Cost of upgrading Rail

[Anonymous]

Okay, I found a link via old issues of Railway Age website regarding the ABC-NACO tri-axle truck:

http://railwayage.com/may99/ridequality.html

The three axle offering from ABC-NACO was called the "TA2000 tri-axle" which was based on the Unitruck components of the Axle Motion truck. If I read it correctly, ABC-NACO was basing it's future offerings on the Unitruck single axle component, simply doubling or tripling the Unitrucks for two and three axle offerings, respectively. Makes sense from the standpoint of manufacturing standardization, and the Unitruck bogey had independent suspension on each axle, so ride quality and rail/wheel interaction would have been much improved over the simpler three piece two axle designs, regardless of the number of axles in the truck.

And from the picture in the article, it does look as if the TA2000 had a longer overall wheelbase than comparative two axle designs, but with the independent suspension and radial steering the rail/wheel interaction is still improved over rigid three piece two axle contemporaries. What isn't clear from the article (nor from inspecting the picture) is what if any tare weight increases would be involved. Overall tare increase yes, but relative tare to lading increase? Doesn't seem so.

Too bad ABC-NACO went under, because it seems they had the pulse of the future. Did the US railroad industry's reluctance to implement the advanced Unitruck design play a role in ABC-NACO's eventual bancruptcy?

[Anonymous]

beaulieu and mudchicken,

To further Murphy's inquiry, are we comparing the same product? The ABC-NACO/Meridian three axle truck is (was?) designed with radial steering (same as what's on the SD's) so that each axle would follow the curve, so the wheelbase problem is mitigated, perhaps even to the point of being LESS wearsome to the rail than standard three piece two axle trucks. That in and of itself makes it a completely different product than the more rigid three axle trucks used on those older heavy haul flats.

I am not sure why three axle trucks would have higher inspection costs, especially if such costs are allocated to the increase in load factor per car (and the presumed decrease in track wear). Higher maintenance costs? Maybe, if such is predicated simply on the number of axles and associated components therein. But if that is the case, wouldn't the TTOX's have had lower inspection and maintenance costs?

And speaking of the TTOX's, it was my understanding that the derailing problems were no worse than those experienced by empty 89' flats or the drawbar connected 2 x 89' flats, e.g. the draft and buff derailments are common for lighter empty cars located midconsist between heavier loaded cars. Granted, the rigid wheelbase has an inherent problem not experienced by pivoting trucks. The solution of course (at least for the TTUX "Four Runner" cars) would have been to replace the single axles and drawbars at the "A" and "B" connections and replace them with an articulated two axle truck. This would have given more flexibility contrast for the single axle ends, and should have solved the truck hunting problem. That and replacing the 28" wheels (and associated journals) on the single axles with larger wheels and journals, which would have also allowed for heavier load limits.

Okay, that's a lot of work, but it would have provided data to prove the worthiness of a hybrid single/two axle carset over the stand alone single axle cars. The point is, the cars were tossed in the trash heap instead of upgraded to fix the problems experienced in the subjective arena. For the record, the Trough Train had single axle trucks on the coupler ends (38" wheels), and there is no record I know of pertaining to problems with those single axles, so the hybid concept of single's on one end of a subunit and two's on the other end seems legit.

[mudchicken]

Totally different construction and weight. Derailed central axle far less common (but still happens, less likely to pop-up with a traction motor wrapped around it, locomotive truck much more free to move vertically because they cost much more)....and both leave plenty of tiny shiny flakes that evidence the wear problem with the wheels being out further from the centerpin (and not being tangent to that point in the curves like radial locomotive trucks on light curves less than six degrees)


Sooner or later Randy Stahl will comment and I would defer to him.

[Murphy Siding]

mudchicken: Why would a three axel truck under a car have more problems with derailing than the three axel truck on the locomotive pulling it?

[beaulieu]

Dave, smaller wheels equal smaller contact patch and so the pressure per square inch may be closer than you think even with a lighter load. The ASF or Buckeye three axle trucks
have a longer wheelbase than any two axle truck which will increase flange wear. It also will have significantly higher inspection and maintenance costs. Private Freight Car Owners are already howling since the Railroads have gotten tough over Wild cars. More frequent truck inspection will deter any move to three axle trucks where it is possible to avoid them.

[beaulieu]

Bogie = Truck

TTOX/TTUX cars were single axle trucks

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu

Nothing would stop them from buying 6 axle cars, but wouldn't the railroads simply refuse to run them? Isn't that what happened to the TTOX single axle cars? If the rail industry percieves a problem with an unconventional arrangement, they will refuse to run it rather than risk the unknown.

