Talk:Rail profile

message: At the same time merge the following two as well.
* Flanged T rail
* Grooved rail
Peter Horn 18:33, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge from Vignoles rail (date=April 2007) 

message: any person with two cents of brains already knows that steel is strongerthan iron.User:71.240.76.151/71.240.76.15114:17,30 september 2007(UTC)
Right, because strength is such a clear term in and of itself right Strength_of_materials. As a child I used encyclopedic references all the time to gain a broader more general understanding of the world. "Brains" does not equate to accumulated knowledge. In fact the choices of materials and design is what brought me to this page. I assume that the typical cross section i see when I see train lines is the Flanged T Rail or Bullhead? What I would like to see explained is the reasoning for this shape. I suspect there's "saving on materials" but I'm still curious as to how effective this profile is, and why it stacks up to alternatives. If anyone has the energy to expand on the engineering aspects of rail tracks I for one would be very interested. --Squee-D (talk) 03:28, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that steel and wrought iron weren't available in the first days. ﻿It was also a limiting factor in the design of early locomotives, particularly coupling rods and crank axles. Chevin (talk) 08:30, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy and paste from [[Talk:Flanged T rail]] 

message: I agree that these articles should be merged.Rosser (talk) 21:02, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So do I Peter Horn 23:06, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger 

message: Hi,guys,
I want to know the cross section of 137 lb/yd(68kg/m) rail. I think it is yea-saying that someone can do me the favour.My email is ykh_qrrs@163.com.
Thanks,
Michael
2-6-2008  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.75.12 (talk) 23:28, 1 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Appeal for 137 lb/yd rail cross section 

message: I suppose that this article is supposed to be about "rail (railways)", not just "rail profiles", as there doesn't seem to be an article called "rail". "Rail profile" isn't really the name for the length of the rail, nor is it a good title for a general article about the history of "rails".
At the same time there is an article called fishplate so some information here can be moved to that.FengRail (talk) 19:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I note there is a lot of discussion on rails, rail joints, continuously welded rail, and the like on the Rail tracks article. This kind of information would probably also belong on an article about rails. —fudoreaper (talk) 20:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge, rename etc

message: This was in the Danville, Pennsylvania article and better belongs here. alteripse (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved paragraph on first T rail

message: 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)
replies: text:  The two wheels of a train are usually connected by an axle. The two wheels of a tram may be connected by an axle, or in the case of a low floor tram, may be attached to the body of the vehicle.    Tabletop (talk) 09:43, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  A small number of railways had flat rails and cylindrical wheels, such as Queensland Railways until about 1980.    Tabletop (talk) 09:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Cylindrical wheels: sounds interesting. Any details anywhere of how they functioned wrt flange wear, etc? Come to mention it, after a brief search I didn't find anything about how the conical wheel profile interacts with the rail profile, although I'm sure I've read it here somewhere. --Old Moonraker (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

text:  The Sunshine Express magazine of the ARHS Queensland Division might have details.  Conical wheels and matching sloped rails where known about from very early in the railway age.    Tabletop (talk) 09:16, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

text: That second ref nicely sums up what I meant—thanks.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: the article Hunting oscillation has a description of the effect of conical wheelsets.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Tram and train undercarriage" image 

message: Curiously wikipedia has no article, and as far as I can tell no information on lengths of rail (except very historical at Iron rail. I'll expand this article with that information to make the decription include the third dimension. Though rail profile can still redirect to the relevant section the article will have to be renamed; a title isn't obvious. Maybe Rail (railways) ? 87.102.34.211 (talk) 17:12, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  A separate article is not necessary as it would be so small.  It makes more sense to have a paragraph in the Rail profile article such as:
=== Rail lengths ===
The original iron rails on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway wer very short, say 6 feet, which lead to a excessive number of joints.  Gradually manuacturing processes improved to make longer rails, eventually from steel.
At one time American rails were 39 feet to fit inside 40 foot long gondola wagons.
At a late time, British rails were 60 feet long.
Blahm blah, blah.    Tabletop (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Lengths of rails

message: The original iron rails on the Liverpool and Manchester Railway wer very short, say 6 feet, which lead to a excessive number of joints.  Gradually manuacturing processes improved to make longer rails, eventually from steel.
At one time American rails were 39 feet to fit inside 40 foot long gondola wagons.
At a late time, British rails were 60 feet long.
Blahm blah, blah.    Tabletop (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rail lengths 

message: Is there a difference between flanged T rail and vignoles rail - they have separate sections, but it seems like they are exactly the same thing?Sf5xeplus (talk) 04:58, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Question -Vignoles

message: From what I can see, we have three articles all covering roughly the same topic with considerable overlapping; Track (rail transport) Permanent way (history) and Rail profile.
Wouldn't it be more logical to have all this information in one place? Or at least better coordinated to remove overlapping?
Any thoughts? 
Please discuss here Talk:Track_(rail_transport)#Possible_merger, thoughts_needed
G-13114 (talk) 20:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible merger, thoughts needed

message: With tramway grooved rail, does the flange of the wheel ever touch the opposite side of the groove, or is the groove there to help keep out road material such as stones, bitumen and dirt?    Tabletop (talk) 12:10, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The article about hunting oscillation should answer your question. Other than that, dirt and small stones do get into the grooves but bitumen or asphalt (pavement) does not unless it is applied in a sloppy and careless manner or perhaps it breaks loose. Peter Horn User talk 01:29, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Grooved rail 

message: The lead includes a statement; "......a rail is hot rolled steel (once wrought iron) of a specific cross sectional profile (an asymmetrical I-beam) designed for use as the fundamental component of railway track." With regard to the wording in the brackets; wouldn't this make more sense if it read "(most commonly a symmetrical I-beam)? Obscurasky (talk) 11:04, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The asymmetry (non-symmetry) refers to a horizontal line of symmetry: the top differs from the bottom. In general, there is a left-right symmetry nowadays. I agree that should be more clear in the lead. -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel it should also include the term 'most commonly', or similar, since not all rails are I-beams - and the article does include a section on grooved rail. Obscurasky (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, with all symmetry & sympathy, but it should not be this complicated. Everyone can see the symmetry/non-symmetry from the first picture. Details (I'd include the "I-beam" thing) could go to sections. It's just a lead! -DePiep (talk) 22:00, 28 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Description in the lead. 

message: The contence of this article corresponds to :nl:Rail, :fr:Rail etc.--Ulamm (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Is there any reason why this article is called “rail profile” instead of “rail” or “rail (rail transport)”? It’s true that the article discusses rail profiles in great detail, but much room is also given to aspects of rails other than their cross-section. And the link with the display title “railway rail” (first sentence) actually points to “track”, which is not exactly about rails. —BlaueBlüte (talk) 06:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  “Rail profile” vs. “rail” 

message: The article tells us its disadvantages, but gives no reason why GB preferred it to flat-bottomed rail (FB) for so long.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.49.136.99 (talk) 10:49, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why did Britain use bullhead? 

message: Rails can also be welded together using a high current electric arc.  Do not know when this started or by whom?    Wimbledon32 (talk) 23:25, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arc welding