![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
Added link for ballast - it was an unlinked term previously.
Kether83
07:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Can somebody mention (and reference of course) the fact that the railroad ties are really toxic and leach toxins into the soil. It is common to find these ties in peoples yards and sometimes vegetable gardens after their railroad use. Discusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.32.188 ( talk) 02:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Disgusting = offensive to the physical, moral, or aesthetic taste. [1] 138.162.140.53 ( talk) 00:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Which is the more common name?
Simply south 00:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
To complete this article we should perhaps have a description of steel sleepers and their use
There are 5,280 feet in a mile.
This article states that railroad ties are laid at "intervals of about two feet".
This works out to roughly 2600 ties/mile.
The article states that "a typical mile of rail contains approximately 3,000 ties."
That's a big difference. Which fact is wrong?
~~ clintp
When presenting technical material, significance is important. If you are rounding to thousands, it should not read "3,000" but rather "3 thousand". In technical writting, "3.0" is not the same as "3" -- the decimals reference the precision.
Either way, a citation would be nice. 38.96.176.66 ( talk) 21:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Please look up tie spacing from Burlington Northern, Union Pacific or other major railroads. Ties are typically 19 to 19 1/2" spacing (no mater what type)and are 3,249 or 3,250 per mile) Article notes 3,520 which I believe is transposed numbers, regardless as I have installed track, and you can look this up on the railroad company sites to verify, it should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.174.179.2 ( talk) 21:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Being edited as 3250 according to new added references(see article). Highly suspected as transposed number because no reference to 3520 found during search. For wood crosstie/sleeper:
What are their dimensions? Scott Adler 08:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
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))
(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)
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) ( Tpletcher ( talk) 18:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC))
Noticed that there is another polywood site that might be helpful: www.polywoodlumber.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.25.39 ( talk) 13:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
This edit [1] 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)
Excess focus on Long Island Railroad, list of manufacturers, and additional unreferenced statements.
I've added a "multiple issue" template to this article - the key problems are:
Sf5xeplus ( talk) 16:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Do plastic sleepers burn, in say a bushfire?
(proposed section)
Brunel liked to be different, and adopted the baulk road with longitudinal rather than transverse sleepers, In this way the rails were fully supported and could be lighter and less costly than the the equivalent track with transverse sleepers where the rails have to bridge the gap between the sleepers and have to be heavier. In the 1830s, iron if not yet steel was expensive compared to wood.
Gauge of the baulk road was maintained by a combination of occasional transverse sleepers, vertical piles adjacent to the baulks, and the ballast. The piles were also intended to hold the track down, but as the earth especially of embankments, settled, the pile annoyingly start to hold the track up, and had to be disconnected.
It is interesting to compare the baulk road with Barlow rails which rested solely on the ballast, and which were unsuccessful as gauge was hard to maintain. Many early American railroads reduced the cost of the rails by having wooden rails covered by an iron strip; these where also not so successful as the strip would sometime come loose, and spear into the bottom of carriages, causing passengers frights or even injuries.
Pairs of stone sleepers connected by iron roads also illustrate the point that more strength is needed longitudinally than transversely.
On the Great Western Railway the baulk road lasted until the end of the broad gauge.
The previous discussion, Talk:Railroad_tie#Common, ended in 2010. Recently, a low intensity WP:Edit war has begun. [3] Pyrotec has cited WP:ENGVAR, but it isn't obvious to me what provision applies. Please refrain from reverting one another and discuss this matter here. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the mess Pyrotec. You are right, I have change the articles to make the self-consistent. I did this in the interest of increased understanding, not out of vandalism. The article as it stands is "railroad tie". It was a bit confusing to me, at first, as a non expert, with the changing of terms halfway through the article. So, I changed it, so that people in the future wouldn't get the same confusing look upon their face as I did. It may be that people are able to figure it out, I did, but if the aim of wikipedia is to increase the knowledge and understanding of everyone, why are we trying to confuse people by arbitrarily changing the name of the subject of the article, midway through the article. To me, it's a bit like declaring a variable in the beginning of the program. Once it's done, we don't need to change around the declaration halfway through. That is why I also changed the Permanent way article. On that note though, it's not an article about a British subject, it's an international subject. The wikipedia page for the LA Galaxy doesn't change to the word football whilst discussing Beckham, nor does the American Ambassador have the second biggest "yard" in London.
2.127.230.142 (
talk)
00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)The IP user
1 mile (5,280 ft; 1,609 m) 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)
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)
![]() | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
Added link for ballast - it was an unlinked term previously.
