Talk:Rail transport

Another New Section that is desirable

I would like to see a section, or an entirely-new article, on "The Railroad in English-Language Popular Culture". For example, there have been maybe a dozen popular songs about the railroad, such as "Casey Jones"; movies about the railroads (just consider the many "Orient Express" movies); TV programs about the railroad. We had one here in the U.S. called "The Iron Horse (TV series)", starring Dale Robertson. When it comes to movies, there was one called the "Denver and Rio Grande".74.249.87.203 (talk) 05:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Terrible 'Further Reading' List

The "Further Reading" section is appalling. Articles in 60-year-old journals? I don't think so. This should be for GENERAL READING, not scholarly research. The list should contain general and widely available books on trains and railroads. Seriously, think about your audience: would you really tell someone off the street who wanted to know more about trains to look up THIS set of sources? I don't think so.

I say this because I am, in fact, myself looking for a general reference on the history of railways and am having trouble finding one that suits me. \ Fnarf999 \ talk \ contribs \ 22:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Energy efficiency

Statistics about energy efficiency need to be put in context. For example, it is not more efficient for a gigantic locomotive to move a small number of people or a small amount of cargo, than a smaller car or truck, even though the train's rolling friction is lower. -- Beland 17:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes. The General section begins with an extended and largely correct discussion of the energy efficiency of all rail transport and then segues into a paragraph on passenger transport. The segue -- "Due to these benefits, rail transport is a major form of public [passenger] transport..." -- is simply not true. Passenger rail transport is not particularly fuel efficient -- Amtrak gets around 45 passenger miles per gallon of diesel fuel while an intercity bus in the USA gets about 170 passenger miles per gallon when full (42 passengers). While obviously the bus is not always full, even at a 25% load factor it matches Amtrak. I should add that the Amtrak numbers are consistent with USA experience for the last forty years. European rail will do somewhat better because of electrification, but still won't beat the bus.

The reason is simple -- a bus weighs around a tonne per passenger, while the railroad car weighs twice that. Now, mistake me not -- I'm a railfan and don't generally ride buses, but to argue that passenger rail is important because of fuel efficiency is simply wrong. I guess, but can't cite evidence, that rail transport is popular because it is fast and comfortable. Highway busses, typically seating four across are narrower than a rail car with similar seating. A USA rail car seats around 60 in a total length of 26 meters; a bus seats 42 in half that. In many places the railroad is faster, both because it is straighter and because it travels at higher speed.

So, I propose a major rewrite of this section to distinguish between the advantages of rail in freight transport -- largely fuel efficiency -- and those in passenger transport -- speed and comfort -- and not mix the two.Jameslwoodward (talk) 13:19, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Um, while your numbers are all technically true, the bus seats more people per square meter precisely because it is less comfortable. Amtrak specifically has rail cars with high-density and low-density seating, depending on how far the passengers have to travel; commuter railroads have even denser seating, while subways have even denser seating. Long-distance buses have seating density a little bit higher than commuter railroads.  :-P If you made the seats as comfortably spaced as Amtrak, you'd get marvellously terrible fuel efficiency, far worse than Amtrak. Highway buses do *not* have "similar" seating to Amtrak in any way shape or form; I know, I've travelled on both enough.

So, frankly, passenger rail still is more fuel efficient. It's just that that fuel efficiency is being used to buy comfort, not volume. So I don't think any significant changes need to be made to the article on this count. 67.241.26.195 (talk) 02:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

"Iron way"

In many (but not all) languages, the literal translation of the word or phrase used for "railway" is "iron way"; for example, "chemin de fer" (French), "ferrovia" (Italian and Portuguese; the latter also uses "estrada de ferro") and Modern Greek "σιδηρόδρομος". (See the discussion in Wiktionary of this idea.)

Important - "Eisenbahn" = "iron road" or "iron trail" in the German language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.249.87.203 (talk) 05:25, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The article suggests that iron rails might have been invented by the British ("In the late 18th century iron rails began to appear: British civil engineer William Jessop designed ...") but does not make this clear. If this is indeed true, could it be that iron rails were exported all over the British Empire and led to railways being known as "iron ways" in various languages? This is just a conjecture of mine, but the similarity in many languages must have arisen somehow.

