Talk:Railway track/Archive 1

US Rails Jointed?

The article states that most US rail is jointed; I spent some time trying to find a source for this and could not. I believe, but could not substantiate, that most of the big US railroads have converted their main lines to continuously welded rail. Measured in miles of rail, it may be true that more of the US rail is jointed than welded, but I doubt it. I'm quite confident that, measured by usage, most of the US rail is welded. Also, the article states that the jointed-welded rail question is less important in the US because of the low train speeds. I think it's important to remember that the rail system in the US is primarily freight - it carries much more weight at lower speeds.--38.112.11.10 13:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely true for the Class I railroads, but I don't think CWR is so common on Class II railroads yet. Iowa Interstate Railroad, for example, is currently working on a project that will replace jointed rail with CWR in preparation for higher passenger train speeds in Illinois. I haven't seen a specific reference yet (there might be something at the AAR website, but I haven't found it there yet), but I suspect that CWR still isn't in the majority in US track miles. slambo 14:02, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

A note about the Hatfield disaster, which is mentioned towards the end of the article. Gauge-corner cracking does not refer to something that happens on curved track. Instead, it refers to the gauge corner of the rail - that is, the corner of the rail profile adjacent to the wheels' flanges. I believe that this section needs cleaning up to avoid the ambiguity.

track spacing

Is there a standard distance between tracks? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.40.174 (talk • contribs)

This is normally set by the individual railroads depending on the volume of traffic a track receives. Tracks in classification yards are closer together than railway sidings in remote locations, and sidings are generally closer together than double track mainlines. There are some sections of UP's mainline across Nebraska, for example, that appear far enough apart to allow a third track to be laid between them. Slambo (Speak) 11:42, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant, is there a standard distance between the two rails on a single track? ie, is there a standard train weel-width that can be used on all tracks? There seems to be no information on the page.

Ah, that would be standard gauge, 1,435 mm (4 ft 81⁄2 in). Curious that it's not mentioned... Slambo (Speak) 11:55, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4 feet 8 1/2 inch track width - why?

Why such an arbitrary number? How was this width originially chosen? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.192.239.51 (talk • contribs)

The common story is that this gauge is derived from the gauge of Roman chariots, but that is now disputed; I've seen other stories describing why this gauge was chosen that seem a bit more plausible. I'll have to look through my references again. Slambo (Speak) 15:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many stories to account for this gauge. To me, the most convincing is that the traditional gauge for horse-drawn carts was 5 feet (and that has to do with the width between the shafts of your typical carthorse!). In the northeast of England, where Stephenson learnt his trade, wooden tracks had long been laid to ease the haulage of laden carts from the coalmines, with wheels 5 feet apart. Later these wooden tramroads had iron plates fitted on top of the wooden tracks to make them more durable. The next stage was the provision of inside flanges (on the plates, that is, not on the wheels) to keep the carts "on track". The final development was the idea of transferring the flanges to the wheels and running the carts on top of the raised part of the plate, or "edge-rail" as it now came to be known (this not only reduced friction but overcome the problem of tracks becoming "clogged" with stones and dirt). Since these new rails, which replaced the inside flanges of the old plates, were 1 and 3/4 inches wide at the top, the space between their inside edges when placed on the old five-foot alignment was 5 feet minus twice 1 and 3/4 inches, i.e. 4 feet 8 and 1/2 inches. -- Picapica 17:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit

Rails in Canada, the United Kingdom, and United States are still described using imperial units. The examples in the diagram opposite are 113 and 95 pounds per yard (56 kg/m and 47 kg/m) respectively.

Removed the foregoing as Canada and the United Kingdom use metric units, and the article contains no "diagram opposite". -- Picapica 16:49, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could be picky, that the UK is definitely not absolutely metric, and the EU agrees!

Jointed Track

It is mentioned that the holes in fish plates (or joint bars) are oval to permit expansion. In US practice, the bolts have an oval section just beneath the head; this prevents the bolt from turning while the nut is tightened, and eliminates the need for a second wrench. I will also edit the info re: US jointed track, as this is not accurate.LorenzoB 05:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Exclusive UK Usage is Gibberish to North Americans

This article is utterly incomprehensible to a North American reader -- Unless one is from the UK, the word "sleeper" refers to a Pullman sleeping car. A mere paranthetical explanation of this or that term is insufficient -- there are so many that the entire article might as well be in Swedish. It's current "B" rating is overly generous.

I suggest that two separate articles be maintained, one in each dialect.Scott Adler 00:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good heavens! What an unusually belligerent observation. As a North American reader who had no difficulty getting used to the sleeper/tie nomenclature, I'm inclined to disagree with you. If you feel absolutely certain that an improvement is warranted, maybe you should give it a shot. Geoff NoNick 01:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the author has even bothered to include for Americans is to his credit. Personally I wouldn't have bothered. How could it be that the master race cannot read a simple dialogue in UK English? English people appear to have no problem interpreting incorrect use of the English language by Americans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 165.228.109.98 (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Both of my parents are British, and even I was distracted with the repeated use of the term "sleeper", which really makes no sense anyway. These devices do in fact tie (connect) the rails together. They certainly don't sleep! (Perchance to dream?) I agree with Scott that in the context of railways, the word "sleeper" naturally and logically refers to a railcar in which one sleeps. I took the liberty of replacing most (though not all) instances of the word with "tie". Cheerio, guv'nor! Captain Quirk (talk) 05:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted this change as it was made without consensus and does not comply with the policy for not changing UK<-->US English.

This is a particularly awkward word to handle. The article, as re-written, made no sense to a UK reader, since the normal UK usage of the word 'tie' means neck tie. 'Sleeper', by contrast, always refers to the rail track component unless otherwise qualified, even outside the rail fraternity, and the UK has "sleeping cars" (rather than 'sleepers').

If necessary, in each paragraph we can add (tie) as explanation...

EdJogg (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, I do acknowledge that the current article is a bit of a mess in this respect (the lead paragraphs switch (points? :o)) between the two terms fairly indiscriminately). EdJogg (talk) 11:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be careful here. This is not just about US and British practice. The US uses a number of railway terms, like gondola, which are not widely used by the rest of the world i.e. they are perfectly applicable to US practice, but not necessarily elsewhere. In addition, the major international body in this field, the International Union of Railways, has standard English terminology, like sleeper, which tends to be used by most non-US English-speaking countries as well as countries where English is commonly used as the (railway) business language (e.g. the Indian Railways seem to use English especially for their technical documents) and non-English countries where they translate their official railway documentation into English. The key question is not "do I think this is gibberish?", after all in most countries a gondola is a relaxing form of river travel, but "what do the authoritative sources across the world use?" --Bermicourt (talk) 13:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We certainly need to be careful; the casual reader will not admire text that is full of variants of terminology, when all he wants is to understand a bit about the track. However numerous terms in track technology are not understood across the Atlantic (and what about other English-speaking countries?)

