Cost of upgrading Rail

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

And the cost figures to prove your assertion are found where?

Start with TRAINS March 2006 issue, the HAL article. Then use a comparative check of the load factor numbers provided by the author with a similar hypothesis plugging in the six axle concept. You can plug and play any number of hypothetical combinations.

Try this one for size. According to the article, the 4 axle 286k car increases lading by "10 to 15 percent" over the 4 axle 263k car, while "weight on the rail grows by only 8.75 percent". Although not specifically mentioned in the article, the 286k has roughly 35 tons on each axle while the 263k has roughly 33 tons on each axle, and they are using 36" and 33" wheels respectively.

With a six axle 300k car using 28" wheels and 25 tons per axle, you get the same "10 to 15 percent" lading increase over the 263k car, but actual weight on the rail decreases by 33 percent!

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.

$30+ billion total, soley for HAL! I can bet you it wouldn't cost a fraction of that if they had instead gone spread axle on their new higher lading freight car purchases/leases.

[Anonymous]

Hey, just think of it this way, f it is not going to put money in anyones pocket. Or it will take away from the managers bonus, it is not going to get done.

[Murphy Siding]

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.

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.[:)]
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.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

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.

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.[:)]

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:
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.

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.

[samfp1943]

Has any manufacturer, beyond Buckeye Steel Castings ever produced 3 axle trucks in any appreciable quantities? I have only seen them used on loco tenders and some heavy weight flat cars [ mostly DOD] for hauling tanks. I would think that to produce them would have to be an off shore operation, in light of govt regs nowdays.

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

And the cost figures to prove your assertion are found where?

Start with TRAINS March 2006 issue, the HAL article. Then use a comparative check of the load factor numbers provided by the author with a similar hypothesis plugging in the six axle concept. You can plug and play any number of hypothetical combinations.

Try this one for size. According to the article, the 4 axle 286k car increases lading by "10 to 15 percent" over the 4 axle 263k car, while "weight on the rail grows by only 8.75 percent". Although not specifically mentioned in the article, the 286k has roughly 35 tons on each axle while the 263k has roughly 33 tons on each axle, and they are using 36" and 33" wheels respectively.

With a six axle 300k car using 28" wheels and 25 tons per axle, you get the same "10 to 15 percent" lading increase over the 263k car, but actual weight on the rail decreases by 33 percent!

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.

$30+ billion total, soley for HAL! I can bet you it wouldn't cost a fraction of that if they had instead gone spread axle on their new higher lading freight car purchases/leases.

I like the way that you slide in your own opinions as though they were part of the article Dave. The three axle truck you suggest using, would cost significantly more than a larger two axle truck, would be heavier (increasing the empty weight of the car), would have a longer wheelbase even with the smaller wheels (increasing flange and rail wear) or if a radial design would require more maintenance and be much more expensive.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

And the cost figures to prove your assertion are found where?

Start with TRAINS March 2006 issue, the HAL article. Then use a comparative check of the load factor numbers provided by the author with a similar hypothesis plugging in the six axle concept. You can plug and play any number of hypothetical combinations.

Try this one for size. According to the article, the 4 axle 286k car increases lading by "10 to 15 percent" over the 4 axle 263k car, while "weight on the rail grows by only 8.75 percent". Although not specifically mentioned in the article, the 286k has roughly 35 tons on each axle while the 263k has roughly 33 tons on each axle, and they are using 36" and 33" wheels respectively.

With a six axle 300k car using 28" wheels and 25 tons per axle, you get the same "10 to 15 percent" lading increase over the 263k car, but actual weight on the rail decreases by 33 percent!

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.

$30+ billion total, soley for HAL! I can bet you it wouldn't cost a fraction of that if they had instead gone spread axle on their new higher lading freight car purchases/leases.

I like the way that you slide in your own opinions as though they were part of the article Dave. The three axle truck you suggest using, would cost significantly more than a larger two axle truck, would be heavier (increasing the empty weight of the car), would have a longer wheelbase even with the smaller wheels (increasing flange and rail wear) or if a radial design would require more maintenance and be much more expensive.

Well, first of all no one is confusing my opinions with the HAL article, because the HAL article didn't even touch on the spread axle alternative. I'm not sure how you can infer that as my presentation of the article's data.

