Rail Markings

[G Mack]

Hello,

Saw these markings at Galesburg, ILL and was wanting to know what they mean.

Markings Photo

Gregory

[CShaveRR]

This is a piece of transition rail, specially designed to be welded in between two sections of different weight.  To the right of the white portion is 136-pound rail.  To the left is 132-pound rail, which is, I suspect, 1/4" shorter than the 136-pound section.

[J. Edgar]

throwing a guess out there......maybe its a test section as they do with pavement (concrete or blacktop)....................

[ChuckCobleigh]

Try this link, not much on details, but shows where the pieces came from.

Muddy feathers will probably clear this up for us, but I suspect that the transition is from 136 to 132 pound rail, with the 132 pound having had a quarter inch ground off.  These are custom fab jobs and the supplier can do pretty much anything needed to go between two ribbons. 

They also have openings for frog fitters, which has to be a great job title.  Sounds like hard work, though.

[G Mack]

Try this link, not much on details, but shows where the pieces came from.

Muddy feathers will probably clear this up for us, but I suspect that the transition is from 136 to 132 pound rail, with the 132 pound having had a quarter inch ground off.  These are custom fab jobs and the supplier can do pretty much anything needed to go between two ribbons. 

They also have openings for frog fitters, which has to be a great job title.  Sounds like hard work, though.

Geez, can you imagine what thoughts would go through a persons mind when you told them you were a frog-fitter at Nortrak Industries?! But you would have the most unusual job title on your block!

Gregory

[mudchicken]

This is a piece of transition rail, specially designed to be welded in between two sections of different weight.  To the right of the white portion is 136-pound rail.  To the left is 132-pound rail, which is, I suspect, 1/4" shorter than the 136-pound section.

Carl has it...The 1/4 Headloss reflects service worn rail and makes a better transition. I would not want the welder to be out there grinding off new rail to match the old rail...

[MP173]

Why would there be 136# rail and then 132# rail?  What would be the reason to make the switch to a heavier rail?

ed

[mudchicken]

Why would there be 136# rail and then 132# rail?  What would be the reason to make the switch to a heavier rail?

ed

Thought #1:

God forbid you get exposed to 133 (UPRR Standard) or the new 141...

Thought #2

You can now go back to your alternative universe where all locomotives still are GP-7's now. Come on back and pay us a visit again sometime. (The SD40 and the SD70Mac might happen by then, hint/hint)

#3 Probable Answer:

Think tonnage, headwear, moment of inertia, resistance to head/web separation, grinding / wear practices, changes in standards adopted by all railroads, changes in mill practices (small radii fillets).....and then we'll get into the details

[MP173]

Thanks Mud.

So, basically there is a standard weight used by each railroad for it's mainline (and secondary) operations based on a number of factors.  I would guess that heavier rail is used on higher tonnage lines.  The picture in question might have been a "conversion" if you will between two different standards of mainline operation.  Or, since it is at Galesburg, perhaps a transition between mainline and yard tracks, or something similar.

ed

[mudchicken]

Look at the photo again (136 New)...a good guess is that there was a recent rail relay with 136 CWR here. The old rail that came out may have been 132 CWR or 132 jointed that has been cascaded into the yard (if it is not curveworn or has a history of breaks) replacing even lighter weight rail that was either sold for scrap or broken into spare parts. The russians are the only ones rolling 132 these days and it has "issues". The surviving US railmills (2) are rolling 115,133,136 and 141 exclusively these days.

[G Mack]

Hello forum,

 

The markings were on the former Santa Fe transcon main. This track looked as if it were in need of some work. There were a lot of low areas with the ballast contaminated with mud and areas where, when a train passed over, the whole track structure, ballast, ties, and track, would move.

When you look at the stampings on rail, I assume that they are telling you the rail weight, height, and when and where it was fabricated. At Rochelle,  ILL, I saw stampings that read; 141 - 10 NIPPON. I take it this would be 141 LB weight with a 10" height and produced in Japan?

The rail on the CB&Q line at Galesburg was some of the heaviest looking rail that I have seen. It was stamped 136 - 10 which may be common but to me it seemed to be enormous sections of rail.

Gregory

[mudchicken]

136 Lb. rail is 7 5/16 (new) as is 140 Lb. rail (thicker web and slightly wider ball/head)

141 is slightly taller IIRC at 7 7/16 inches by about 1/8 of an inch., All have the same 6" base. 

-10 is the rail "suffix" showing whose design you are using (in this case, AREMA unifed)

NIPPON is the mill brand (As in Nippon Steel, Nagoya Japan mill), not the country.

 

[Anonymous]

136 Lb. rail is 7 5/16 (new) as is 140 Lb. rail (thicker web and slightly wider ball/head)

141 is slightly taller IIRC at 7 7/16 inches by about 1/8 of an inch., All have the same 6" base. 

-10 is the rail "suffix" showing whose design you are using (in this case, AREMA unifed)

NIPPON is the mill brand (As in Nippon Steel, Nagoya Japan mill), not the country.