The article is inconsistent about using the US term first followed by the UK words, or vice versa. Because of the sheer dominance of US commerce, I think we have to concede that American terminology comes first, and I think the best solution is to say something like "and the rails are supported on ties (British: sleepers)".--Afterbrunel (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is still quite a lot of work to get this article into shape.

"Because of the sheer dominance of US commerce, I think we have to concede that US terminology comes first..."

This is not likely to win you much support outside the US. "The sheer dominance of US" is the problem. This encyclopaedia is for the entire English-speaking world, not just North America. If the International Union of Railways has standard terminology then we should probably make it policy to adopt this, even if they happen to use a non-US term (perish the thought!)

It may not be very pretty using the alternative terminology, but sticking to one or other term can make the article much harder to read (for example, looking at the latest diff, if the sentence hadn't included "(fishplate)" I wouldn't have known what a 'joint bar' was referring to). For the sleeper vs tie issue, which is probably the most problematic, we should look to the IUR, if they are the body responsible for determining rail-related language.

EdJogg (talk) 10:45, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are at cross purposes here; we need references to both sets of terminology, but it is annoying for readers if we are inconsistent about which comes first. If we are going to be consistent, then I repeat my point about the US. Canada follows it and Australia broadly speaking follows it. I find that India and Africa and emerging practice in China tend to follow US terminology simply because they go to international technology conferences and American speakers tend to outnumber UK speakers.

I'm not sure what you mean about the sleeper vs tie issue. The International Union of Railways has no active North American membership, and although they produce a translation dicitonary of terms, I don't think they see their role as determining which one is "correct".

But if I have misunderstood your point, please elaborate.

By the way, I started a "permanent way" page with the intention of having similar coverage but in US and UK practice and terminology separately, hoping to avoid all this difficulty, but the system has put a rebuke there telling us/me not to do it. --86.9.94.39 (talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@86.9.94.39. Not true, the Association of American Railroads, Amtrak, the US Department of Transportation and Via Rail Canada are all affiliate or associate members of the International Union of Railways (UIC). The UIC's mission is "to promote rail transport at world level..." and one of their main objectives is to "promote interoperability, create new world standards for railways...". AFAIK there is no other authoritative body better placed to determine standard, international terminology. And, by the way, their standard terminology does not necessarily conform to normal British usage. That said, it probably makes sense for US-specific articles to use US terminology. But please don't force it on the rest of the world. --Bermicourt (talk) 18:53, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

North American Terminology should predominate

Here is a salient point about the railroading industry in the United States: The United States of America has more kilometers of usable (and frequently used) railroad tracks than any other country in the world. Yes, this mean more than Russia, Mainland China, Canada, Brazil, India, Germany, South Africa, or Australia. In most cases, the U.S. has more kilometers than any two of these countries put together. Along with all of these railroad tracks, there are more railroad cars, locomotives, railroad yards, etc., than in any other country.

Thus, American terminology should predominate -- and especially since the same (English language) terminology is also used in Canada. (Let's leave the Francophone Canadians out of this - they are wonderful people, and wonderful neighbors, too.) Most people overseas do not realize how close together the United States and Canada are economically, and especially in the areas of transportation and telecommunications. In railroading, the gauges of the tracks are exactly the same, and all of the other technical features are the same. There is a huge amount of freight traffic back and forth between the two countries, and there are passenger trains that go back and forth between New York City and Montreal every day. No problem.

When the first transcontinental railroad line was built by a Canadian company (either the Canadian National Railroad or the Canadian Pacific), because of the difficult terrain for construction north of the State of Minnesota, the Canadian company asked if they could build a shortcut track across northern Minnesota, and then figure out later where to build the tracks in Manitoba. The President and the U.S. Congress said, "Go right ahead". Those tracks got built, and the Canadian railroad company used them for decades.

Even now, there are Canadian passenger trains that go back and forth the northern part of the State of Maine every day to connect Quebec with the Atlantic Provinces. Anyone who is on a Canadian train there, whether he is Canadian, Croatian, Cretian, or Chinese - just as long as he doesn't want to get off the train in Maine - does not have to show a passport or any other kind of identification, does not have to do anything with the American Customs authorities, etc. Just stay on the train, which is what people want to do, anyway.

If you are a Canadian driver who wants to drive to the United States, or an American driver who wants to drive to Canada (I've done that.), go right ahead. No problems with drivers' licenses, auto insurance, fuel, or anything else. There are even freeways that connect New York City and Boston with Montreal, Toronto, etc.; and Detroit with all of the large cities of Ontario; and Seattle with Vancouver; and several other places where the freeways connect right across the border, including two other crossings between Ontario and Michigan; and another one between New York State and Quebec.

In telecommunications, for long time all of the technical standards for radio broadcasting, TV broadcasting, and satellite communications are the same. Want to watch a Canadian TV program? Just pick it up with a satellite dish or on a CATV system if you live close to the border, and vice-versa. Want to make a telephone call? Easy - the phone systems are very efficiently connected. That is particularly suitable, because the telephone was invented by a Canadian-born man who was residing in Massachusetts. Want to watch a nice basketball game? Oh, that was also invented by a Canadian-born man who was living in Massachusetts. Want to watch a good ice-hockey game? Wow, now, you're talking: the American Olympic ice hockey team vs. the Canadian ice hockey team. You want to warch men play ice hockey or chicks play ice hockey? You can have either one that you want!98.81.15.87 (talk) 03:39, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sheesh. All that just to ask "can we use 'North American' instead of 'US' when mentioning 'ties'?"!

The answer to that question is, 'yes', and I have modified the lede text to suit.

As for your other comments, I will have to choose my words carefully. The assertion that the US 'is bigger than' or 'has more x than' any other country is one of the things that really winds up people from other countries. Thankfully Wikipedia is bigger than that. It long ago recognised the differences between British English and American English, and to avoid edit wars has decreed that articles should (normally) use the language-variant of the first submission -- unless the article relates solely to either country, in which case the local variant should be used.

