QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943 Has any manufacturer, beyond Buckeye Steel Castings ever produced 3 axle trucks in any appreciable quantities? I have only seen them used on loco tenders and some heavy weight flat cars [ mostly DOD] for hauling tanks. I would think that to produce them would have to be an off shore operation, in light of govt regs nowdays.
QUOTE: Originally posted by edbenton Since you are looking at roughly 30 million a mile to lay all new trackager and ballast figure on roughly 6 mil a mile rough guess remember there is no need to put down new subroadbed and ballast just redoing the track figure on the rough guess of 6 mil a mile. That 30 mil a mile comes from what it is costing the BNSF to double track the transcon.
QUOTE: Originally posted by mudchicken You are looking at 22-24 ties per rail length and any main line will hold the 24 ties/ rail length typical standards. Along with the beam issue distributing the load footprint, you seem to be ignoring the cyclical issue that accelerates the degradation of the track variables....If you want to throw all those extra ties in there, hope you can come up with the machinery to index and surface that works. IMHO, The "benefit" you keep pushing won't be fiscally justified (ROR for the railroad isn't there for the outlay required). Be heavy and go fast requires a massive maintenance commitment that the operating side has to buy into or the whole thing stumbles a la Powder River.
QUOTE: PS - Alan Zarembeski (Zeta Tech) on more than one occasion has voiced his displeasure on how some his research has been mis-interpretted or skewed to the point that he no longer recognizes it.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Conserning spacing on ties,aren't they set at a *standard* on center spacing?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal [ My understanding is that the heavier rail is needed primarily for the force of weight at the point of wheel/rail contact
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal There are a few main arterials wherein the older strut support bridges were replaced by full length side girder bridges, which kept the road clearances the same as before but allowed for full width of the roadway below. On the rail issue, aren't European rails lighter than NA rails? If you look at European freight operations, their heavy haul freight cars do have bogies of three or more axles. I think that is the basis for my premise that spread axles on US railcars would allow for using lighter rail concurrent with heavier gross car loads, and thus allow our shortlines to continue viability.
QUOTE: And some of their heavy freights run in triple digit speeds!
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Ballasted bridge decks - wasn't that a Milwaukee idea?[^] If you have ever been to Spokane WA, take a look at the RR bridges downtown. The NP apparently chose to go with thinner bridge beams compensated by more frequent support struts. I am sure thicker beams existed at this time, but it was probably cheaper to go with the thinner beams and increased struts. I would think this concept could be applied in other areas, aka if railroads could get away with it they would prefer their bridges over highways to have more strut support (and allowing thinner beams) rather than having to span the entire roadway. For bridges, the gross consist weight is more paramount than the point of contact weight. I also use this example for the thinner vs thicker rail debate. That may be a case of not wanting to raise the level of the roadbed and being unable to reduce the clearances over the highway. Did you ever wonder why floor joists are on edge rather than laid flat? Because they are stiffer on edge than flat . The same is true with bridge beams. A taller cross sectioned beam will provide greater weight carry capacity than the equivilent amount of steel in more but smaller beams.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Ballasted bridge decks - wasn't that a Milwaukee idea?[^] If you have ever been to Spokane WA, take a look at the RR bridges downtown. The NP apparently chose to go with thinner bridge beams compensated by more frequent support struts. I am sure thicker beams existed at this time, but it was probably cheaper to go with the thinner beams and increased struts. I would think this concept could be applied in other areas, aka if railroads could get away with it they would prefer their bridges over highways to have more strut support (and allowing thinner beams) rather than having to span the entire roadway. For bridges, the gross consist weight is more paramount than the point of contact weight. I also use this example for the thinner vs thicker rail debate.
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal <snipped> My understanding (and keep in mind I am not a lumber salesman) is that the heavier rail is needed primarily for the force of weight at the point of wheel/rail contact, and not the collective weight of the truck. The reason may have something to do with the fact that the spacing between axles is greater than the spacing between ties, so the weight of each axle is spaced at least three tie spacings between. All the rail and support components have to support at point of contact is that weight on the axle, thus less weight per axle allows for less vertically tall rail. Maybe lighter rail would need closer tie spacing of the collective weight of the truck was heavier? Dave, think of the rail as a bridge beam spanning the ties. With the heavier rail the increase is partially in the head (more metal to wear before needing replacement) but also in the web (greater stiffness). If you noticed in the HAL article it said that the railroads discovered that you have to weld the rail on the ends of bridges to provide better support in the transition from roadbed to bridge deck. Also the trend is to ballasted deck bridges as a counter to the differences in stiffness on a bridge. Next time you pass under a highway overpass take a look at the bridge beams underneath, then take a look at those under a railroad overpass. You will see that those under a railroad bridge are at least twice the height of those under a road bridge. Also if you have seen a transition joint between two different weights of rail you will have seen a difference in height in the web.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal <snipped> My understanding (and keep in mind I am not a lumber salesman) is that the heavier rail is needed primarily for the force of weight at the point of wheel/rail contact, and not the collective weight of the truck. The reason may have something to do with the fact that the spacing between axles is greater than the spacing between ties, so the weight of each axle is spaced at least three tie spacings between. All the rail and support components have to support at point of contact is that weight on the axle, thus less weight per axle allows for less vertically tall rail. Maybe lighter rail would need closer tie spacing of the collective weight of the truck was heavier?
