Rail Grinder Questions

[jettrainfan]

Went railfanning and caught the Loram Rail Grinder on 3/19/11.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y102Cu0Nv-w  (skip to 6:35 for the rail grinder)

I had a good amount of questions and was wondering if anyone could help me with some of them.

What is the purpose of rail grinding?

Is it needed?

Do short lines and tourist railroads do it?

How long has rail grinding been around and what was the early technology?

What is the liquid they were spraying out of the hose on the caboose?

Thanks!

[ACY]

A rail grinder is used to restore the profile and remove irregularities from worn rail track to extend its life and to improve the ride of trains using the track. Rail-grinding equipment is either mounted on a single self-propelled vehicle or on a dedicated rail grinding train. The grinding wheels are set at controlled angles to restore the track to its correct profile. The machines have been in use since 1993.

[jward]

rail grinders have been around since at least the late 1970s. the early ones were hauled by the host railroad's locomotives. i remember seeing them on conrail near horseshoe curve during this time period.

the liquid you saw being sprayed on the tracks is water, intended to drown any sparks from the grinding process before they can cause a fire.

lightly used trackage such as branchlines and shortlines typically don't see rail grinders. they are not maintained to the same standards as mainline track.

[Doneldon]

jtf-

They really don't take off much metal but the resurfacing saves many good dollars in other wear and tear. The hose is spraying plain ols water. If a glowing bit of metal hits dry grass there could be a fire.

You were lucky to see this. These things aren't seen real often.
                                                                                                                    -- D

[ACY]

rail grinders have been around since at least the late 1970s. the early ones were hauled by the host railroad's locomotives. i remember seeing them on conrail near horseshoe curve during this time period.

Were these self-propelled or powered in any way? Maybe the 1993 date is for self-propelled...

[jward]

the early ones were locomotive hauled, with motive power being supplied by the host railroad. around 1983-84, speno bought several retired conrail gp38s and heavily modified them into dedicated power for their trains. the integral self-propelled rail grinders may be what came out in 1993. speno is now part of pandrol jackson. i haven't seen one of their grinders in years. loram is the other big name in the business, and every one of their grinders i've seen has been self propelled.

[jsmvmd]

Dear Friends,

The Loram folks come through Altoona, PA from time to time.  A few years ago I saw them in action, at night, and the sparks were quite impressive !  There must have been 8 - 10 units hooked together, all self propelled.

On of their workers was in my business and told me he just goes around the country doing this.  When the engine wheels slip it puts irregularities and waves in the rail top.  The grinding restores the rail and extends rail life, thus saving costs.

Altoona at the brickyard has 141 pound rail, dated 1971, so the grinding must be doing its job.

A rail friend, sadly gone, told me the Rose Yard in Altoona had 160 pound rail in places.  This is not confirmed.  When I mentioned this to Wade Colyer, he could not confirm this, either.

Best Wishes,

Jack

[jward]

i have never heard of 160 lb rail. but i do know for a fact that pitcairn yard near pittsburgh had some 155 lb rail before it was turned into an intermodal terminal.

[mf5117]

Was that pounds per foot of rail . Do they give just the weight ,or size and weight . Like I beams or columns 8x10 or 36x205 they give the web height and then the weight . But they don't give the flange width ,only height and weight .

edit: the web dimension not height

[jward]

pounds per yard. 155 lb rail is about the heaviest i've ever heard of, definitely the heaviest i've ever seen. it hasn't been made in many years, and most mainline rail to-day is in the 130-140 lb range. branchline rail tends to be 85-115 lbs. in HO terms, 155 lb is slightly smaller than code 100, 130-140 is similar to code 83, and the smaller rail sizes mentioned are close to code 70.

[Doneldon]

jw-

You're correct in stating that today's heavy rail is lighter than yesterday's. There are two reasons for this: The less interesting one is that concrete ties and (sometimes) factory assembled sectional track means that less strength is needed in the rails. Cooler is the fact that, while trains and most rolling stock are much heavier today than years ago, axle loadings are actually less. This is especially true for locomotives; steam engines weighed much, much more than diesels do for comparable pulling power. Even allowing for weight carried on pilot and trailing trucks, their axle loadings were huge compared to what diesels put on the rails. Modern rolling stock, though heavier overall than older cars, often has has extra wheels and greater distances between trucks. So three or four modern diesels can pull 100+ car trains weighing 10,000 tons and much more with less pressure on the rails than a couple of Mountains dragging 35-50 cars weighing 2,000 to 3,000 tons. Of course the steamers also had to pull those giant-sized, monstrously heavy cabeese, too. Today's diesels can't do that!
                                                                                                           -- D

[jward]

i don't know about concrete ties. we have had two installations here in the pittsburgh area. the first was when they rebuilt the conrail mon line for double stacked container trains, in 1995. those ties were replaced with wood by 2002. the second was when csx rebuilt the former p&le in 2002, those ties were replaced last year. in both cases, ties that were installed with the expectation they would outlast wooden ones were removed after about 7 years due to extreme deterioration of the ties. they just couldn't withstand the constant heavy pounding of a busy mainline with significant coal traffic.....

it is interesting to note that, even though the steamers were much heavier, the permitted weight of the freight cars is much heavier to-day than it ever was. allowable weight for a freight car is now 288, 000lbs, roughly 40 tons heavier than the cars of the late steam era. i am guessing the improvements in metal technology were one factor in the use of these heavy cars on lighter rail. another would probably be the even torque exerted by a diesel opposed to the pounding forces of the steam locomotives. it is interesting to note we now have locomotives whose full potential is unable to be realized  because the rail can't take it. i worked with sd80macs. on norfolk southern, full power dynamic braking was not permitted due to the possibility of turning the rail over. and the sd40e fleet, rebuilt from sd50s, currently used as helpers out of altoona are restricted to notch 6 (about 75% power) when pushing a train.

[jsmvmd]

I would side with Jeff on the 155 pound rail.  My friend and his wife are gone now, and I have no access to his photos.  Nor do I intend to go snaking around the Rose Yard.

Interesting comments Jeff made regarding current power.

[Doneldon]

Jeff-

You're right about the heavier freight loadings now, as I mentioned in my post. But the freight cars were never the issue, anyway. It was all about the steam engines.

A 140 ton freight car only puts 35 tons per axle on the rails, even if the car has only two four-wheel trucks. Some cars that large have four trucks which cuts the weight per axle way down. And that weight is much more smoothly supported today which helps. Steamers commonly put twice that much weight on the rails and more. And, as you mentioned, it was very, shall we say, dynamic weight as opposed to diesels' more consistent and steady weight.

I'm not so sure metalurgy has made a lot of difference other than in corrosion Resistance. But the cement ties have helped. I'll bet the concrete ties you saw being removed were in the east, at elevation or in the north. Rails move around a bit due to freezing/thawing cycles despite the railroads' care in laying track. It may be that even minor changes in alignment make the concrete ties less durable due to any irregularities increasing the pounding effect. The Big New Santa Fe (BNSF) has used concrete ties in the Southwest for many years but of course they don't have to deal with such weather extremes there as we see in most of the rest of the country. And it is very heavily built and very heavily traveled rail out there. My brother used to dispatch for the ATSF Ry out of Winslow AZ and they had trains running on 20-minute headway much of the time.

                                                                  -- D

[mf5117]

Thats interesting, I wouldn't have thought weight per yard .