Folks -

I'm trying to identify the weight of a rail section where I can't read any writing on the side of the rail. There are, what appear to be, rail braces on the outside of the rail (near a switch) with this embossed on them: RACOR 105D. My guess is that the rail might be 105# which might explain the number on these "braces". Does anyone have any info that could tell for sure?

Thanks.


Les

L B Foster has a handbook with specs for lots of old and current rail sizes:
http://www.lbfoster-railproducts.com/rail_pdf_profiles/LBF_Relay_Grading_Specs_Handbook.pdf

To add... The width of the base (dimension B on page 2 of the L.B. Foster catalog) is what is usually used to identify a rail section, because the height changes as the rail wears. I used to have a six inch scale with a hook and all the common sections marked, compliments of Foster IIRC. Just be sure you don't measure where the base has worn from contact with a spike.

105D may be 105 pounds per yard Dudley style rail, favored by the New York Central system, since Mr. Dudley worked for them.

I have to disagree with Denis Storzek - base width is not a reliable way to establish what rail you have. Many popular current sizes are 6" base. Foster's list (the best I've found online) shows T rail profiles with 17 profiles of 6" base with sizes from 120 to 150 lb/yd and 27 5.5" bases from 62 to 130 lb/yd. You need to use a combination of measurements if you can't read the web. If the web doesn't have a weight that's easily discernible, the next best thing is the mill code, also found in Foster's listing.

Yes, the number on the base or side of Les' switch braces should mean 105 Dudley. Other places to look for weight of rail - often found on older tie plates and usually on joint bars.

Ah! Yes, this is on a former New York Central System industrial line, so that makes sense.

Les

I agree with TrainDetainer. You need to check a variety of dimensions to be certain what you're looking at. Don't do your measurements where the rail sat on a tie plate or at the end of the rail where joint bar wear probably occurred. While 105D probably means that this is 105 Dudley, there's no guarantee that some track foreman back in day didn't cobble this turnout together with pieces and parts from a variety of sources. It would help to know the heritage of the line you're working with, since many railroads had favorite rail sections which would be found nowhere else. Every Chief Engineer thought he had a better idea about how rail should be contoured than his peer on a competing line. That's why there's something like two dozen different designs of 85 pound rail alone. Also pay close attention to the joint drilling, since there often are multiple hole spacing and bolt diameter options.

/s/ Larry
Lawrence G. Lovejoy, P.E.

Definately 105 Dudley. My railroad in New York has a ton of it.

110 RE and 105 Dudley are very close in size, main difference is in the thickness of the head.

I thought that would be obvious, since there are six or more sections with the same 5-1/2" wide base. My point was to start there, not like a model railroader worried about the height, because the actual height is the one dimension you can't be sure of, unless you can qualify head wear.

Anyway, given the NYC origins, it is likely 105# Dudley.

Height, base, and most importantly are the fishing dimensions.

There is only one 105# rail section was of the Mississippi and possibly in the US and that is the Dudley section. You will find it almost exclusively on former NYC lines as Dudley was a one-time chief engineer of the NYC about 100 years ago.

In addition to 110#RE, you will also find 100#RA is a very close match in all respects to 105#DY and 110#RE. All three are virtually interchangeable.

Sincerely,


Rob Gardner

Uhhh, what about 105DL&W? It's not the same as 105 Dudley.

With it being EX NYC trackage, I'd bet it's Dudley.

In another life about 35 years ago, I bought about ten miles of 105#D off a torn-up NYC branch, which was really lightly worn and a great buy. I believe it matched up with the 85(RA?) pound rail we had in terms of joint bars. It's been a long time. I don't remember the 85 pound section clearly.