Rail-related articles are a particular nightmare, and experienced editors normally try to use neutral terminology (eg 'rail' instead of 'railway' or 'railroad') where possible. As discussed above, the UIC is the international body, and so we should be using their standard terminology in preference, since the United States is only one of the many countries represented within the UIC. -- EdJogg (talk) 12:56, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have just come across this article and got confused with the random switching between "non-US term (US term)" to "US term (non-US term)". It seems no consensus has happened, so in lieu of any preceding action I have been "bold" and attempted to standardise the article. I have used the format "non-US term (US term)" as this is the first format introduced in the article. Please rant here or just edit away if you think otherwise :) 80.42.201.106 (talk) 18:13, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Feste Fahrbahn?

Is there an English term for the German Feste Fahrbahn? Something like "solid track" perhaps? [1] shows tracks on the German Cologne-to-Frankfurt line (300 km/h) which was built without any track ballast. --Qualle (talk) 07:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Babelfish translates it as "Firm roadway." I suspect something like "fixed roadbed" is more accurate. Slambo (Speak) 11:05, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe what you mean is what we call Embedded Track here. Basically, it is rails mounted in some form of concrete panels, without ties. Skabat169 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The English term is "ballastless track". The term "slab track" is frequently used, but "ballastless track" is preferred so as to include forms such as pre-cast ladder unit track sections. Afterbrunel (talk) 19:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance question

How long do rails last? Are there pieces of steel laid down in the 1800s that are still carrying trains today, or must they be replaced on a more frequent basis? Does lack of use help or hurt longevity? -- Beland 15:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good Question. A typical rail on tangent track can last for approximately 600 million gross-tons. According to AAR the average Class 1 Freight Train last year was 3,163 tons, meaning the track will typically last for 189,693 trains. At 40 trains per day, this would be 4,472 days, or about 13 years. But all of this is dependent upon the size rail chosen (110 lb/yd vs. 136 lb/yd), quality of the ties and ballast, axle loading of the trains (100-ton and above cars punish the track), curves (rail on curves far faster), and other factors (metalurgical make-up of the rail and such). Also, once a rail has been used for mainline it is typically relaid somewhere less important, like a yard or industrial sidings. I doubt you could find any rail from the 1800s in part due to failure, and in part due to higher axle loadings today. I have seen some rail around from as early as the 1940s, but always in low axle loading situations. Here is a shot on Railpictures of some 1960s rail still serving on the NEC. Hope this helps. Skabat169 14:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There might just conceivably be very short sections of rail from 1895 - 1899 in use at buffer stop ends in remote sidings, but in general the answer is no. Part of the reason is that rails were of inferior metallurgical composition in those days, and also of obsolete section, so that joining them to adjacent modern rails is inconvenient.

However rail steel is of a chunky cross section, and usually builds up a protective patina of rust, so that prolonged lifetime without use is feasible; in the UK you can see that where ancient rails have been used as fence posts, for example. Lack of use slightly helps longevity, therefore. --86.9.94.39 (talk) 15:24, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rail like that would not be in maintrack. Rail from that age isn't Mackie or Vacuum treated it would be considered excepted track, keeping train speeds below 10mph. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.206.181.61 (talk) 03:56, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How does a rail work?

It is requested that a mechanical diagram or diagrams illustrating {{{1}}} be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.

In discussions of rail technology, I often see mention of "flanges" being either on the wheel or on the rail. This article could use a quick basic discussion and probably a diagram of one or more configurations of wheel and rail, showing how the train is kept from falling off the track. It might also be worth discussing why flanges are apparently so small - forces involved, etc. This article mentions 75-degree flanges and 1:20 tapers, and it would be helpful to explain such terms. -- Beland 17:11, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This ties in with wheel profile, studied at BR Research Division in the sixties, along with suspension design and the prevention of hunting. Also from the Railchat forum: The rails in all track apart from 113A vertical S&C, are set so that the rails lean in towards the 4' at an angle of 1 in 20, this is referred to as being inclined. The reason this is done is so that in conjunction with a similar angle on the treads of the wheels a self centering action is set up. So that the wheel sets tend naturally to run down the middle of the track rather than rubbing against one of the rails.

It also acts as a differential on curves in that by moving outwards so the outside wheel is running on the part of the tread near the flange that has the largest radius, while the inner wheel is running on the smaller radius near the outer rim. A balance is thus achived in that the outer wheel which has to roll further than the inner wheel, while fixed by the axle into making the same number of turns. By virtue of running on the large radius does indeed travel further. 81.152.64.151 (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: Canadian Pacific Railway is the only North American railways to use a 1 in 40 plate-cant.

Formula

V_{max}={\sqrt {\frac {E_{a}+3}{0.0007d}}}

looks better than the picture used in the article, i think:

File:Vmax formula.jpg

Prevalence of Bullhead rail in the UK?

The article suggests that Bullhead rail has not been installed in the UK since the 1950s, whereas the prevalence of Bullhead rail in the UK today (from my observations) seems to suggest otherwise.

I can't quite figure out what the situation is. Is Bullhead still used to replace existing track, or is there actually track in use on the mainline today that is more than 50 years old? 217.155.20.163 23:05, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably both. If there was large scale renewal rather than repair of as short length, then CWR would be used 81.152.64.151 (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is still a substantial extent of rail in situ in the UK dating from the 1950's, on tertiary lines. Until recently (at least) a small volume of new bullhead rail was being installed on the main line network in exceptionally heavily-worked sharp curves, where the enhanced lateral flexibility of bullhead made it much easier to manipulate; and the London Underground network still uses it extensively for the same reason, including in many surface locations. --86.9.94.39 (talk) 15:27, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of US Fishplates?

It looks like most of the fishplates in the pictures are not from the U.S. Where I live, the fishplates do not look like that. They are just a plate with 4 holes in them for spikes. I can get a picture of them, but I don't have one of my own pictures right now. Tyb525 16:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those type of joint bar/ fish plates typicaly still on 85lb and 100lb steel. You will not see those on modern mainline track in North America. You might have better luck looking at a yard or branchline of some type. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.206.181.61 (talk) 03:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see what I can dig up this week. I should be able to get a decent photo of one sometime. Slambo (Speak) 17:30, 5 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Track dimensions

What are the dimensions of the rails used on the UK high speed lines & what is the interval between sleepers
[ i'm wanting to work out the deflection of the rail when a 10 tonne axle is in the middle of the gap}
anyone know please?
--83.105.33.91 12:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably depends on spec of rail 81.152.64.151 (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oval Bolt Holes

It is mentioned that the bolt holes in fish (angle) plates are oval to allow for expansion. I believe that this is incorrect. The portion of the bolt shank nearest the head has an oval shape, which engages the oval in the plate. This prevents the bolt from rotating, so that only one wrench is required when tightening a bolt. LorenzoB 01:32, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct. --86.9.94.39 (talk) 15:05, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Removed after a mere 8 years. --haraldmmueller 11:10, 1 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldmmueller (talk • contribs)

Concrete vs Steel sleepers

From Rail Chat: How does track using steel sleepers which are pretty well on the surface of the ballast react to changes in temperature?

