Talk:Third rail

message: There needs to be at least some disambiguation. This page should be titled "Third rail electrification" or "Third rail (railways)", or something similar.
Furthermore, there is no mention of the use of overhead third rail, especially on the B&O, and in Grand Central Terminal to allow electric locomotives to bridge gaps at interlockings.
70.105.217.151 (talk) 17:52, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Change title of page? plus no overhead third rail

message: I replaced the sentence "However, such incidents are usually the result of carelessness on the part of the victim" since it was not cited, and conjecture.  I replaced it with another statement, "However, the hazard can be mitigated by use of signage or safety barriers", I think that is in the same spirit of the original sentence, and wholly supportable without citation. Also I removed "The principal hazard is probably associated with level crossings (grade crossings)".  "Probably" does not belong in an encyclopedia, it could be added back in if it can be cited. Zatoichi26 (talk) 16:53, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety section 

message: I added the section: 
Technical Advances Lowers Running Costs
Waterspaces (talk) 13:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section Added 

message: What on earth were you thinking writing that part about people urinating on the third rail? To urinate on a live high voltage conductor is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS and the fact that it will harm you is NOT A MYTH. Have you tried peeing on an electrical fence, if not then I can tell you that is WORSE than touching it. Urine is highly electical conducting due to the concentration of ions in it. It's important that WikiPedia doesn't contain such reckless statements that may mislead people. You cannot base WikiPedia on shallow TV programs such as mythbusters. M99 87.59.103.226 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 14:44, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Myth" are you people CRAZY??? 

message: I think the description of the Bordeaux system here is inaccurate. Where the system runs along streets the third rail is flush with the road surface and is exposed. There is a system in operation which makes the rail live when and only when a vehicle is above a particular section. I found this information some time ago on the Web, but I'm sorry I can't cite references now. I don't want to get involved in changing anything, but I thought I would flag this in case someone else might like to. 89.240.47.42 (talk) 12:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bordeaux system 

message: I am worried about the flow of the information on the page, where after a cursory introduction, we launch into a huge history section. A reader coming here for information would be put off by having to wade through that first. I will alter the sequence so that the description comes higher up. Also there are a lot of anecdotal statements that do not add to understanding and are not encyclopedic, and I will thin them down a little. --Afterbrunel (talk) 05:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Flow of page 

message: The only speed tests that have taken place for third rail technology happened on the London to Brighton line during the introduction of the Gatwick Express.  This line has a maximum of 100mph and so there has not been any tests above 100mph.  The paragraph 
"The end ramps of conductor rails (where they are interrupted, or change sides) present a practical limitation on speed due to the mechanical impact of the shoe, and 160 km/h (100 mph) is considered the upper limit of practical third-rail operation. The world speed record for a third rail train is 174 km/h (108 mph) attained on 11 April 1988 by a British Class 442 EMU."
contradicts itself by stating 100mph and then suggesting a faster time. 
Unless someone can provide evidence for the above, the statement should be changed to state it has never been tested above 100mph  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sailor iain (talk • contribs) 12:05, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The practical upper limit is not exactly 100 mph.  This is merely the conveniently rounded figure that is considered to be the upper limit.  A train travelling at 108 mph on a line that has a line speed of 100 mph is not considered to be exceeding the speed limit because UK mainland railways allow a leeway of 10% before a driver will be disciplined. –LiveRail < Talk > 13:24, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  100mph maximum speed test 

message: Third rail systems require high-level platforms.
121.102.47.215 (talk) 14:14, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: FALSE. The platforms on the southern region of British Rail are no different in height to any other. Please provide evidence to support your statement. The standard hight of a platform on British Rail is 915 mm (ARL) and this does NOT change in third rail areas. Furthermore, the height the height is not lower is areas where overhead electrification is installed. Bhtpbank (talk) 13:15, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

