How often does track need to be replaced?

[GlobalistPotato]

If Amtrak/State Subsidiary was to bring back passenger service to a freight-only line or had to do a reroute, commonly this requires refurbishing the tracks, ballast, signals, etc to make it suitable for 79 mph or higher passenger operations. Why is this?

1) Safety and track maintenance standards are a lot stricter now then they were back in the olden days of passenger rail. Sure, once upon a time, a passenger train could go 79 mph or faster on jointed rail in dark territory or block signals. But the ICC and FRA now have signal and track class mandates that won't make that possible today.

2) Many routes that were once mainlines for Class I railroads have been downgraded or abandoned due to mergers, loss of traffic, etc. The most notable case is the ex-Rock Island line through Iowa. In other cases, after a railroad gave up its passenger service on that line (no Amtrak either), it would be more profitable for the company to downgrade it save money. An example of this is when the Water Level Route's ATS system was torn down by Conrail to make money selling assets and save on maintenance money.

So if passenger service was to return to the line, major rehabilitation work would have to be done.

Now, it costs money to do all that. But on a major freight line, tracks need to be replaced every few years anyway, and lines carrying sizable amounts of Hazmat must have PTC installed even if there isn't passenger service.

Question is, how often does a major freight line need to have track repairs or replacement?

Basically, how often does this happen?



On the UP Austin Sub (here in Austin!), I remember the tracks being completely replaced back in 2008 and 2003, IIRC. So that's every five years for a line that sees about 25 trains per day. Most of the route is CWR with wooden ties and CTC signals. Max speed for Amtrak is 70 mph. Track in the median of Mopac Blvd and around Lady Bird Lake is concrete, as they don't have to be replaced as often.

Here's the logic: If the track and signals has to be replaced to make a line suitable for 79 mph passenger service (Either Amtrak or a state-payed service), won't it be most efficient to do that work when the freight RR is scheduled to do track work anyway?

The two lines I'm thinking of is the ex-SP line (the one the Houston section of the Texas Eagle used) between Dallas and Houston, or BNSF's teague line and BNSF's line between Amarillo and Fort Worth. They apparently once hosted 79 mph trains, but FRA regulations wouldn't allow that even with the standards they had back then.

I would say that fast trains (110 mph operations or faster) are suitable for new service between Houston and Dallas. So if the track and signals need to be upgraded to allow 79 mph service, why not just skip a step and upgrade to allow 110 mph service?

On that, if the freight RR owning the line is going to do track replacement soon, why not perform those upgrades during the usual maintenance? Money will have to be spent anyway to maintain the tracks for freight service, and trains will have to detour anyway due to the track work.

 

[had8ley]

If Amtrak/State Subsidiary was to bring back passenger service to a freight-only line or had to do a reroute, commonly this requires refurbishing the tracks, ballast, signals, etc to make it suitable for 79 mph or higher passenger operations. Why is this?

1) Safety and track maintenance standards are a lot stricter now then they were back in the olden days of passenger rail. Sure, once upon a time, a passenger train could go 79 mph or faster on jointed rail in dark territory or block signals. But the ICC and FRA now have signal and track class mandates that won't make that possible today.

2) Many routes that were once mainlines for Class I railroads have been downgraded or abandoned due to mergers, loss of traffic, etc. The most notable case is the ex-Rock Island line through Iowa. In other cases, after a railroad gave up its passenger service on that line (no Amtrak either), it would be more profitable for the company to downgrade it save money. An example of this is when the Water Level Route's ATS system was torn down by Conrail to make money selling assets and save on maintenance money.

So if passenger service was to return to the line, major rehabilitation work would have to be done.

Now, it costs money to do all that. But on a major freight line, tracks need to be replaced every few years anyway, and lines carrying sizable amounts of Hazmat must have PTC installed even if there isn't passenger service.

Question is, how often does a major freight line need to have track repairs or replacement?

Basically, how often does this happen?

I've never seen rail replaced in less than 15-20 years unless there was a derailment or major damage to the rail. The Class 1's would go bankrupt if they replaced rail every five years; UP has 32,000 miles of RR times two rails equals 64,000 miles of rail. Some of the rail we ran over at maximum speed was produced in the '40's and that was main line. The RR's take old main line rail and put it in slow sidings or weld it together for branch lines. They've been green for a long time and didn't even know it! The RR's are going to try and squeeze every nickel they can get out of the HSR money so you might see a lot of deferred maintenance waiting on Federal $$$.