Steel sleepers have their ends turned down into large spades that dig into the ballast to prevent movement, so no real problem. The first design of steel sleepers known as crimp ended did not have this feature, and are much less stable. They are for this reason treated differently for stressing and critical rail temperature calculations. (If you have ever seen the little blue book on heat precautions, the photo on the front of that is of crimp ended sleepers.) Being less than an outstanding success crimp ended sleepers were not used much and are I believe now quite rare. 81.152.64.151 (talk) 19:01, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formula Questions

The text mentions unbalanced superelevation of 4 with a waiver; when that happens, do you change the 3 in the formula to 4? Is there any maximum for E sub a?

When rail is being upgraded for higher speeds in the US, it frequently is not convenient to move it to an alternate right of way, so whatever curvature exists can limit the speeds. It would be nice if the article would more clearly explain in clear terms, if one sees a 90 degree turn in Google Maps that appears to have, say, a half mile radius, what the maximum speed that is achievable on that right of way would be. JNW2 (talk) 02:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are actual tables on this to figure out how to surface/design curves. I can give you some basics.

Here is the recipe for high speed curves. High elevation in the body of the curve, Minimal degree of curve, gradual run outs of variation of both elevation and degree.

Superelevation: The difference in the cross level of rails in the body of the curve, measured in inches or Centimeters.

Elevation curve run out: Measured run out from the start to the spiral to the body of the curve.

Balanced: Trains can travel an equilibrium speed. A speed that places even forces on both rails. Depending on the elevation, degree of curve, grades and weights of average trains this determines this speed.

under balanced: Just about all curves are constructed at 1 to 2 inches under balanced, to allow for variations in reduced speed from equilibrium IE freight traffic. An overelevated curve will cause trains slower than equilibrium speed to place the most force on the low rail. This could possibly cause an artificial lift on the high side the causing the curve to go out of spec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.206.181.61 (talk) 04:22, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Continuous welded rail

FYI - I have created Continuous welded rail as a redirect, so you no longer need to use an anchored link to this article when referring to CWR. EdJogg (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FRA track classes

Added an FRA source for the US track classes. There are some suspect comments in that list, though, that need fixing. Seems to me that mentioning the need for improved grade crossing warning is beyond the scope of the FRA track classes which address, strangely, track (and not signalling, etc). --plaws (talk) 16:41, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From the article:

The class a track is placed in determines speed limits and the ability to run passenger trains.

I don't believe this is entirely true. I have no citeable source, but I believe things like crossing warnings and signaling are entirely separate from track class and that those affect speed limits more than anything. I.e., you could have Class 9 track, but without signals, you're not going to go over 49 mph. Anyone help a feller out here with a citation? --plaws (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch

Removed two items: one link to a Dutch language article (what was purpose of this?), and one hidden link to a Dutch language article (very old item). (What is it with these Dutch?) Links were added: [2] and [3]. --VanBurenen (talk) 13:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rail fastening systems

As the topic was split between rail tracks and railroad ties I have created a new page for these things.

Once the article is in good state it can be considered for re-inclusion in one of the two articles - if that is what people want.FengRail (talk) 22:02, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Structure of Article

I am rather uncomfortable with the flow of this article. An uninformed visitor to the page wants first of all to know about the main components of track, and why they are like that. That person may go on to read the historical material but that ought to come after the description.

I am a bit uneasy about clickety clack too. I think the language needs to be more professional. Afterbrunel (talk) 20:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plates connecting rails are not "fish plates" but "Flitch plates". This is a commopn error. Ther are no fish involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.207.53 (talk) 15:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No fish may be involved but "fishplate" is the standard, correct term in the UK and countries that have inherited British practice. According to the Oxford dictionary, in addition to being "a flat piece of metal used to connect adjacent rails in a railway track" it can be "a flat piece of metal with ends like a fish's tail, used to position masonry", and I suspect the term may have carried over into railway use from there. SCHolar44 (talk) 06:10, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution of Track design

I think it would be useful if someone could write something about the evolution of track design. I'm not well read on the subject, but I understand that track went from solid cast iron, to wroght iron, to bridge rail, flat bottom, and so on. If any one has aan extensive understanding on this progression it would be worth putting it on Wiki. Obscurasky (talk) 22:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is covered elsewhere. There were plate rails and edge rails. The initial were fishbelly, then longer ones were produced at Bedlington(?) There were initially all sorts of profiles. Flat bottom was pioneered in the USA and brought to the UK by Vignoles. Steel was pioneered at Derby station by Mushet for the Midland Railway. Chevin (talk) 06:55, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a fair amount of this in the article already. I agree a proper treatment of the evolution would be helpful; it would be necessary to clear this article of that material. There is actually an enormous amount of material in this article that is broadly true, but inappropriate here.

Is there a concensus for a clear-out, starting a new article on the evolution issue and restricting this article to present day practice and a very brief overview of odd variants? There is too much about maintenance too -- there is a maintenance article elsewhere.

All this would involve a lot of surgery and I would be reluctant to do it if people object; some feedback would be valued. --86.9.94.39 (talk) 15:09, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You'd get my vote. I've looked around Wiki, but there's no single place where the developement of rail design is detailed.

