Our Changing Rail and Sleepers...

[RichW1]

This thread could easily drop down fast and that's ok, but I just wanted to see if anyone else has noticed the rails becoming thinner and sleepers becoming flat without the 'dipped' middle they had when I remember travelling as a child.

The rails always looked much higher and thicker, the sleepers much 'chunkier'. If this is not just me, does this not explain the reason for rougher rides? However reliable the steel is now, it is still more prone to buckling and deforming is it not? I am just wondering if this is a Network Rail cost cutting measure which isn't that clever really? Anyway, just throwing it out there!

 

[Joseph_Locke]

This thread could easily drop down fast and that's ok, but I just wanted to see if anyone else has noticed the rails becoming thinner and sleepers becoming flat without the 'dipped' middle they had when I remember travelling as a child.

The rails always looked much higher and thicker, the sleepers much 'chunkier'. If this is not just me, does this not explain the reason for rougher rides? However reliable the steel is now, it is still more prone to buckling and deforming is it not? I am just wondering if this is a Network Rail cost cutting measure which isn't that clever really? Anyway, just throwing it out there!

Rails have increased in weight per yard from 109 pounds per yard in the 70s to 56 or 60kg /m today and concrete sleepers have increased by over 20kg each in that time, so your observations are without substance. Rail mass has very little effect on ride quality.

 

[Elecman]

I wonder if they are talking about the difference between Bullhead in chairs and Flat Bottom on pans?

 

[alxndr]

To comment on the shape of the sleepers too, I've seen plenty of recently laid sleepers which have a "dip" in the middle.

I wonder if giving a rough time that you're thinking of? When you were a child is all relative...

 

[RichW1]

I have images showing the differences if only I could post them!

 

[najaB]

I have images showing the differences if only I could post them!

Use the attach button

and add them to your post.

 

[Bald Rick]

Rails are definitely not 'thinner'. Quite the opposite. What is happening thoughts that as track quality and train suspension is now rather better than it was 20-30 years ago, there is less 'hunting' of wheels on the rail, which means the shiny part of the rail is generally thinner. But the rest of the rail is still there.

 

[thenorthern]

Some of the oldest rail tracks will have been laid by pre-big four companies when designs and compositions of steel varied slightly. In the big four days the companies made their own track.

Also with most rails today being continuous welded rail rather than jointed track the design is slightly different.

 

[satisnek]

Are metal sleepers still used or was that just a Railtrack thing?

 

[thenorthern]

Are metal sleepers still used or was that just a Railtrack thing?

I have seen the introduced recently by Network Rail so yes they are still being used.

I know on the West Coast Main Line there are still locations where wooden ones are used.

 

[furnessvale]

I have seen the introduced recently by Network Rail so yes they are still being used.

I know on the West Coast Main Line there are still locations where wooden ones are used.

I should imagine there are more wooden sleepers on the ECML than the WCML.

When we were laying concrete on the WCML, our cousins on the ECML had a penchant for hardwood instead. Unless they made a big mistake with that, and have had to prematurely replace them, a fair number should still be insitu.

 

[gimmea50anyday]

Plenty wooden sleepers around Newcastle station...

The loops at Durham are steel sleepered.

Are you thinkinh of the old "Dow-Mac" or "Costain" branded sleepers that were numerous once upon a time?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Are metal sleepers still used or was that just a Railtrack thing?

There are plenty of steel sleepers on the S & C.

 

[satisnek]

There are plenty of steel sleepers on the S & C.

Yes, but weren't they laid in the 1990s/2000s? There are stretches on my local line from that era.

From what I've seen, concrete sleepers seem to be the choice today, certainly on main lines. Steel sleepers are used on lower speed routes?

 

[The Lad]

Steel sleepers tend to be used on slower speed and lower tonnage lines, they have the advantage of being much lighter and easier to manhandle and being shallower need less ballast below them. They are also resistant to termite attack.

 

[furnessvale]

Steel sleepers tend to be used on slower speed and lower tonnage lines, they have the advantage of being much lighter and easier to manhandle and being shallower need less ballast below them. They are also resistant to termite attack.

Is there really LESS ballast overall?

The hollow underside of a steel sleeper needs filling with ballast and I would hazard a guess that overall ballast tonnage per km would be similar to other sleeper types.

 

[DarloRich]

Are metal sleepers still used or was that just a Railtrack thing?

yes they are: There are loads on the Marston Vale line for instance.

I have seen the introduced recently by Network Rail so yes they are still being used.

I know on the West Coast Main Line there are still locations where wooden ones are used.

nothing wrong with wooden sleepers

Are you thinkinh of the old "Dow-Mac" or "Costain" branded sleepers that were numerous once upon a time?

Sleeper design has changed quite a bit. They tend to be stamped with the name of the current contract holder.

There are some interesting technical studies on sleeper properties and "recipes" you can search for via the google machine if you are bored. I am sure someone has written a thesis on UK railway sleeper design evolution since 1825!

 

[najaB]

Is there really LESS ballast overall?

The hollow underside of a steel sleeper needs filling with ballast and I would hazard a guess that overall ballast tonnage per km would be similar to other sleeper types.

I believe that there is.
From this article:

The S&C project illustrated one of the ways in which savings can be made by using steel sleepers, even though they cost £35 compared to £30 for concrete. Their light weight means they can be dropped in bundles at the lineside and placed manually on the ballast bed instead of being brought in as part of a mechanised relaying process.