It's interesting to note, however, that English itself does not use "iron way" - has this ever been used in English? If not, this might mean my conjecture is false, although the words in various languages could of course be calques of another language. — Paul G 08:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Paul, yes, the term 'iron road' was used. For example a classic book on the early history of railways is 'Our Iron Roads' by F S Williams, 1852. I have put this in the further reading list. Paul Matthews 13:07, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Early railroads used iron tracks simply because railroads were innovated before steel became a mass-produced industrial commodity. Hence, words like "Eisenbahn" and the "Iron Horse" came into being while rails and locomotives were made out of softer iron. When tougher, stronger steel came into use, the terminology did not change. A huge number of miles of iron rails had to be removed and replaced with steel ones. Steel bridges also replaced iron ones.74.249.87.203 (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps in a humorous vein, the German airplane, the Junkers Ju 52 was sometimes called the "Iron Annie" - an anacronistic name.74.249.87.203 (talk) 05:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Section removed from 'General'

I have removed the bulk of the following from the 'General' section. It contains far more detail than for other countries, and throws the balance of the section out of kilter.

As compared to most developed European and Asian nations, intercity rail transport in the United States is relatively scarce outside the Northeast Corridor. Major U.S. cities with heavily-used, local rail-based passenger transport systems are New York, Chicago, Boston, Washington, D.C., San Francisco and Philadelphia. Other U.S. cities with significant light rail or commuter rail operations include Atlanta, Dallas,Los Angeles, San Diego, and Portland, Oregon. Amtrak, an agency of the federal government, is the sole nationwide passenger rail operator. In Canada, the government-owned VIA Rail system provides intercity service at prices that are usually higher than bus service but lower than air travel. Toronto, Montreal, Calgary, Edmonton, and Vancouver operate rapid transit and/or light rail services that receive millions of riders a year, and Ottawa has considered expanding its light rail pilot project.

Perhaps it would be better in an article discussing US railroads?

EdJogg 23:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Towards GA Status...

As may be seen from the header at the top of the page, this article has been selected for inclusion in Wikipedia 0.7 as an important article. This is because it is (or at least should be) the 'top level' article relating to railways/railroads (both terms redirect here).

However, before it can be included, the article really should be pushed towards 'Good Article' status, at the very least, preferably aiming for 'Featured' status.

With this in mind, several editors have started looking at the many areas where this article falls short. A substantial ToDo list has been drawn-up (see top of page), and some of the necessary work has already been started. I would like to encourage you to join in with this collaborative effort to improve the article.

EdJogg 10:09, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Scotland missing

Why is there no coverage in this article of Scotland's contribution to railway history? The Kilmarnock and Troon Railway was opened more than ten years before the Stockton and Darlington line. TheBourtreehillian 19:08, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

We were waiting for you to add it. B-) Actually, it's probably just that nobody's had a reliable source to cite when making such an update. Do you have a citation for the information you've added? I haven't had a chance to look through my own references yet. Slambo (Speak) 19:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

There's a wondeful video about a narrow-gauge railroad at www.tollgateproductions.com. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.23.137.9 (talk) 18:22, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

tons

The article mentions tons without specifying whether they are long or short ones. Could this be fixed so that a conversion to tonnes can be made? JЇѦρ 01:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Railroad not invented in America at all

In the “Industrial Age” the article inaccurately states that “In the United States from 1860 to 1910, the invention of railroads reduced transportation costs, and large manufacturing centers began to emerge, thus allowing migration from rural to city areas”

Railroads are a European invention, with the various forms of metal railroads, wrought iron and steel, being both invented in England, during the 19th century, and not at all in America. The first extensive railroad system, covering the whole country over many thousands of miles, built for transporting people, was again in England and not America, from the 1820’s to 1860’s. If, Railroad means more the train, rather than the track, that was also almost exclusively an English invention. The invention of Railroad has nothing to do with America!—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.25.58 (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Therefore in the “Industrial Age” part of this article the sentence should read, “In the United States from 1860 to 1910, the building of railroads reduced transportation costs, and large manufacturing centers began to emerge, thus allowing migration from rural to city areas.” —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.129.25.58 (talk) 18:55, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Long-distance railroads, including on the transcontinental basis, certainly were invented in the United States, and then followed by those in Canada. As just an example, a railroad line from New York City to Chicago is far longer than anything that could be contained in the British Isles or in France. I also get the feeling that someone might have earlier used the word "invention" when they really meant "innovation". Long-distance railroad systems in a massive network were certainly an American innovation, followed by the Canadians. 74.249.87.203 (talk) 05:33, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I think you are just saying "our long distances are longer than your long distances". Clearly such things are relative. If you have more space you can build longer railways in it. There is not much "innovation" involved. Large spaces, outside of America, have been traversed by railways as well, e.g. the Trans-Siberian railway. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.160.124.150 (talk) 07:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I beleive he is trying to say that the railroad simply helped America grow and produce more. I agree that the railroad was invented in Britain but it helped America tremendusly. The era of the Industrial Age was greatly improved or even started in America because of railroads. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bccards13 (talk • contribs) 22:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

