Razorclaw’s recent questions have triggered my shortline interests.
So I am now thinking… (No wonder I’m exhausted [|)])
If I assume a shortline that has just about staggered along… then the Class 1 (I’ll go for Conrail) has got out of the area… the Shortline/State/County has taken over the link to provide support for local industry… Recently someone has figured out how to burn the local coal cleanly (or ship it abroad)… traffic has increased…
So the shortline (or mine) has hired in four axle locos for the new work… and found that the track needs to be upgraded…
I’m assuming that a shortline would not use ribbon rail. So what length rail would it use please? Would it still be 40’ or does 60’ get used now? Is this ever site-welded to give long rail? How would it be shipped in?
Who would be most likely to do the work? Could Conrail/NS be contracted to do the work?
Would wood ties still bee used or (in 2011) would they use concrete.
All this assumes that the shortlines maintrack at least needs to be seriously upgraded to take strings of coal hoppers/gondolas.
A separate railroad contractor would most likely be contracted with to do the work - indeed, as an example East Coast RR Contactors is on the approved list to do work for NS and CSX, not the other way around as you suggested
Most likely wood ties would be used - maybe plastic ties, but they seem to be taking off very slowly.
Assuming track’s in place already, the up-grade would be r&r of older rail and ties, more than likely 39’ rail and wooden ties. Wooden ties are still used in most applications. they could hire a railroad(NS) or a private contractor, since it has it’s own locos, it would probably do ballasting on its own.Ties and rails would be delivered by gondolas, with tons of steel 39’ rail around, I doubt they’d do ribbon rail, but then it depends on how much money short line has to play with.mh
Let’s look at the track…One problem facing some short lines is the rail is to light for today’s heavier cars and the money may not be there to upgrade the track so,they file for a State operating grant for track improvements.If this grant gets approved the short line will hire a railroad construction company such as R.J.Corman,Railroad Construction Company of NJ etc. to do the work.This company will rehab the track with heavier rail(used rail if possible) and wooden ties-ties would be replaced as needed.
That isn’t sloppy work…I read where it costs a $1,000,000 a mile for all new rail and ties.Of course a short line won’t have the require millions for all new rail and ties so,they buy use rail and replace ties as needed.Remember a grant may only be $50,000 to $500,000 depending on the required work,the projected traffic volume and long term operation…
If I assume a shortline that has just about staggered along… then the Class 1 (I’ll go for Conrail) has got out of the area… the Shortline/State/County has taken over the link to provide support for local industry… Recently someone has figured out how to burn the local coal cleanly (or ship it abroad)… traffic has increased…
So the shortline (or mine) has hired in four axle locos for the new work… and found that the track needs to be upgraded…
Doesn’t work that way…
The State/Port Authority would place this section of track up for bids to short line operators such as Rail America,R.J.Corman,GWI and other short lines.These operators look over the physical plant,projected car loads per year,number of customers and potential customers and they place a bid to buy or lease the line.Of course the line goes to the highest bidder.
Now if the mine buys the track they would need to operate it or grant trackage rights to the conne
Depends entirely on the situation. If they are shipping carload coal it would be 39 ft rails on wood ties and only the minimum to carry the load. they won’t have as much business and they won’t be making much money.
If they have upgraded the plant to load unit trains, then it could be ribbon rail on wood or concrete ties. They will have more business and be using bigger cars and 6 axle locomotives.
As Brakie said they would hire a contractor to do the upgrade and operate the line.
More than 10 short lines that I work with are in the process of upgrading track exactly as you describe – using public money (state and federal) as well as shipper investment and/or private operator investment. These are short lines located throughout the U.S.
To simply this, there are two general cases. In the first case, there’s enought traffic to justify some rehabilitation, but not enough traffic to justify a lot of rehabilitation – say, 10,000 cars per year, or 200 cars per week . In the second case, there’s enough traffic to justify complete rehabilitation – say, 50,000 cars per year, or one 135-car unit train per day. In the low-volume case, that’s probably enough traffic to justify replacing enough of the ties to get the track up to FRA Class 2 (25 mph) or 3 (40 mph), or say, 600 ties per mile, plus replace some of the worst rail, plus a ballast lift and a complete surface and line program. In the high-volume case, that’s enough traffic to justify replacing enough ties to get the track to FRA Class 3 or 4, and replacing all of the rail, plus ballast, surface, and line. Whether we use concrete or wood in the 50,000 car/year case depends on which is cheaper in that part of the country, but if we’re using wood, it will be hardwood, not softwood.
The traffic you are describing, coal, in almost ALL cases will require movement in 286K cars
In my area, they just finished upgrading the ex-CN Murray Bay Subdivision this winter. It was not well-maintained since 1994. Your typical weed-overgrown track with rotting ties in what was more mud than ballast.
It cost $15M for some 100 miles. On a 15 miles section, they replaced the existing rail with welded rail and the roadbed was heavily replaced. This shortline will only see small freight service and a daily touristic train. They also repaired steel bridges and replaced many culverts. About 2/3 of the track is located along the shore and more a few hundred ballast cars were needed to stabilized it.
That’s a lot of work for a scenic road, I wouldn’t be surprised if they have other plans for it in the near future.
There’s an on-going track extension on the Kiski Junction Railroad in western Pennsylvania. They currently serve the Allegheny-Ludlum plant in Bagdad, Pa., but are building an extension north to a coal mine at Logansport, Pa… You can see some photos of it HERE.
The track is on former Pennsy r-o-w, and the new line will be continuous welded rail on steel ties.
The line also runs a tourist operation, currently behind a sweet-running Alco S-1. There’s more info on it HERE
Absolutely brilliant! [tup][tup][tup] Thanks everyone. I must finally have managed to ask the right question. [:P] The range of answers really helps.
