Talk:Railroad tie

message: 2022-April-3: I was (am) surprised to find no etymology section, at least for the British term (and I am British!); the reason for the US term seems fairly obvious, but I've always wondered where our term comes from! Any lexicographers here?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by G6JPG (talk • contribs) 12:34, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  1 

message: Which is the more common name?
*Railroad tie
*Sleeper
Simply south 00:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go for sleeper, as it is used throughout the Commonwealth I think, whereas Railroad tie would be largely limited to America (the U.S. of).  Philip J. Rayment 01:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Naturally, you're British. There are more railroads in North America than in the UK, Australia, and wherever put together. Besides, the term crosstie is far more descriptive and less confusing. A "sleeper" is a Pullman sleeping car.Scott Adler 08:23, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

text: How can you think because of the fact there is more railways in North American than in the commenwealth (may or may not be true) is actually releated, In the UK train is used far more daily than in north america because of the short journeys e.g. train to london in a max of 2 hours, and if you think because of the fact there may be more railway lines in the North America than Commonwealth (which is unreleated) id like to point out whose language it actually is ENGLISH spoken by those in england and the rest of the UK not American (who you all think the english speaking world follows) 84.65.20.199 (talk) 08:10, 29 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Are you really certain that there are more railroads (in terms of track length, I suspect) in the U.S. than in the Commonwealth? Besides, I would rather try to determine which term more people use, not which country has longer rail tracks. But no matter if tie or sleeper, it would improve the article a great length if one term was consistently used through all of it (except the synonyms portion of course). --Funkysapien 01:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regardless of what continent/country has more miles of track, more trains running on them, or more sleepers, ties, what have you, the article should at least be consistent with itself, for the benefit of the reader.  It should also be consistent with its title, which at present is "Railroad tie".  Unless anyone has real objections, I'll change the article to use "tie" consistently - if folks want a different term to be used then the article's title should be changed. --Badger151 (talk) 22:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What happened to this? Why are all the headers back to "Sleeper" instead of tie? --98.155.15.93 (talk) 04:11, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The headers are not back to sleeper instead of tie because they were never tie - the headers you refer to are new content about special types - the reason they are titled "sleeper" is that none of the literature used to refer to them uses the term "railroad tie".Sf5xeplus (talk) 12:31, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

text:  Given that there is a British Standard Specification for Railway Sleepers (BS500:1956) the title should be changed to Railway Sleeper.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.195.93.118 (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sleeper I would go with. I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:57, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common 

message: To complete this article we should perhaps have a description of steel sleepers and their use
:Done. Biscuittin 20:19, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Steel Sleepers

message: What are their dimensions? Scott Adler 08:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That depends on the Gage in use, and changes around cirtan structures such as switches and bridges. (Larek 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I don't know about the US, but to give you an aproximate value (I don't think they will differ too much around the world), here in Germany wood sleepers are 6"x10", and concrete sleepers are 12" x 8" on their outer edges. Both types are 8,5 feet long. --Funkysapien 01:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All my life, I have heard of railroad ties referred to by the term 7 X 9. Whether those two terms refer to the inch size of the railroad tie or something to do with the length of the railroad tie or the cross face measurements of the end of railroad tie is a mystery to me.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.13.154.3 (talk) 13:34, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Size?

message: The article refers or infers twice to the use of Concrete sleepers as the replacement for wood and most common type. Instead of 'an alternative mostly seen in Europe'
"but concrete is now widely used" 
"Concrete sleepers have become more common"
Firs I contend that this is not properly sourced, as the 1 and only source listed is for Wooden ties.
I believe this idea Concrete tie prevalence to be untrue, at least in my geographical area [Michigan USA]. I assume that the original creator is from Europe where concrete has seen more use. The 150 foot section of test track at Pandrol_Jackson/Jackson_Jordan's Ludington MI faculty being the largest installation of concrete sleepers I have yet seen.
Wood sleeper are shown only in a Historical/negative light with none of the positive benefits.
Also none of the negative aspects of concrete sleepers have been shown. (Larek 18:22, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Their prevalence obviously does differ heavily with location. I live in Germany and have been around german railways for 25 years now, and I can't remember seeing a single portion of newly laid track (and that includes track replacenment) here during the last 15 or 20 years where wood sleepers were used. Of course this is only my personal observation, and I have no reference for it. But, what ARE the 'positive benefits' (is there such a thing as 'negative benefits'?) of wood sleepers as opposed to concrete sleepers? And what are the negative aspects of concrete sleepers? Seriously, because I don't know any. (More expensive maybe? but thats as far as my imagination goes.) Cheers --Funkysapien 01:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The disadvantage is, that a concrete tie weights 300 kg compared to about 70 kg weight of a wooden tie, so it's very difficult to get one into your car ...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.139.236.246 (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The only advantage that I can think of for wooden sleepers is possibly quieter track, as they'll absorb better. These days they're probably not even cheaper. The only time I ever see wooden sleepers in the UK is on older track that hasn't yet been relaid (oddly enough, some of the relaying on the Settle-Carlisle line in recent years has used steel sleepers), or occasionally former worn main-line track going into sidings. An exception I've noticed sometimes are wooden sleepers around points - am I imagining I've seen that, or is it real and is there a reason for it? : Riedquat (talk) 22:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe wooden sleepers are still used in sets of points because they can be cut easily to any length. If you are using concrete sleepers you need a few dozen moulds to cast the few dozen different length sleepers to fit. Wongm (talk) 23:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Concrete ties provide less kinetic energy absorption ("dampening") of the vibrations of the train's rolling stock than do wood or plastic composite ties.  This may result in higher rail wear and higher wear on a train's rolling stock.  Also, concrete ties are susceptible to electrical corrosion whereas plastic composite ties and wood ties are not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.0.34 (talk) 05:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would there be a difference in brittleness (and would it matter)? --Badger151 (talk) 22:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Concrete Sleeper being "more common"

