Talk:Rack railway

Panama Canal Mules?
I don't know whether this really fits here, but the mules on the Panama Canal run on a rack railway. — Johantheghost 11:23, 30 October 2005 (UTC) And a 1524 mm gauge track at that. So, why not include it? --Peter Horn 02:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

It is already included in Systeme under:


 * Sonderbauarten: Bei den Treidellokstrecken des Panamakanals werden zur Überwindung der Höhenunterscheide an den Schleusen spezielle Zahnstangen verwendet, die jedoch auch auf dem System von Riggenbach beruhen. Daneben gab es noch eine leicht veränderte Bauweise der Riggenbachschen Zahnstange, der Bauart "Riggenbach-Klose" genannt wurde. ("Copy and Paste")

--Peter Horn 16:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Photo at top of the page
Image:Lausanne Metro Track Closeup

--Peter Horn 15:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone please confirm which type of rack this is and add a note to the photo caption. AHEMSLTD 17:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC) It's a single blade Abt rack. See Systeme

--Peter Horn 02:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Zahnradbahn and Zahnradgleise can not agree if it is a "von Roll" or an "Abt"

--Peter Horn 02:30, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

--Peter Horn 15:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Two users in Zahnradbahn tell me that this is a von Roll system

--Peter Horn 21:29, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is a Von Roll. -Shikyo

List of cog and rack railways
--Peter Horn 02:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

JANE'S WORLD RAILWAYS (hard copy) lists the railways of Switzerland and other countries and, where applicable, tells which one of the Rack systems is (or was) used. It may be usefull to include this info railway by railway. --Peter Horn 02:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

--Peter Horn 02:43, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Rack systems

 * 
 * 
 * 

How would one copy one of these from the originals in Systeme? --Peter Horn 02:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

--Peter Horn 16:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Rimutaka
The Rimutaka Incline was listed as a rack railway, but properly, it's a fell system. Should it be removed?--Limegreen 01:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * If Fell is put in a separate category, then that category will have but one member. Better to keep it with all the other "Grade Assisted" technologies.


 * Tabletop 03:56, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem with that. Was just concerned that there might be some rack railway purists or something (who might not have previously been aware of the nature of the Rimutaka Incline). It's better now that it's linked through to the article anyway. --Limegreen 04:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Patent
Would someone read the text of this patent and see if any info contained therein is of relevance to the article?


 * Locomotive Steam-Engine for Rail and Other Roads.

At a minumum, the early date seems useful. The patent text documents that rack systems predate this 1836 patent, which is much earlier than the current Rack Railway article mentions. Zzorse 03:00, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Austria

 * Erzbergbahn, Styria de:Erzbergbahn

Germany

 * Wendelstein Railway de:Wendelsteinbahn

Switzerland
Peter Horn 01:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Appenzeller Bahnen de:Appenzeller Bahnen
 * Bergbahn Rheineck-Walzenhausen (RhW) de:Bergbahn Rheineck-Walzenhausen
 * Chemin de fer Martigny-Orsières, de:Transports de Martigny et Régions
 * Dolderbahn (Db) de:Dolderbahn
 * Wädenswil-Einsiedeln-Bahn de:Wädenswil-Einsiedeln-Bahn
 * Well, at least some of them got translated or otherwise covered. Peter Horn User talk 14:01, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * For clarety I have removed all articles that have already been translated, etc. Peter Horn User talk 14:44, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Rack railways category?
Is there any category equivalent to de:Kategorie:Zahnradbahn on German wiki? In case there is none, I suggest to create it. JanSuchy 09:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Limiting Gradients
I half-remember adding some comments here about limiting grades, wheel slip, loco weight, sand boxes etc. and hence the need for positive contact traction and braking on steep tracks. I hoped that someone would follow it up and explain in the article why conventional railways do not work on hills and the need for expedients like the rack. If I did, its gone now. Someone should include a simple engineering explaination in the article. The present phrase "This allows the trains to operate on steep gradients." is true but it is almost meaningless. 77.97.161.230 15:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)mikeL
 * Gradients in excess of 7 or 9% (?) would be a good start. But trams have been known to grind up 13% slopes on city streets without the help of a rack. Peter Horn User talk 15:19, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The tram down to the Balmain wharf used a counterweight system to tram up and down the steep IIRC 1 in 8 gradient.   Tabletop (talk) 05:31, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Name please
Rack railway What is (are) the name(s) of the RRs. Peter Horn 16:58, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Jane's 69/70, pages 594/595, was of no help whatsoever. Peter Horn 17:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ambarawa rack railway 6.5%

Magnetic adhesion enhancers.
Trams sometimes use magnetics to enhance brakings. Are (electro-)magnets ever used to enhance hill climbing for trains? Tabletop (talk) 05:58, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Rack Railways and Gradients
In 1802 the Blenkinsop rack system was devised when it was thought that friction on even level track would not be enough to haul a useful load.

