Had an impulse to go to the flea market today, and guess what? First table I look at, there it is: A piece of 85 lb rail mounted on a wood base with the CN logo on it. Lucky enough to get the rail weight right on the side: Twenty bucks! And it's heavy enough to use in self-defense... or as a barbell substitute... A nice walk in the fresh air and sunshine, a little breeze to keep cool, and a train-related item. A great day!
CN was saddled with a lot of light rail inherited from its predecessors when the railroad was formed in 1919. A lot of that was built late 1800s and early 1900s in the intense rail construction boom of that era, especially in the western provinces. Some of those roads suddenly found themselves without funds, and worse yet, not enough motive power and rolling stock to cover the newly built territories. PEI had 70 lb rail, as did Newfoundland - which had narrow gauge too. In PEI, the Murray Harbor subdivision had such low bridge load limits that only the light-footed GE 44-tonners could venture there. In Quebec's Gaspé peninsula, there was some light rail too, which pushed CN to acquire the only FM road switchers with A1A trucks, model H12-64. Those rails have since been upgraded. The H12-64s were also seen in the Maritime provinces, like New Brunswick. A lot of lines in the prairies out west were also light rail, 70 to 85 lbs. Locomotives like the GMD-1 and RSC-13 were designed for light branch lines like that. Some GP9's and RS18's were modified with reduced fuel and sand capacity to get their weight down. Some RS18's were even retrucked with A1A trucks from RSC-13s after the latter were retired. Another oddball was the RSC-24, on an S-13 frame, on RSC-13 trucks, with an RS3-like engine hood and cab, a prime mover from an FPA-2 or FPB-2 that were upgraded to FPA-4 specs, and a really short short hood containing the electrical cabinet. A real Frankenloco. It looks like it was sandblasted to get all the rust and dirt off, and then either chrome or nickel plated, and polished to a mirror finish on the cuts and the top. You bet that's cool! Judging by the pitting on the unpolished surfaces, it's pretty old. Most likely 1900 plus or minus 10 years. Cool and a half!
I wonder if it's plated or just the actual steel polished to that finish. I had no idea you could polish steel until it had a chrome like finish until one of the maintenance guys at work did it with a railroad spike an a lot of hours with super fine grit sand paper Either way, that is a super cool item and a great find!
It looks like it's plated. The pitted surfaces are just too rough to polish. And after a while, there would be some patina on the bare steel. I checked out bookends and there was a pair sold on Etsy - with heavier rail in a straight cut section, also CN, for over $200! I also spotted some that were polished to a mirror finish on all surfaces. I need to keep an eye out for this one's twin! And I like the pitting way better. It looks like it worked for a living at one time.
A GOOD find!! My problem is: I go to YARDSALES looking for the same type item, but I never seem to find them!! LOL LOL But usually find something else I gotta have. Last time was a CUB-CADET 1440 Yard Tractor. So now I'm [for the future] sticking to Model Train Shows and Swap Meets. If you don't go to yardsales, you won't buy nuttin!!!
Many of the original railroads here in southern Minnesota were laid with 45 lb. rail and that remained in service much longer than one might expect. Of course, nowadays, the most common rail is around 130 lb rail. If things keep going the way they are, maybe code 80 for N scale will be prototypical, some day. Doug
As for the pitting, I wonder if that's just the way the rail was cast/forged in those days because one would expect the "85" to be all pitted, too, if it was solely from corrosion. Doug
I'm suspicious of the "85" - it seems to have been applied afterward. Likely because the original would have been obliterated by corrosion, as you suggest. I measured the rail and looked it up at https://railroadrails.com/knowlege/rail-section-dimensions/ and it's 80 lb rail. The proportions are right, the width of the foot being the same as the height of the rail, the web, etc. It's just a smidge smaller than 85 lb rail. But I really don't care. It looks too darn good!
I wonder (uh oh...) if the heavier 130 lb rail is used today solely due to heavier cars, locos and trains, or if it is a better bargain in the long run, with more automated track-laying equipment, and lasts longer (esp w/concrete ties?). Tie spacing is also increased with concrete ties (and perhaps increased further with heavier rails.)
Heavier, more frequent and faster trains. Locos at 200 tons or more, ballasted for more tractive effort. The rail is less stressed by such load and means savings in rail replacement work. Heavier rail bends less under the weight of each axle (or truck), which means that less energy is spent pulling that axle or truck uphill out of the slight valley it created (train rolling resistance). That in turn makes for a little less fuel consumption for a given length train. Squeezing every little bit of savings out of operations. It might be much, but multiply that by the number of such train trips in a year and it piles up. As they say, 100 pennies make a dollar.