Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
286K
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
So many things worth adding, so little time ... <br /> <br />Mookie: 315K is permitted on most main lines now in the West, and has been for at least 10 years. It's just not very common yet. As long as track is maintained appropriately, derailments will not go up. There will be more broken rails. One of the first things I learned dispatching at KCS, is if a heavy train leaves a "track light" behind it -- the console shows an occupancy after the train clears the next control point -- is to permit no trains to pass until a track inspector had checked for broken rails. About 1 in 10 times, a broken rail was found. <br /> <br />Larry: We're working on an article on exactly that issue -- subsidy. The rough number is this: if tolls on the Chicago Tri-State Tollway were based on highway wear, and if your toll is $0.50, the 18-wheeler next to you should pay $457.00. Unfortunately, it pays $1.50. <br /> <br />Eric: You nailed it. The rates are unremunerative. The railroads are not covering their cost of capital. If the revenue will not cover the cost of NEW track (which it hasn't done in the last 30 years except for a few chemical and power plant spurs and the PRB build-in), then eventually the infrastructure is all obsolete and used up. An expert I've been corresponding with in Britain figures that by 2008, the Class I railroads will all need be out of cash. The investors clearly think the jig is up too: in the last five years, $21 billion has been taken out of railroad capitalization and given to shareholders as cash, through merger premiums and stock buybacks. All that capital is gone from railroading for good. <br /> <br />Mudchicken: take a look at the tie replacement rate on most short lines -- it assumes a tie lasts 100 years! Obviously, it doesn't ... <br /> <br />Slotracer: Rail wear is disproportionately higher if greater weight is placed on fewer axles. The formula, such as it is, is complex and highly variable. But empirically, rail wear will go up. As it was explained to me, the steel in the rail momentarily goes into plastic flow and tries to squish out from under the wheel. You're right in recalling the Green River experience, though I think that was actually 30 years ago. BM&LP tried it at the same time, as I recall, and gave up too. But since then rail technology has improved and enabled 286K to be used with acceptable rail wear. <br /> <br />
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy