Pan Am Southern Rail Train

I found on NERAIL pictures of the rail train (http://photos.nerail.org/showpic/?20090 ... 247096.jpg).

Why would they put down old 115 lb. rail? Don't get me wrong, recycling is great, especially with the high steel prices today. IIRC, one of the arguments for keeping the Downeaster speeds down was because 115 lb rail is not that strong (as compared to the standard heavier rails - 132 I believe). To me, I would think the weaker rail would be less stable and would therefore require more maintenance, and I would guess the added costs of maintenance would outweigh the benefit of cheaper rail. Or am I just crazy?

EDITED to fix grammar & spelling

It's from 1993, so it's not really that old in the grand scheme of things, and 115 LB is considered good enough for 50 MPH freight trains and 79 MPH passenger trains, according to the FRA and the AAR. In Canada, CN has some lines with 115 LB rail where the freights do 60 and the pax trains do 90.

Guilford's argument that 115 wasn't good enough for the Downeaster route was baloney and was proven false by the FRA and the AAR. When that argument was exhausted, they changed their tune and said 115 is fine but now we want more ballast.

Regardless, that 1993-era 115 LB relay rail is probably a lot better than what's currently in place. And with Norfolk Southern running 50% of the show, I doubt they would sign off on it if it was inferior or if it would end up costing them more in the long run.

One must also remember that maintenance -- including preventative maintenance -- is key. You could have brand new 140 LB CWR and still end up with slow orders and derailments if it isn't maintained properly or if it's installed on a substandard roadbed. You need good ties, you need lots of clean ballast, you need adequate drainage. Every piece of the puzzle is important.

MEC407 wrote:Guilford's argument that 115 wasn't good enough for the Downeaster route was baloney and was proven false by the FRA and the AAR. When that argument was exhausted, they changed their tune and said 115 is fine but now we want more ballast.

Learn something new everyday!

MEC407 wrote: Regardless, that 1993-era 115 LB relay rail is probably a lot better than what's currently in place.

Of course it is better than now. heh

For the most part 115 LB is perfectly fine for anything but the heaviest of rail lines - and fastest of passenger speeds. With proper ballast, ties and MAINTENANCE it will be safe and last forever.

Even though it may be 115 relay rail, there are standards for re-use for old rail and this probably is Type 1 (the best) form of relay rail and probably way WAY cheaper for them than buying new 132 lb rail for a dozen trains a day.

Guilford's argument that 115 wasn't good enough for the Downeaster route was baloney and was proven false by the FRA and the AAR. When that argument was exhausted, they changed their tune and said 115 is fine but now we want more ballast.

Which raises an interesting question: If 115lb rail is fine for a dual use (mixed freight and passenger) corridor (and passenger speeds up to 79mph), why does MBTA lay 132lb rail on their taxpayer-subsidized commuter rail-only lines?

I noticed photos of the CT River line up in Northfield on NERAIL this morning -- are there also plans to upgrade this section of track? The PAS release shows this section of "NS/PA Joint venture" track, much like the Mville-Ayer mainline.

Cowford wrote:Which raises an interesting question: If 115lb rail is fine for a dual use (mixed freight and passenger) corridor (and passenger speeds up to 79mph), why does MBTA lay 132lb rail on their taxpayer-subsidized commuter rail-only lines?

My guess would be that those particular MBTA lines see 2x or 3x as much traffic as the Downeaster line, and thus necessitate a heavier rail. I don't know how many trains they run per day, but it's a lot more than the Downeaster and Pan Am freight combined, isn't it? They could use 115 LB rail but with that kind of traffic, they'd have to replace it more frequently.

Things are not getting off to a good start. NS is using it's own crews to lay the new rail, ST has not called back it's furloughed trackmen, yet NS is doing the work. BMWE is not happy.

My guess would be that those particular MBTA lines see 2x or 3x as much traffic as the Downeaster line, and thus necessitate a heavier rail. I don't know how many trains they run per day, but it's a lot more than the Downeaster and Pan Am freight combined, isn't it? They could use 115 LB rail but with that kind of traffic, they'd have to replace it more frequently

I'm no rail wear expert, but know that rail weight is determined by expected gross tonnage and track geometry, i.e., curves. Consider the Newburyport extension from Ipswich. Essentially straight as an arrow. Gross tons (GTs) per week: About 69,000 given current schedule and a SWAG of 450 GT per five-car train. Now look at the Downeaster route... fairly straight but some curves. GTs per week: 241,000, given 10 passenger trains and six 5,000 GT freight trains daily.

Doesn't add up to me.

mick wrote:Things are not getting off to a good start. NS is using it's own crews to lay the new rail, ST has not called back it's furloughed trackmen, yet NS is doing the work. BMWE is not happy.

That's not true at all... There were NS guys on the rail train telling the ST trackmen exactly where to drop the rail - it doesn't take an entire section crew to lay rail.

The ballast was dropped the same way - except with more ST guys.

newpylong wrote:

mick wrote:Things are not getting off to a good start. NS is using it's own crews to lay the new rail, ST has not called back it's furloughed trackmen, yet NS is doing the work. BMWE is not happy.

That's not true at all... There were NS guys on the rail train telling the ST trackmen exactly where to drop the rail - it doesn't take an entire section crew to lay rail.

The ballast was dropped the same way - except with more ST guys.

So..... the BMWE went to Billerica to have a meeting with the head of Labor Relations so they could exchange recipie ideas?
Yes it is true, I heard it directly from BMWE members in Fitchburg. There are ST trackmen dumping stone, as you said, but NS crews are laying rail.

mick wrote:So..... the BMWE went to Billerica to have a meeting with the head of Labor Relations so they could exchange recipie ideas?
Yes it is true, I heard it directly from BMWE members in Fitchburg. There are ST trackmen dumping stone, as you said, but NS crews are laying rail.

Yeah, and I used to share the same yard office as the section foreman who was actually dropping that rail, the ST foreman.. The NS guys were directing him and his crew where to drop the rail.

The BMWE always has some beef - I wouldnt be alarmist over it and say things are off to a bad start. There's a lot of work to do, the ST guys have nothing to worry about. Not to mention PAR is going to rebuild the Stoney Brook and Lowell Line this summer.

Considering it is true that is some great information. Not to stab at a different topic but with new cash infusion in Pan Am do they have any plans for Portland north?

Cowford wrote:

Guilford's argument that 115 wasn't good enough for the Downeaster route was baloney and was proven false by the FRA and the AAR. When that argument was exhausted, they changed their tune and said 115 is fine but now we want more ballast.

Which raises an interesting question: If 115lb rail is fine for a dual use (mixed freight and passenger) corridor (and passenger speeds up to 79mph), why does MBTA lay 132lb rail on their taxpayer-subsidized commuter rail-only lines?

Approximately 15 to 20 years ago when the decision was made to set 132# as the T standard; the entire industry was using 132# as a defacto standard. And when all the Class 1's start using that section, it makes it much more available; and therefore cheaper (i.e. no extra charges for rolling a specialized section).

The idea was to try to keep to one section to reduce inventory needs. This would include all the special work, tie plates, bars, step joints, grade crossing materials, etc. that are section specific. At that time there were a number of sections on the property (85, 100, 107, 112, 115, 119, 130, 131, & 132). As a result of sticking to 132# we are down to a little 112# (which will be gone in a couple of years), 115, 132 and 136.

The 136# was a money deal, also. The industry has moved on from 132 to 136 and 141. When the Greenbush was spec'ed, there was an amount of 136 available at a price better than 132; so it was picked. Because of the design of the 136 (everything below the head is the same) all the OTM fits (plates, bars, etc.) except for the switch points and frogs.

We have also installed 115 recently where the tie plates were 5-1/2" base. 115 fits in these plates without them being changed. We were able to add around two track miles of rail because we used the old plates.

We are not just spending money foolishly. There are reasons we do the things we do. We are taxpayers, too.

DAW

Why is it that the T a few years back in 2004 or so put in 115lb welded rail on the #2 track between Fitchburg and the Willows while the #1 track more recently, within the last year between the same points used 132lb? One sees the crossings along these points with bigger rail (132lb) through the crossings with welded step joints down to the 115lb? Isn't is assumed that the same amount of gross tons could traverse either of these two tracks being on the same line? There must be more to it than just gross tons. Is it what the industry demands on what size rail to use (115, vs 132 vs 136lb) when one goes out and purchases it from a steel mill? Does the T ever weld any of the old rail together from projects and re-use that rail on other parts of the system if it has life still left in it? Couldn't the 115lb been used on the Greenbush branch using tie plates from the Fitchburg line instead and installing the larger 136lb on the Fitchburg's #2 track instead if one factored in the overall gross tons the line has to handle?

What does PAR plan to do to the Stoney Brook and Lowell Branches for work this summer? If any welded rail is installed, will it be 112lb, 115lb, 132lb or 136lb?