Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding [quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal The article also states that shortlines and regionals represent 30% of the rail network, and would need $7 billion to upgrade their tracks for the 35 -39 ton axles. From that you can infer that it has cost the other 70% of the rail network roughly $24 billion to upgrade their tracks for the 35 - 39 ton axles. [/quote] I see what you're saying Dave, but I'm not sure I agree with your mathmatecal inference. To relate $7billion to upgrade 30% of the rail network as meaning the other 70% will take $24billion, is to say that the 70% of trackage is in the same condition as the 30%. I hope to believe that UP's transcon is in a little better shape than The Ellis & Eastern, which hauls gravel through my town. That little detail could sku the mathmatics a little.[:)][/quote] Well, it is an assumption since I don't have access to individual railroad upgrade cost accounting, but for the purpose of example it is apt. I would venture the Class I's have spent much more than $24 billion upgrading* (or replacing) their lines to 35 tons per axle, then in anticipation of 39 tons per axle, so for the time being I'll stick with the $24 B figure. *I will concede also that much of the Class I rail trackage had heavy rail in place for those monstrous steamers of yore, and have kept that grade of rail in place when replacing rail. But wouldn't it have made sense for the railroads to keep axle weights at 25 tons and thus at the onset of dieselization been able to go with lighter rail than what was required for the steamers? 136 lb rail does cost more than 115 lb rail, doesn't it? Perhaps if they'd of gone with lighter rail for diesel powered trains, the Brown study could have reflected this cost/benefit in favor of diesels![;)] [quote]QUOTE: I can't figure out why the 6 wheel truck hasn't been perfected to the point at which it becomes viable in this context. [/quote] From what I've read so far (and I have a lot of material to go through yet), the older three axle trucks used for the Rail Whales and heavy haul flats had a either rigid side frame (bolster?) or a hinged side frame, but neither was adaquate for allowing the wheels to follow the curvature of the track. The TA2000 from ABC-NACO based on the Unitruck design (with it's independent suspension and radial steering, similar to the Flex Coil trucks used on locomotives) had just come out in the late 90's and hadn't been implemented for use in heavy haul cars, probably because by that time the decision to go HAL had already been committed to, and then ABC-NACO goes belly up and the patents and such are probably stuck in some drawer somewhere. The bottom line is that we don't have any data on the use of the TA2000 radial assisted three axle trucks for use in heavy haul service such as coal and grain hoppers.
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