 

[Anderson]

I think the answer is "it depends"...some environments are more brutal on the ties than others...salt corrosion along the coasts leaps to mind, and that's something that BNSF doesn't have to worry about out in AZ and NM. Likewise, some places with brutal winters are going to put more wear and tear on the lines. And of course, let's not forget that the freights have to cooperate with this and not hang extra ornaments on the tree...and do you think they won't try and offload the entire cost onto Amtrak and pocket the difference? As a prospective shareholder in at least one freight, I have to admit that not at least trying to do so would be a breach of management's duty to shareholders.

 

[jis]

One thing that people tend to forget is that all PTCs are not born equal. A PTC system designed for 60 - 80 mph max speed is not going to work for running trains at 110 - 125 mph or higher. Most freight railroads left to their own devices will install PTC that works for their freight train speeds. Any enhancements required for serious higher speed will come for extra.

 

[Shoretower]

I spent about two decades consulting for railroads on various matters, including track maintenance issues, and supervised the development of track component life forecasting models for a rapid transit system back in the 1980s.

Let me first say that railroads know a lot more about the age and condition of track components than state highway departments know about their highways and bridges. Highway departments are about 30 years behind the railroads in developing effective asset management procedures. Unfortunately, too many rail transit operators are in the same boat.

But to answer your question: rail life is determined primarily by cumulative tonnage (at least on tangent track). Curve rail wears out faster, depending on traffic volume, severity of the curvature, and level of lubrication. But on average, rail lasts about 700 million gross tons of traffic. To put that in perspective, your line through Austin probably carries about 50 MGT a year, which means the rail will last about 20 years (although less on the curves at each end of the Town Lake bridge).

Ties are harder. There is an environmental component (they rot), and a mechanical component (traffic wears them out). The two are additive, but at low tonnages, environment dominates and as tonnage rises the mechanical wear takes precedence. Environmental factors limit tie life to 20 years (or sometimes less) in the hot, humid southeeastern US, while in the northern Plains wood ties may last 40 or even 50 years under light traffic. Heavy traffic will "spike kill" ties in a much shorter time, however. Concrete ties should hold up better, but may not, due to poor support (fouled ballast or low-quality ballast) that can cause center binding, or in wet areas, rail seat abrasion (the movement of the rail and plate scuff away the concrete). I'll give a medal to anyone who has actually made a concrete tie last 50 years under North American conditions. I've never seen it.

Track must be surfaced, too, to restore alignment and ride quality, anywhere from annually to every five years or so depending on traffic volume, speed, type of track components, and subgrade quality.

So the answer is that it's complicated. But how much a railroad spends will depend upon traffic volume, operating speed, and axle load. Higher volumes, higher speeds, and/or higher axle loads mean more costs.

Mixing light, fast passenger trains and slow, heavy freights brings a whole new set of problems, and the allocation of costs between the two traffics is a difficult exercise (I've done that too, and won a case in this area for a freight railroad against Amtrak 15 years ago). So yes, freight and passenger can share track, but the only way to determine what sort of upgrades are needed is to go take a look.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I'm guessing that you probably saw routine maintenance crews and not an actual replacement. Conventional maintenance deals with things like repairing damage, replacing rotted ties, removing debris, adding ballast, ensuring proper alignment and checking the status of switches, bridges and other infrastructure. It's not unusual to see work trains plying the same route every few years but seeing a full replacement is relatively rare.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

I've never seen rail replaced in less than 15-20 years unless there was a derailment or major damage to the rail. The Class 1's would go bankrupt if they replaced rail every five years; UP has 32,000 miles of RR times two rails equals 64,000 miles of rail. Some of the rail we ran over at maximum speed was produced in the '40's and that was main line. The RR's take old main line rail and put it in slow sidings or weld it together for branch lines. They've been green for a long time and didn't even know it! The RR's are going to try and squeeze every nickel they can get out of the HSR money so you might see a lot of deferred maintenance waiting on Federal $.

Okay then, I guess it was just tie replacement, not rail replacement. Hey, the Rio Norte line had 100 year old rails before it failed with a derailment and had to be replaced with Rearden Metal! :lol:

I think the answer is "it depends"...some environments are more brutal on the ties than others...salt corrosion along the coasts leaps to mind, and that's something that BNSF doesn't have to worry about out in AZ and NM. Likewise, some places with brutal winters are going to put more wear and tear on the lines. And of course, let's not forget that the freights have to cooperate with this and not hang extra ornaments on the tree...and do you think they won't try and offload the entire cost onto Amtrak and pocket the difference? As a prospective shareholder in at least one freight, I have to admit that not at least trying to do so would be a breach of management's duty to shareholders.