Speaking of sliding in opinions, your statements that the three axle truck would cost "significantly" more is purely subjective, because we don't have any actual cost comparison numbers to analyze. Yes, three 25 ton axles would cost more than two 39 ton axles, but not by much, maybe 25% more, because each 25 ton axle presumably costs less than each 39 ton axle. The use of independent suspension would also raise the costs of trucks, but that would apply to two axle trucks that might use independent suspension as well as three axle trucks. The trade-off comes in greater ride quality for the load.

And you should also point out that the 125 ton truck is much heavier than the 70 ton truck and therefore also increases the light weight of the car, yet because it allows for larger revenue lading it increases the load factor. That same line of reason also would apply to the three axle truck, e.g. the greater the accumulated gross weight limit the greater the increase in lading potential.

And I am suprised you include the "increase in rail and flange wear" argument (due to the longer wheelbase of a three axle truck) in the same sentence as the reference to the radial steering, because it is precisely the radial steering that would reduce rail and flange wear, and in fact would make a three axle truck less wearsome to the rail and flanges than a standard three piece two axle truck. Therefore, if the truck has radial steering, the length of the wheelbase is meaningless in regard to rail and flange wear. It may even be that the savings in rail and flange wear from using radial steering would offset the maintenance costs of radial steering technologies.

And we well soon start to see radial steering mechanisms used on two axle trucks. The RailRunner technology already employs radial steering on it's two axle trucks.

The bottom line is that a three axle truck at 25 tons per axle would allow for lighter (and thus less expensive) rail and rail components than the proposed 39 ton axle. HAL is for the birds.

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Well, first of all no one is confusing my opinions with the HAL article, because the HAL article didn't even touch on the spread axle alternative. I'm not sure how you can infer that as my presentation of the article's data.

Speaking of sliding in opinions, your statements that the three axle truck would cost "significantly" more is purely subjective, because we don't have any actual cost comparison numbers to analyze. Yes, three 25 ton axles would cost more than two 39 ton axles, but not by much, maybe 25% more, because each 25 ton axle presumably costs less than each 39 ton axle. The use of independent suspension would also raise the costs of trucks, but that would apply to two axle trucks that might use independent suspension as well as three axle trucks. The trade-off comes in greater ride quality for the load.

First off don't you consider 25% more significant? The cost of the truck is more a factor of the cost of the forging, casting and machining required than the cost of the steel. I would expect that the amount of steel used in a two axle truck and a three axle truck designed to carry the same load to only be a little more. The cost of the manufacturing processes to create the parts will be 50 percent greater with the three axle truck. You are also going to need 50 percent more brake shoes, the brake rigging will be much more complicated and if the truck is a radial design the brake rigging will have to be worked around that equipment.

QUOTE:
And you should also point out that the 125 ton truck is much heavier than the 70 ton truck and therefore also increases the light weight of the car, yet because it allows for larger revenue lading it increases the load factor. That same line of reason also would apply to the three axle truck, e.g. the greater the accumulated gross weight limit the greater the increase in lading potential.

I don't understand the relevance of this to the discussion, you are suggesting reducing axle load not changing capacity. I don't think that you are suggesting that your notional three axle truck would be lighter than a two axle truck of the same capacity.

QUOTE:
And I am suprised you include the "increase in rail and flange wear" argument (due to the longer wheelbase of a three axle truck) in the same sentence as the reference to the radial steering, because it is precisely the radial steering that would reduce rail and flange wear, and in fact would make a three axle truck less wearsome to the rail and flanges than a standard three piece two axle truck. Therefore, if the truck has radial steering, the length of the wheelbase is meaningless in regard to rail and flange wear. It may even be that the savings in rail and flange wear from using radial steering would offset the maintenance costs of radial steering technologies.

You may have noticed that EMD has introduced a new design truck for their locomotives, the HTSC a non-radial design. There is some concern that the HTCR radial truck hunts more than the older HTC trucks at higher speeds, not in the pivoting sense, but rather radially. You may also have noticed that the new HTCR - II truck used under the SD70ACes has a heavy strut and damper to control this. If this same effect is seen on radial freight car trucks then it will ad further complexity to control ride quality.

QUOTE:
And we well soon start to see radial steering mechanisms used on two axle trucks. The RailRunner technology already employs radial steering on it's two axle trucks.

The bottom line is that a three axle truck at 25 tons per axle would allow for lighter (and thus less expensive) rail and rail components than the proposed 39 ton axle. HAL is for the birds.

So you say, the power companies and other car owners may say differently.

