Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM FM The carriers went to 131, 132-136 pound rail before they introduced 286K cars. There is no basis in fact to claim that 286K cars are forcing heavier rail on main tracks, and therefore no marginal investment to support heavier cars on routes that handle significant traffic. Your apriori (existing in the mind independent of experience)hypothesis was flawed at its conception. Mac [/quote] Well, I didn't say heavier rail per se, I said upgrading rail, but nonetheless your point is well taken, and indeed I made that point myself a few posts ago. What I am infering is that the maintenance costs for keeping that rail in optimal condition to support the 35.75 tons per axle cars has skyrocketed in constrast to the maintenance costs of that track if the axle weights were limited to 25 tons. And don't forget that the 35.75 tons per axle cars were plying the network well before most of that rail was upgraded, basically forcing the replacement of nominally good trackage due to the increased wear and tear caused by the 35.75 tons per axle cars. There was still perfectly functional jointed rail in existance all over that had to be upgraded to 136 lb welded rail once the damage caused by the HAL cars became evident. When you add in the shortline and regional rail conumdrum, you can see how the problem has metastasized. And the HAL article in TRAINS basically supports that contention.
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