True. Texas is rather mild in terms of corrosion, but it does have the summer heat wave effect. And yes, the comfort standards for freight trains is lower than what passengers expect. As explained in another thread, the trackwork standards for a smooth ride are a lot higher than the FRA safety standards for different speeds. And no, the freight RR's aren't going to pay for the full maintenance for 110 mph service. Most of it will be paid for by the state/Amtrak. But I'm thinking in terms of total money. Someone is going to have to pay for the trackwork.

Attitudes towards track maintenance also varies by freight RR. For example, a Class I like CSX or UP will let slow orders accumulate on that line until there's a serious derailment or it's hurting their bottom line. However, a railroad like BNSF would smash out any slow order as fast as they appear, especially if it's on one of their main lines like the Southern Transcon. So I guess it's a question of "when does track work need to be done" rather than "when does the railroad do track work?".

Lets say for instance that it costs $60 dollars to maintain the track for 40 mph freight service, plus $10 dollars for signals. A passenger train could run on that line, but it'd be limited to 59 mph and it'd be a rough line. Now, let's say that it costs $150 for 110 mph capable tracks or $100 for 79 tracks used by passenger trains and $30 dollars to install PTC.

If this line has a sizable amount of Hazmat, PTC will have to be installed by 2015 regardless if there are passenger trains or not. The railroad can reroute the Hazmat trains to another line, but let's say that they can't do that in this case. So $30 will have to be spent by 2015 anyway.

Now, the railroad is scheduled to do major track work on the line within the next few years. The tracks will be maintained to their present condition, so $60 will have to be spent anyway.

So by 2015, the railroad will spend $90 dollars anyway to maintain the line.

However, let's say that Amtrak or a State wants to introduce a new passenger service on that line. $30 dollars will have to be spent on PTC anyway, so the service can be introduced once it is installed on the line.

Of course, the track will need to upgraded for passenger service. But if the upgrades to the line are done during the normal track work, Amtrak and the railroad would save $40-90 by upgrading in one stroke. It'd be more expensive for the railroad to do its normal track work THEN Amtrak goes back and upgrades the line. Think (Old)60 mph -> (New)60 mph -> 79 mph, which is more expensive than (Old)60 mph -> 79/110 mph. If Amtrak upgrades the tracks straight from 60 mph to 110 mph instead of 60 mph -> 79 mph -> 110 mph, even more money would be saved by just doing the upgrades at once. Does that make sense?

EDIT: @Anderson. Well, that's one thing I was wondering about: Does one PTC system cover the whole range of speeds, or is it like other signaling systems which are tailored for a specific speed range? If the latter is true, which parts would differ? Is it the hardware or software? From the videos I see of PTC, it could handle 110-125 mph speeds just well as 60-80 mph speeds with maybe just some software changes.

@Texas Sunset. I would say that it was routine maintenance. But I saw the wooden ties piled on the side of the roadbed, and any ribbon rail in place was placed to the side.

 

[Anderson]

@Potato: I think it can handle multiple speeds (though you'll need to deal with the fact that trains are moving at different speeds and take that into account in scheduling trains...if you have a 110 MPH train catching up to a 60 MPH train, does the 110 MPH train have to slow down? Does the 60 MPH train pull over? And so forth). The point I was getting at is this: If Amtrak goes to CSX and asks them to upgrade the A-line to 110 MPH (or God forbid, asks anything of UP) when they go to PTC, CSX is likely to turn around and say "Yeah, if you pay for the PTC upgrades as well". I understand about "piggybacking" things, but when you do that, you run the risk of them trying to offload the cost of what you're trying to piggyback onto so they can book an asset (the track upgrades) for free (or close to it).

Another thing: I'm actually kinda worried that the PTC rules may backfire on Amtrak and result in some unpleasant re-routings to low-speed tracks by RRs that don't want to pay for anymore PTC than they have to, and/or increased costs for new service. Don't tell me you can't see UP engaging in some sadistic reroutes of the Sunset on the excuse that "our PTC isn't done on this line yet".

 

[amtkstn]

A lot of that depends on if the line is single or doubletrack. One of the last things a railroad replaces is the rail. Some rail can last 100 years.