[PNWRMNM]

FM

We are still waiting for something beyond unsubstantiated opinions and guesses.

Mac

[Anonymous]

beaulieu,

Let's go back to the topic question for a moment. To paraphrase, the topic starter asked about the cost of upgrading rail, presumably to handle heavier axle loads (although he makes the same fallacious generalization as the "rail professionals" of the need for upgrading rail for heavier cars, when in fact the specificity of rail wear is due to increased axle loads, not necessarily heavier cars which are more affective on track structures such as bridges).

My question to you is this: Don't you think it is more expensive to upgrade the nation's entire rail inventory for HAL cars than it would be to manufacture LAL three axle trucks for all new heavy haul car orders? Because that is the gist of the issue. Our nation is at the brink of losing most of our shortline network simply due to the fact that railroad decision makers have decided to stubbornly bull ahead with HAL to increase load factor, when the technology now exists to commercialize track friendly three axle trucks to accompli***his same goal without the need to overupgrade or alternatively abandon the shortline network.

Yes, I wish I had access to some cost figures for installing three axle trucks on all new heavy haul cars built from here on out, so we would have something to compare to the $7 billion figure touted to upgrade our nation's shortline network for HAL cars (not to mention the untold billions probably needed to upgrade and/or maintain the Class I mainlines for HAL over and above that which would have been needed to maintain a LAL sufficient network). Until and if some other TRAINS contributor can come through with such numbers, logical thought does follow that it would have been less expensive to upgrade to three axle trucks for all new heavy haul car orders rather than having to upgrade the tens of thousands of miles of track across the nation.

Also, even though you'd need 50% more braking equipment on three axle trucks than two axle trucks, the wear on those brakes would be 33% less. More brakes cost more money, but more brakes also spread the wear more evenly. More brakes means more stopping power.

As for radial steering (or some variation thereof), one thing is for sure - whether you have radial two axle trucks or three axle trucks, you would never hear a single flange squealing around curves when such trucks have the radial steering.

And one more thing - having LAL's via three axle trucks for heavy haul cars would also mitigate the effects of flat spots on wheels. 40 tons weighing down on a single axle with a flat spotted wheel will cause much more damage to the rail than 25 tons.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

FM

We are still waiting for something beyond unsubstantiated opinions and guesses.

Mac

Ah yes, and I am still waiting for something beyond highly subjective naysaying from you. If you have any documentation to counter the spread axle theory, then bring it to the table for discussion. Otherwise, take heed of the "he who lives in glass houses" saying.

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

beaulieu,

Let's go back to the topic question for a moment. To paraphrase, the topic starter asked about the cost of upgrading rail, presumably to handle heavier axle loads (although he makes the same fallacious generalization as the "rail professionals" of the need for upgrading rail for heavier cars, when in fact the specificity of rail wear is due to increased axle loads, not necessarily heavier cars which are more affective on track structures such as bridges).

My question to you is this: Don't you think it is more expensive to upgrade the nation's entire rail inventory for HAL cars than it would be to manufacture LAL three axle trucks for all new heavy haul car orders? Because that is the gist of the issue. Our nation is at the brink of losing most of our shortline network simply due to the fact that railroad decision makers have decided to stubbornly bull ahead with HAL to increase load factor, when the technology now exists to commercialize track friendly three axle trucks to accompli***his same goal without the need to overupgrade or alternatively abandon the shortline network.

Yes, I wish I had access to some cost figures for installing three axle trucks on all new heavy haul cars built from here on out, so we would have something to compare to the $7 billion figure touted to upgrade our nation's shortline network for HAL cars (not to mention the untold billions probably needed to upgrade and/or maintain the Class I mainlines for HAL over and above that which would have been needed to maintain a LAL sufficient network). Until and if some other TRAINS contributor can come through with such numbers, logical thought does follow that it would have been less expensive to upgrade to three axle trucks for all new heavy haul car orders rather than having to upgrade the tens of thousands of miles of track across the nation.

Also, even though you'd need 50% more braking equipment on three axle trucks than two axle trucks, the wear on those brakes would be 33% less. More brakes cost more money, but more brakes also spread the wear more evenly. More brakes means more stopping power.

As for radial steering (or some variation thereof), one thing is for sure - whether you have radial two axle trucks or three axle trucks, you would never hear a single flange squealing around curves when such trucks have the radial steering.

