Talk:Railway track

Archive

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 US 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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

How does a rail work?

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

---

== 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)

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

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

"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)

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)

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

(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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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..