Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Cost of upgrading Rail
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
Murhpy - What part of the math don't you understand? If you have a given quantity of a raw material (in this case a hypothetical 1 million tons of steel), which size rail will result in the most miles covered? For the record, I am going by the assumption that "115 lb rail" means 115 lb/ft, etc. If it is a different measure, then correct it, but the gist of the question remains valid. <br /> <br />Mudchicken - I understand the track modulus statement, but isn't wear and tear on ties, etc. a function of those support materials more so than the rail above? You're saying 115 flexes more than 130+ rail, which increases impact on ties and cross plates. So strengthen the support components. I'll stick by the consensus results of HAL studies as reported in the March TRAINS and other firms such as Zeta-Tech, which is that heavier axle loads on the point of contact between wheel and rail result in greater rail wear than lighter axle loads. Funny, the same physics work the same on highway wear from truck axle weights. <br /> <br />Mac - I did reiterate the presence of heavy rail before the advent of 35 ton per axle cars just a few posts back. What I am saying is that the railroads could have gone back to 115 or whatever lighter (and thus cheaper) rail fits the scheme after the onset of dieselization by 1960, but instead chose to stick with heavier rail in anticipation of increasing freight car axle weights from 27.5 tons to 33 tons (or what is commonly refered to as the 264k car). Perhaps if the flexible bogie had been technologically feasible back then, the railroads might have gone that direction (e.g. a three axle "rail friendly" truck rated at 25 tons per axle for a gross car weight of 300k) to increase freight car load factor, rather than endorsing the ever increasing HAL concept. Assuming 300k gross car weight wasn't too much for mainline structures back then, anyone can clearly see that 300k on six axles would have provided about 15% greater load factor than the "new" 4 axle 264k cars that came into being a few years later. <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