Pros and cons of Continuous Welded Rail (CWR)

[Edders23]

Moderator note: Spit from

Lewes derailment - Thursday 13th August

BBC reporting from a passenger that there was an early announcement that the front four coaches heard, something along the words of "Sorry we've stopped, I'll get back when I have more information". I guess a driver might initially be unaware of a derailment further down the train. That must...

www.railforums.co.uk

As for the track it is a consequence that the benefits of CWR are sometimes undone in hot weather, but much work effort is made to build provision for this into the track.

 

[stephen rp]

As for the track it is a consequence that the benefits of CWR are sometimes undone in hot weather, but much work effort is made to build provision for this into the track.

I'm not sure 60 foot lengths of rail had expansion joints capable of these sorts of temperatures.

 

[Vince C]

I'm not sure 60 foot lengths of rail had expansion joints capable of these sorts of temperatures.

Jointed track panels with expansion gaps buckle at a far lower temperature than pre-stressed CWR.

 

[CalderRail]

Jointed track panels with expansion gaps buckle at a far lower temperature than pre-stressed CWR.

You can design and build a railway to deal with any particular max heat.

The problem here is that ours isn't designed to deal with this heat, and even if it were there would then be the problem of it dealing with the winter cold appropriately.

A railway that won't buckle in a very high heat is inherently more vulnerable to cracking in extreme cold.

 

[peteb]

Pros of continuous welded rail: no annoying clickety clack for those riding the trains. Cons of CWR: no nice clickety clack sound for those videoing trains lineside for YouTube.

 

[John Webb]

Pros of continuous welded rail: no annoying clickety clack for those riding the trains. Cons of CWR: no nice clickety clack sound for those videoing trains lineside for YouTube.

And for those on a train a con is you can't count the rail joints in, I recall, 41 seconds to get the speed of the train in mph......

 

[Merle Haggard]

And for those on a train a con is you can't count the rail joints in, I recall, 41 seconds to get the speed of the train in mph......

Yes, did that myself in the 1960s, a simple system. But it was also possible, in a quiet compartment, to count the welds on CWR; perhaps I guess Thermit wasn't fully developed then.

There was a series of CWR buckling on the West Coast, at least at the South end, in the early 1970s. The CCE was very defensive until there was a serious derailment - Berkhamsted 6/6/73, and the solution was called 'High shoulder ballasting' or something similar.

I was once (mid 1970s) travelling Up from Newcastle on a hot afternoon when the train came to a stand, and the guard announced that we had to wait until the track had cooled down. The driver turned off his Deltic so passengers in the shiny new air-con Mk2s were left to bake in the sunshine.

 

[Dave61]

Pros of continuous welded rail: no annoying clickety clack for those riding the trains. Cons of CWR: no nice clickety clack sound for those videoing trains lineside for YouTube.

And no clickety clack clickety thump where the joint has intensified the sleeper pumping, not to mention a smoother ride in general and far less maintenance. OK there has been reports on here of rough rides on some track but jointed rail was far worse.

 

[Merle Haggard]

And no clickety clack clickety thump where the joint has intensified the sleeper pumping, not to mention a smoother ride in general and far less maintenance. OK there has been reports on here of rough rides on some track but jointed rail was far worse.

What happened to breathers on CWR? They were fun ...

 

[edwin_m]

What happened to breathers on CWR? They were fun ...

IIRC only used between CWR and something that can't tolerate the stresses, such as older designs of pointwork. CWR proper doesn't have breather switches (clue's in the name...).

 

[InkyScrolls]

And no clickety clack clickety thump where the joint has intensified the sleeper pumping, not to mention a smoother ride in general and far less maintenance. OK there has been reports on here of rough rides on some track but jointed rail was far worse.

Was? JR is still common in parts of the country!

 

[Lighteight123]

IIRC only used between CWR and something that can't tolerate the stresses, such as older designs of pointwork. CWR proper doesn't have breather switches (clue's in the name...).

You’re right. You will only find them between jointed track and CWR, and between CWR and unstressed S&C.

 

[Merle Haggard]

IIRC only used between CWR and something that can't tolerate the stresses, such as older designs of pointwork. CWR proper doesn't have breather switches (clue's in the name...).

Thanks, was a bit hazy but can now remember; the steady rhythm of jointed track followed by the frenetic ride over the breather followed by the quiet of CWR.

Although concrete sleepers does not always mean CWR, on 4 track routes one could usual tell use - fast lines CWR & concrete sleepers, slow lines jointed with wood ones. It was surprising, looking back at photos, routes that were relaid with concrete sleepers - not necessarily CWR but possibly a step towards it. Most surprising to me was the Great Central, other now long-closed routes, too.

 

[furnessvale]

And for those on a train a con is you can't count the rail joints in, I recall, 41 seconds to get the speed of the train in mph......

Unless you were riding on cropped end rails, which you probably wouldn't even realise.

Then you could register speeds some 10% higher.

 

[45Fox]

And for those on a train a con is you can't count the rail joints in, I recall, 41 seconds to get the speed of the train in mph......