 

[bretton88]

@Potato: I think it can handle multiple speeds (though you'll need to deal with the fact that trains are moving at different speeds and take that into account in scheduling trains...if you have a 110 MPH train catching up to a 60 MPH train, does the 110 MPH train have to slow down? Does the 60 MPH train pull over? And so forth). The point I was getting at is this: If Amtrak goes to CSX and asks them to upgrade the A-line to 110 MPH (or God forbid, asks anything of UP) when they go to PTC, CSX is likely to turn around and say "Yeah, if you pay for the PTC upgrades as well". I understand about "piggybacking" things, but when you do that, you run the risk of them trying to offload the cost of what you're trying to piggyback onto so they can book an asset (the track upgrades) for free (or close to it).

Another thing: I'm actually kinda worried that the PTC rules may backfire on Amtrak and result in some unpleasant re-routings to low-speed tracks by RRs that don't want to pay for anymore PTC than they have to, and/or increased costs for new service. Don't tell me you can't see UP engaging in some sadistic reroutes of the Sunset on the excuse that "our PTC isn't done on this line yet".

As much as the UP might want to do that, they can't and won't. Putting Amtrak on a new line automatically requires that line to have PTC too. More likely you'll see Amtrak routed onto busier freight lines to consolidate the PTC work needed. I'm eyeing the SWC route over Raton pass as the first major debate over what to do with Amtrak. Most of the other lines Amtrak runs on require PTC anyways.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

@Potato: I think it can handle multiple speeds (though you'll need to deal with the fact that trains are moving at different speeds and take that into account in scheduling trains...if you have a 110 MPH train catching up to a 60 MPH train, does the 110 MPH train have to slow down? Does the 60 MPH train pull over? And so forth). The point I was getting at is this: If Amtrak goes to CSX and asks them to upgrade the A-line to 110 MPH (or God forbid, asks anything of UP) when they go to PTC, CSX is likely to turn around and say "Yeah, if you pay for the PTC upgrades as well". I understand about "piggybacking" things, but when you do that, you run the risk of them trying to offload the cost of what you're trying to piggyback onto so they can book an asset (the track upgrades) for free (or close to it).

Another thing: I'm actually kinda worried that the PTC rules may backfire on Amtrak and result in some unpleasant re-routings to low-speed tracks by RRs that don't want to pay for anymore PTC than they have to, and/or increased costs for new service. Don't tell me you can't see UP engaging in some sadistic reroutes of the Sunset on the excuse that "our PTC isn't done on this line yet".

Of course Amtrak is going to pay a share of installing PTC on new or existing routes.

But I don't think UP would be able to get away with that this time. The FRA is a lot more strict on host railroad practices than they were back in 1997. Not to mention that if Amtrak has responsible leadership, they'll make a huge show of this.

Besides, where are they going to reroute the SL to?

Any other reasons why that wouldn't happen?

I'm eyeing the SWC route over Raton pass as the first major debate over what to do with Amtrak. Most of the other lines Amtrak runs on require PTC anyways.

Perhaps. But I've heard that Amtrak could get waivers from the FRA to operate the SWC on the Raton Pass without PTC, as long as it has light traffic.

Note: I assume that if Amtrak was going to upgrade a line or something like that, they'd pay a share of the cost. For example, in the example of upgrading the 60 mph line to 110 mph, the freight railroad would pay the amount it would take to maintain/rebuild the line to those standards, while Amtrak pays for costs beyond that. Only problem is that the host railroad might try to lowball the 60 mph cost so that Amtrak has to pay more.

Another example is if Amtrak builds a second track along a route that allows the host RR to make more profits through more traffic, then the host RR pays a higher than normal trackage fee/tax to use that new track that Amtrak built. This is to prevent taxpayer money for Amtrak becoming "corporate welfare".

 

[AlanB]

@Potato: I think it can handle multiple speeds (though you'll need to deal with the fact that trains are moving at different speeds and take that into account in scheduling trains...if you have a 110 MPH train catching up to a 60 MPH train, does the 110 MPH train have to slow down? Does the 60 MPH train pull over? And so forth). The point I was getting at is this: If Amtrak goes to CSX and asks them to upgrade the A-line to 110 MPH (or God forbid, asks anything of UP) when they go to PTC, CSX is likely to turn around and say "Yeah, if you pay for the PTC upgrades as well". I understand about "piggybacking" things, but when you do that, you run the risk of them trying to offload the cost of what you're trying to piggyback onto so they can book an asset (the track upgrades) for free (or close to it).

