Re: Why Wooden Sleepers are better.

["Shane Polle" <shanep@amc.aust.com>]

>>The Railway Rasputin II wrote:

>> >Steel are better than concrete. The only problem with that is they are
>>> usually hollow and harder to pack. 

>>Could the steel sleepers be made differently to allow for packing and load ?
 >>Or do they suffer from rusting ?
>>I thought Steel were not favoured for insulation for track sections, and were uses
>>for light lines.The advantage of steel is mainly from a manufacturing point of view. 

>Justtake some steel sheet of the right thickness and use a special press jig topunch out the right shaped >formation.I guess they are also suitable in extremely dry areas where rusting won't bea problem, since in >Sydney they would suffer from a lot of rust, especiallyplaces close to salt water bodies like the Cronulla >line, etc.

Why, Tasrail and EBR have used steel ones for years, the EBR line goes through the wet west coast and carries concentrate which 
eats steel.

Both Tasrail and EBR have lines that are right on the coast, EBR is the burnie yard, but Tasrail runs lines along the NW coast that 
are either right on the beach or on top of the retaining walls, some lines have suffered from storm damage. I don't think even the 
Cronulla line can compare to that. The overhead wouldn't last long if thats the case.

Also remember, the Sydney metro track is connected to the earth of a DC voltage system, then tends to preserve the metal. 

The track guys tell me the biggest problem with steel sleepers is packing, they must be backed right. Derailments also cause
horrendus damage to steel sleepers. I have done a few trips down the EBr and seen a few km of damaged sleepers lined up
along the track from derailments.

Shane