But the biggest economy from using steel lies in a drastically reduced requirement for new ballast. Unfortunately, this feature could not be exploited on the S&C because much of the line was ballasted with ash; this had to be excavated and removed so that fresh bottom ballast could be placed.

Ventry gained much personal experience of steel sleepers in BR days when he was Area Civil Engineer based in Manchester, and he gives two reasons why ballast is saved under normal conditions.

First, the 'underside' of a steel sleeper is effectively the top of the pod. This is the level at which most of the vertical load is transmitted to the ballast, and starts to spread out in a cone before reaching the weaker formation material. The sleeper depth (ignoring the deeper end spades) is typically less than 100mm, only half the 200mm depth of an equivalent concrete sleeper. Railtrack's current standards provide for 50mm less bottom ballast under steel sleepers compared to concrete or wood. Add this difference to the reduced sleeper depth, saving about 100mm of top ballast, and the total depth requirement becomes 150mm less for any given track standard.

 

[DarloRich]

that only holds for lines with good ballast conditions. If you have to dig out and replace there is little saving.

 

[najaB]

that only holds for lines with good ballast conditions. If you have to dig out and replace there is little saving.

Indeed. This was noted in the linked article.

 

[Bald Rick]

that only holds for lines with good ballast conditions. If you have to dig out and replace there is little saving.

Correct - but - if the ballast is in such poor condition that it needs complete replacement, then you put concrete sleepers in. In my track renewals days I must have done 100 steel jobs, and not one of them had new bottom ballast. Some of the yardages you could get done were remarkable - 2 miles of new track in a weekend, with little more than one gang, a couple of machines, a welding team and a couple of ballast trains.

 

[telstarbox]

Working 12 hour days or round the clock shifts?

 

[Bald Rick]

Working 12 hour days or round the clock shifts?

Round the clock, so three gangs per 24hrs.

 

[Grumpy]

train suspension is now rather better than it was 20-30 years ago, .

Not sure about that. MK3 or class 158 not been equalled by many of the post-privatisation purchases IMHO. Siemens, CAF and Alstom products all give an inferior ride.

 

[Ploughman]

Correct - but - if the ballast is in such poor condition that it needs complete replacement, then you put concrete sleepers in. In my track renewals days I must have done 100 steel jobs, and not one of them had new bottom ballast. Some of the yardages you could get done were remarkable - 2 miles of new track in a weekend, with little more than one gang, a couple of machines, a welding team and a couple of ballast trains.

One of the savings comes from not having to provide spoil trains or machinery to excavate the old ballast.
I have also done many Steel sleeper relays and often found myself working with a Dozer, waiting for track panels to be removed in front with new steels laid in right behind me, leaving about 30 metres of track bed open.
Longest Steel job in a weekend, Sat 22.30 - Mon 04.00 I was on was 4400yds near Gilberdyke.
Or blockade work stretching over 9 miles on both lines over 9 days.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not sure about that. MK3 or class 158 not been equalled by many of the post-privatisation purchases IMHO. Siemens, CAF and Alstom products all give an inferior ride.

For ride quality I'll agree with you. For the effect on rail wear, it's a different story. The replacement of the mark 1 stock on the Southern has completely changed rail wear and track damage characteristics.

 

[Bald Rick]

One of the savings comes from not having to provide spoil trains or machinery to excavate the old ballast.
I have also done many Steel sleeper relays and often found myself working with a Dozer, waiting for track panels to be removed in front with new steels laid in right behind me, leaving about 30 metres of track bed open.
Longest Steel job in a weekend, Sat 22.30 - Mon 04.00 I was on was 4400yds near Gilberdyke.
Or blockade work 9 miles on both lines over 9 days.

Very good effort. Of course, even though don't replace the bottom ballast, it still counts as is you have for the renewal KPIs

 

[Ploughman]

You do get new stone under the sleeper though.
As even blading off the existing bed to level, or slightly high, you will still need new stone to fill the beds and it is mostly this stone that fills the sleeper.

However you could do expensive steel relays though but it was fast.
8 lengths every 15 minutes.

A lot of surplus stone due to local PWAY having a stone tip on the site a few days before the renewal.

 

[AM9]

For ride quality I'll agree with you. For the effect on rail wear, it's a different story. The replacement of the mark 1 stock on the Southern has completely changed rail wear and track damage characteristics.

Well, comparing the MKIII design class 319s with the Siemens class 700s on the MML is no contest. The old stock rides through the Hendon-Mill Hill bumps terribly but the 700s have much better control. The difference on crossover ladders at 50mph is also very revealing. Given that the short bogie wheelbase and small wheels on the 700s are designed to give the track an easier time, I think that the idea that MKII designs are better for track than modern stock is now more a nostalgic myth.

 

[coppercapped]

Well, comparing the MKIII design class 319s with the Siemens class 700s on the MML is no contest. The old stock rides through the Hendon-Mill Hill bumps terribly but the 700s have much better control. The difference on crossover ladders at 50mph is also very revealing. Given that the short bogie wheelbase and small wheels on the 700s are designed to give the track an easier time, I think that the idea that MKII designs are better for track than modern stock is now more a nostalgic myth.

A good guide to the effects on the track of different types of rolling stock is the Variable Track Access Charge paid to NR by the TOCs. This is calculated by computer simulation on a combination of the suspension characteristics and axle load.

Of course, the ride perceived by the passenger is affect by the interplay of the various suspension, body and seat resonances and loadings.