And one more thing - having LAL's via three axle trucks for heavy haul cars would also mitigate the effects of flat spots on wheels. 40 tons weighing down on a single axle with a flat spotted wheel will cause much more damage to the rail than 25 tons.

Dave, what makes you think that the Class Is are that concerned about the Shortlines? It's not their problem. If the branchlines and Shortlines can't handle the heavier cars then they will have to make do with the dwindling supply of older cars, or buy their own lighter ones. Or perhaps the Farmers will truck their grain to a shuttle loader located on a mainline.

[PNWRMNM]

FM

You generally portray yourself as smarter than the entire industry. If you expect anyone to believe that claim, which you are clearly making in this thread, you need to provide the evidence. You have not.

The burden of proof is always on the prosecution.

Mac

[jeaton]

I will speculate about the numbers. If the US/Canada car fleet is about 1.5 million and the the three axle truck costs $5,000 more than the two axle version, the eventual replacement of the existing fleet with three axle trucks would cost an extra $15 Billion.

My view here is that it is going to take much more than back of the envelope calculations to derive the answer, expecially when none of us on the forum have any real numbers to work with. I will agree that the railroads fell all over themselves getting to the 100 ton 256k car fleet, and they paid a big price for that in rail replacement and track maintenance. That happened because formulas said the cost to net tare ratio dropped more than enough to give both the shippers and the railroads a big chunk of savings.

Even during that transition, I heard folks of some authority say it may have been the wrong thing to do, but these were voices in the wilderness. Once started, no railroad was going to be able to hold out for smaller cars and survive the competitive pressure.

Seems to me that the Trains report is saying that there is much work to be done before there will be any significant move to a 315k car. Maybe it will result in the wide spread use of a three axle truck or maybe the answer is in rail and track structure or maybe even stay with the status quo. However, at this stage of the game an assertion that any one answer is positively the only way to go is just forum drivel.

[Anonymous]

jeaton,

You give a good cost assumption, but remember we're not talking about retrofitting the entire 1.5 million car fleet with three axle trucks, only new orders for heavy haul cars. That limits orders of three axle trucks to coal gons, grain hoppers, etc. not intermodal, large boxcars etc. Since new car orders for heavy haul cars usually amounts to a few thousand per year, the cost would acrue incrementally over decades rather than in the relatively short time period required for network rail upgrade. Assume orders for heavy haul cars is about 5,000 per year, and the three axle trucks cost the extra $5,000 per car, the added annual cost comes to about $25 million per year, and at that rate would take 40 years to approach the $1 billion threshhold. At 10,000 heavy haul cars per year, that's $50 million per year, or 20 years to approach the $1 billion threshhold.

In other words, it would take hundreds of years before the cost of three axle truck orders would come close to the cost of upgrading and maintaining a nationwide rail network to handle 40 tons per axle, even if the shortlines all go belly up.


beaulieu,

I agree that the Class I's have no real interest in the viability of the shortline industry, statements of "our shortline partners" notwithstanding. But even without the shortlines, the cost assumptions I make do suggest a higher cost curve for upgrading and maintaining a HAL rail network rather than upgrading and maintaining a LAL railcar fleet with three axle trucks for heavy haul cars. Again, I wish we had more raw numbers to work with, because I think this debate is paramount to the interests of the railroad community.


Mac,

Since my hypothesis is predicated on the premise that the amount of steel and the cost thereof required for HAL rail and rail components is mega-times greater than the the amount of steel and subsequent manufacturing intricisies of the necessary components for rail-friendly three axle trucks on all future heavy haul railcar orders, the apriori basis favors my null hypothesis. When an apriori basis favors one side (e.g. the null hypothesis), it is up to the proponents of the alternative hypothesis to prove otherwise if there is disagreement with the apriori.

[jeaton]

As bad as they might want track for heavy cars, the rate of generation of capital is not going to allow the Class 1's or anybody else to put in track any faster than heavy weight cars go into operation. And you may be a tad under on the replacement rates for cars for bulk materials. It is possible that half the fleet consist of such cars and at 10,000 cars per year replacement would span 75 years.

Now if you can design a car with a 75 year life, get going, because I guarantee that you will sell a bunch and you if you like you can even equip them with 5 axle trucks.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

As bad as they might want track for heavy cars, the rate of generation of capital is not going to allow the Class 1's or anybody else to put in track any faster than heavy weight cars go into operation. And you may be a tad under on the replacement rates for cars for bulk materials. It is possible that half the fleet consist of such cars and at 10,000 cars per year replacement would span 75 years.