Explosive hardening of rail

The Wikipedia article Shock hardening claims that explosives are used to harden rails. Is there any information on how this is performed that could be added to this article, or perhaps elsewhere? JBel (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Found a reference for applying the technique to frogs. --Old Moonraker (talk) 13:58, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oooo, that's cruel! (See Exploding animals) -- EdJogg (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Frog updated, with acknowledgement to User:JBel for the suggestion. Acknowledgements are also owed to EdJogg, for enlarging my knowledge of animal diseases just before my breakfast. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:55, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome! :o)

(Back on topic...) It makes sense that explosive hardening could be applied to the relatively small surface area of a cast rail component such as a frog, but I can't imagine how it could be applied to a length of rail. Would it be reasonable to clarify the mention in Shock hardening to say "cast rail track components"? -- EdJogg (talk) 10:59, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've added "components", with specific link to "frog" in the footnote. Will that be sufficient?--Old Moonraker (talk) 11:05, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm, I'd seen that (before making my previous comment) and I don't know the answer. I think my concern is to distinguish between running rail and other stuff, as 'rail track components' would even include wooden sleepers; however, even qualifying with 'cast' assumes the reader knows how the components are manufactured, so I leave it to your decision. EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I see what you mean. Done. --Old Moonraker (talk) 18:52, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explosive hardening is AFAIK only used for the V-crossings and K-crossings of turnouts and diamond-crossings, which is a very small proportion of the track as a whole. Tabletop (talk) 08:58, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Combining train and tram rails

An article section should be added, explaining on how tram and railtracks are joined. This particularly ie in the intrest of moving cargo (ie using freight trams, see CarGoTram Already made an article: Difference between train and tram rails which can be linked in section KVDP (talk) 08:30, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Tram and train undercarriage" image

The detail of how the cone of a train wheel follows the profile of the rail is very important and this new image, although representing a good deal of effort, doesn't do justice to the topic. In fact, it seems misleading. With some regret I'm suggesting a revert here.--Old Moonraker (talk) 08:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've gone one further and reverted it. If the brown shapes in the lower diagram indicate the wheels, then they are the wrong gauge for the track illustrated in the top diagram -- they aren't actually sitting on the rails. If they don't represent the wheels, then I'm afraid I have no idea what the diagram is supposed to show.

Incidentally, the diagram will not replace the rail cross-section photograph, which is important in its own right.

EdJogg (talk) 13:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.--Old Moonraker (talk) 13:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)This image (right) would be a better one for showing the differences between the rail and tyre profiles, but it mainly shows the reason for a different flange profile for tramway track.

EdJogg (talk) 13:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've really removed it now. I had just removed the same diagram from Tramway track but discussed it here, and then was baffled to find the same diagram on this article! All sorted now. -- EdJogg (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And I'll do the same at Difference between train and tram rails. --Old Moonraker (talk) 08:40, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be courteous, I have discussed the issue with the author (see here) and I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions... He suggests there are some more diagrams to come. -- EdJogg (talk) 09:32, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Portable track

Good addition. Don't have any references, but we should mention construction contractors (in general) and military railways. Temporary tracks were used when building railways/canals/roads (at least in the UK, 19th/early-mid 20th centuries), and there was an extensive temporary railway network, on both sides, during WW1. Which reminds me, there is a particular type of sectioned track associated with military railways -- haven't had time to look it up but it has an article here.

David Shepherd rescued a steam loco and carriage from a railway in southern Africa, now at East Somerset Railway? This was an NG forestry line, and in the documentary that covered the rescue of the stock at the line's closure, they demonstrated how the sidings were moved around and laid at astonishing speed according to where the timber was being harvested. Possible link from here?

Perhaps worth noting that derailments were common, and rerailing 'equipment' was always carried on the locos.

EdJogg (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When building railways, contractors often lay temporary tracks, which are replace by the "Permanent Way" when things are completed, hence the term "Perway". For example, a 900mm gauge line(s) were laid for the construction of the Sydney Airport Rail Link only to be replaced by standard gauge tracks for final completion.

Tabletop (talk) 10:22, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rail metallurgy

I'd like to see a little more on the metallurgy of rails.. I'll look for material myself.. feel free to help.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.202.72 (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Grinding of rail.

I would like to know how to create new or add to an article to include production and spot rail grinding.

I could use my expertise with the help of others, create something.

Sub topics to include: Railways and contractors who operate rail grinders. Rail shape/profile to match wheel condition. Corrective vs. preventive vs. predictive preventive grinding. preventive grinding cycles: eg 20 million gross tonne Pre and post grind inspection

Rail damage and defects that can be corrected or prevented by rail grinding: RCF : rolling contact fatigue. Gauge corner shelling. Corrugation of rails. Head checking of rails. Rust, Rail slivers, Spalling. Plastic steel flow.

Thanks

BM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.206.181.61 (talk) 03:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just cast your expert eye over the two existing articles: High Speed Grinding and Railgrinder, but remember that any changes must be from reliable sources and not your own knowledge. You could even set about the WP:MERGE process, to put the shorter piece into the larger, if you think that there's too much overlap. In the meantime, I'll add the page "Rail grinding" as a redirect.

Finally, the standard exhortation from the management to get an account is here. All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 05:53, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know this discussion is 4½ years old now, but I've just started a discussion about the rail grinding redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2015 March 13#Rail grinding. Thryduulf (talk) 16:42, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Article moved to Track (rail transport) ~~ GB fan ~~ 04:48, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rail tracks → Permanent way — The previous article on "permanent way" I moved to "Permanent way (history)", it covers the exact same topic, but only the history of. So the two articles should have similar names. Currently it is called "rail tracks" , and the lead section gives numerous regional alternatives, "permanent way" is in common use, unambiguous, and is also used widely in the railway industry - so it is good from an accuracy point of view. it also lacks any confusion as to what it is describing (the whole track infrastructure) compared to "rail tracks" which is less clear. I would like to see if this is an acceptable move. Sf5xeplus (talk) 00:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I don't think 'permanent way' is a widely known term among the general public. The term is pretty meaningless and is not obviously related to railways. I would'nt be against the two articles being merged though. G-13114 (talk) 01:18, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Would "Rail tracks (history)" be an acceptable title then for Permanent way (history) ? I also tend to favour a merge, if anyone else wants to support that too.Sf5xeplus (talk) 02:29, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult... AFAIK the term permanent way is universally preferred among those who have an interest in railways, either professionally or as a hobby, and there are a lot of us! But it's probably unknown elsewhere. At the very least, shouldn't this be at railway track or similar rather than the plural? That grates on my ears far less than does the current title. Disagree with the merge idea, there's quite enough material at Permanent way (history) for a separate article, but again I think the name can be improved, it's not a disambiguation at all. Andrewa (talk) 05:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mild support. I absolutely agree that "Rail tracks" is the wrong term and is probably a well-motivated Wikipedia attempt to avoid a) choosing between the North American "Railroad tracks" and the rest of the world "Railway tracks" and b) using "Track" which would require a bracketed disambiguator. So "permanent way" is definitely preferable. However, I have 2 reservations which is why my support is "mild". First, although "permanent way" is a proper railway term and should have at least a short article, it actually means the track plus its foundation, railway signage and fencing. Secondly, there may be a better alternative which overcomes Andrewa's objection by using "Track (rail transport)" which a) uses the universal word "track" found in dictionaries, railway encylopaedias and glossaries and is used by the IUC and b) has a neutral modifier which is also a valid railway term, not a Wiki fudge. I know we sometimes baulk at using brackets, but it is an accepted solution for exactly the sort of situation we face here. --Bermicourt (talk) 07:10, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I quite like "Track (rail transport)" - as stated - it's less of a kludge, when I see "rail tracks" I'm not quite sure what it's supposed to be about (not sure why - it's just inelegant)Sf5xeplus (talk) 07:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Track (rail transport) is logical and the best suggestion yet. It is a genuine disambiguation, see track. It neatly avoids the WP:ENGVAR question of railway vs railroad. Andrewa (talk) 13:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But it brings up WP:ENGVAR by adding transport. If this is the better direction, why not Track (rail)? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was unaware that there were any ENGVAR issues attached to rail transport as a disambiguator... see rail transport and Category:Rail transport. Andrewa (talk) 19:14, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Neither was I - isn't it a universal term? And "rail transport" is not only in very common use (unlike "rail tracks") but is also an official UIC term and category. "Rail" on its own is far less clear - it's just part of the track. --Bermicourt (talk) 20:42, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

