Rail Weights Table (Gross Tons Per Foot) - Standard Rail Cross Sections - Rail Weight Map - 1955

Discussion in 'Right of Way' started by Karl, Aug 31, 2011.

  1. Karl

    Karl 2008 Engineer of the Year Frisco.org Supporter

    The Frisco used a variety of rail sections and weights.

    In places it was possible to see the original rail. For example, the Ozark Branch, south of the Power Plant, still had its original 56 pound rail, which remained until abandonment.

    The Frisco used two different sections of 90 lb rail, and it used two different weights of Head Free rail.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2024
    Ozarktraveler and Oldguy like this.
  2. Sirfoldalot

    Sirfoldalot Frisco.org Supporter Frisco.org Supporter

    Thanks, Karl, great information.

    I was not even aware that there were this many different sizes and weights made.

    Am in the process of having a senior moment.

    Is weight calculated per foot, or yard?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2024
    Ozarktraveler likes this.
  3. renapper (Richard Napper RIP 3/8/2013)

    renapper (Richard Napper RIP 3/8/2013) Passed away March 8, 2013

    Rail weight is per yard of rail.
     
  4. wpmoreland719

    wpmoreland719 Member Frisco.org Supporter

    Very interesting Karl. Thanks for posting.

    Several years ago, Roger Taylor provided me with a Wilbur Smith and Associates report on the Salem Branch that was written in 1983. The report was a study of the cost to rehabilitate it, and it's expense to potential profit ratio.

    The report listed a section of track several miles in length that had 55 lb. rail still intact, which of course needed to be replaced. That's reflected in this map, as everything south of Steelville is classified 70 lbs. and under. Sometime in the early 1960s, heavier rail was laid, up to 100 lbs., with a section about nine miles in length being CWR.

    Grandpa used to tell how the first diesel on the branch "broke every rail" and caused a huge headache for the crew that he was part of. It was always hard for me to believe that the 2-8-0 which it replaced could tread lighter than a GP7, but I guess the old steamers distributed their weight pretty evenly.

    Pat Moreland,
    Union, MO
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2024
  5. JamesP

    JamesP James Pekarek

    Well, depending on which class of Consolidation ran on the branch, it makes sense.

    A regular GP7 weighs in at 246,000 lbs for an axle loading of 61,500 lbs, and I assume that a GP7L would be a little heavier yet. According to Frisco Power, Frisco 2-8-0's ran the gamut from 158,000 lbs to 247,700 lbs spread out over even more axles. If we take the TE and multiply by 4, it should get us in the ballpark of weight on the drivers, which would then be divided by the number of driver axles - which is also 4.

    That would make axle loadings run the range from 34,000 lbs to 53,555 lbs for the steamers. So that means that the heaviest Consolidation would still tread lighter than a standard GP7. We tend to forget just how small older steam power really was compared to the modern stuff - steam or diesel. Shoot, the lightest Frisco 2-8-0 Consolidations were just a mere 4 tons heavier than the rebuilt 182-187 class 4-4-0 Americans!

    Pretty neat stuff.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2024
  6. wpmoreland719

    wpmoreland719 Member Frisco.org Supporter

    One of the last steam engines to work the Salem Branch was no. 957, a 1902 Dickson 2-8-0.

    This must have been an early Consolidation and probably would have been significantly lighter than one built after WWI.

    Pat Moreland,
    Union, MO
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2024
  7. JamesP

    JamesP James Pekarek

    Number 957 would have had an estimated drive axle loading of about 36,800 lbs, so it would have been considerably easier on the rails than a GP7.

    Locomotive 957 had an engine weight, not including tender, of 174,500 lbs spread out over 5 axles, the pilot truck being loaded less than the drivers obviously compared to a GP7 at 246,000 on four axles. Shoot, even the 4-8-4 Northern 4500s only had a driver axle loading of about 70,000 lbs, just a mere 14% more than a lowly GP7!

    I certainly understand why the Geep would find all of the weak spots in the track.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2024
    Ozarktraveler likes this.
  8. frisco1522

    frisco1522 Staff Member Staff Member

    My brother in law fired on the Salem Branch on the little 950s-960s until dieselization, then moved to St. Louis and went main line running.

    Engineer at that time on the Branch was named Jim Smiley.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2024
    Ozarktraveler likes this.
  9. Wheel diameter is a factor that plays in this.

    The Geep's wheels may have been a more concentrated load than the steam power.

    Engineering texts used to quote allowable weights from the AAR for steel roller design.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 16, 2024

Share This Page