text: What happens is that in stations the third rail is placed further away from the platform edge (in the "six foot"). This means that if a person were to fall from the platform onto the track it is less likely that they will also be electrocuted. Bhtpbank (talk) 13:17, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I know of plenty of examples of stations where the third rail is adjacent to the platform.  If I was able to upload pictures, I could supply plenty.  86.139.78.218 (talk) 17:58, 23 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Platform height 

message: The article claims that the voltage of tha Italian side was halved which in turn halved the power of the trains.  This cannot be the case.  In general electrical terms, halving the voltage also halves the current.  This means that only a quarter of the power is drawn.  With DC electric motors the position is complicated because the lower back e.m.f. of the slower running motor means that the current is a bit larger than half.  The power will still be reduced by more than half though. –LiveRail < Talk > 13:18, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  {{anchor|dubious}}Halving of Italian voltage 

message: We've got a sentence that says, some of the earliest systems used top contact, but later developments use side or bottom contact, which enabled the conductor rail to be covered.  The NYC Subway has a top-contact third rail, and it has a cover over it.  There's a good illustration of this at .  So, some rewording of that sentence is probably called for.  -- RoySmith (talk) 04:02, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Top-contact and covered? 

message: "The Docklands Light Railway (DLR) uses a third rail which is tiny in section compared with the usual; thus fewer substations are required."  This is counter-intuitive.  If it is somehow correct, would someone please explain why?  The Wikipedia article for the DLR has no mention of this feature.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.122.49.58 (talk) 14:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, so I have added a "citation needed" tag. Biscuittin (talk) 21:59, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fewer feeds for smaller third rail? 

message: Why are sliding shoes commonly used instead of metal wheels?  It seems like this would generate a lot of friction and thus wear and tear. Would wheels overheat due to the smaller area of contact?? -- Beland (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This has already been answered above.  The contact shoe is made out of cast iron.  Cast iron has a very useful property in that it is self lubricating when run in contact with the steel rail. They do, of course, wear out just very slowly.  –LiveRail < Talk > 18:20, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Besides, even if you went to a wheel, you would then have to have something in sliding contact with the wheel, like the brushes that bring power to the rotor in an electric motor. You'd just be moving the sliding contact point to someplace else and adding complications (bearings, etc.) that are proven to be unneeded. Jeh (talk) 07:28, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shoe vs. wheel 

message: Is the section highly biased? Although the name is "Benefits and disadvantages", the texts in the section are most disadvantages and potential problems of third rail. I noticed User:LiveRail (currently the account is blocked) removed one paragraph about the advantages of third rail. Should the paragraph be reverted to main article or someone write something about the benefits of third rail in the main article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.69.115.184 (talk • contribs) 07:52, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits and disadvantages 

message: Talk:Third rail/Archive 1#"Electric rope"? catenary should have read overhead catenary Peter Horn User talk 22:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Electric rope"? 

message: The Coverboard with its supports needs an article or a section in this article Peter Horn User talk 20:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Safety cover may be more appropriate because not all covers come in the form of a board. Peter Horn User talk 21:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: See also Shroud#Safety shroud Peter Horn User talk 04:17, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  Shroud#Safety shroud → sheath insulator Peter Horn User talk 16:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coverboard 

message: The  comment voltage in itself is not dangerous, so this doesn't make sense. Power (volts times amps) is dangerous, but the same amount of power is always used, whether at 2000 V or 20,000 V. What's really going on? confuses working power to the train and shock power to a trespasser, which, assuming constant resistance of the body, is proportional to the square of the voltage (P = V² / R by one of the forms of Ohm's law). The higher the voltage, the higher the risk of electrocution to someone touching both the third rail and the current-return rail. I rewrote the relevant sentence in an attempt to make the difference clearer. Another thing which I didn't compute in, but should also be of concern, is the risk of dielectric breakout at the skin, which also increases with increasing voltage. — Tonymec (talk) 03:36, 13 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Safety" section — dubious-discuss