A week ago I spent a little time railfanning near the east end of Cedar Rapids’ Beverly Yard on the UP Transcon, and noticed that the RR had just recently redid the grade crossing for 26 St. SW (it really needed it, too). Sadly, I saw no trains crossing it that day, but did take a picture of the crossing because the design seemed odd.
Why did they build it with concrete on Track One and timbers on Track Two? Not enough money allocated?
I’m no expert on anything - I’m barely qualified to be a rank amateur (unless I’ve been in the sun all day and my deodorant gives up)
But this issue of RT&S was sitting on the yard office table a few days ago…here’s the e-edition. Pg 26-27 lists all the different kinds of crossings. Enough for even the foamiest of grade crossing foamers.
Is track 1 a main or run through track and track 2 a switch or yard lead?
Because if 2 is a yard or switch lead, it will need to have the rail transposed more often, and will take a lot more abuse than the main, so the crossing will need to be more easy/inexpensive to remove and replace.
Ed, both are main tracks. It’s CTC, but if things run as they normally do, Track 1 will see considerably more tonnage–coal, grain, ethanol, soda ash, tallow, lumber, soy products, and possibly even corn syrup are all commodities where loads go east, empties west.
My question is whether it might be known that one of the tracks will need components replaced sooner than the other. Does Track 1 have concrete ties through here? Track 2 obviously doesn’t. Is Track 2 the one that will eventually be moved further away to increase the distance between the two tracks (or is that now a non-issue with track-breach protection being the rule?)?
Interesting points, Carl- Track 1 does not have concrete ties (yet). The eventual moving of Track 2 further away could be a possibility- just to the west of this crossing is a new crossover, which was designed with the mains further apart. See below:
Track 2’s condition doesn’t look as good as Track 1 - note the couple of split ties in the foreground of Brian’s photo.
Concrete panel crossings - being less flexible and more ‘brittle’ - are less tolerant of track and subgrade deficiencies than the timber panel crossings. So perhaps rather than risk damaging a nice brand-new concrete panel crossing, a more forgiving timber panel crossing was used instead - pending the lateral/ shift relocation and hopefully improvement of Track 2 in the future.
Otherwise - in addition to the reasons advanced above - in tangent track like that the crossings will wear out before the rail does. The ties will likely have to be replaced before the concrete one wears out - perhaps the wood one will outlast those ties, too. Removing and replacing either one is a pain, so I don’t see that as being determinative.
EDIT: On the other hand, if one type has to be removed and relocated such as when Track 2 is moved out to the wider track centers and there’s a risk of damaging or destroying it, better to do that to the timber panels than the far more expensive concrete panels.
It’s also possible that the head of the rail on Track 2 is worn down so much that if the standard thickness dimension concrete panels were installed there, they would not be the required distance below the top of the rail head, which is to allow for a worn wheel/ ‘false flange’ condition. Some concrete panel designs are adjustable with shims or grout bags, though . . .
Finally, there may simply be a MOW policy on installing concrete panels only in mainline tracks - switching leads get timber panels. Are there any other grade crossings nearby to check and see if the same pattern holds out there as well ?
I doubt that there’s such a policy–we have a number of yard tracks that have the concrete crossing pads, and a pile of them is waiting for installation on the cross-hump fire road when the work on renovating all of that trackage is done.
I think–pending a better answer from someone like Mudchicken–that we’ve hit it with the pending trackwork answer, regardless of whether the track is relocated.
Here’s a link to some of UP’s standard plans for road crossing panels, as found on its webpage for the “Technical Specifications for the Construction of Industrial Tracks” (consisting of 19 pages, approx. 3.86 MB in size in the ‘PDF’ format), at -
http://www.uprr.com/aboutup/operations/specs/attachments/amended/road_xings.pdf
Carl, it appears you’re right - I didn’t see anything about a main track vs. side track policy. I concur that either less-than desirable existing track condition, and/ or likely pending maintenance/ rehab work, and/ or the pending track center widening/ relocation, etc. is more likely the real reason.
Although my thoughts about the worn wheel/ false flange consideration were valid, UP addresses that by using a filler or insert on the ‘field’ side as well, which is 7/8
Thanks, Paul! As information, UP has a double tie gang working on the main line between Clinton and Tama, which includes Brian’s neck of the woods. They usually take one track out at a time, and I suspect that it’s probably Track 2.
In which case, it shouldn’t be too long before little red dots of spray paint appear on those worn ties, and bundles of new ties crop up along that track. And Brian. anytime you can watch these double gangs in action it will be worthwhile–probably the most fascinating process short of the TRT!
The tie gangs have already finished up. They installed ties on MT #1 from just west of Blairstown to over around Stanwood. They also did some work over at Clinton on both mains, too. I think they may be over on the Geneva Subdivn, going by some crossing signal de-activation bulletins I saw a week or so ago. (I don’t think those I saw were part of the signal suspension over the last weekend.) That could be why they put in the concrete panels on #1.
All the new crossovers that were put in by the UP out here have the main tracks on the wider spacing. Although it’s done in anticipation of widening the distance between the tracks, I don’t think you’ll see it done time soon. For one thing, in Brian’s original picture just out of sight to the right where the mains curve a bit to the right is a bridge where the mains go over Prairie Creek.
Brian’s original photo is the spot where the original main line splits from the current main to go into Cedar Rapids. The single track in the back ground is the original main. To the left, just out of the picture is MP86. That’s the point where the time table shows the miliage change, MP86 = MP82.5. Also to the left of the picture is where the Milwaukee’s branch line from Marion to Ottumwa (Rutledge), originally the main line to Kansas City, crossed.
Jeff
Actually, the diamond would’ve been off to the right- I’ve walked the old ROW back through the woods between the crossovers shown in one of my early posts and the CRANDIC line, and the bridges across Prairie Creek are still there.
Here’s a bird’s eye view of where it would’ve been- I marked this shot up, the 26th St. SW crossing is near the top and a little right:
Supplemental post- was just browsing through my rrpicturearchives shots and found a pair stuck together that someone else had sent to me; I forget who now. They show the area in question back just after the US30 bypass had just been completed, and the tower was still there. The second shot was likely taken from the 26th St. SW grade crossing.
Thanks for the correction Brian. I don’t know why I said left.[#oops] Probably thinking about the mile post.
Jeff
May have to agree that the tie-pecker is about to come out and make an appearance for next year’s tie program. (I see yellow & blue spots![:O]) The poor roadmaster (MTM) may have had to do something to band-aid the wooden crossing side to avoid an out-of-face renewal (happens a lot) and this is looks to be that.
Nobody is getting any attaboys for the overuse of asphalt. (I don’t want asphalt over the top of my crosstie/ballast section or against my rails ANYWHERE - trying to fix a dynamic structure in place like track with asphalt is asking for trouble - 3/4" chips mixed with ballast waste/screenings would have been a better solution) When you go to concrete crossings, you also have to introduce 10 foot ties so the field side planking/pads don’t wobble from impact loadings crushing the end of tie. Wooden planks are also easier to move and replace than concrete pads that are heavy and have to be tack welded together and surfaced perfectly. OH the headaches…[:(] - especially if you have to change a broken rail in that crossing.
Once you tear into the crossing, you had best be prepared to go all the way after opening up Pandora’s box.