Re: Lets Standardise instead!

[mauried@commslab.gov.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <Pine.OSF.4.05.9903151456360.31023-100000@ties.itu.ch> arthur marsh <marsh@ties.itu.int> writes:
>From: arthur marsh <marsh@ties.itu.int>
>Subject: Re: Lets Standardise instead!
>Date: Mon, 15 Mar 1999 14:59:50 +0100

>Why would a double track line have double the maintenance costs of a
>single track line carrying the same tonnage? Wouldn't the wear and tear on
>the track be proportional to tonnage, given the same running speeds?

>Arthur.

Not exactly.
There are two components of track maintenance .
One is the periodic replacement of worn track and sleepers based on tonnage 
but mainly on axle loads and maximum speeds .
This component is based on axle loads and train numbers and speeds ,and is 
infrequent.

The other is the requirement to perform frequent track inspections looking for 
broken or buckled rails , inspecting points and point motors,, signal lamps 
track circuits  which are more related to the way the track 
has been constructed in the first place , and are not related to tonnage. 
Tracks will buckle just as easily if one train or 100 trains runs over the 
same track.
For the 2nd component the cost is distance based , ie double track 
= double inspection.
For lines which are wooden sleeper based and carry pass trains  
such inspections are very frequent.
Victrack do them on a daily basis.

MD