engvar: I don't think WP:ENGVAR is an issue in this topic area, we have Railroad switch and Railroad tie with no big complaints. I assume "railroad transport" is the US-english equivalent of "Rail transport". Even as a UK-speaker I'd prefer to term Railroad tracks as a title to the current. UK, India and Aussie variants are easily handled in the lead as has been done elsewhere.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:32, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Transportation is the preferred US term, transport is used in many, but not all, other countries. Better to avoid using either when possible. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:33, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We can't say "track (transportation)" - it could be anything, but "track (rail transportation)" seems clear enough. I wouldn't like "track (rail)" because it suggests to me that it's about the metal rails, rather than the whole lot.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If I am to understand correctly, permanent way is principally an industrial term, it's certainly not the term employed in common vernacular and day-to-day speech. Although I live in North America, I would be happy to support railway track.--Labattblueboy (talk) 07:44, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

comment - I just worked out why I don't like "rail tracks" - it probably should either redirect or disambiguate with Rail trail. "Permanent way" doesn't seem acceptable, so could someone at least move the page to one of the acceptable suggestions given above.Sf5xeplus (talk) 23:19, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - it is not that common. How about just taking the s out, so leaving with Rail track? Simply south (talk) 23:50, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per WP:JARGON, "permanent way" is not a familiar term, or one that a user is likely to think of or guess at. —Sladen (talk) 00:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose move to permanent way and support move to alternative title, see below. Andrewa (talk) 20:23, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alternative title

So it's clear that "permanent way" is not acceptable, but there seems to be some agreement that "rail tracks" is not the best choice. Could the discussion move on to what the name should be, please. Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:02, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we seem to have a rough consensus against permanent way. Railroad track and track (railroad) seem the obvious contenders, the other to be a redirect, and keeping the existing redirect from railway track. Andrewa (talk) 01:31, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support "Railroad track" obvious choice, without requiring brackets, probably both the most widely used common (and technical use, excluding 'permanent way'). Google books likes it too [4]. pdf based search also shows it even more common than 'permanent way' Sf5xeplus (talk) 01:57, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Anything with "railroad" is a non-starter as it's WP:ENGVAR and only used in North America. "Railway track" is probably more widely used internationally, but would be opposed by Americans. The use of "railway" and "railroad" is generally avoided which is why we have a problem in the first place. "Track (rail transport)" as suggested above was chosen because it's neutral (so I thought). --Bermicourt (talk) 05:49, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

que? WP:ENGVAR doesn't disallow a regional variation, we already have several examples as titles, there are two listed above ^^^ and even more elsewhere. Still, if people are going to be like that then use Track (rail transport). Anything, just change it from what it is now .. Sf5xeplus (talk) 06:33, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Track (rail transport) since it's nicely consistent with the Rail transport title. (Didn't know railroad was USA only, so I guess this is the best alternative. We can always make redirects.) --JaGa^talk 09:30, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here an alternative argument. Trams are not considerred trains yet are covered by rail transport. Doe they run on railways\railroads? Simply south (talk) 11:16, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trams run on rails, arranged as tracks. —Sladen (talk) 14:44, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that makes an argument against using "railroad tracks" then, if so makes sense. As such I'll support "Track (rail transport)" (or use transportation if necessary) in an attempt to obtain critical mass.Sf5xeplus (talk) 18:25, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it probably illustrates why the current title of rail tracks is not as bad as imagined. —Sladen (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support track (rail transport). Ticks all the boxes IMO. Progress! Andrewa (talk) 20:18, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Given that track (rail transport) does not exist and is not used as an existing redirect, I would be hesitant about its presumed usefulness in this situation. —Sladen (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In that it's a disambiguated name, it would be unusual for it to exist as a redirect unless it had been previously used as an article title and was being preserved so as not to break incoming links. No problem IMO. Andrewa (talk) 01:28, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support current title, railway track or track (rail transport). --Labattblueboy (talk) 01:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's wrong with the current title? It's been here for several years and no-one's complained. G-13114 (talk) 02:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well they are now. Read the discussion above which answers your question. --Bermicourt (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- track (rail transport) -- seems a pretty good compromise, avoiding the majority of the pitfalls. But can't see any reason to add '-ation': just makes the name longer and more clumsy! -- EdJogg (talk) 12:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support -- track (rail transport) for reasons outlined above. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Possible merger, thoughts needed

From what I can see, we have three articles all covering roughly the same topic with considerable overlapping; Track (rail transport) Permanent way (history) and Rail profile.

Wouldn't it be more logical to have all this information in one place? Or at least better coordinated to remove overlapping?

Any thoughts? G-13114 (talk) 20:06, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Each of the three articles is presently near the upper limit of preferred size, so merger might produce an undesirably large article. The articles appear to have appropriate references to each other, although locations might be improved. I suggest the most appropriate improvement would be evaluation of overlap, with an eye toward reducing duplication where a link might provide speedy transfer to the appropriate article.Thewellman (talk) 21:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on the size issue: articles of high importance eg Afganistan, Sun, History of science etc are quite a bit bigger. Sun is a Featured Article example - much could be learnt from it, also see Star. Additionally I suggest below moving some of the info in Track (rail transport) to a separate article. You're probably right that the article shouldn't be too much bigger.Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Thanks for bringing this up.