The problem was VERY real, not "perceived". The single bogey (sp?) truck was famous for derailing under what would be normal buffing forces for other cars, the single-axle truck dampening system was its own worst enemy when empty around switches in the terminals (empty, they were menacing switch pickers; spent many a night at Hobart picking them up and repairing #8 and #10 switches), hunting was bad under heavy loads and they had serious yaw problems in crosswinds (especially needed a snubber purpose rethinking). Railroads will try anything new, howevever- when the shakedown period ends, the mechanical forces had better not be spending a disproportionate amount of time working with a single class of rollingstock. With TTOX cars, they always got considerable extra attention.


On the three axle truck biz:
DODX three axle flats still require special handling in most timetables (even though their numbers are dwindling, we see them here under Ft. Carson M-1 tanks frequently). Their frames are hinged and it was my experience in yards with plenty of #6.5, #7,#8, #9 and #10 turnouts that the middle/center axle could derail between the swichpoint and the frog. This condition always was a bear to rerail (getting the center axle back over) with a loaded car, without further damaging the turnout. If the MX/Rail Garrison project data ever comes out, you will get an eyefull of the military's frustration with the three axle truck used under their testbed "portable switch heaters".... In short, a three axle truck cannot go a lot of places that a standard truck can, especially lighter weights of rail with curvature (the rolling moment is too high to expect cut spikes on older ties to hold)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu

Remember Dave, the railroads own less than 50 percent of the railcars now. Nothing would stop an ADM, Cargill, or XCel Energy from buying a six axle railcar.
Remember though, the extra wheelsets will add rail wear which will offset some of the savings from lower axle load, and the longer wheelbase hurts too. Not to mention the higher purchase price and maintenance cost of the non-standard truck.

Nothing would stop them from buying 6 axle cars, but wouldn't the railroads simply refuse to run them? Isn't that what happened to the TTOX single axle cars? If the rail industry percieves a problem with an unconventional arrangement, they will refuse to run it rather than risk the unknown.

As for relative rail wear, what you are saying is that spreading the increased gross weight over more axles (LAL) will cause more rail wear than putting more weight on the same number of axles (HAL). I would think the opposite would be true, simply because the physics of such are already proven in highway use.

In other words 10,000 gross tons riding on 400 total axles (25 tons per axle with 28" wheels) should in theory cause less surface wear than 10,000 tons riding on 280 axles (35.8 tons per axle with 36" wheels). Concentrated weight on fewer axles should cause more rail wear than the extra wheel/rail interaction, otherwise why the need to upgrade to heavier rail for the 35 ton and projected 39 ton per axle standards? The extra tare of the third axle wouldn't be that much, and if I remember correctly the ABC-NACO three axle truck that came out a few years ago was not much longer than the standard three piece truck. (Unfortunately, since Meridian took over ABC-NACO's assets the spec sheets are no longer available online, so it's hard to check this statement for accuracy).

[beaulieu]

Remember Dave, the railroads own less than 50 percent of the railcars now. Nothing would stop an ADM, Cargill, or XCel Energy from buying a six axle railcar.
Remember though, the extra wheelsets will add rail wear which will offset some of the savings from lower axle load, and the longer wheelbase hurts too. Not to mention the higher purchase price and maintenance cost of the non-standard truck.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by samfp1943

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

As we discussed in the HAL vs Shortlines thread, the rail industry as a whole would have been better off with LAL's and 6 axle railcars to achieve increased load factor without sacrificing current shortline/branchline infrastructure. Not to mention that it'd be a lot cheaper to focus on structure upgrade and then weld together the 115# existing rail over new ballast. You might have been able to use some of the existing ties and accessories that would otherwise have to be replaced for heavier rail.

It would have taken a lot less steel (e.g. less industry $$) to add third axles to rail trucks for the entire railcar fleet than it is to upgrade to heavier rails across the entire nationwide rail network.

Undoubtedly, FM you are correct, but to just create a six axle truck and replace them under the conventionally trucked cars, would first of all be an engineering nightmare, not to mention finding the off shore manufacturers to supply them [ since so much steel casting capacity is now off shore due to various restrictions, EPA, and other US Gov rules]
I suspect it would be blindingly expensive to retrofit all the necessary cars for just those 6axle trucks.
Sam

Well, what should have happened is for all new railcars that were built for 286k loads at 35 tons per axle and 36" per wheel should have instead gone with three axle trucks with 28" wheels at 25 tons per axle for a gross load of 300k per car. Even though that too would have put pressure on shortlines and branchlines to adapt, they could have then just focused on upgrading their bridges and other weight bearing structures, and been able to stick with their lighter rail tracks.

