Hi, what would be considered the current “standard” weight for main line rail in the US? Would it be 132lb? I know the PRR used 155lb at one time. The lines I have been around seem to be pretty much 132lb. Any info anyone can provide would be appreciated.
Depends on the railroad and the anticipated tonnage.
Freight railroads predominately 136#.
Transit operations predominately 115#. (In higher demand right now, causing some weird pricing flutters where some new 132# rail may be cheaper than 115# which seems counter intuitive)
Turnouts and special trackwork almost all 115 and 136# because of the availability of new feedstock for planing into frogs and switch points.
Except for an occasional rare run of 90# or 100#, nothing new under 115#.
In the late 90s there was an effort by some members of committee 4 to produce a section with a lot more head (going to be 141 SA IIRC) to produce a longer grinding life. I don’t remember if it was based on 133 or 136. Considering the effort was spearheaded by Sam Atkinson (UPs rail engineer) I suspect it was 133 based. Anyway I got shuffled off the the U.K. to help solve their post Hatfield rail issue (turned out to be a rolling stock issue and not directly related to the rail) and lost track of what was happening. Then my Committee 4 Obsever (Dr. Roger Steele) fell off the roof of his trolley car, broke his neck and my contact with 4 pretty much disappeared.
I don’t see that 141 section in the list of available sections, was the effort abandoned?
UP has some 141-lb rail, doesn’t it? Dunno if anyone else does. How common is 140-lb?
Based on markings I saw on the rails of the line between Omaha and Ogden last year, it looked like UP had installed a ton of 143#.
The stenciled-on spray paint often read “143 new, 136 worn” or something to that effect, leading me to believe that yes it is 133 or 136 with extra head on it.
Seeing as how UP gets their rails from an overseas supplier, out of Nippon, Japan, I wouldn’t be shocked if this is why UP has it and most others don’t, at least yet.
Never seen 143. Do see 140, 141 (two flavors) and 144 out there, usually in HAL curves.
US 141 From a US Rail Mill: https://evrazna.com/Products/Rail/tabid/82/Default.asp
You can only standardize to a certain point until the preferences of the now decimated engineering staffs of the Class 1 and Class 2’s re-appears. (and the mechanical folks can’t maintain a better overall wheel profile which would cut down on rail profile wear because they are restrained/starved too)
140 and 141 are already in the manual and AREMA C4 and C5 have changes coming. May already be in the 2016 and later manuals.
You should pardon the expression.[;)]
And be sure to tamp things down before we go off on a tangent again.
To get out of that tangent you will have to spiral into the super elevation of the curve
CSX aound here has made most of A&WP sub 141#. But what is confusing that at many pre made insulated joints the rail is marked line 141 - 136 into the leads of CP switch(s). Switch panels mostly 136 ?
141 special trackwork, including turnouts is oddball. 136 is common, 141 is not - largely because of the planing required for frogs and switch points plus the castings.
MC thanks had a sneaky suspicion that was the reason. Do you think it change over time if more is laid ? Understand CSX is using 141# because it can be subject to more times rail grinding ?
One item CSX is using heavier and with a broader area tie plates on 141 vs 136 .
141 has a slightly higher center of mass.
Grinding in the points and frogs with a big stone grinder is futile. No advantage in a maintenance sense to go larger. Lay the stuff in the curves and call it good. Would not expect to see 141 turnouts anytime soon in the name of the AREMA common standard.
IIRC, the 136 RE and the 141RE have the same “fishing” dimensions - the space under the head and above the web. So they can be easily connected or used in close proximity - but not within the limits of a turnout - with just some welding/ grinding of the top of the heads, so the transition is smooth.
- PDN.
The ratio of the height of 155 PS rail to the width of standard track gauge is greater than that of the height of 56 or 60 lb. rail to the width of 3 ft. narrow gauge.
Said another way, the PRR track looks more like narrow gauge than the NG itself !
- PDN.
very similar - it’s the 112/115 FRA controversy again with larger sections.
Rail is cheaper from Japan than rail made in the U.S.A.?
Apparently so. CN gets all theirs from Nippon too. It’s shipped in ~85’ sections on flatcars to the welding plant at Transcona yard in Winnipeg. There it is welded together into the strings and rolled onto waiting rail trains.
Most of what CN buys is 136 lb, but I have seen new 115 lb too.
Back in the days of the Chessie System they were getting their rail from Japan - I believe their standard then (1970’s) was 122 pound. I believe there is a sunken barge load of rail somewhere at the bottom of the Chesapeake Bay.
Looks like it’s time for a Blast From The Past:
Here is the PDF download of the AREMA conference paper on the development of rail section 141AB.
Courtesy of beaulieu (I think) about a decade ago.