Firstly Permanent way (history) is UK centric, that needs fixing (or renaming to "Permanent way (UK history"). In general a merge into "Track (rail transport)" of a fixed article I would support, there's a lot of material duplicated.
Secondly Rail profile I would recommend merging into a new article "Rails (rail transport)" that needs creating - note we don't actually have an article on rails themselves - eg the evolution of lengths etc.
- I would then summarise the "Rails" article in "Track (rail transport)" with a main link , would also suggest moving the "continuous welded rail" section into the "Rails" article. I'd guess that a full "Rails" article would be too big for merging.

I'd like to see a Track (rail transport) article with a full global history, at the same time it could make sense to have separate articles covering the history from individual countries perspectives (US, UK, and European histories have some significant differences).Sf5xeplus (talk) 21:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts.

The 'Track (rail transport)' should be left roughly as is and be the 'mother' article.
I agree with the idea about rernaming the Rail profile article as 'Rails (rail transport)'. Perhaps with an abreviated section on the main Track (rail transport) article with a link to the main article.
Since the permanent way article is basically about history, it should (space permitting) be merged into the main Track article as a history section in an edited form. An awful lot of duplication could be cut out to make it fit. Or failing that, moved to something like 'History of rail track development' or something, with an abreviated section about history on the main Track article.

G-13114 (talk) 00:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be a little careful before embarking on major surgery. First "rail profile" is a specific railway engineering term that should not be watered down by renaming it as "rails". Also, whilst "permanent way" is UK-centric, we mustn't forget that in the early days at least, UK railway history was railway history and therefore forms the backdrop to railway/railroad history elsewhere. Finally "permanent way" and "track" are not exactly the same. According to my railway engineering encyclopaedia permanent way is the "track, complete with ancillary installations, such as rails, sleepers, ballast, formation and track drains, as well as lineside fencing and lineside signs." I agree there is overlap, but we need an expert or two to sort this out in a way that results in a tidy, logical and accurate set of articles. --Bermicourt (talk) 21:03, 30 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a good idea as each article is long enough already and a lot of info will be lost. Peter Horn User talk 18:22, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Layout

Where do we talk about layout? I was curious about curve terminology, i.e. the fact that a two degree curve is sharper than a one degree curve, and where the degrees are actually measured, and what the relationship is to radius. I found the answer easily enough with a google search, but it clearly ought to be discussed in Wikipedia somewhere, along with other details of railway surveying.

It's somewhat amusing that we've got a whole article on Track transition curve, but no coverage of normal curves at all! (That I can find.)

Does a "Layout" or "Surveying" section in this article make sense? (I might just get bold and start adding it.) —Steve Summit (talk) 21:41, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There are indeed gaps in the encylopedia - we don't have an article on "rails" (!!!) but have an article on "rail profile".

I might suggest an new article on "track design and layout" incorporating the old page "transistion curve", and link it from this page as a main article. Some more info on minimum curves and slopes would be greate. Good luck if you can get around to writing it. I'm still working on rail fastening system and railroad tie also will need work after that. If you can start a new article for "track geometry" (good title?) at least one person will be grateful (me).83.100.230.57 (talk) 17:14, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Railway track layouts and Template:Rail tracks might contain links to useful, and possibly mergeable pages.83.100.230.57 (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello; hello, we already have minimum railway curve radius and grade (slope). Peter Horn User talk 18:31, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I was also puzzled by the lack of Track geometry page which is the main subject of track design that holds all the concepts of horizontal and vertical layouts of the track together. So, I started it and things can be added more to that page. I used the title "Layout" here in this article. Not sure if using the word geometry as the section title would be too heavy for this article.Z22 (talk) 05:22, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminium tracks

The aluminium article states that aluminium is used for railroad tracks. I assume that the word model is missing. For a childrens railroad I can think of a aluminium track but not for a real train. Am I right? --Stone (talk) 20:32, 4 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Probably. Although light, and a good conductor of electricity, an aluminium rail of reasonable cross-section would be far too soft to take what is essentially a point load of some 10 tons without permanent deformation. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where, if at all, is an expansion joint called "breather switch"?

The section on CWR contains the following:

 ...a breather switch (referred to in North America and Britain as an expansion joint)...

Where, then, is the name breather switch used? --haraldmmueller 11:04, 1 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldmmueller (talk • contribs)

Argument for CWR on BR questionable

Under "Jointed track", we read: ... breaking of the rail head (the running surface). This was the cause of the Hither Green rail crash which caused British Railways to begin converting much of its track to Continuous Welded Rail. This is almost certainly wrong: The main reason for CWR, when they finally got it to work, was that it drastically reduces the maintenance cost. All railroads I know of did not need such a drastic event to start converting to CWR - and therefore, I also doubt that BR needed it ... --haraldmmueller — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldmmueller (talk • contribs) 11:14, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Missing explanation of "track" as a defined segment of a rail infrastructure for safety and logistics purposes ("track 29")

The article only considers track to be the physical structure; but "track" as used on stations and signal boxes ("track 29") is not at all explained, with consequent terms like "occupied track"/"free track" etc. --User:Haraldmmueller 14:43, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Track (rail transport)

Re Track (rail transport)#Traditional track structure
@Redrose64: I did not try to do anything at all. I simply did not notice that something went wrong with where the "→" settled in. It is like going too fast ahead. Peter Horn User talk 23:03, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 August 2019

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved (non-admin closure) ~SS49~ {talk} 05:36, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Track (rail transport) → Railway track – WP:NATURAL, “Railway track” is a natural disambiguation for the subject covered in this article. Needforspeed888 (talk) 01:49, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Per WP:ENGVAR. The current title does not use a certain variety of English while "railway track" certainly does - it's called a "railroad track" in the US and "railway track" in Europe. It's better to use the neutral term._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:56, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - I assume people will continue to search in the search field via "track"; but then "railway track" will not be near the top (I just tried it with "reactor" - you do not see "Nuclear reactor"). Ok, this is more a problem with WP's search engine; but still a problem. Also, because of the railway/railroad problem. --User:Haraldmmueller 17:46, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for the reason stated above. While I generally like using natural disambiguation, in this case it's not possible, as "Railroad track" is the American term and "Railway track" is the British term. We can't pick one over the other at this point without there being a massive fight about it. Best to just leave it where it is. Rreagan007 (talk) 23:09, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose move; owing to WP:ENGVAR we try and use "rail" where possible. —Sladen (talk) 06:20, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Obahn

