. Official proceedings . the tie ])late on account of the rapidcorrosion of the metals and the track fastenings. It is a cpies-tion whether the double-shoulder tie ])latc gi\es us full aiKan-tage as intended, as from the inf((rmatif)n I ha\c, a])])ro\imateIy 155 30-40% of the bearing of the base of the rail is on the insideof the shoulder of the plate. MR. R. P. FORSBERG: Mr. Neubert, in the slides youhave just shown on the screen illustrating some phases ofEuropean railway practice you spoke of the rails as being 15,20 and I believe 25 meters in length. When I get to my officein the morning a
. Official proceedings . the tie ])late on account of the rapidcorrosion of the metals and the track fastenings. It is a cpies-tion whether the double-shoulder tie ])latc gi\es us full aiKan-tage as intended, as from the inf((rmatif)n I ha\c, a])])ro\imateIy 155 30-40% of the bearing of the base of the rail is on the insideof the shoulder of the plate. MR. R. P. FORSBERG: Mr. Neubert, in the slides youhave just shown on the screen illustrating some phases ofEuropean railway practice you spoke of the rails as being 15,20 and I believe 25 meters in length. When I get to my officein the morning and have access to a pencil and some paper Iam going to figure out the lengths of those rails and deter-mine what they are in United States language. In the meantime will you tell us some of the factors thatdetermine our present length of rails, namely 33 feet and 39feet and why should we not roll them longer? MR. NEUBERT: The length of rails in the United Statesis now standard at 39 ft. long. This was established on ac-. count of the prevailing length of cars whereby they could behandled one length on an individual car. However, longer railsare used for trial, such as some 45 ft., 60 ft. and 66 ft. InEurope the prevailing length runs from about 46-50 ft., and insome cases, particularly Germany, the 30 metre, or 100 ft. The present disadvantages in the United States in goingto a longer rail, namely, in the neighborhood of 60 ft., are asfollows: 156 First—On account of the force and inconvenience for ap-plication and reapplication. Second—With the number of failures of all causes that wehave today, if we would have to take out a broken rail, wewould have to scrap today a 39 ft. rail, whereas we would haveto scrap one 6U ft. or longer, in that vicinity. As soon as rail failures are considered I think the longerrail will be looked upon more favorably. I do not feel that theextension will be of any unusual hardship because that samematter was considered when we had the rail 30 f
Size: 1844px × 1356px
Photo credit: © Reading Room 2020 / Alamy / Afripics
License: Licensed
Model Released: No
Keywords: ., bookcentury1900, bookdecade1900, bookidofficialproc, bookyear1901
