 |
115 too light? BS!!
Author: Matt Farnsworth
Date: 03-11-2014 - 19:03
HUTCH 7.62 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> synonymouse Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'd say SMART gave NWP the one finger salute
> when
> > it went to 115lb. rail instead of SP's 136.
>
> Wonder what will happen when SMART finds out their
> rail is to lite for freight traffic. Once Smart
> gets to Cloverdale it won't be long before the
> line is repaired to Willits and a trans-load
> facility built.
115lb rail is too light for freight traffic? In what universe? There are plenty of short lines that run freight on 112, 100, 90, 85 and lighter. There are still a few that run freight on 60lb rail! One such railroad is just 20 minutes north of where I live. 136lb may have been necessary for when freight volumes were higher, but now that traffic is so light, 115 is plenty for 20 cars a week (as was stated earlier in this thread). How heavy the rail is has very little to do with how much traffic a line can handle, the ties are a much more important factor, and SMART has installed concrete, so no problem there. The only thing heavy rail does is extend the life of the ties, and with concrete ties, it is easier and cheaper to replace rail than ties, why do you think most class 1 mainlines are concrete ties? Another thing I have noticed about the SMART 115lb rail is that it looks to be CWR, and I’m guessing the old SP 136 was all 39’ stick rail. Jointed rail costs a lot to maintain, with tightening up the joints, and having to weld up and grind down low joints. Again, this is a concern with heavy traffic, but lighter traffic on CWR this is a non issue. 115 was a good choice for what the line will be used for, anything heavier would have just been a waste of money.
Matt F
Moscow ID
-------------------------------------------------------
> synonymouse Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I'd say SMART gave NWP the one finger salute
> when
> > it went to 115lb. rail instead of SP's 136.
>
> Wonder what will happen when SMART finds out their
> rail is to lite for freight traffic. Once Smart
> gets to Cloverdale it won't be long before the
> line is repaired to Willits and a trans-load
> facility built.
115lb rail is too light for freight traffic? In what universe? There are plenty of short lines that run freight on 112, 100, 90, 85 and lighter. There are still a few that run freight on 60lb rail! One such railroad is just 20 minutes north of where I live. 136lb may have been necessary for when freight volumes were higher, but now that traffic is so light, 115 is plenty for 20 cars a week (as was stated earlier in this thread). How heavy the rail is has very little to do with how much traffic a line can handle, the ties are a much more important factor, and SMART has installed concrete, so no problem there. The only thing heavy rail does is extend the life of the ties, and with concrete ties, it is easier and cheaper to replace rail than ties, why do you think most class 1 mainlines are concrete ties? Another thing I have noticed about the SMART 115lb rail is that it looks to be CWR, and I’m guessing the old SP 136 was all 39’ stick rail. Jointed rail costs a lot to maintain, with tightening up the joints, and having to weld up and grind down low joints. Again, this is a concern with heavy traffic, but lighter traffic on CWR this is a non issue. 115 was a good choice for what the line will be used for, anything heavier would have just been a waste of money.
Matt F
Moscow ID
