Talk:Quadruple-track railway

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lists Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

High Speed Rail regarded as quadruple track?

Shinkansen, LGV, ICE and other newly-constructed double track dedicated to high-speed trains would be regarded as quadruple track.

I would dispute the above statement and suggest that 'quadruple track' can only refer to four parallel tracks on the same alignment, not two double track railways on separate alignments (even if they roughly follow the same route). –Signalhead ^< T > 23:47, 27 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any fixed definition of Quadruple track ? Please advice me if there is a definition. Defining most narrowly, dispute raised by Signal Head is true.

But I suppose that we can say "Paris - Lyon route is quadrupled by creating new high-speed line", right? And in the official definition of Shinkansen in Japan, Tokaido shinkansen is categorized as Tōkaidō Main Line. In this sense, Tōkaidō Main Line has quadruple track, double-track Shinkansen and another double-track conventional line. Leinsd (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting - not Sorting?

The article does not mention the possibility for manual / computerized allocation of tracks. That is, regardless of train characteristic, it is assigned the "most free" of the two tracks.

In other words, not pre-assigning a track for a particular train, but instead looking at each situation individually.

Even if such an operation isn't used, the article could explain why. Either way, a mention of this mode would be nice. CapnZapp (talk) 20:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC) –m==Verification of tracks==[reply]

PRR in PA

Routes such as the PRR can have their present status verified by viewing the aerial photos on Google Maps.Dogru144 (talk) 06:49, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

NYC in NY

The Water Level Route was incorrectly listed at the beginning as being four-tracked. Rather, in New York State west of Albany the route tends to be two or three-tracked. Syracuse appears to be an exception as four-tracked. The Hudson River section from Poughkeepsie, south to the base of the Bronx is three-tracked. References: Google Earth.Dogru144 (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Water Level Route was most certainly four tracked between Schenectady and Buffalo. See 1942 Syracuse Division Map and 1936 Buffalo Division Valuation Map. This is also evidenced via your same-referenced Google Earth by the fact that the old signal bridges (being replaced now, but still visible on GE) are much wider than the two tracks they now cover, in fact they happen to be about 4 tracks wide in most locations, although there is one that covers as many as 7 tracks. I haven't yet found an exact date when the 2 tracks were removed, but it was sometime between 1957 (ref: the bypass built around Batavia NY was built 4 tracks and opened then) and 1975 (ref: 1975 Penn Central Buffalo Division Track Chart. →ClarkCT^Talk @ 10:46, 12 January 2015 (UTC) ;[reply]