In old photographs I see that the rails were spiked directly to the ties, without any tie plates in between. What improvements did the tie plate bring? I understand that the shape of the tie plate allows the rail to sit at a very slight inward angle (the cant) but is that the only benefit?
It increases tie life by spreading the weight to a larger area, thus reducing the pounds per square inch.
Euclid is correct. Absent tie plates rail would cut into the tie much, much more quickly than with tie plates.
Mac
The plates also positively locate the spikes relative to the rail flange, and usually provide a lip that prevents the rail from working laterally against the spikes to lever them out. When this arrangement is present you can be much, much less concerned if spikes begin to work their way up out of the ties, and there is less likelihood of the spikes moving in enlarged holes due to rail motion and quickly losing their ability to locate the rail as well as hold it.
It can also secure the tie more effectively, allowing up to 16 spikes per tie, for high lateral force areas such as curves.
Questions for our resident experts.
-
When did tie plates first start being used ?
-
Any special rail weights that were deemed necessary or was it axel loads. ?
-
Any history as to how wide tie plates started out and how wide now?. Assume all plates now cover the tie laterally ?
-
What about concrete ties ?
-
Aware of tie plates in common use back into the late 1870’s with 54# rail. No idea how far back the things and other OTM go…Common use around here was about 1895-1900 , starting with 85# and 90# rail on single shoulders. IIRC, there was friction between fledgling AREA and stodgy ASCE over the design and application about then.
-
It wasn’t weights or loading as much as it was wear on untreated ties. Big daps and reverse cant.
-
Plates were often a function of mill and design preference. (as was hole pattern, square vs round holes, single shoulder vs double and so on)…Hate them round hole boogers (eat spikes and skew easy)
-
concrete ties have a base cast into the tie, use different fastening systems and adze pads
In WW1 and WW2 Uncle Sam rolled some rail with a very wide base to be used to construct track in a hurry without tie plates. The stuff eventually found its way into general service in the US with poor results. THAT experiment has not been repeated. Our nightmare out here is 101# Buffalo in backtracks which is similar to 90# rail in most ways except for the seven inch oddball base.
I imagine PDN, who was around a lot more stuff in the secondhand market than I, might have an interesting story or two.
MC – Tie plate cant How soon started ? Is there one standard now or is there any difference in curves ?
Have found a few very old discarded tie plates with no visible cant ?
No idea how it started or exactly when. Tie plate drawings and standards are tough to find.
Those old tie plates some of the corroded/ worn single shouldered ones that are paper thin?
Tie plates also facilitate more secure spiking as in addition to spikes that hold the rail to the tie plate there is provision for spikes that just hold the tie plate to the tie. Most tie plates that use spikes as the rail holding mechanism have provisions for 4 spikes to hold the rail and an additional 4 spikes just to hold the tie plate to the tie. Not all spike holes available in a tie plate are used, depending up stresses that are being faced.
All depends on how FAST do you want to spike-kill the tie, how poor is the tie and do you want to extend the life of the tie and avoid rectangular holes.
Yes old 90# plates appeared to weigh about 6 # and new 141 plates about 16 #. 90# was on siding that was replaced with 112 rail. Main is 141. 90-# plates about 4" shorter.
I worked for a track contractor one summer who primarily maintained the tracks at tank car plants in Texas, Arkansas, and Louisiana. Tie plates were used on all of the rails we spiked; with four holes/four spikes in each tie plate. I think most of the rail we worked with was 90 lb. or less.
Most locations we spiked with 12 lb. spike mauls; although we built some track in Texarkana where we used an air operated spike hammer. Best part of the job was running a nipping bar to pinch up the tie to the rail while we were spiking…
The movie “The Iron Horse” about the first transcontinental railroad, if it is accurate, shows the crews spiking rail directly to the ties without the use of tie plates. Union Pacific in particular built as cheaply as possible in those days because they received government grants by the mile.
“Iron Horse” is accurate, that’s exactly how it was done in the 1860’s, by the UP and everyone else.
Where the UP skimped was on bridge construction, they built just strong enough and no stronger. The idea was get the road built as quickly as possible and make improvements later.
Oh, and getting it built as quickly as possible was what everyone wanted, the government, the army, and the people of the US as well, so there’s plenty of “blame” to go around.
Studying the building of the transcontinental railroad would reveal that the UP realized early on that much of the route was thought to be mountains where the railroad there first would get 30 miles of land either side of the track . While CP was slugging through the Sierras UP was putting down track with overspaced ties and no tie plates and geerrally cheap construction. So sometimes there is a reason for shoddy track
Building cheap and improving as time went by was completely logical and wise. It took time for business to develop and the railroad could be improved over that time. It would have been a waste to get too far ahead of the game. It also took time for technology to develop and fill the needs.
For instance, excavating evolved from horse power to steam power, which led to the re-grading of lots of early railroads in the 1890-1910 era. Improved corridors made lines cheaper to operate, but originally, the cost for those superior roadbeds would have been too expensive to build with horses and hand labor; and the level of business would not have justified it.
The CP and UP (UP especially) were built by scroundrals. Think of Credit Mobiler. UP and CP got grants based on the mileage built. UP started out from Omaha building a big circle before going west to increase mileage and grants. CP got grants that increased when in the mountains. CP had a famous geologist testify that the roots of the Sierra mountains were about seven miles from I think Sacramento. At this point the ground was flat but the government accepted the geological report and paid the higher subsidy.
On tie plates I heard that only two holes in the plate were initially used to hold the rail except in areas of high lateral stress. The other two holes were used when the spikes became loose in the tie thereby prolonging the life of the tie.
Not knowing the topography of the area due west from Omaha, I wonder: would it have been easier to build due west than it was to follow the North Platte River as far as it was followed?
From Omaha, the UP built west for a few miles then turned northwest to Fremont. I’m aware that various histories give the reason for the dogleg was to increase the mileage, thus increasing the subsidy. However, that route kept it on the north side of the Platte. I think it is possible the bridging of that river was thought undesirable both from a cost of construction standpoint and the ongoing expense of maintaining a wide causeway/bridge on an unstable river.