NJT says concrete tie failure may have caused this derailment. Note NJT replaced over 1000 in area of derailment. Will NJT hold manufacturer responsible ? Hope so ?
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2014/09/concrete_ties_blamed_for_derailment_on_montclair-boonton_line.html#incart_m-rpt-2>
A few thoughts come to mind. First and foremost is that the failure of only two ties would not be enough to cause a problem, so the report is not telling the whole story. If they have carried out a major tie replacement program, though, it seems there was indeed a widespread problem with the ties.
We are not told the nature of the failure so it is impossible to say if it was a manufacturing deficiency. I would certainly look hard at how well the track was being inspected and maintained since a widespread problem should have been recognized and rectified earlier. Again I am not assigning blame to any party.
John
Based on the limited information conveyed in the article, I can only ASSUME that the ties failed in their gauge holding abilities and allowed the rail to spread under load causing the derailed wheels to drop inside the gauge of the track and onto the ground. A common type derailment with poorly maintained wooded ties.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I read the article myself, and you're all correct, it doesn't give as much information as we'd like.
That being said, I'm curious. Just how good are concrete ties? This isn't the first instance I've heard of where they've failed. Are concrete ties good in theory but not in fact, or are the failures a case of "you get what you pay for"?
Firelock76 I read the article myself, and you're all correct, it doesn't give as much information as we'd like. That being said, I'm curious. Just how good are concrete ties? This isn't the first instance I've heard of where they've failed. Are concrete ties good in theory but not in fact, or are the failures a case of "you get what you pay for"?
To my mind (and I am not in MofW) concrete ties are still a developing technology. As most of us know from our personal experiences, concrete does not respond well to impacts - especially repeated impacts. The technology of securing rail to the ties is critical and must minimize the repeated impacts as each wheel of a train passes over the tie and still secure the rail in the proper position. I suspect at this stage of concrete tie technology - you get what you pay for and maybe a whole lot less.
Concrete is also less compressible than wood ties. Variation in supporting ballast height would cause the concrete ties sitting higher to carry more of the load and impact.
Thank you for the responses gentlemen! In a way I sense we've been there before,
It reminds me of the building of the Camden and Amboy Railroad in New Jersey in the 1830's. Accepted practice in track laying called for stone ties or "sleepers" under the rails. Came the day the cut stones weren't showing up in a timely manner so the trackmen substituted wood for the ties. Low and behold the wooden ties gave a much better ride, in addition to being a heck of a lot cheaper than cut stone.
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
What the carriers are attempting to secure with the use of concrete ties is increased longevity. Creosoted wood ties have a nominal life expectancy of 30 years - they hope to get longer life from concrete.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.