For reference, here's the last three year's data on new car orders and deliveries:

http://www.railwayage.com/B/freightcars.html

Thus, the three year average for new car deliveries has averaged a tad under 50,000 per year. Of those, approximately 1/3 are true heavy haul cars. Historically, rail car deliveries have averaged about 30,000 a year, so although my 10,000 figure for heavy haul cars is apt, but I'll adjust it upward since the trend is heading upward.

So for the sake of number crunching, let's assume that new heavy haul cars will average 20,000 per year. 20,000 x $5000 is $100 million per year. Or lets take a more "heavy" weighted prediction and go with 40,000 heavy haul cars per year. 40,000 x $5000 is $200 million per year. Thus, it would take 5 years to reach a billion $$, and 35 years to reach the $7 billion figure used for the shortline upgrade example. Either way, the annualized cost of new heavy haul cars equiped with three axle trucks is still far less than the annualized cost to upgrade and maintain a nationwide network of track capable of handling the HAL cars.

QUOTE:
Now if you can design a car with a 75 year life, get going, because I guarantee that you will sell a bunch and you if you like you can even equip them with 5 axle trucks.

Well, 5 axle trucks might be a stretch, unless we're going to have 500 ton cars in the future!

That said, we're delving into another topic for discusion, namely can today's railcars last longer than the FRA mandated retirement age? Some shortlines still have perfectly functional 220k cars plying the light rails dating back to the mid 1900's. Thus, it is not inconceivable that today's modern freight cars could last into 2075 if they're not abused.

[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

[Anonymous]

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

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.

[PNWRMNM]

FM

Does that mean you are withdrawing your assertion dated February 21 of "$30 billion (I presume you mean incremental investment here) for HAL"?

Mac

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

FM

Does that mean you are withdrawing your assertion dated February 21 of "$30 billion (I presume you mean incremental investment here) for HAL"?

Mac

No, I'll stick with it as a basis for discussion. It's a number based on the estimated $7 billion needed to upgrade shortlines to 39 tons per axle, and is an estimate based on the percentage of Class I track relative to shortline track (70% and 30% respectively).

Even though railroads were using 130 lb + rail as the 35 tons per axle cars were introduced (and frankly as the 33 ton per axle cars were the standard) as a continuation holdover from the heavy steam engine days, there was still a host of mainline upgrades going on regardless to prior rail weight. You're from the PNW Mac, you remember all the upgrades to the Spokane-Pasco and Stampede Pass lines in the 1980's and 1990's, right? What about the UP and the Washy line, which seems to be in a perpetual state of upgrading.

There's two things to consider regarding these upgrades:
1. The number one reason for them is HAL.
2. How much could be saved if 130+ lb rail could be replaced with 115 lb rail during these upgrades? How many more miles can be relaid if 115 replaces 136? If you have one million tons of steel to work with, you can make about 165 miles of track using 115 but only 140 miles of track with 136 (about a 15% difference). At a million a mile, that 25 extra miles translates into $25 million saved per 1 million tons of steel.

[Murphy Siding]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

2. How much could be saved if 130+ lb rail could be replaced with 115 lb rail during these upgrades? How many more miles can be relaid if 115 replaces 136? If you have one million tons of steel to work with, you can make about 165 miles of track using 115 but only 140 miles of track with 136 (about a 15% difference). At a million a mile, that 25 extra miles translates into $25 million saved per 1 million tons of steel.

I'm not quite sure I agree with your math again. Please double-check your answers. When you are through, turn your paper over, and put your head down. Remember-no looking at your neighbor's paper.[:-,]

[beaulieu]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


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.

Dave, in back in the discussion. A couple of points here, first you need to separate the coal and certain other bulk commodities from the general car fleet in this discussion. Coal Cars don't last 50 years at least not in unit train service.
The high mileage and corrosive lading means that they are typically replaced between 20 and 25 years. Also with certain exceptions these trains aren't going to operate over shortline rails. Grain cars aren't going to be replaced at anywhere near that rate and the railroads are going to hold any new 315k cars in dedicated shuttle trains which won't leave the Class Is anyway. So the only cars likely to affect the shortlines early are Centerbeams and perhaps paper service Boxcars. I don't see serious numbers of those cars being introduced in a short timespan.

