 |
Re: 115 too light? Not even
Author: Ivy Mike
Date: 03-12-2014 - 13:34
AFAIK, 115# is made in the US. It is commonly used, as mentioned above. LB Foster, for one, advertises supplying 115# rail for projects and it coming from domestic suppliers.
Australia also uses 132# and 136#.
Yes, Santa Clara County VTA uses 115# for frequent light rail traffic. I know several other transit agencies use 115# for their light rail tracks. Some even smaller. IIRC, the New York subway uses 100#. I believe the Sprinter line near San Diego uses 115# for DMUs and freight. BNSF actually specifies smaller rail for new construction of industrial branches and unit train unloading tracks.
In short, as mentioned several times, 115# rail is not a problem or something that is intended to "knife" the NWP in the back, etc. It should be more than sufficient for the SMART operations and the NWP freight ops, even if the freight volumes grow 10X or more. It is hardly flimsy "stick". And with a new roadbed and concrete ties? Should be able to handle almost anything.
For those looking for doom, the rail size issue is a non-starter.
mook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In some thread a while back, somebody mentioned
> (IIRC) that only 136# or something in that
> vicinity is made in US. If that's true, how is
> SMART getting away with using Federal $$ (almost
> certainly) and 115# rail (which presumably is
> imported)? Buy America requirements...
>
> The rail weight SMART is using likely has little
> to do with freight needs (as long as it meets the
> minimums - probably in the 90-100# range as Dick
> notes). It's what they need to handle potentially
> (if not initially) frequent passenger service at
> reasonable speeds. Even light rail lines these
> days seem to use big rail in open track.
Australia also uses 132# and 136#.
Yes, Santa Clara County VTA uses 115# for frequent light rail traffic. I know several other transit agencies use 115# for their light rail tracks. Some even smaller. IIRC, the New York subway uses 100#. I believe the Sprinter line near San Diego uses 115# for DMUs and freight. BNSF actually specifies smaller rail for new construction of industrial branches and unit train unloading tracks.
In short, as mentioned several times, 115# rail is not a problem or something that is intended to "knife" the NWP in the back, etc. It should be more than sufficient for the SMART operations and the NWP freight ops, even if the freight volumes grow 10X or more. It is hardly flimsy "stick". And with a new roadbed and concrete ties? Should be able to handle almost anything.
For those looking for doom, the rail size issue is a non-starter.
mook Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> In some thread a while back, somebody mentioned
> (IIRC) that only 136# or something in that
> vicinity is made in US. If that's true, how is
> SMART getting away with using Federal $$ (almost
> certainly) and 115# rail (which presumably is
> imported)? Buy America requirements...
>
> The rail weight SMART is using likely has little
> to do with freight needs (as long as it meets the
> minimums - probably in the 90-100# range as Dick
> notes). It's what they need to handle potentially
> (if not initially) frequent passenger service at
> reasonable speeds. Even light rail lines these
> days seem to use big rail in open track.