message: (I'm not correcting these error myself, because I'm not a native English speaker, so I'll
just point out the errors in the section, and hope that someone with better writing skills
will include them)
Orignally no tie plates were used, but its hard to find examples nowadays. I've seen directly
spiked rails on a siding of the Cumbres & Toltec and also (but a special spike type) on some
siding in Bavaria, Germany (don't remember the exact location)
Virtually all rail uses tie plates nowadays and for a very long time.
European-style railroads DO NOT use screws which are driven through the tie plates to hold the rails,
unlike American-style railroads:
Wood ties, America: some nails only attach the tie plate to the tie, other nails clamp the rail and extend
through the tie plate into the wood
Wood ties, Europe: 4 screws attach the tie plate to the tie, a clamp with a screw hold the rail, but
this later screws don't extend into the tie, it's quite sophisticated compared to American style, a picture can be
found here
http://www.oberbauhandbuch.de/oberbauhandbuch/oberbauarten/standardbauarten/k-s-49-s-54-holzschwelle.html
Steel ties, Europe: tie plate is integrated
Conrcete Ties, Europe: tie plate is similiar to that on wood ties, sometime attached with 2, sometimes with 4 screws,
on newer rails the more modern clamps are used which I think are also used for American style concrete ties  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.139.236.246 (talk) 13:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Errors in section "Fastening rails to ties"

message: Found the link to www.polywood.com to be incorrect.  the company is out of business.  I did a Google search for polywood and found the current supplier for polywood lumber.  The current correct url is www.polywoodinc.com 
I have contacted them and they still in business.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tpletcher (talk • contribs) 18:41, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated link 

message: This is a handy image, steel, wood and concrete sleepers all in one photo, how did they manage that? Probably not encyclopedic to add it to the article though, I suppose..Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Image

message: This edit  which I reverted. Some of the claims are erroneous. 
However some of what was changed regarding concrete ties, has partial truth in it. However there is no point changing the text to suit what is believed without references. If it can be reliably referenced then the truthiness of the claim can be checked. Otherwise, don't bother.Sf5xeplus (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Concrete and wooden tie issues

message: I've added a "multiple issue" template to this article - the key problems are:
*Lack of historical information
*Lack of a suitably detailed sections on wood and concrete sleepers (the sections should be much longer than those on unusual sleeper types)
*Potential issues with the differences between US and practice in other parts of the world.
*Lack of references, specifically on the wood and concrete sleeper types - eg concerning the harmfulness of creosote, use with track detection circuits etc
*A section on "ballastless track" which should be in an article of its own - slab track in particular is not a railroad tie.
Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Multiple issues

message: Do plastic sleepers burn, in say a bushfire?
:: So long as plastic sleepers do not crack, glowing embers will have difficulty in lodging in a sleeper and causing it to ignite !    Tabletop (talk) 03:22, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  Plastic sleepers may have large dimples on the sides and bottoms; so long as the sleeper remains smooth, embers would have difficuly lodging and causing the sleeper to catch file !     Tabletop (talk) 13:02, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do plastic sleepers burn ? 

message: 5,280 ft/2640 = 2 ft  and 5280 ft/1.5 ft (18 in) = 3520 So what is it? Peter Horn User talk 16:49, 23 September 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arithmetic 

message: railroad tie, crosstie (American English), railway tie (Canadian English) or railway sleeper (Australian and British English) is a rectangular support for the rails in railroad tracks. Generally laid perpendicular to the rails, ties transfer loads to the track ballast and subgrade, hold the rails upright and keep them spaced to the correct gauge.
Wooden ties are used on many traditional railways. In the background is a track with concrete ties.
Railroad ties are traditionally made of wood, but prestressed concrete is now also widely used, especially in Europe and Asia. Steel ties are common on secondary lines in the UK;[1] plastic composite ties are also employed, although far less than wood or concrete. As of January 2008, the approximate market share in North America for traditional and wood ties was 91.5%, the remainder being concrete, steel, azobé (red ironwood) and plastic composite.[2]
Tie spacing may depend on the type of tie, traffic loads and other requirements, for example 2640 concrete ties per mile on North American mainline railroads[3] to 2112 timber ties per mile on LMS jointed track.[4]
Rails in the US may be fastened to the tie by a railroad spike; iron/steel baseplates screwed to the tie and secured to the rail by a proprietary fastening system such as a Vossloh or Pandrol which are commonly used in Europe. 42.0.7.237 (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you compare US and UK Sleepers? I Like The british Rail Class 483 (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ff 

message: https://www.newcivilengineer.com/archive/us-rail-sleepers-sought-to-keep-foot-and-mouth-pyres-alight-05-04-2001/
©Geni (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Source for use in foot and mouth