The DM&IR - which was owned by United States Steel - tested some steel ties in the forties. I guess they were OK but didn’t justify the additional expense compared to wood ones.
One factor now might be environmental issues. Wood ties used to be soaked in creosote (a petroleum product) to preserve them, the creosote leaching into the soil was a pollutant and hasn’t been allowed for several decades. That might be one reason railroads would look at steel or (more commonly) concrete ties.
Some local individuals, eager to see a rail line turned into a trail, have advanced that argument. I can’t find the reply that a knowledgable person sent the local newspaper, but it said, in effect, that creosote is toxic to its target organisms. It’s still used for a number of things, including pilings, telephone poles, and railroad ties. It poses a relatively minor pollution hazard. Road salt is probably worse for the environment, and that gets spread by the ton on a daily basis.
Primary use of steel ties is (1) out of face on low-speed track where there is difficulty holding gauge, such as around a tight curve, (2) in face with wood in the same situation, such as every fifth or sixth tie, (3) in certain industrial applications where either wood or concrete are reactive with chemicals used at that industry. Steel ties can be used in-face with wood whereas concrete is not successful intermixed with wood. Steel ties can also be used where vertical clearance is at a premium such as under a bridge or in a tunnel but it’s not a good solution; the better solution is to drop the floor or put in slab track.
Steel ties perform very poorly when used out-of-face on track where train speeds are greater than 25 mph and under North American axle loadings as they do not have sufficient mass and surface area to hold surface and alignment. If you don’t care if trains run greater than 25 mph and you don’t care if the track walks all over the place, or you don’t care if your surfacing and tamping costs are exorbitant, then no problem. I still wouldn’t use them on a high-speed line because they will walk out of alignment very quickly. Steel ties were very popular on low-density lines in the developing world in the 1950s and 1960s where wood was at a premium price, but are now being ripped out by the millions and replaced with concrete in those countries.
The steel tie is insulated at the rail-tie connection to permit its use with wayside and grade-crossing signals. Concrete ties need insulation too.
The environmental issue with pressure-treated wood ties is at the point of manufacture and at disposal. P-T ties have to go to a disposal site certified for low-level hazardous waste. That’s expensive.
There are some old installations of steel ties still extant in the U.S. but their numbers being purchased new today are extremely low.
That market is declining rapidly. States are moving to forbid that use. New Jersey last year banned any sale or use of creosote-treated wood except as railroad ties and utility poles.
Me too, I’ve seen them on a mainline bridge, with ballast. I’ve also seen them in yards including switches.
A section man who worked a tie gang said he’d layed alot of steel ties somewhere. He said it was very efficient to lay and he got less breaks caused by hold ups then when laying wood ties.
The WSOR yard in MADison has steel ties on some tracks. Looks like they hold gauge a little better in poor-drainage locations. Wood ties rot and the rails move out, car drops in. CP yard in MADison has problems with wide gauge and drainage, their yard resembles a lake at certain times of the year.
There are also some bridges that use the thinner steel ties. Less of a grade to go up and over the roadway beneath.
Late last summer I saw steel ties being installed on spur lines from the IAIS to an ethanol plant near Mineral, IL under construction. This was the first time I had seen steel ties. What struck me the most was the ability of steel ties to stack neatly into each other like highway guard rails would.
Also, it refers to the degree of maintenance. Rail transposition or selected curve-rail replacement is in-face. Complete replacement of the rail over a significant distance, such as replacing jointed 112 lb. with 136 CWR for 10 miles, is out-of-face. Normal tie-gang work is in-face. Complete replacement of wood with concrete is out-of-face.
Don’t think so, Tim (to steal a line). There’s a wood-preserving plant in my hometown that was still using creosote this past Christmas. It truly is nasty stuff (I’ve probably planted 500 fenceposts treated with the stuff, all by hand), but it’s still being used.
The small plant in my hometown sells most of their treated lumber and a lot of the fenceposts to the horse country down in Florida, so I’ve been told. Horses tend to chew on untreated wood which causes problems with their teeth and with splinters in the mouth, throat and gut. They won’t chew on lumber treated with creosote; having gotten some in my mouth once or twice, it’s very easy to understand why.