@Peter Horn: Your edits are violating MOS:DUPLINK. You introduced two links to Obahn, one with the b capitalized and one with it lowercase. The former is a redlink that should be fixed to use a lowercase b, so it links to Obahn. The latter should not exist as it is a duplicate. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: You did not let me finish what I started, now there is no duplicate link any longer. see OBahn [de] 21:48, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I see your edits look much better now. Sorry about jumping the gun, you are right that I should have given you a chance to finish working on your edits. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:28, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: The key to sorting out the interlingual confusion was de:Spurbus#O-Bahn The English article Guided bus needs to be expanded with text from de:Spurbus Peter Horn User talk 03:08, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Trainsandotherthings: For the record, O-Bahn Busway is linguistically (Languages) linked t0 de:O-Bahn Adelaide etc. Peter Horn User talk 20:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Name consideration

I am somewhat perplexed! This article was created 2003-09-18. I can understand the want and need to take advantage of and use as much neutral wording as possible concerning the various uses of English. Examples in this article actually bring cohesiveness between the two with glossing. My consternation is that on 2015-04-22 Railroad Track (a song) was created. I did not look at the popularity of the song or place in history, outside the particular industry, but anyone should be able to see that there is backward disambiguation that appears to be a result of editor battling.

I did not notice any notification that this article was written from a British English perspective. The article is listed as being created by @G-Man: (apparently moved from "Rail") who listed as living in the UK, and I missed any comments from this editor.

Yes! Articles on Wikipedia can be edited without mercy. What I see a problem with is a battle over English usage (from discussions) that is so deep we end up with a song carrying the title of a world understood meaning while this article is unnecessarily named and disambiguated.

Considerations over article titles are relatively clear that we can avoid somewhat stupid arguments with discussions about what a place ought to be called, instead asking the less contentious question, what it is called (Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names)).

The term, either "Railway track" or "Railroad track", is universally known. This brings in "Use commonly recognizable names" as a first consideration when deciding on an article title. Parenthetical disambiguation is to be used when no other solutions lead to an optimal article title. The author could have resolved some of this by placing "Varieties of English template" on this talk page but this omission should not be a battle. There is long-established consensus that seems to indicate: "For an international topic, use the form of English that the original author of the article used" so this would include the title name.

COMMONALITY states: When more than one variant spelling exists within a national variety of English, the most commonly used current variant should usually be preferred. It also states: Use a commonly understood word or phrase in preference to one that has a different meaning because of national differences.

The subject does not need unnecessary parenthetical disambiguation. The subject is world-renown, either as "Railway track" or "Railroad track", (not as a song) from very early history, and I would surmise to almost every person. The song carries the notation: "For the physical track used by railroads, see Track (rail transport). In discussions, I noted that title neutrality was a concern and not by a local agreement of appeasement. I did not see how widely this was advertised but in almost every instance I have been involved in the common name is preferred using the criteria listed above. This means that the consideration should be "Railway track" or Railroad track".

I would like (if possible) to receive some unbiased input on this to determine if my thinking is logical and there are grounds to seek some reversal of what seems to be a confusing mess of titling and editor battling. I will leave mention of this at the other title. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:16, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I never really thought about it before, but you are right that it is strange that this article is not called railroad track or railway track. You might be able to get more input by posting at WT:TWP as well. A requested move might be in order here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:39, 15 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: @Trainsandotherthings: Thanks, especially for mentioning the project. I do like to try to get feedback on the article first. It now seems strange that with my interest in railroad-related articles, having created articles like R.A. Long Building, being a major contributor to Robert A. Long, the Long-Bell Lumber Company (that included the Lake Charles and Leesville Railroad that became the Lake Charles and Northern, Union Station (Columbia, Tennessee), Kansas City Southern Depot (DeQuincy, Louisiana), Vicksburg, Shreveport and Pacific Railway, Richard H. Keith and possible future RR articles, Henry W. Putnam (Brooklyn Elevated Railroad, W.R. Pickering (Louisiana Central Railroad and others), and Samuel H. Fullerton involved with (possible future articles) Gulf & Sabine Railroad Co., Warren, Johnsville, Sabine R. R., Little Rock, and Sheridan & Sabine River Ry. I am somewhat at a loss why I have not joined the project or added it to articles. Many of my articles could use work and additional citations so listing them could be a benefit. I suppose it is "better late than never". -- Otr500 (talk) 06:01, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've moved the other article (because, duh!); and I'll get this moved to be at Railroad track, gimme a moment. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 13:26, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From my reading. Moving it to 'Railroad track' over the current title would appear to go against WP:ENGVAR:

Use universally accepted terms rather than those less widely distributed, especially in titles. For example, glasses is preferred to the national varieties spectacles (British English) and eyeglasses (American English); ten million is preferable to one crore (Indian English).

If a variant spelling appears in a title, make a redirect page to accommodate the others, as with artefact and artifact, so that all variants can be used in searches and linking.

From what I can see, the article's current name is in line with the policy guidance. Why move it? G-13114 (talk) 14:31, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There's no issue with having it at an appropriate title that happens to be one variant of English (so both Color and Colour would be acceptable, it just happens to be the article needs to be at one of them). In this case, "railroad track" or "railway track" would both probably be fine. But given that disambiguation should be avoided if not absolutely necessary, and given that either option is both a natural and recognisable name for this (WP:CRITERIA), and that the only disambiguation would be with Railroad Track (song), which is clearly not the primary topic, then the titles which match the criteria should be preferred over some part of the MOS (article title policy takes precedence over the MOS) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:36, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comment as railways were invented in the UK, we should use the British English term railway track. The best way to thrash this out would be via a move request. Mjroots (talk) 16:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mjroots: Should we also infer from this that color was invented in the US? I think any variant is entirely acceptable, and if you can (you of all people do have the tools for it), just boldly move this to one of them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 17:05, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RandomCanadian: The difference here is that Mother Nature herself invented colo(u)r. Yes, I have the tools to do the move, but this really needs a decent discussion before a move is made, to establish that there is a WP:CONSENSUS for the move. Mjroots (talk) 17:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]