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding Dave: I'm not saying your premise is incorrect-that it might be cheaper to change all the heavy axle-load railcars than to change all the track structure to carry the heavier axle loads. I am suggesting that you're doing sort of a mixed-math-metaphor type of trying to quantify a number. If the engine in my car was made 15% lighter, the whole car wouldn't cost 15% less. It seems to me, that the railroads would have had to have this axle-loading vs. rail structure problem worked out in the 1960's, when they went to 286,000#. It's too late now.
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Well, I didn't say heavier rail per se, I said upgrading rail, but nonetheless your point is well taken, and indeed I made that point myself a few posts ago. What I am infering is that the maintenance costs for keeping that rail in optimal condition to support the 35.75 tons per axle cars has skyrocketed in constrast to the maintenance costs of that track if the axle weights were limited to 25 tons. And don't forget that the 35.75 tons per axle cars were plying the network well before most of that rail was upgraded, basically forcing the replacement of nominally good trackage due to the increased wear and tear caused by the 35.75 tons per axle cars. There was still perfectly functional jointed rail in existance all over that had to be upgraded to 136 lb welded rail once the damage caused by the HAL cars became evident. When you add in the shortline and regional rail conumdrum, you can see how the problem has metastasized. And the HAL article in TRAINS basically supports that contention. Dave, in back in the discussion. A couple of points here, first you need to separate the coal and certain other bulk commodities from the general car fleet in this discussion. Coal Cars don't last 50 years at least not in unit train service. The high mileage and corrosive lading means that they are typically replaced between 20 and 25 years. Also with certain exceptions these trains aren't going to operate over shortline rails. Grain cars aren't going to be replaced at anywhere near that rate and the railroads are going to hold any new 315k cars in dedicated shuttle trains which won't leave the Class Is anyway. So the only cars likely to affect the shortlines early are Centerbeams and perhaps paper service Boxcars. I don't see serious numbers of those cars being introduced in a short timespan.
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Well, I didn't say heavier rail per se, I said upgrading rail, but nonetheless your point is well taken, and indeed I made that point myself a few posts ago. What I am infering is that the maintenance costs for keeping that rail in optimal condition to support the 35.75 tons per axle cars has skyrocketed in constrast to the maintenance costs of that track if the axle weights were limited to 25 tons. And don't forget that the 35.75 tons per axle cars were plying the network well before most of that rail was upgraded, basically forcing the replacement of nominally good trackage due to the increased wear and tear caused by the 35.75 tons per axle cars. There was still perfectly functional jointed rail in existance all over that had to be upgraded to 136 lb welded rail once the damage caused by the HAL cars became evident. When you add in the shortline and regional rail conumdrum, you can see how the problem has metastasized. And the HAL article in TRAINS basically supports that contention.
QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 2. How much could be saved if 130+ lb rail could be replaced with 115 lb rail during these upgrades? How many more miles can be relaid if 115 replaces 136? If you have one million tons of steel to work with, you can make about 165 miles of track using 115 but only 140 miles of track with 136 (about a 15% difference). At a million a mile, that 25 extra miles translates into $25 million saved per 1 million tons of steel. I'm not quite sure I agree with your math again. Please double-check your answers. When you are through, turn your paper over, and put your head down. Remember-no looking at your neighbor's paper.[:-,]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 2. How much could be saved if 130+ lb rail could be replaced with 115 lb rail during these upgrades? How many more miles can be relaid if 115 replaces 136? If you have one million tons of steel to work with, you can make about 165 miles of track using 115 but only 140 miles of track with 136 (about a 15% difference). At a million a mile, that 25 extra miles translates into $25 million saved per 1 million tons of steel.
QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM FM Does that mean you are withdrawing your assertion dated February 21 of "$30 billion (I presume you mean incremental investment here) for HAL"? Mac
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.