See here: British Empire - the British also built railways in India, South Africa and Australia. They also built most of the railways in South America.

Rail components

I would like to add a section on the components of trains. Should I go somewhere else to do it? Refreshments (talk) 14:20, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I would start by putting it here. Later on if the section gets too large it can be moved to a separate section. Murray Langton (talk) 14:24, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Complaint

I wish to complain about the use of the expression "thus far". The word "thus" means "in this way". I have changed it to "so", which makes far more sense. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.240.45.234 (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What a terrible title -- "Rail transport" -- ugh!

What a shame that the elegant, romantic, and far more common term "railroad" redirects to an article called "Rail transport." Whoever made this change has a tin ear and an empty heart and should have his Wikipedia credentials revoked. Call this article Railroad, the term that for centuries has captured the imagination of children and adults alike. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.66.14.242 (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

The term "railroad" means nothing to me. The article title is perfectly fine as it is. 86.42.218.109 (talk) 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

"Railway" surely? I write in jest, but the word "rail" has been used, I imagine, to cater for both British and American readers without extended arguments Chevin (talk) 07:50, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The term rail transport is to convey the meaning of rail travel to trams, subways, and such. This allows the term to mean all forms of rail travel and not just one form. If it were to be changed to railroad or railway then what about the trams and the other forms of rail travel. It is much easier to group them all in one article than in several ones. Bccards13 21:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Like Fixed-wing aircraft, it is necessary to have a transatlantic compromise: a neutral title. You suggest "railroad" - but that would be wrong, because Wikipedia is not just an American site - it's international. In England we say "railway". The word "railroad" sounds very strange. Therefore we must find a middle ground - and the current title is just fine. EuroSong ^talk 19:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Rail Transport has a totally different meaning! Trains and trams go on main line or street railways just like cars, trucks and buses go on freeways and highways ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 02:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, since Wikipedia is an international site, and everywhere from Australia to Afrika they are called "railway", no problem, call it Railway because Rail transport just doesn't cut the cake, furthermore, in every language, and every book i have read related to subject, they are railroads or railways! either one is fine ∞ Moebiusuibeom-en (talk) 02:42, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The railway/railroad difference is not a simple UK/US split. Early railways in the UK were sometimes called "rail roads" (usually two words) and some US railroads were called "railway", e.g. Northern Pacific Railway. Can anyone explain the history of the two terms? Biscuittin (talk) 10:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Even if it were possible to explain the two terms, what good would it do to? Is there a general consensus to rename the article or are people just looking for something to argue over? Bhtpbank (talk) 14:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Section headed Research

Suggest that this item be deleted. It could the start of a worthwhile article if written by someone knowledgable. However the article referred to consists of only a few lines of text with references to some outside sites. Hence it seems to be merely link spam Chevin (talk) 07:05, 12 April 2009 (UTC) : I see this section has now ben deleted Chevin (talk) 14:37, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Now it's back again Chevin (talk) 08:07, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

clean up

I see my extensive clean-up of the article has been reverted. This article is in extremely bad shape. To name some of the problems: The lead does not summarize the article, it has a 'general' section, the 'history' section only deals with the pre-steam period and the dawn of steam, the history section also deals in too much detail with single events and fails to focus on main issues and newer history, the section on trains/rolling stock is a mere paragraph, the section on trackage is way beyond any proportion, there is a section on research (one sentence), there are two terminology sections, most of which are redundant to each other, there are seven images of rail tracks (at least five of these are completely redundant with each other). Also, there is no section of stations, goods stations, depots, railway companies, regulations, financing, impact, intermodality, freight trains, urban trains such as rapid transit, light rail and trams. The references (the few that exist) are incorrectly formatted, the images are incorretly formatted, the article violates the Manual of Style in many many instances, the article had the longest see also section I have come accross on Wikipedia (such sections are discouraged in the MoS, and , parts of the article were poorly written; sometimes the text was in need of removal of unnecessary words (which ease flow). All of these matters have been addressed in my clean up/copyedit/rewrite. All sections that were well written were kept as much as possible, while those that were poorly written were redone.

