While reading some related materials today, I found the following information, and not being in the MOW area, as a profession, I thought it might be of interest to to some who stop by here. Possibly, it might generate some interesting conversations.
It might be a case of Life imitating Model Railraoding.(?) The 'Tubular Track' system is apparently a South African innovation. And is finding some use in areas with blowing sand as an operational issue (the articles mention Namibia, and Saudi Arabia as a couple of examples where the 'Tubular Track' system is being laid and tested.
To us uninitiated; Railroad Trackwork seems to be sort of cut and dried as to applications in this country. This system seems to be an innovative solution to a specific problem for some railroads. Even in this country there are areas of drifting sands that cause some operational issues, certainly not on the scale described in the linked articles.
This is the link to the manufacturer's website: http://www.tubulartrack.co.za/
and a link to the Namibia site: http://www.slideshare.net/tubulartrack/tubular-track-namibia
Railway Gazette has an article as well :
http://www.railwaygazette.com/nc/news/single-view/view/tubes-in-the-desert.html
This is a very suspicious post. The photos show NOTHING tubular. It is merely everyday rail on a longitudinal concrete beam. It could not distribute weight as a tie perpendicular to the rails could. What does this have to do with real railroads? I don't see how this has any applicability beyond light weight European roads or possibly light rail. Are you selling something?
Interesting links, Sam. I need more time to study them, but here are a few quick observations:
From the manufacturer's website on the Namibian installation, at -
http://www.tubulartrack.co.za/index.php/2008/04/railway-technology-namib-desert/
Quote from Spoornet Report BBB5815 dated June 2004:“The Tubular Track(r) modules were designed and tested in the laboratory for 22 ton/axle loading and 5 MGT’s per year for a design period of 20 years."
22 tons is 44,000 lbs. per axle, which is only about 60 % of current US practice.
5 MGT is just branch-line level traffic - that's less than 3 trains per day of 5,000 gross tons each, which would be about 35 loads or 140 empties, plus locomotives.
By not using wood or steel ties, there would be no incentive to steal them for firewood or scrap or for re-use as low-grade building materials.
Since the system is not based on clean ballast stone for track support, there's no ballast to be contaminated by blowing sand. But the sand can still cover the tracks if it gets deep enough . . .
It would have merit for some specific applications - and some weaknesses, too, for others. In the whole world, I doubt if there's a single system that's a 'one size fits all' solution, so this might be another 'tool' in the toolbox of possible applications. Thanks for your time in reviewing it and sharing those links here.
- Paul North.
Gee my first thought when reading the string title was the rails would be like Lionel track.
Me, too - or even larger, like maybe 12'' pipe-sized rails - or even tracks inside of a tube to protect them from the sand, like a light-weight tunnel section of steel or concrete with the tracks Directly Fastened to the floor somehow . . . That's why I just had to take a quick look - guess not, though.
tdmidget This is a very suspicious post. The photos show NOTHING tubular. It is merely everyday rail on a longitudinal concrete beam. It could not distribute weight as a tie perpendicular to the rails could. What does this have to do with real railroads? I don't see how this has any applicability beyond light weight European roads or possibly light rail. Are you selling something?
Actually if you read through the website, the "tubular" designation does not refer to the rail but to the supporting structure. The installations they site all involve heavier applications than those common in Europe (South Africa's Spoornet is Meter gauge but features heavy bulk trains on many lines, for instance) .
Still, wheter or not this would hold up to ultra heavy duty service in North America is a good question...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Guys:
First of all: I am not selling anything! As I stated in my original post, I was researching some other material, and came across the referenceds to Tubular Track. It peaked my interest, so I looked further.
[Corp website linked here] : http://www.tubulartrack.co.za/
Some of the photos on the Corporate websit showed installations; they did faintly resemble tinplated O -O27 track, similar to that used by Lionel. I have no idea as to how the name evolved. You could address that with the manufacturer. I know that sometimes precast concrete beams are poured with a hollow core, which achieves some reduction in overall weight. But that is a pure guess about that possible aspect(?).
I posed the links for those interested enough to want to see more. Again, I thought it was an interesting solution to a specific application where conventional construction could be problematic. Nothing More.
I was hoping it might generate some interesting conversation, and possibly be informative to others. If it disappointed some- Sorry for that! If it interested some others- Great. It was meant to be only informative and possible provocative as to this Forum and its interests.
Sam,
I am glad that you posted the information. I think the "Tubular track" could be something like a better mousetrap.
sam: Also thanks for posting this. It may be impractical or not, but one would hope folks would consider the concept for more than a few minutes before discarding it. You have no need to apologize to anyone.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Toobular, man... Like, totally toob-u-ler!
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
This “tube track” seems to be related to some of the earliest ideas about track construction, in which they developed a linear foundation running parallel with the rails, and providing continuous support to the rail. But it was soon realized that the gage needed to be directly tied by connecting the two rails. So the typical crosstie was developed as an alternative track foundation system. And within that system, concrete ties have been an alternate to wood ties.
But this tubular track idea links the modern use of concrete with an ancient track foundation system. Maybe that ancient system had to wait for modern concrete to really arrive. The advantage that I see is the continuous support of the rail by the continuous, linear foundation. However, I don’t really understand how that continuous foundation under each rail has a sufficient area of ground support. It looks like the ground support area may be as little as 20% of the ground support area of conventional track with crossties.
It would seem that the supporting ground for this tubular track would have to be a highly engineered subgrade composed of carefully compacted aggregate that is perhaps stabilized with some type of binder, and isolated with soil stabilization fabric. So, while there is no ballast to maintain, the subgrade would be much more demanding than that of a track with ties.
The ballast of conventional track serves as an adjustable medium so the track can be re-aligned periodically. Is there a need for periodic re-alignment with tubular track? If so, how is this re-alignment accomplished?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.