Western Railroad Discussion > Ties verses rail

If you need to upgrade rail and change ties, which do you do first. Tie condition is fair and there is not a problem with track time.

Mike Root
Madras, OR

shortlineboss Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you need to upgrade rail and change ties, which
> do you do first. Tie condition is fair and there
> is not a problem with track time.


I'm not an expert on this, but logic tells me that rail would be replaced first, because replacing rail probably causes at least some wear on the ties, but replacing ties shouldn't have any effect at all on rail life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/15/12 08:28 by toledopatch.

Ties first, bad ties contribute nearly immediately to surface bend and other rail issues, also FRA track
condition is based on bad ties per length.

If tie condition is fair and you have a plan to do both ties and rail in a timely manner, I would go for rail first. That way, you're not spiking brand new ties only to pull the the spikes, plug the holes and re-spike when the rail gets changed.

MP555 has the best sequence for most situations. Unless there is some other compelling reason to do the ties first (really bad tie condition for example), you don't want to have to respike new ties. Since as part of the relay operation you should be adzing the ties to ensure a good flat surface for the new and probably larger tie plate, you also don't want to adze new ties.

So if you have sufficient good ties to hold gauge and a good enough ballast section to hold line against the new strains placed on it by CWR (assuming that is what you are placing), do the rail first, then come behind as soon as possible with a heavy tie replacement program and surface everything. Then look at your ballast condition and ensure you have good, clean rock and at least a 1' shoulder at the end of the ties.

Ditto MP 555. New ties won't fix surface bent rail or curve worn rail. You need to have decent tie condition after laying rail so you are at least FRA compliant. Surface your track right after your rail/tie work.

Yes, ties first, but spot up any really low joints so the new rail doesn't get bent into the old joint locations. This gives you a fresh ballast section to use when surfacing and de-stressing the finished track.

To Short Line Boss:

Take a look at the ASLRRA study of the cost of upgrading for 286K cars. If you have rail that's 90# or larger, you're probably OK even if the rail is worn or old. You should do the ties first, and ballast and surface. It's a whole lot cheaper than new rail, and your track will be good for 286K cars (assuming bridge condition permits).

If you've got less than 90# rail, and you intend to stay in business, spot in enough ties to hold gauge and then try to find somebody who will fund rail replacement. Secondhand 90# or 100# is getting hard to find these days, and new rail is likely to be 115# or heavier.

A few years back, the consulting firm I worked for helped SEDA-COG in PA get new rail for the Bald Eagle. The state wanted them to crop and weld the 130# PS rail they had, that dated from the 1920s and was not control cooled. We found them some slightly out of spec 133# rail rolled for UP by CF&I but rejected. It was for sale as "industrial track" rail, and they bought this new rail for essentially scrap prices. They've now got 50 miles of 133 CWR, and a good thing too, as they handle NS loaded unit coal trains.

Class ones will do rail then ties so you don't spike kill the new ties. Spikes don't hold as well on the second time around.

Posted from Android

UP just put in 15 miles of new 136 lb CWR. Ties FIRST, tamped and all that and then rail LAST. Just my 2 cents but I wouldn't that many dollars worth of new CWR on junk ties and then come in and try to fix the bottom side last either.

NSDTK Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Class ones will do rail then ties so you don't
> spike kill the new ties. Spikes don't hold as well
> on the second time around.

Not necessarily. I've seen it both ways on BNSF where I live. It just depends on gang scheduling. Earlier this year, they ran a tie gang, then a few months later, a rail gang through the same track.

If you need to do both and track time isn't a problem, why not do both at once?

Reminds me of my childhood around 1950--watching Pacific Electric track workers replacing ties on the Monrovia line (which went past my house). A truck would leave a stack of ties and the foreman would send out two men with a bag of track tools. They would spend the day replacing the ties that had just about turned to kindling wood. Had the line not been abandoned shortly after this project started, their grandsons would still be out replacing ties. Note that the rail was 60 or 70 lb. from 1903 and it was long overdue for replacement. Even a ten-year-old boy could tell that the rails were ready for the scrap yard.

shoretower Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To Short Line Boss:
...We found them some
> slightly out of spec 133# rail rolled for UP by
> CF&I but rejected. It was for sale as "industrial
> track" rail...

Without divulging proprietary info, in what way was the rail out of spec? Dimensionally? Metallurgically?
(I get curious about all manner of odd things)
Thanx!
...Lorenzo

railstiesballast Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, ties first, but spot up any really low joints
> so the new rail doesn't get bent into the old
> joint locations. This gives you a fresh ballast
> section to use when surfacing and de-stressing the
> finished track.

I was always partiel to ties over rail. Poor rail did not seem to cause as many "train handling" derailments as poor ties did.

JLY Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> railstiesballast Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes, ties first, but spot up any really low
> >joints so the new rail doesn't get bent into the old
> >joint locations. This gives you a fresh ballast
> >section to use when surfacing and de-stressing
> >the finished track.
>
> I was always partiel to ties over rail. Poor rail
> did not seem to cause as many "train handling"
> derailments as poor ties did.

A good example here was the Milwaukee. In some places they installed 136# CWR over those splintered ties of theirs...

Mike,
Two experts who came up through the ranks in the Engineering Dept. on the SP, railstiesballast and JLY, have both added posts to this thread. With that in mind, I would pretty much agree with them.


VSLOCONDR

When the UP did the track work on the KP thru KS back in 1999 by my place here, they came in and replaced the ties that needed it and then came thru with the undercutter and then next year they did the CWR. Reason I was gived was when they would pick up the rail and ties for the undercutter, was if you didn't have good ties under it, you was always pulling old ties out of the way that would fall off the rail. upkpfan