 

IIRC the only difference between 141 and 136 AREMA is a deeper (taller) head on 141 to give more life.  Kind of the "anti head-free" as it were (inside joke for MC)

S. Hadid

[mudchicken]

[Poppa_Zit]

Mud --

Questions, questions:

• Which decreases rail height more? Grinding or wear?
• How many times can a rail be ground before it must be replaced?
• How often must a very busy main like the Transcon, Chicago Racetrack or Overland Route be ground?
• Which begs the question: Regarding train wear, does the passage of wheels remove metal or does the weight of heavy cars over time smash down the top which results in a height loss?

Thanks,

PZ  

[G Mack]

136 Lb. rail is 7 5/16 (new) as is 140 Lb. rail (thicker web and slightly wider ball/head)

141 is slightly taller IIRC at 7 7/16 inches by about 1/8 of an inch., All have the same 6" base. 

-10 is the rail "suffix" showing whose design you are using (in this case, AREMA unifed)

NIPPON is the mill brand (As in Nippon Steel, Nagoya Japan mill), not the country.

 

I see a lot of rail stamped "Steelton". Where is this mill located?

Gregory

[ChuckCobleigh]

The surviving US railmills (2) are rolling 115,133,136 and 141 exclusively these days.

I take it that the 115 pound rail is the choice for new light-rail systems?  This seems to comport with the following:

The local joke sheet in Sun Diego had an article on our trolley and how the original stretch (Blue Line south of downtown) has a rough ride.  Neither the "journalist" nor the retired politician that spearheaded getting the system funded seemed to have much of a clue, probably the most clueless statement was about "misaligned track" which didn't jibe with what they were talking about.  It sounded like what was needed would involve some Plasser equipment, maybe.  I don't get on the Blue Line south of downtown, so I don't know for sure, but there is a stretch of the Orange/Green line track that is about 18 years old that could definitely use some ballast work.

Accompanying the article was a picture with a caption stating, "The track on the Blue Line is starting to show its age."  What they meant was that there were markings showing a 1980 rolling of 115 pound rail at CF&I, which I take to be the plant in Pueblo that was rolling like crazy in the 70s and up to '81 or '82.  What was hilarious was the particular rail was on some pretty good looking ties, with good anchors and very little head wear.  I guess they thought the rail was the cause of the problems.

The funniest (and maybe truest) thing said in the article was that they made a mistake letting CALTRANS highway engineers do the initial design work for the first line.  Duh.  (Thought MC would like to hear a politician admitting that.)

[Anonymous]

I see a lot of rail stamped "Steelton". Where is this mill located?

Gregory

On the Susequehanna River (east bank) just east of Harrisburg, Pa.  Steelton dates to 1867; it was a Bethlehem Steel mill, purchased by ISG when Bethlehem went bankrupt; ISG was absorbed by Mittal Steel (headquartered in the Netherlands).  This is one of two active mills in the U.S., the other being the former Colorado Fuel & Iron (CF&I) mill now owned by Evraz Group S.A. (a Russian steel company).

I think in 1900 there were more than 40 mills rolling rail in the U.S.

S. Hadid

[Anonymous]

The surviving US railmills (2) are rolling 115,133,136 and 141 exclusively these days.

I take it that the 115 pound rail is the choice for new light-rail systems? 

Yes, it's the standard.

 This seems to comport with the following: The local joke sheet in Sun Diego had an article on our trolley and how the original stretch (Blue Line south of downtown) has a rough ride.  Neither the "journalist" nor the retired politician that spearheaded getting the system funded seemed to have much of a clue, probably the most clueless statement was about "misaligned track" which didn't jibe with what they were talking about.  It sounded like what was needed would involve some Plasser equipment, maybe.  I don't get on the Blue Line south of downtown, so I don't know for sure, but there is a stretch of the Orange/Green line track that is about 18 years old that could definitely use some ballast work.

Accompanying the article was a picture with a caption stating, "The track on the Blue Line is starting to show its age."  What they meant was that there were markings showing a 1980 rolling of 115 pound rail at CF&I, which I take to be the plant in Pueblo that was rolling like crazy in the 70s and up to '81 or '82.  What was hilarious was the particular rail was on some pretty good looking ties, with good anchors and very little head wear.  I guess they thought the rail was the cause of the problems.

The funniest (and maybe truest) thing said in the article was that they made a mistake letting CALTRANS highway engineers do the initial design work for the first line.  Duh.  (Thought MC would like to hear a politician admitting that.)

No comment on that last part.

S. Hadid

[mudchicken]

...rail corrugation happens

[cordon]

Why would there be 136# rail and then 132# rail?  What would be the reason to make the switch to a heavier rail?

ed

I have noticed that BNSF is replacing grade crossings here (Frisco, TX, and vicinity) with prefabricated crossings that are 136 pound rail. They use these transition pieces to mate up with whatever is already on the main or the siding, usually 115 pound rail.  

[Anonymous]

Common practice -- it makes the grade crossing stiffer to resist the impact of heavy trucks.

[mudchicken]

....and your new crossings (concrete & wood) only come in two sizes...and the smaller stuff is hard to get. Beefier track modulus at the crossing is certainly a good idea, especially where the street grades into the crossing are anything but level, making the crossing subject to impact damage.