Not only that, a three axle truck with 28" wheels would allow a lower center of gravity than the two axle truck with 36" wheels.

[Dutchrailnut]

The planet I live on even has 136 Lbs rail on Branch line.
The lightest rail other than yards is 119.
Most Mainline rail is 140 on both Concrete and wood.

[edbenton]

Since you are looking at roughly 30 million a mile to lay all new trackager and ballast figure on roughly 6 mil a mile rough guess remember there is no need to put down new subroadbed and ballast just redoing the track figure on the rough guess of 6 mil a mile. That 30 mil a mile comes from what it is costing the BNSF to double track the transcon.

[samfp1943]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

As we discussed in the HAL vs Shortlines thread, the rail industry as a whole would have been better off with LAL's and 6 axle railcars to achieve increased load factor without sacrificing current shortline/branchline infrastructure. Not to mention that it'd be a lot cheaper to focus on structure upgrade and then weld together the 115# existing rail over new ballast. You might have been able to use some of the existing ties and accessories that would otherwise have to be replaced for heavier rail.

It would have taken a lot less steel (e.g. less industry $$) to add third axles to rail trucks for the entire railcar fleet than it is to upgrade to heavier rails across the entire nationwide rail network.

Undoubtedly, FM you are correct, but to just create a six axle truck and replace them under the conventionally trucked cars, would first of all be an engineering nightmare, not to mention finding the off shore manufacturers to supply them [ since so much steel casting capacity is now off shore due to various restrictions, EPA, and other US Gov rules]
I suspect it would be blindingly expensive to retrofit all the necessary cars for just those 6axle trucks.
Sam

[Anonymous]

'cuse me. Guess I should have said 87# rail?

Here's a suggestion: Follow the idea trail, and if the details need clarification, do so. A hole in the ballast is worth.........less.

[mudchicken]

FM and dutchrailnut must be living on the same foreign planet. (as in Leno's "Goofy" out there beyond Pluto)

[Anonymous]

As we discussed in the HAL vs Shortlines thread, the rail industry as a whole would have been better off with LAL's and 6 axle railcars to achieve increased load factor without sacrificing current shortline/branchline infrastructure. Not to mention that it'd be a lot cheaper to focus on structure upgrade and then weld together the 115# existing rail over new ballast. You might have been able to use some of the existing ties and accessories that would otherwise have to be replaced for heavier rail.

It would have taken a lot less steel (e.g. less industry $$) to add third axles to rail trucks for the entire railcar fleet than it is to upgrade to heavier rails across the entire nationwide rail network.

[Anonymous]

Lets also not forget:

(With deference to MC, of course)

1. Cost of taking up existing rail and ties

2. Replacement of all ties or all unsalvagable ties

3. Cost of plugging salvagable ties (if reqd)

4. Costs of repacing OTM (even assuming CWR, those fastening systems aren't cheap)

Just a few thoughts...I'm sure there's more...

LC

[mudchicken]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Dutchrailnut

and todays new rail is around 130 Lb/yd

Dutchrailnut: And what planet are you living on?

Capt.Chuck:
(1) 115# new is almost all captive to the transit industry and the rail mills in North America (2 US, 1 Canada) are kicking out the stuff in 78 foot blanks as fast as they can.....136, 141 AREMA sections are easier to get new (or consider European, Russian 132 & 136 or Japanese sections if you can wait)

(2) Any turnouts in those 10 miles? at-grade crossings? open deck bridges?

(3) Existing rail size? if the rail base dimension changes to meet the 5 1/2 inch base of 115# rail, you just bought all new tie plates and fastenings (and anchors if not renewing with D-E or Pandrol clips)...you may have to adze/dap the ties to accomodate the new plates and some ties will not survive the modifications...

(4) CWR or jointed? Assuming the old rail was jointed, you are surfacing too. (getting rid of low spots from bad joint memory, properly suporting the new rail.) Step joints?

Hinting at associated costs that may figure into any shotgun calculation and skew the numbers....as in it isn't just the new rail you're buying plus the related extra gang labor & equipment costs.

[Dutchrailnut]

From what ?? and todays new rail is around 130 Lb/yd

[CaptainChuck]

Whats the approx. cost to upgrade a Rail line to 115lb CWR? Like for lets say, 10 miles?