Trains.com

jointed rail vs CWR

16628 views
66 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Sunday, November 11, 2007 7:16 PM

 Lord Atmo wrote:
i'm not sure how old the track is. but i DO know UP was fixing a lot of the track in the yard only last summer

Main Track is different than yard track if everything is equal. The yard can absorb more abuse account low speeds and long periods without loading/unloading cycles. (think track modulus and smaller impact effects)...what gets beat up in yards are switches & frogs which, by nature, are the weakest link in the track structure. (ask da snowman about what happens to the leads in his yard)...

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    July 2006
  • From: Wisconsin
  • 132 posts
Posted by CNW534 on Sunday, November 11, 2007 6:40 PM
 mudchicken wrote:

(1) Flatlands, light curves, light density ( < 10 trains / day) ..no need for CWR.  Especially if the existing jointed rail is heavy rail and probably less than 50 years old with decent surface. If you had decent joint maintenance in the past, UP will get as much life out of that rail as possible.

If the joint batter suddenly gets bad, you will see CWR right quick and in a hurry.

The joints are in bad shape five miles either side of MP 40.  Half the rail head is worn away in most places and nearly down to the web in a many others.  Bolts are loose and several joints are marked with spray paint markings (by whom, I don't know).  The coil springs on those cars sure get a workout when the trains pass through Baldwin.

So, where's the CWR?  Or is UP simply waiting for a RoadRailer derailment?

You should see what an SD70ACe does to a dead fish!
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Eau Claire, WI
  • 1,882 posts
Posted by Lord Atmo on Sunday, November 11, 2007 6:24 PM
i'm not sure how old the track is. but i DO know UP was fixing a lot of the track in the yard only last summer

Your friendly neighborhood CNW fan.

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Denver / La Junta
  • 10,820 posts
Posted by mudchicken on Sunday, November 11, 2007 6:22 PM

(1) Flatlands, light curves, light density ( < 10 trains / day) ..no need for CWR.  Especially if the existing jointed rail is heavy rail and probably less than 50 years old with decent surface. If you had decent joint maintenance in the past, UP will get as much life out of that rail as possible. The DTM and MTM probably know how long they figure on keeping the rail.

If the joint batter suddenly gets bad, you will see CWR right quick and in a hurry.

Mudchicken Nothing is worth taking the risk of losing a life over. Come home tonight in the same condition that you left home this morning in. Safety begins with ME.... cinscocom-west
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Eau Claire, WI
  • 1,882 posts
Posted by Lord Atmo on Sunday, November 11, 2007 6:07 PM
well, the Altoona sub is not as heavily used as other lines on UP's system. it sees 2 roadrailers, 3 or 4 locals, and 2 manifests every day. so i dont know if it's considered a "major mainline"

Your friendly neighborhood CNW fan.

  • Member since
    December 2006
  • 1,754 posts
Posted by diningcar on Sunday, November 11, 2007 6:04 PM

Was this train in a siding, or a secondary track??

Most main tracks on Class 1 RR's have all CWR.

 

 

 

  • Member since
    December 2005
  • From: MP 175.1 CN Neenah Sub
  • 4,917 posts
Posted by CNW 6000 on Sunday, November 11, 2007 6:04 PM
Is there a cost difference between JR and CWR rail and road-bed wise?

Dan

  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: Eau Claire, WI
  • 1,882 posts
jointed rail vs CWR
Posted by Lord Atmo on Sunday, November 11, 2007 6:01 PM

hello all. I was watching a train roll through the crossing on the west end of Altoona today and was enjoying the "clank-clank clank-clank!" sound the wheels made on the rail joints. but it got me thinking. why has my area not been given CWR? while i prefer the jointed rail, it was something that i was pondering.

that as well as why CWR is more ideal than jointed rail. i had heard from someone that jointed rail was needed to slightly expand out for wider-spaced wheels etc. how does CWR handle that situation?

thank you for any help in advance 

Your friendly neighborhood CNW fan.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

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