Another thing: I'm actually kinda worried that the PTC rules may backfire on Amtrak and result in some unpleasant re-routings to low-speed tracks by RRs that don't want to pay for anymore PTC than they have to, and/or increased costs for new service. Don't tell me you can't see UP engaging in some sadistic reroutes of the Sunset on the excuse that "our PTC isn't done on this line yet".

As much as the UP might want to do that, they can't and won't. Putting Amtrak on a new line automatically requires that line to have PTC too. More likely you'll see Amtrak routed onto busier freight lines to consolidate the PTC work needed. I'm eyeing the SWC route over Raton pass as the first major debate over what to do with Amtrak. Most of the other lines Amtrak runs on require PTC anyways.

Not to mention that in most cases where Amtrak runs is also on routes where UP moves haz-mat and therefore UP needs to install PTC or stop running those haz-mat cars on that route. And since UP must also accept and move haz-mat, I can't see them wanting to reroute cars hundreds of miles out of their way or even worse paying BNSF to do the movement.

 

[jis]

EDIT: @Anderson. Well, that's one thing I was wondering about: Does one PTC system cover the whole range of speeds, or is it like other signaling systems which are tailored for a specific speed range? If the latter is true, which parts would differ? Is it the hardware or software? From the videos I see of PTC, it could handle 110-125 mph speeds just well as 60-80 mph speeds with maybe just some software changes.

Which of course means additional money and testing and maintenance. Trust me, I make a living off of software changes Sometimes hardware change is cheaper than software change But specially in safety critical systems I tend not to believe claims of "it is just a software change". It never is that simple.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

Not to mention that in most cases where Amtrak runs is also on routes where UP moves haz-mat and therefore UP needs to install PTC or stop running those haz-mat cars on that route. And since UP must also accept and move haz-mat, I can't see them wanting to reroute cars hundreds of miles out of their way or even worse paying BNSF to do the movement.

Maybe UP should do that to make a complete embarrassment of themselves, showing everyone that their management is just insane. That management gets thrown out and a new one is put in who won't try to evade federal regulations so they can screw with Amtrak.

Of course that won't happen.

EDIT: @Anderson. Well, that's one thing I was wondering about: Does one PTC system cover the whole range of speeds, or is it like other signaling systems which are tailored for a specific speed range? If the latter is true, which parts would differ? Is it the hardware or software? From the videos I see of PTC, it could handle 110-125 mph speeds just well as 60-80 mph speeds with maybe just some software changes.

Which of course means additional money and testing and maintenance. Trust me, I make a living off of software changes Sometimes hardware change is cheaper than software change But specially in safety critical systems I tend not to believe claims of "it is just a software change". It never is that simple.

Cool, does your place have job openings? :lol:

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Which of course means additional money and testing and maintenance. Trust me, I make a living off of software changes Sometimes hardware change is cheaper than software change But specially in safety critical systems I tend not to believe claims of "it is just a software change". It never is that simple.

Can you explain why rail car RFID readers still use RS-232 over a DE-9? Normally you'd see that sort of connection supplied in the service of backward compatibility with a much older system, but what sort of automated process directly preceded RFID? Did they have OCR setups that could "read" the car markings from a visual capture or something?

 

[jis]

Which of course means additional money and testing and maintenance. Trust me, I make a living off of software changes Sometimes hardware change is cheaper than software change But specially in safety critical systems I tend not to believe claims of "it is just a software change". It never is that simple.

Can you explain why rail car RFID readers still use RS-232 over a DE-9? Normally you'd see that sort of connection supplied in the service of backward compatibility with a much older system, but what sort of automated process directly preceded RFID? Did they have OCR setups that could "read" the car markings from a visual capture or something?

No I cannot. I do not do that stuff.

