The development of information relative to any new process applicable to producing rail more economically is of interest to the industry. The opportunity of investigating the application of continuous casting in rolling rail presented itself when the M.W. Kellog Company became interested in investigating this process on behalf of a Mexican client. The AAR Research Center cooperated in developing the metallurgical, physical and rolling load test results of rail rolled to the S49 section from continuously cast blooms. The results on the same type of of tests as described above tested in the 12 in stroke rolling load machine are shown on Table 4. The S49 rails and the oxyacetylene pressure butt welded rail joints did not fail. The flash butt welded rail joints failed prematurely due to grinding cracks away from the weld caused by heavy cold grinding as shown in Figs. 8 and 9. The drop test results of the rail as shown on Table 5 indicate that the rail met the AREA specification. Fig. 10 illustrates the effect of the drop test. As mentioned before, very few butt welded rail joints have withstood the standard drop test for rail. The structure of these fractures were noted to be fiberous. The results of the investigation of the S49 rail rolled from continuously cast blooms at the AAR Research Center and comparable results of the investigation by Dr. Janiche indicate that rail produced by this process is of equal quality to rail produced by the standard process. The results are surprising in this first attempt of producing rail in this manner. As the art of of continuous casting in reference to rail is advanced, all of the defects such as segregations will undoubtedly be eliminated. The economy of the process is predicated on the elimination of mold and teeming practices as well as soaking pits and primary mill installations. It is of interest to call attention to the last paragraph of the attached report which states that the UIC specification for rolling rail calling for a bloom cross section of at least 20 times larger than the rail cross section was not met in this case. In the above rolling, the ratio amounted to 15 to 1 in the case of the 30 d rail and 9 to 1 in the case of the S49 rail.

Media Info

  • Features: Figures; Tables;
  • Pagination: 6 p.

Subject/Index Terms

Filing Info

  • Accession Number: 00095879
  • Record Type: Publication
  • Source Agency: Association of American Railroads
  • Report/Paper Numbers: ER-45
  • Files: TRIS
  • Created Date: Jul 24 1976 12:00AM