Generally speaking would major yards have the same or smaller size rail than the mainline? I’m suspecting that even within a yard, rail sizes would differ, like tracks leading from the hump would be heavier because of the forces exerted on them. I’m more concerned with the classification tracks and such.
Thanks
Ricky
Most yards are laid with used or “relay” rail, so it would tend to be lighter that the main track rail in all but the most recently built and modern yards.
The lower speeds allow smaller rail to be used, and with much of the 20th century involving railroads needing larger and larger rail due to heavier freight cars and axle loadings, yards were a good place to use up the older but still sound rail that was replaced.
I have seen photos of the Pennsy’s Enola Yard taken in the 1930s that showed the rather light rail shockingly wobbly looking, even though the yard was put in new in 1905 or so. That was a heavily used yard.
Thinking of some of the local (Milwaukee WI) rail yards, the UP (former CNW) Mitchell Yard on the south side (now largely abandoned) had small rail, certainly smaller than the nearby main. The yard dated to, I think, the 1920s for the most part, was fairly compact and never extremely busy, and was not much updated. It would not surprise me to learn that most of the rail was and still is original since it is not likely to really wear out in yard service. If a piece of rail needed to be replaced, I suspect the CNW/UP would have been hard pressed to find any spare rail of the small size so, yes, I suspect transition joints would have been called for with isolated pieces of heavier rail being used.
On the other hand, when the BN built the new Galesburg Yard in the 1980s they used heavy and I think all brand new rail, some of it on steel ties, although i suspect the rail was still lighter than the main. The heavy rail and steel ties indicate that the BN recognized that they did not want to tie up an important yard track or yard lead with track maintenance projects if they could help it.
Dave Nelson
Thanks for the responses folks. I think I will go with code 70 in my yard project.
Ricky
Yes - you’ve got it about right. In general - even major yards would have smaller/ lighter rail than the mainline, and the rail in critical and more heavily trafficked tracks - such as at a hump - would be heavier than in the body tracks. Even among those, tracks used mainly for storage of empties would be lighter than those used mostly for loads or general through movements.
As some ‘for instances’ to better illustrate this: The hump leads and principal turnouts/ switches down through the retarders could well be the same rail section as the main line - such as 130 lb. or heavier, such as 132, 136, or 141 lb. RE - or just slightly smaller, such as a 130 lb. or 115 lb. section, because they are subjected to almost just as much if not more tonnage passing over them, they are critical to the operation, and replacements/ spare parts are more readily available. The last few turnouts/ switches after the retarders and main body tracks might be the next step down in rail weight - say, a 115 lb. or 100 lb. section. The other body tracks that are used lightly and storage tracks might be a 100 lb. or 90 lb. or even an 85 lb. section.
The BNSF Design Guidelines for Industrial Tracks and Facilities of Oct. 2007 - at http://www.bnsf.com/tools/fieldengineering/pdf/IndyTrkStds_1007a.pdf at pp. 3, 6-7, and 19
I may do that, I know the local TrainMaster for BNSF and duh, it didn’t dawn on me to ask him!
Ricky
[tup] There you go !
Code 70 would be good for HO scale, standard-gauge track in the middle 20th century. Code 70 = 0.070’’ high x 87.1 = 6.1’’ high prototype, which is a little high for 100 lb. rail - more like 105 or 110 lb. - but it’ll do.
Code 55 = 0.055’’ x 87.1 = 4.8’', which is typical for a 70 lb. rail, which is too light for most of the 20th century.
A handy chart of rail sections and their dimensions is at -
http://www.akrailroad.com/OnlineCatalog/RailJointBars/TeeRailSectionsData/tabid/76/Default.aspx
A pictorial representation of them is at -
I would even consider code 55 for a few spurs.
I did this with my old Westport, code 83 for the main, code 70 elsewhere and two storage tracks with code 55.
Wolfgang
In my shop/service track here we may be an anomalie, We had all new 136 lb CWR laid throughout the facility, the only fish plates are on the switches and anywhere they had to replace a section of rail. The entire service track area is steel ties (derailmants are more common there) and the shop area is all new wood ties. From a facility manager point of view I would NEVER go back to 85 lb jointed “rail” we had when I was in Denver. You never knew when the rail head would just break off in a curve or a joint break.
As a side note, Lionel’s original description of its’ 0-27 track was that “0-27 track represents the lighter rail used commonly in yards and brachlines, while our “O” gauge track is of a heavier rail, more suitable to use for mainline runs.”
You can’t go wrong with code 83 for the main line, code 70 for passing tracks and heavy industry and code 55 for classification tracks and lightly used sidings. The only problem is finding code 55. Few shops stock it and you may have to search for it on the web.
John Timm