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Murphy Siding

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

2. How much could be saved if 130+ lb rail could be replaced with 115 lb rail during these upgrades? How many more miles can be relaid if 115 replaces 136? If you have one million tons of steel to work with, you can make about 165 miles of track using 115 but only 140 miles of track with 136 (about a 15% difference). At a million a mile, that 25 extra miles translates into $25 million saved per 1 million tons of steel.

I'm not quite sure I agree with your math again. Please double-check your answers. When you are through, turn your paper over, and put your head down. Remember-no looking at your neighbor's paper.[:-,]

[(-D][(-D][(-D]

And he is going to introduce a significant loss in track modulus ( as in stiffness of the track section) that equates to additional wear and tear on the ties, fastenings, ballast and subgrade. Class, we have just witnessed another lesson in False Economics by FM.

FYI- 131-132 # rail surfaced in quantity just before WWII and 136 Showed-up in sufficient quantities before 1955. Pennsy and Lackawanna had stuff as big as 157 #/Yd. in the same period. Track is a dynamic structure; all you can hope to do under ideal circumstances is minimize the flexure of the rail (and minimize the impact loading) under traffic.

[PNWRMNM]

FM

If the shortlines need $7 billion in upgrades that does not say anything about the mains. They are already 132-136 and as Mudchicken is trying to tell you was done before 286K cars. You have the cart and the horse confused.

Mac

[rrandb]

No one has mentioned a commodity that can be even more precious than money. That is time. The time it would take to design, build, test, modify and certify this three axel truck which does not exist. No one has mentioned the time and money required to bring a unproven design to market. You had better have a lot of corprate patience and deep pockets to bring a untried design to market. The hardest part would be for all railroads to agree to accept your new design over tried and tested designs.[2c] As always ENJOY

[Anonymous]

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.

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.

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.

[Murphy Siding]

Isn't rail called out as 115# per yard? Your math could be off by a factor of 3?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal


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.

Dave, in back in the discussion. A couple of points here, first you need to separate the coal and certain other bulk commodities from the general car fleet in this discussion. Coal Cars don't last 50 years at least not in unit train service.
The high mileage and corrosive lading means that they are typically replaced between 20 and 25 years. Also with certain exceptions these trains aren't going to operate over shortline rails. Grain cars aren't going to be replaced at anywhere near that rate and the railroads are going to hold any new 315k cars in dedicated shuttle trains which won't leave the Class Is anyway. So the only cars likely to affect the shortlines early are Centerbeams and perhaps paper service Boxcars. I don't see serious numbers of those cars being introduced in a short timespan.

This is a good example of how railroads see business in a vacuum. Yes, dedicated shuttle trains make perfect sense for the railroad modus operandi, but the concept can become flawed when analyzed from the perspective of the entire supply chain. Coal and grain are two good examples - For coal, the shuttle or unit train concept is a good fit for both the railroad and the entire coal supply chain, because all 16,000 tons of coal originate at one location and is off-loaded at another sole location. But for grain, the shuttle concept is flawed because it increases the trucking portion of the grain supply chain and reduces the rail component, all due to the consolidation of the grain loading terminal. Whereas one time grain could be locally trucked 15 or so miles to the nearest railhead, now it has to be trucked 100+ miles to the new shuttle facility. From the supply chain perspective, shuttle trains have been a disaster.

This is where the shortlines would normally fill the supply chain void between trucks and mainline rail. When 33 tons per axle was the norm, most shortlines could still handle those axle weights, and thus were the logical shipment method of choice over truck for haulage between farm and elevator. Shortlines were and are perfectly capable of providing large car lot shipments to the connecting Class I, effectively placating the need for radical grain terminal consolidation. But as we went from 33 tons per axle to 36 tons per axle, and with the spector of the 39 tons per axle cars coming down the pike, the HAL ogre has effectively forced connecting grain shipments off the logical mode aka rail and onto the mode of last resort aka trucks.

That ain't progress folks, that's regress. And the spread axle concept would have prevented this regression of the supply chain.

[Murphy Siding]

Dave: I'm not saying your premise is incorrect-that it might be cheaper to change all the heavy axle-load railcars than to change all the track structure to carry the heavier axle loads. I am suggesting that you're doing sort of a mixed-math-metaphor type of trying to quantify a number. If the engine in my car was made 15% lighter, the whole car wouldn't cost 15% less. It seems to me, that the railroads would have had to have this axle-loading vs. rail structure problem worked out in the 1960's, when they went to 286,000#. It's too late now.