In 1830 the Liverpool and Manchester Railway was built with 1 in 100 gradients at Rainhill suitable for cable haulage just in case adhesion working would not work.

In 1830 the line down to the Liverpool docks with its 1 in 50 grades did have cable haulage for a few decades.

In 1840 the section from Euston to Campden Town with its 1 in 50 grades did have cable haulage for a few decades.

Are there any other examples of rack or cable haulage which can be put into gradient based timeline? Tabletop (talk) 08:08, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Clarification needed
Rack railway In other articles the Dolderbahn is mentioned as being a funicular (see "what links here" for Dolderbahn), so what is it? Peter Horn User talk 22:59, 10 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I found the answer in Dolderbahn, German Wiki. It is a rack railway. Peter Horn User talk 03:17, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * My error, only Adlisberg appears to say that the Dolderbahn is a funicular. Peter Horn User talk 03:29, 11 March 2011 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 03:32, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I corrected Adlisberg, as for the translation request see translation request and Switzerland above. Peter Horn User talk 14:12, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

New approach to Blenkinsop passage?
I removed
 * three more followed, plus another two for the Kenton and Coxlodge Colliery. No more were

from Fenton, Murray and Jackson as i explained at talk:Fenton, Murray and Jackson. I thot it would fit here, but i find that the accompanying article not only restricts itself to those built for the Middleton Railway but also attributes the construction to the patent holder rather than the locomotive firm. The 1st 'graph of the reference given actually seems to support the FMW version (giving credit to Murray specifically, but presumably on behalf of his partnership). My interest here amounts to a distraction from James Fenton, the poet buddy of the late Chris Hitchens, so i think its time for me to leave the cleanup to colleagues. --Jerzy•t 20:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Switches
The Mount Washington Cog Railway does not really need transfer tables as turnouts. Peter Horn User talk 02:52, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

middleton
"but it became a curiosity because simple friction was found to be sufficient for railroads operating on level ground."

the reason whey middleton had rack system even though the gradient was sufficient for adhesion is because of the rails

on the early railway, the rails were cast iron which would break easily. as coal trains got heavier, locos needed to get more powerful but that meant also getting bigger and heavier to get the adhesion to pull them because early engines had terrible power to weight ratios and fuel consumption but the rails werent strong enough for that. the cast rails limited the loco size. as the railway continued to use the rack, the quality of rail metals improved like wrought iron and steel, and the quality of engines improved only then did they realize they could stop using it

nowadays with strong steel rail and better power to weight ratio engines the weight of those early coal trains would be easy to pull without the rack — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.164.27 (talk) 15:35, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Rack railway. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310140626/http://www.seconstruye.com/webnoticia/asp/interior.asp?id=17067 to http://www.seconstruye.com/webnoticia/asp/interior.asp?id=17067
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100504145856/http://www.krugergateway.co.za/historical/index.html to http://www.krugergateway.co.za/historical/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:34, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Split out list?
The article is getting quite long. I propose we split out the "List of cog and rack railways" into its own article - currently it feels like two very different articles here, so I think the split is justified even beyond sheer size. Thoughts? Railfan23 (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Giant lists tacked onto the end of encylopedia articles are The Wikipedia Way, but rarely a good thing. Split it, then hope it can get thrown away later in favour of categories, which will work much better. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Done. Railfan23 (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

It’s way past 2015 now
I was browsing a random article (this one) on wikipedia, and found a bit of a mistake: Some details haven’t been updated correctly! It says things like “projected to open in 2015” and “may use”, as opposed to, say, “opened in 2016” and “is using”. Can somebody please update it? No wonder it’s only a “Start”-class article. Worse, it’s “high-importance”. 73.208.153.86 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, including you. That said, you'll need a source to confirm things like "opened in 2016" etc. Railfan23 (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2019 (UTC)