Now to further show my ignorance…
What is a “headless” rail please? I am familiar with rail profiles and weights - also with different systems for holding the rails to the ties - but I have not come across a head less rail this side of all steel rail coming into use.
I understand the use of one type of tie. We do much the same. I take it that wood east of the Mississippi and concrete west of it is connected to where the timber is… except that begs some questions about Pacific North West lumber… or is that all softwood? (Sequoias are hardwood aren’t they???)
The information on the amount of traffic / size of trains / necessary (forecasted) revenue is great - especially as it confirms what I have mentioned elsewhere to the effect that whatever goes on depends on at least predicted returns / income.
I can’t fit 100+ car trains into my shed [:'(] - what sort of length coal train do people think makes a good impression please?
I am surprised by the idea of six axle locos - especially the really modern ones - on a short line. I guess that it is entirely based on the traffic. I think that some of the mineral lines had fleets of six axle locos.
One of the answers suggested that 4 axle locos would be a problem… I don’t understand this fully. I can see that fewer axles might actually mean a higher axle weight and that this could cause problems with older / lighter rail… But I suspect that that would only be part of the equation…
One reason I was thinking of 4 axle locos was the possibility that an older line might have more sharp curves - particularly in any yards - and that 4 axles might cope with these better??? (Okay, as things progress rebuild the yards or make completely new ones - subject to revenue comi
…and while I’m typing there’s even more! fantastic! Just the sort of thing I was thinking of…
AND! It looks like it would be possible to lay the new track next to the old where the old PRR was a double track… which would leave the old track available (maybe fenced off?) for the presevation fans…
This would give the best of both worlds… modern big stuff rolling by and whatever one wanted to preserve including steam. That’s got to tick a whole lot of boxes. [:P]
It is a different cross section of rail. Normally the head of a rail looks like a D with the flat side down. Headfree rail cuts off the two lower corners so the head is more oval or teardrop shaped. the running surface and width of the head is the same, its just the lower corners are omitted. supposed to save steel and weight.
It is also about railroad preferences, environmental considerations and maintenance procedures. Western roads prefer concrete ties. Nobody in their right mind would make ties out of redwood, they would cost waaaaaaaaay too much.
Determine the biggest train that will fit.
Choose that.
What lighter rail? Remember you rebuilt the line with heavier rail to handle 286 cap coal cars.
How about while the shortline is being upgraded, track improved, maybe some curves eased, lots of MoW work going on… line speed is not right up to planned spec yet… The main question I have is whether the Class 1 would want to run its expensive new locos in that environment?
As long as the short line has been sufficiently improved to say, FRA Class 2, track, and assuming the minimum rail section on the short line outside of yard limits was 110 lb., I don’t see why not. In other words, as soon as the short line had completed its initial tie program, surfacing program, and changed out all the rail identified as defective, it’s good to start moving freight (assuming there’s no bridge issues). Revenue service can begin, a revenue stream can be created, and the short line can continue to lay rail and improve tie condition under traffic.
A couple of further clarifications. Unless you have a tremendous amount of money and are expecting a tremendous amount of traffic, there’s not going to be any curve softening. The return on investment isn’t there. There are plenty of main lines hosting heavy-haul coal trains in North America today with 12 degree curves, and even some 16 and 17 degree curves. Curve softening usually entails departing from the right-of-way on the inside of the curve, and right-of-way acquisition can be a tedious, expensive, and time-consuming process just to buy the land, and if there’s a stream or wetlands inside the curve, as is often the case, then a lengthy permitting process which might not go to completion.
Head-Free rail sections were developed in response to the observation that rail often failed or wore out long before the head had lost metal half-way down. The idea was to eliminate the steel from the lower sides of the head to save money. Three lbs. per yard adds up to
Steel crossties are suitable for industrial trackage or slow-speed trackage. They will last virtually forever in these applications, and are very resistant to derailment damage. They’re problematic once train speeds increase beyond 10 mph as they do not hold surface and line as well as concrete or wood. Also, wayside and grade-crossing signaling on a railway laid with steel crossties is challenging as even with insulating pads, there’s still a lot of undesired current leak between the rails.
Steel crossties were very popular in the 1950-1970 era in in countries that did not have suitable timber resources nor a lot of money, such as Africa
The track is either safe or its not. If the track won’t support an engine then it won’t support a 286 cap coal train.
If they are replacing a single rail, then they will work between trains. If they are laying CWR then they won’t be running trains while they are laying rail. If they are spotting a few ties in low spots, they will work between trains. If they have a full mechanized tie gang then they won’t be running trains while they are installing ties.
It really doesn’t matter to the class 1, if your shortline derails their $2 million locomotive, then your shortline pays to fix the $2 million locomotive. If your shortline rolls the engine off a cliff and totals it, your short line (or its insurance company) owes the loco owner $2 million.
The question really is, do YOU want to run THEIR expensive locomotives on YOUR environment?
Yes they can, but on a coal train mixing a new AC with an old DC (or even worse a 6 axle AC with a 4 axle DC) causes you to lose most of the benefits of an AC. AC locomotives have the ability to control wheel slip better than any other type of engine. An AC engine can adjust the power to the traction motors so quickly the wheels can turn right at the slipping point without losing traction.
When you mix it with a DC engine you lose that low speed wheel slip capability. An all AC consist with a coal train can grind up the ruling grade at a crawl without hurting the engines. A DC engine has a short time rating and can’t run at high amperage for more than a certain number of minutes before the traction motors overheat. The high horsepower modern engines have better wheel slip and can operate more in line with the AC engines (C44-9, SD70) but still do not have the same low speed characteristics.