 

[George Harris]

Let's put it this way: If you take the miles of rail installed in the US every year and divide it by the miles of track, averaged out over the last 40 years, you get a life of rail of around 100 years. Of course that is not all main line track. That is main lines, branches, yards, industry tracks, all of it. As our Showwater Guest says, rail life is measured in the tons of traffic carried, not in years. In general rail life of the newer sections, 136RE and 141RE which have fairly large head can exceed 1,000 MGT. That is one billion tons of train weight passing over them. Thus, if you were silly enough to put new 141RE rail into a track that carried only about 1 million tons of traffic per year, it could last 1,000 years. heavily used main track are usually above 30 million tons per year. In jointed rail days rail was removed from main lines due to joint batter and internal defects. Welding to take out the joints has essentially eliminated the first and careful attention to metallurgy and "clean steel" manufacturing has done much to reduce the second. Regular grinding to remove surface defects and restore a good head shape has also helped tremendously in increasing rail life in first position. Obviously rails in curves have a much shorter life due to side wear. Here again, life has been extended by regular grinding and also by lubrication. Proper lubrication is a subject of much discussion in itself. Except under the worst of conditions, such as salt water or sulfur fumes conditions, corrosion is not much of a problem in rail life. Places like the crossing of the Great Salt Lake would be an outstanding example of a location where rail life would be limited by corrosion, not wear. Paper mill trackage is another.

There is a lot of 30 to 50 year old rail out there. Before the City of New Orleans moved off the old passenger main between Memphis and Jackson MS, I looked at the rail near one of the road crossings. It was 112RE with a rolling date in mid to late 1940's. Still jointed rail. Worn to the point that the tops of the joint bars were shiney from contact by the wheel flanges. Train stil allowed 79 mph.

Ties: Southern Railway did a 30 year experiment on tie treatment. They developed a treatment that allowed them to get over 30 years of life out of a wood tie in the southeast. Wear is usually not a factor in failure of wood ties in straight and lightly curved track. That is why in some railroads you will see concrete ties in curves but not the straight tracks. On the other hand, the postulated 50 year life for concrete ties has yet to happen. When you see a tie showing severe plate cutting and other evidences of failure, it is usually because it is beginning to deteriorate.

Regular tamping to correct line and level has to be done fairly frequently as in every few years, with the time varying greatly due to traffic, ballast quality, subgrade quality, drainage and other things.

Turnout components have a much shorter life.

There are plenty of people that like to make a big mistique of what it takes to design and build a track for high speed railroads. Most of the things that make track good track apply just as much to 200 mph track as to 50 mph track. There are a few things that will firmly bite you in the butt if you do not pay attention to them, but these are not the things that those selling their wonderful and only we know how materials and processes are promoting. In fact, any track that is good for 200 plus mph will be (it should be obviously so) good for running trains at 50 mph.

 

[GP35]

Mr Harris, besides expense what do you think of ballastless track?

 

[the_traveler]

Hey, the Rio Norte line had 100 year old rails before it failed with a derailment and had to be replaced with Rearden Metal! :lol:

It's nice to know somebody else has read the book "Atlas Shrugged"!

(Which is a great book by the way!

I highly recommend it!)

 

[GlobalistPotato]

Let's put it this way: If you take the miles of rail installed in the US every year and divide it by the miles of track, averaged out over the last 40 years, you get a life of rail of around 100 years. Of course that is not all main line track. That is main lines, branches, yards, industry tracks, all of it. As our Showwater Guest says, rail life is measured in the tons of traffic carried, not in years. In general rail life of the newer sections, 136RE and 141RE which have fairly large head can exceed 1,000 MGT. That is one billion tons of train weight passing over them. Thus, if you were silly enough to put new 141RE rail into a track that carried only about 1 million tons of traffic per year, it could last 1,000 years. heavily used main track are usually above 30 million tons per year. In jointed rail days rail was removed from main lines due to joint batter and internal defects. Welding to take out the joints has essentially eliminated the first and careful attention to metallurgy and "clean steel" manufacturing has done much to reduce the second. Regular grinding to remove surface defects and restore a good head shape has also helped tremendously in increasing rail life in first position. Obviously rails in curves have a much shorter life due to side wear. Here again, life has been extended by regular grinding and also by lubrication. Proper lubrication is a subject of much discussion in itself. Except under the worst of conditions, such as salt water or sulfur fumes conditions, corrosion is not much of a problem in rail life. Places like the crossing of the Great Salt Lake would be an outstanding example of a location where rail life would be limited by corrosion, not wear. Paper mill trackage is another.

There is a lot of 30 to 50 year old rail out there. Before the City of New Orleans moved off the old passenger main between Memphis and Jackson MS, I looked at the rail near one of the road crossings. It was 112RE with a rolling date in mid to late 1940's. Still jointed rail. Worn to the point that the tops of the joint bars were shiney from contact by the wheel flanges. Train stil allowed 79 mph.

