Scaliing Track

I used to have a link to a web page that gave dimension scales for ties and spacing. I can't find where I left it so my question is; is
there a rule of thumb for tie spacing? My rough guestimates suggests spacing them 1.5 times the tie width.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan wrote:

It entirely depends on a whole series of factors: - rail weight. - axle load. - train weight per metre. - sleaper material. - sleeper size.
Here in New Zealand sleepers are 2' apart on mainlines and 2'6" apart on branchlines. (1960 standard) Sleepers are 7' x 8" x 5" Australian hardwood or 7' x 9" x 6" treated NZ pine. 3'6" gauge.
Greg.P. NZ
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Wood ties (9" wide x 7" deep) are typically 24 ties per 39 feet of rail 19.5"; modern concrete ties often go up to 24" spacing.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Mathu wrote:

A little more detail:
The ties transfer the load to the ballast and hence to the subgrade. Closer spacing, larger ties, and heavier rail mean heavier loads are possible. W W Hay's Railroad Engineering says that 19.5" spacing of 7"x9"x10ft ties is "current maximum", which I interpret to mean that heavy-duty mainlines may have closer spacing of thicker, wider, and longer ties.
Different railroads did depart from these practices. Spurs and yard-tracks usually have wider tie spacing, for example.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

How old is Hay's book?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Mathu wrote:

Search on 'hay railroad engineering." You'll find it online, all 700 pages of it.
FWIW, I found a website on current railroad engineering which stated that its manual was based on Hay's book and other sources. I found references to the book on other engineering sites, too.
I misinterpreted Hay: "current maximum" means I think that the quoted figures are for the heaviest track then built. That would have been PRR's track w/ 152lb rail, the heaviest ever used. Current maximum rail weight is 132lb IIRC.
'Course, you could go to a nearby track and do some measuring... ;-)
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

The railways get grumpy if you go sawing a yard of rail out of their mainline tracks in order to weigh it, even if you put it back neatly! ;-)))
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Greg Procter wrote:

That's just plain tacky of them. After all they weren't using it at the time you borrowed it and you did return it before they needed to use it again. Then again, some people would complain if you hanged them with a brand new rope.
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

There is no need to do any cutting, there are nice embossed letters and numbers on the size of the rail, which tell you the weight, style, who made it, and the year and month they made it.
And you can go to LB Foster at http://www.lbfoster.com and learn more about rail then you ever wanted. ;-)
-Hudson
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Yeah, I've seen it. So enlighten me on the publishing date.
I've seen references to 1953, 1982 and 1988 -- not sure if those are all reprint dates or if 1953 was the publishing date.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Mathu wrote:

A quick check on Abebooks.com 1952 appears to be first edition 1982 is stated as second edition
prices from $64.95 to $478.78 Availible new as a print on demand book.
Howard
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Mathu wrote:

When several dates are given, the later dates indicate revised editions.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If the book was published before 1953, then the former date was a revised edition also.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Mathu wrote:

Again from the ABEBooks listing 1953 - possible first edition 1982 - first printing of second edition
Also found a 1966 printing of the 1953 edition
Nothing listed with an earlier date then 1953!
If the 1953 edition is a revised edition it must have been publised under a different title.
Howard Garner
Howard Garner
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Thanks... so Hay's comment in the book referring to "current maximum" is probably based on 1953 practice. ____ Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Mathu wrote:

Assuming you using the 1953 edition and not the 1982 sewcond edition.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I guess that one goes back around to Wolf Kirchmeir ... was the mention of "current practice" you quoted from the 1953 edition of Railroad Engineering? ____ Mark
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark Mathu wrote:

From the online edition, which AFAICT is 1982. I don't know whether any track with 152lb rail was still in place on former PRR lines at that time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Wolf Kirchmeir wrote:

Where does one find the online edition?
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Dan wrote:

http://books.google.com/books?id=ygKio-Ks0doC&printsec=frontcover&dq=railroad+track+tie+spacing
NB that this is not complete, but selected pages, including the one that has the information about tie spacing. These pp. are listed on the right hand side. Publisher is Wiley. "Pages displayed by permission".
HTH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.