Unless you were riding on cropped end rails, which you probably wouldn't even realise.

Then you could register speeds some 10% higher.

I remember very early in my career, as a bit of a green 16 year old, travelling in the brake van of a passenger train with a guard over a section of jointed track; the joints seemed to be coming much faster than usual and I said something to the effect that the driver was going for it.

The, very old hand, guard said, "well spotted son, he isn't though, this is one of the few places left with 30 feet lengths."

 

[Bald Rick]

As for the track it is a consequence that the benefits of CWR are sometimes undone in hot weather, but much work effort is made to build provision for this into the track.

Jointed track is at higher risk of buckling than CWR, all else being equal.

 

[Merle Haggard]

I remember very early in my career, as a bit of a green 16 year old, travelling in the brake van of a passenger train with a guard over a section of jointed track; the joints seemed to be coming much faster than usual and I said something to the effect that the driver was going for it.

The, very old hand, guard said, "well spotted son, he isn't though, this is one of the few places left with 30 feet lengths."

It's just possible that the section had staggered joints.
I certainly remember a few, Usually accompanied by a slight rocking from side to side because joints are never as level as continuous rail.

 

[furnessvale]

I remember very early in my career, as a bit of a green 16 year old, travelling in the brake van of a passenger train with a guard over a section of jointed track; the joints seemed to be coming much faster than usual and I said something to the effect that the driver was going for it.

The, very old hand, guard said, "well spotted son, he isn't though, this is one of the few places left with 30 feet lengths."

When I started in 1964 there were still a lot of 39ft rails about in sidings, loops etc and a few on minor lines. This was apparently the longest rail that could fit in the hold of a Liberty ship.

We also used 30ft rails as service rails for the installation of concrete sleepers before installing the long welded rail the following weekend. Many of our cranes and tracklayers couldn't handle a 60ft panel of concrete sleepers.

 

[Merle Haggard]

When I started in 1964 there were still a lot of 39ft rails about in sidings, loops etc and a few on minor lines. This was apparently the longest rail that could fit in the hold of a Liberty ship.

We also used 30ft rails as service rails for the installation of concrete sleepers before installing the long welded rail the following weekend. Many of our cranes and tracklayers couldn't handle a 60ft panel of concrete sleepers.

That's interesting because trains of prefab concrete sleeper track from Northampton CMD* were all panels loaded on 60' Salmon (code) wagons, an impressive sight on the move, and they did. One came to grief rather spectacularly at Turvey in July, 1960.
They might possibly have been two 30' sections loaded end to end, but they had the appearance of 60' panels.

*CMD Central Materials Depot.

 

[furnessvale]

That's interesting because trains of prefab concrete sleeper track from Northampton CMD* were all panels loaded on 60' Salmon (code) wagons, an impressive sight on the move, and they did. One came to grief rather spectacularly at Turvey in July, 1960.
They might possibly have been two 30' sections loaded end to end, but they had the appearance of 60' panels.

*CMD Central Materials Depot.

I can only speak for the Preston division of the WCML. We did also receive 60ft panels but we would then be relying on heavier tracklayers being available. Yes, 30ft panels were loaded 2 deep on a Salmon.

I don't know if it is a record, but one year in the late 1960s/early 1970s, we relaid 120 single track miles on the WCML. This included reballasting, sand blankets as necessary, CWR and destressing and all done at weekends! Tony Noble was very proud to announce that at the annual Christmas dinner.

We also had to face the constant divert of prefab onto the Long Drag as yet another 45mph freight derailed and ripped up miles of track. The notorious "Long Meg" (35mph) derailed several times, once damaging SEVEN miles of track before finally coming to a stop.

 

[DarloRich]

Jointed track is at higher risk of buckling than CWR, all else being equal.

the internet appears to be full of metallurgists and track engineers who think that we should go back to jointed rail. Apparently that has gap to allow it breathe and CWR doesn't so can take higher temperatures!

There are also a lot of internet people who seem to think the rail in this country is Chinese.

This was apparently the longest rail that could fit in the hold of a Liberty ship.

I have heard that as well but have never been able to run it down. Have you found anything to substantiate that? It sounds right as there were issues early in the war with steel from the USA arriving in dimensions to large to fit on UK rolling stock.

The Liberty ship was based on a British design with the first one (SS Empire Liberty) built in Sunderland in 1941

 

[Merle Haggard]

I can only speak for the Preston division of the WCML. We did also receive 60ft panels but we would then be relying on heavier tracklayers being available. Yes, 30ft panels were loaded 2 deep on a Salmon.

I don't know if it is a record, but one year in the late 1960s/early 1970s, we relaid 120 single track miles on the WCML. This included reballasting, sand blankets as necessary, CWR and destressing and all done at weekends! Tony Noble was very proud to announce that at the annual Christmas dinner.

We also had to face the constant divert of prefab onto the Long Drag as yet another 45mph freight derailed and ripped up miles of track. The notorious "Long Meg" (35mph) derailed several times, once damaging SEVEN miles of track before finally coming to a stop.