No-one has done much work on this article in a year now. As mentioned above it is in terrible condition, particularly with regard to structure and overfocusing. I cannot imaging anyone believing that this article is even close to in good condition. As for the FAC, it was a slaughter (back when the criteria were less strict than today). It was agreed upon among the reviewers that the article should never have been nominated. Currently, the article is very far short of the GA criteria (which are a lot easier to get by). For instance it fails on areas such as prose, MoS, major topics, focus and references (pretty much all but image copyright and neutral point of view). Also, I have clearly tried to address many of the issues noted in the to-do list, such as copyedit for grammer/style, ensure a more global perspective (way from finished, but somewhat better now), finding better photorgraphs, rearranging of sections, idientfy missing sections, added sections on type of rail transport, started with the impact section (not close to finsihed, still needs economy, social and environmental plus probably more), expanded infrastructure section to include stations and rewrote the lead to be more all-encompassing (not just introduce the section on trackage). If this article is ever going to get improved beyond its current state of chaos, someone has got to put in a lot of work to fix it up. I have not seen anyone else try lately. I am fully aware that there is going to be errors in my clean-up, and that some topics are still missing. However, by reverting, it is an indication that all aspects of the clean-up were unconstructive, including such things as copyediting of prose and formatting of references. I would ask participants to be more constructive in this is this article is going to be more than the shame of WP Trains. Arsenikk ^(talk) 08:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

It would be more constructive for you to have outlined your proposals before implementing them. What you have given above is little more than trying to achieve consensus after having done what you wanted to do. Your ideas on what constitutes "constructive" are less than helpfull. Bhtpbank (talk) 13:21, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Top rail transport companies by market capitalization

I have moved the section 'Top rail transport companies by market capitalization' to 'railway company'. The list has several problems: it is deals with a very specific aspect of rail transport, and should be treated in a suitable sub-article. The list is geographically biased, as it only deals with US and Canadian companies. Also, the list will never reflect the impact or size of railway companies globally, since most countries have state-owned railways. Finally, the list does not state the currency (although I presume it is USD; this must of course be stated outright). A much better way of measuring railway companies would be passenger and freight kilometers, line length and revenue (though the latter will also be biased, since high-costs countries will have higher costs per km of operation). But also this is better done in the sub-article. Arsenikk ^(talk) 22:13, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Connection from train to tramrails

In the article, there is no mentioning of the possible connecting from rail to tramrails. Particular for freight transfer (which uses large loads that are not easily moved), a railconnection is particularly useful. See also: CarGoTram

Note: the size of tramrails is also not given here, according to http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Why_are_train_tracks_the_width_they_are , the width of trainrails is 4 foot 8,5 inch or 1,4351 meters. Not sure what the width is of tram tracks. The height of train/tram tracks is also unclear to me.

217.136.150.215 (talk) 10:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The width between tracks (called rail gauge) varies between system to system and country to country. I have no idea where you are from, but it seems like you come from a country which uses standard gauge. Tram systems around the world use an array of different gauges, some use standard gauge, others broad gauge or narrow gauge. You may also be interested in looking at tramway track, rail tracks and rail profile to learn more about tracks in themselves. Arsenikk ^(talk) 12:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Discussion of vehicle safety template

You might be interested in discussion Vehicle safety template at Talk:Motorcycle. --Dbratland (talk) 02:07, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

James Watt contribution

James Watt's engine wasn't suitable for use in locomotives, and wasn't the first steam engine. It was preceded by the Newcomen Engine, which wasn't the first steam engine either. The sentence regarding James Watt therefore seems rather out of place.81.110.208.171 (talk) 15:25, 10 June 2010 (UTC)