings with the heaviest rail traffic (in other words, they expect to have to surface the tracks beneath them) are built with the prestressed concrete panels. They look like they could be lifted out and later replaced rather easily. I don't know how or if they're bolted into position, but removal and reuse are obviously incorporated into the design. When the rubber pieces are taken out, they're junk, as are wooden stringers. And asphalt crossings I've seen soon assumed the profile of the ties beneath them.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CShaveRR

I have seen rubber crossings that could not stand up to the highway loads (there was no way the railroad traffic on the line in question could do that). Besides, the rubber, surprisingly, is very slick in wet weather.

Around here, the crossings with the heaviest rail traffic (in other words, they expect to have to surface the tracks beneath them) are built with the prestressed concrete panels. They look like they could be lifted out and later replaced rather easily. I don't know how or if they're bolted into position, but removal and reuse are obviously incorporated into the design. When the rubber pieces are taken out, they're junk, as are wooden stringers. And asphalt crossings I've seen soon assumed the stape of the ties beneath them.

Your observations are quite correct, sir. Not many people stop to even think of such things, much less observe them. Regards - Piouslion

[mudchicken]

Concrete. (Except Pak-Trac which is at the whim of the earthwork foundation)

(Absolutely detest any rubber crossing that has too many pieces, pre-stressed cables and or small parts that fail...Goodyear, Parko, Redhawk, etc... - the dread of encountering a failed rubber crossing at 2am still is with me....Also detest any crossing requiring a flangeway filler that invites an FRA inspection...plus the early fillers caught fire much too easilly....Hi-Rail rubber crossings ( no lag screws through the pads) were a bear to pull apart & re-assemble and the paving people screwed up the interface with the road surface much too often)

The only place asphalt belongs is under the ballast section.

On second thought, bridges are better than x-ings![:D] (somebody else's headache)[;)]

[banghead][banghead][banghead]

[Anonymous]

All the asphalt crossings in my area are generally very rough rides for going over in the car.

You really have to slow down if you want to keep the coffee in the cup.

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

All the asphalt crossings in my area are generally very rough rides for going over in the car.

You really have to slow down if you want to keep the coffee in the cup.

How much of the ride quality is a function of the crossing as opposed to the knuckleheads who built the approach grades too steep.????

[Big_Boy_4005]

Speaking of concrete, this looks like a pretty nifty system. The UP is using these prefab panels to redo a number of grade crossings on the Altoona sub in western Wisconsin.



MC is right about the approach. If it's messed up the material used to cover the ties makes little difference.

Recently the Minnesota Commercial re ballasted a short secton of their track. In the process they raised it at least 6" right across a busy road. Speed bump designers could take lessons. I hope this is only a temporary fix. That crossing was always pretty bad, because the track is level, but the road is sloped. Now it's worse than ever.[xx(]