Kether83
07:33, 25 December 2005 (UTC)
Can somebody mention (and reference of course) the fact that the railroad ties are really toxic and leach toxins into the soil. It is common to find these ties in peoples yards and sometimes vegetable gardens after their railroad use. Discusting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.118.32.188 ( talk) 02:38, 25 March 2009 (UTC)
Disgusting = offensive to the physical, moral, or aesthetic taste. [1] 138.162.140.53 ( talk) 00:13, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Which is the more common name?
Simply south 00:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
To complete this article we should perhaps have a description of steel sleepers and their use
There are 5,280 feet in a mile.
This article states that railroad ties are laid at "intervals of about two feet".
This works out to roughly 2600 ties/mile.
The article states that "a typical mile of rail contains approximately 3,000 ties."
That's a big difference. Which fact is wrong?
~~ clintp
When presenting technical material, significance is important. If you are rounding to thousands, it should not read "3,000" but rather "3 thousand". In technical writting, "3.0" is not the same as "3" -- the decimals reference the precision.
Either way, a citation would be nice. 38.96.176.66 ( talk) 21:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Please look up tie spacing from Burlington Northern, Union Pacific or other major railroads. Ties are typically 19 to 19 1/2" spacing (no mater what type)and are 3,249 or 3,250 per mile) Article notes 3,520 which I believe is transposed numbers, regardless as I have installed track, and you can look this up on the railroad company sites to verify, it should be corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.174.179.2 ( talk) 21:47, 30 November 2018 (UTC)
Being edited as 3250 according to new added references(see article). Highly suspected as transposed number because no reference to 3520 found during search. For wood crosstie/sleeper:
What are their dimensions? Scott Adler 08:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
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))
(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)
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) ( Tpletcher ( talk) 18:43, 27 October 2009 (UTC))
Noticed that there is another polywood site that might be helpful: www.polywoodlumber.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.76.25.39 ( talk) 13:26, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
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)
This edit [1] 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)
Excess focus on Long Island Railroad, list of manufacturers, and additional unreferenced statements.
I've added a "multiple issue" template to this article - the key problems are:
Sf5xeplus ( talk) 16:05, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
Do plastic sleepers burn, in say a bushfire?
(proposed section)
Brunel liked to be different, and adopted the baulk road with longitudinal rather than transverse sleepers, In this way the rails were fully supported and could be lighter and less costly than the the equivalent track with transverse sleepers where the rails have to bridge the gap between the sleepers and have to be heavier. In the 1830s, iron if not yet steel was expensive compared to wood.
Gauge of the baulk road was maintained by a combination of occasional transverse sleepers, vertical piles adjacent to the baulks, and the ballast. The piles were also intended to hold the track down, but as the earth especially of embankments, settled, the pile annoyingly start to hold the track up, and had to be disconnected.
It is interesting to compare the baulk road with Barlow rails which rested solely on the ballast, and which were unsuccessful as gauge was hard to maintain. Many early American railroads reduced the cost of the rails by having wooden rails covered by an iron strip; these where also not so successful as the strip would sometime come loose, and spear into the bottom of carriages, causing passengers frights or even injuries.
Pairs of stone sleepers connected by iron roads also illustrate the point that more strength is needed longitudinally than transversely.
On the Great Western Railway the baulk road lasted until the end of the broad gauge.
The previous discussion, Talk:Railroad_tie#Common, ended in 2010. Recently, a low intensity WP:Edit war has begun. [3] Pyrotec has cited WP:ENGVAR, but it isn't obvious to me what provision applies. Please refrain from reverting one another and discuss this matter here. Thank you, Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:15, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Sorry for the mess Pyrotec. You are right, I have change the articles to make the self-consistent. I did this in the interest of increased understanding, not out of vandalism. The article as it stands is "railroad tie". It was a bit confusing to me, at first, as a non expert, with the changing of terms halfway through the article. So, I changed it, so that people in the future wouldn't get the same confusing look upon their face as I did. It may be that people are able to figure it out, I did, but if the aim of wikipedia is to increase the knowledge and understanding of everyone, why are we trying to confuse people by arbitrarily changing the name of the subject of the article, midway through the article. To me, it's a bit like declaring a variable in the beginning of the program. Once it's done, we don't need to change around the declaration halfway through. That is why I also changed the Permanent way article. On that note though, it's not an article about a British subject, it's an international subject. The wikipedia page for the LA Galaxy doesn't change to the word football whilst discussing Beckham, nor does the American Ambassador have the second biggest "yard" in London.
2.127.230.142 (
talk)
00:02, 22 August 2013 (UTC)The IP user
1 mile (5,280 ft; 1,609 m) 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)
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)