Thanks for the information.

It wasn't only 45 mph trains on the 'Long Drag' that ran for miles derailed - I remember around 1980 ish a Freightliner at the South end of the WCML that did so - possibly just one bogie or even just one wheel set off. What's worth mentioning is that the latter would have merely left a small groove in each wooden sleeper and not required action, but once a concrete sleeper is chipped, even comparatively slightly, I was told that it had to be replaced. That was the case in the Freighliner one; days of delays and cancellations while relaying took place

 

[furnessvale]

I have heard that as well but have never been able to run it down. Have you found anything to substantiate that? It sounds right as there were issues early in the war with steel from the USA arriving in dimensions to large to fit on UK rolling stock.

The Liberty ship was based on a British design with the first one (SS Empire Liberty) built in Sunderland in 1941

A quick Google seems to have produced the answer. Nothing to do with Liberty ships as 39ft rails were common internally within the USA at the time.

Apparently it was all set up to allow the use of the standard 40ft flat or boxcar to move the rails about.

 

[yorkie]

the internet appears to be full of metallurgists and track engineers who think that we should go back to jointed rail. Apparently that has gap to allow it breathe and CWR doesn't so can take higher temperatures!

Are there? I see one person with such a view on this thread, unless I am missing something...

Edit: just to add, there is an interesting US-based article here:

Why Railroads Don't Need Expansion Joints — Practical Engineering

[Note that this article is a transcript of the video embedded above.] One of the most common attributes folks imagine when they think of trains is the clickety-clack sound they make as they roll down the tracks. The thing is, most trains don’t make that sound anymore. Or really, I should say, most

practical.engineering

A lot of new track these days uses continuous welded rail or CWR that eliminates most joints. Large structures subjected to swings in temperature that don’t account for thermal expansion and contraction can run into serious problems or even fail. So how do modern railways get away with it? I have a bunch of demonstrations to show you. I’m Grady, and this is Practical Engineering. Today we’re talking about continuous welded rail....

It explains why rails no longer need to have joints to manage expansion, and explains various benefits of CWR, along with methods deployed to avoid buckling.

However, unless I missed it, the article doesn't quite seem to explicitly state whether CWR is more or less prone to buckling than jointed track; it's more a case of explaining why jointed track is no longer necessary and that there are many benefits to CWR.

I tried to find some research that actually states either way and couldn't find anything definitive, but maybe someone else can?

 

[swt_passenger]

the internet appears to be full of metallurgists and track engineers who think that we should go back to jointed rail. Apparently that has gap to allow it breathe and CWR doesn't so can take higher temperatures!

Also notable in discussions is the theory that ‘we used to fit breather switches in CWR’, without understanding this was only at the transition from stressed to non-stressed, eg at points and crossings.

 

[furnessvale]

Also notable in discussions is the theory that ‘we used to fit breather switches in CWR’, without understanding this was only at the transition from stressed to non-stressed, eg at points and crossings.

Even breathers against P & C were eliminated as strengthened P & C designs became available to resist stresses.

In another forum, my joke about Euston now being mounted on rollers to allow movement seems to have gone over their heads!

 

[Merle Haggard]

Also notable in discussions is the theory that ‘we used to fit breather switches in CWR’, without understanding this was only at the transition from stressed to non-stressed, eg at points and crossings.

It was me! But in my defence I did ask a question - what happened to breathers? - not make a statement.

And, having a job (passenger surveys) in the early 1970s that involved travelling on trains all day every day I did travel over a lot of them ...

As an aside, one of the oddities of that period was, although concrete sleepers & CWR were widespread, P&C were always on wooden sleepers

 

[snowball]

As an aside, one of the oddities of that period was, although concrete sleepers & CWR were widespread, P&C were always on wooden sleepers

I think they were called bearers, but I don't know if that means they were any different from ordinary sleepers except in length.

 

[ac6000cw]

A quick Google seems to have produced the answer. Nothing to do with Liberty ships as 39ft rails were common internally within the USA at the time.

Apparently it was all set up to allow the use of the standard 40ft flat or boxcar to move the rails about.

Yes e.g. a discussion here - https://www.trainorders.com/discussion/read.php?2,272314

There's still plenty of 39ft 'stick rail' (their term for jointed track) around in the US away from the mainlines.

 

[furnessvale]

As an aside, one of the oddities of that period was, although concrete sleepers & CWR were widespread, P&C were always on wooden sleepers

P & C was always on wooden timbers because it could easily be prefabricated in the yard by drilling the timbers to suit the design.

On the other hand, concrete bearers need to be cast in advance with the rail mounting points pre- located which takes time and money. During my time on the railway I never designed or used concrete P & C, strengthened steelwork on timber always seemed to do the job, and any design mistakes could usually be sorted on installation day.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Aug 2026 ==

I think they were called bearers, but I don't know if that means they were any different from ordinary sleepers except in length.

Sleepers were 10" x 5" x 8' 6", timbers were 12" x 6" x varying length. They have probably been metricated since.