Ties: Southern Railway did a 30 year experiment on tie treatment. They developed a treatment that allowed them to get over 30 years of life out of a wood tie in the southeast. Wear is usually not a factor in failure of wood ties in straight and lightly curved track. That is why in some railroads you will see concrete ties in curves but not the straight tracks. On the other hand, the postulated 50 year life for concrete ties has yet to happen. When you see a tie showing severe plate cutting and other evidences of failure, it is usually because it is beginning to deteriorate.

Regular tamping to correct line and level has to be done fairly frequently as in every few years, with the time varying greatly due to traffic, ballast quality, subgrade quality, drainage and other things.

Turnout components have a much shorter life.

There are plenty of people that like to make a big mistique of what it takes to design and build a track for high speed railroads. Most of the things that make track good track apply just as much to 200 mph track as to 50 mph track. There are a few things that will firmly bite you in the butt if you do not pay attention to them, but these are not the things that those selling their wonderful and only we know how materials and processes are promoting. In fact, any track that is good for 200 plus mph will be (it should be obviously so) good for running trains at 50 mph.

Thank you for this information. Very helpful!

Mr Harris, besides expense what do you think of ballastless track?

Is Rearden Metal safe?

 

[jb64]

Hey, the Rio Norte line had 100 year old rails before it failed with a derailment and had to be replaced with Rearden Metal! :lol:

It's nice to know somebody else has read the book "Atlas Shrugged"!

(Which is a great book by the way!

I highly recommend it!)

I agree. I can't say that I completely agree with the full extent of Ms. Rand's objectivism (A is A); but it certainly makes one think. I'm impressed that one as young as Mr. Potato has read it as it is not an easy read and is quite a tome.

 

[George Harris]

Mr Harris, besides expense what do you think of ballastless track?

For very high speeds, it is the only way to go. With ballasted track maintaining it to the precision needed for comfortable high speed travel will eat you up in both cost and time required. Maintenance cost on non-ballasted track is very low. It is basically inspection and rail replacement as needed.

Based on some Japanese studies, non-ballasted track will cost about 10% more than ballasted track, but the maintenance savings is such that the payback period is about 10 years. The percentage difference is sensitive to material costs, labor costs, and the particular design of the ballasted track. The difference could well be zero or real close.

Proper design is important. Ballasted track just about automatically comes out about right in a number of properties, such as cushioning and flexibility. For non-ballasted track good or bad design can make a lot of difference in these areas. Good or bad construction quality can also be much more significant in non-ballasted track.

Is Rearden Metal safe?

Since I have never read Atlas Shrugged, I had never heard of it. Here is what I found out about it:

Rearden metal is a fictitious metal alloy invented by Hank Rearden

Therefore, since it is not real it falls into my "nonsense" file, so I don't think about it at all.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

For very high speeds, it is the only way to go. With ballasted track maintaining it to the precision needed for comfortable high speed travel will eat you up in both cost and time required. Maintenance cost on non-ballasted track is very low. It is basically inspection and rail replacement as needed.

Based on some Japanese studies, non-ballasted track will cost about 10% more than ballasted track, but the maintenance savings is such that the payback period is about 10 years. The percentage difference is sensitive to material costs, labor costs, and the particular design of the ballasted track. The difference could well be zero or real close.

Proper design is important. Ballasted track just about automatically comes out about right in a number of properties, such as cushioning and flexibility. For non-ballasted track good or bad design can make a lot of difference in these areas. Good or bad construction quality can also be much more significant in non-ballasted track.

So based on this, would you say that non-ballasted track would be suitable for the NEC, even for trains at existing speeds? How much would it save Amtrak in maintenance costs (which I hear are quite high for the NEC)?

 

[jis]

Of course all the real high speed tracks in the world carry only 17 - 20 tonne axle load, not 30+ tonne.

 

[George Harris]

So based on this, would you say that non-ballasted track would be suitable for the NEC, even for trains at existing speeds? How much would it save Amtrak in maintenance costs (which I hear are quite high for the NEC)?

That is anything but a simple question. It would take a considerable amount of study to determine if the change was worthwhile and where, and further study to quantify the savings.

Of course all the real high speed tracks in the world carry only 17 - 20 tonne axle load, not 30+ tonne.

True, but it is quite possible to design and build a track that can do both. In fact, it would be easier in quite a few ways to maintain track with this range of axle loads in a non-ballasted track form than a ballasted track. Remember, just because something has not been done, does not mean that it cannot be done.