Is this bullhead rail?

[Winthorpe]

This photo was taken from a train at platform 5 at Birmingham New Street. It shows the middle road that avoids platforms 5 and 6.

I was quite surprised to see what looks like an old rail type at such a busy station. Obviously this road is lightly used, presumably mainly for ad hoc ECS moves and stabling.

Is it bullhead rail? I’ve often heard the term without knowing what it looks like.

 

[stuu]

Yes, you can tell from the shape - bullhead rail is symmetrical, flat bottom rail which is the modern standard is basically t-shaped

 

[Winthorpe]

Yes, you can tell from the shape - bullhead rail is symmetrical, flat bottom rail which is the modern standard is basically t-shaped

Thank you for confirming.

 

[SargeNpton]

Bullhead rail is still often preferred in confined areas where there is only low-speed running. Something to do with the ease with which it can be fitted and moved.

 

[ac6000cw]

This photo was taken from a train at platform 5 at Birmingham New Street. It shows the middle road that avoids platforms 5 and 6.

I was quite surprised to see what looks like an old rail type at such a busy station. Obviously this road is lightly used, presumably mainly for ad hoc ECS moves and stabling.

Is it bullhead rail? I’ve often heard the term without knowing what it looks like.

Yes, it is. The UK was unusual in the world in generally using bullhead rail until BR started using flat-bottomed rail for new track (in the late 1950s/early 60s?).

Years ago, New Street was almost entirely bullhead rail. In that sort of slow-speed area, the wear rate is low (and most of New Street station is covered over, so it doesn't get wet & rust much either), hence it can last a very long time.

There are many places where bullhead rail is still in use - if the rails are still in a usable condition (for the location), no point in spending money to change them to a different type unless there are other reasons to do so (e.g. track layout changes).

 

[Winthorpe]

Bullhead rail is still often preferred in confined areas where there is only low-speed running. Something to do with the ease with which it can be fitted and moved.

Yes, it is. The UK was unusual in the world in generally using bullhead rail until BR started using flat-bottomed rail for new track (in the late 1950s/early 60s?).

Years ago, New Street was almost entirely bullhead rail. In that sort of slow-speed area, the wear rate is low (and most of New Street station is covered over, so it doesn't get wet & rust much either), hence it can last a very long time.

There are many places where bullhead rail is still in use - if the rails are still in a usable condition (for the location), no point in spending money to change them to a different type unless there are other reasons to do so (e.g. track layout changes).

Thank you for your responses, and the extra information. That's really helpful.

I didn't think about it when I wrote my original post, but it explains the "clickety clack" of jointed rail that you still get in places at New Street station.

Thanks again for all the responses.

 

[Lucan]

it explains the "clickety clack" of jointed rail that you still get in places at New Street station

Bullhead is not necessarily jointed but practically always is, and flat-bottomed can be jointed. London Underground was/is a long hold-out for bullhead rail, probably for the ease of replacement in the confined space.

 

[McRhu]

I think there's a problem with key creep in CWR Bullhead (or at least there used to be) and I suspect that it might buckle/warp in long lengths as it lacks the lateral stiffness of flatbottom. Bullhead is favoured on very tight curves due to that lack of lateral resistance and it's good for checkrail situations. I have even seen it used to provide a checkrail alongside a flatbottom running rail. Lanark station was recently relaid with brand new bullhead.

 

[Amlag]

What is increasingly unusual these days is the use of wooden keys on certain bits of bull head track at
Birmingham NS ( certainly noted there a year or so ago ).
I saw some last week in the Down Through line at Plymouth.

 

[coppercapped]

Yes, it is. The UK was unusual in the world in generally using bullhead rail until BR started using flat-bottomed rail for new track (in the late 1950s/early 60s?).

Years ago, New Street was almost entirely bullhead rail. In that sort of slow-speed area, the wear rate is low (and most of New Street station is covered over, so it doesn't get wet & rust much either), hence it can last a very long time.

There are many places where bullhead rail is still in use - if the rails are still in a usable condition (for the location), no point in spending money to change them to a different type unless there are other reasons to do so (e.g. track layout changes).

Opening my go-to book on all things engineering on BR up to the late 1970s, Johnson and Long's British Railways Engineering 1948-80, Mechanical Engineering Publications Ltd. 1981, I find that the first trials with flat bottom rail were carried out at Cheddington on the LMS in 1936 using a British Standard rail weighing 110 lbs per yard. The Second World War then delayed further developments which restarted in 1946.

At the same time concrete sleepers were being developed and the combination came into increasing widespread use by the late 1940s and early 1950s.

So, FB rail was being introduced by BR some ten years earlier than suggested. Not at all a criticism but simply to remove the need for your '?'...!!

 

[McRhu]

Surprised that the earliest versions were as heavy as 110lb. That's the same weight as the recent 110a rail. More recently much lighter flatbottom was in common use on secondary lines (97lb I think) and even lighter on some branches (eg Military Port 1). Main lines used 109lb rail in the 50s/60s. The common-or-garden mainline bullhead weighed in at 95 lb.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, it is. The UK was unusual in the world in generally using bullhead rail until BR started using flat-bottomed rail for new track (in the late 1950s/early 60s?).

Years ago, New Street was almost entirely bullhead rail. In that sort of slow-speed area, the wear rate is low (and most of New Street station is covered over, so it doesn't get wet & rust much either), hence it can last a very long time.

There are many places where bullhead rail is still in use - if the rails are still in a usable condition (for the location), no point in spending money to change them to a different type unless there are other reasons to do so (e.g. track layout changes).

I believe part of the reason to retain bullhead at New Street was that it is easier to make up certain tricky geometries - possibly to do with it being easier to bend into curves. I'm not sure if this still applies after the recent re-signalling and re-modelling.

Surprised that the earliest versions were as heavy as 110lb. That's the same weight as the recent 110a rail. More recently much lighter flatbottom was in common use on secondary lines (97lb I think) and even lighter on some branches (eg Military Port 1). Main lines used 109lb rail in the 50s/60s. The common-or-garden mainline bullhead weighed in at 95 lb.

The current standard is 60kg/m, which if my calculations are correct is about 145lb/yd.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

I believe part of the reason to retain bullhead at New Street was that it is easier to make up certain tricky geometries - possibly to do with it being easier to bend into curves.

At New St, as well as at Euston and a quite a few other places, layouts used standard switch and crossing units which were available in bull head, but not necessarily in flat bottom. I believe it was that, rather than the rail section being easier to bend, which perpetuated the use of bull head as and when renewals took place.