I agree with those who see these rails as sacrificial. All machines wear out, and a rack railway passing (i guesstimate) a 50 ton train up and down a steep slope 4000 times a year is going to do some damage.
Wear is concentrated on the rack because it provides all the traction and braking, and it will occur most on the really steep bits. Given the drive wheels are expensive to replace, and lengths of rack are cheap and easy, it makes sense to sacrifice rack sections rather than fix the locomotive. Also, the safety of the system depends on the engine not jumping off the rack, which implies it's heavily weighted to keep contact as well as being held down by guide rails.
Anyone up for doing the sums? How much work is done per trip:
- assuming the train weighs 50 tons
- the railway is 7.53km long
- the average slope is 1 in 7.89, and the steepest sections are 1 in 5.5
- the average speed is 8km/h
And, assuming the bearing area of each tooth is 50x120mm, what pressure is applied to teeth on the 1 in 5.5 sections?
I suggest it's incorrect to think the Snowdon racks should look good. I think they're designed to last a certain number of lifts and then be replaced, sooner if inspection reveals excessive wear. Much the same is done with wire-ropes; they too have limited service lives and are treated as consumables. Their common-sense appearance doesn't matter: steel ropes can look OK from the outside but be cracked to hell internally. I think manky racks are OK too – provided they're still within specification.
Dave