Talk:Rail profile

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)

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)

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) ^{[1] [2]}

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)

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)

That second ref nicely sums up what I meant—thanks.--Old Moonraker (talk) 07:25, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

the article Hunting oscillation has a description of the effect of conical wheelsets.Sf5xeplus (talk) 17:21, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

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)

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:

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)

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)

Was there something wrong with the image recently removed from here and a few related articles? --Old Moonraker (talk) 22:31, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OK, it's back. Thanks, User:EdJogg. --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:25, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

This design could be widened to accommodate a dual gauge track of 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) and 1520 or 1524. This would mean two 44.45 mm (1.75 in) wide grooves which would be 85 mm (3.35 in) or 89 mm (3.50 in) apart at the "gauge lines". Dual gauge between 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) and 62.25/62.5 or 63 would even be easier with two 1+3⁄4 in (44.45 mm) wide grooves. Unfortunately the difference between 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) and 1495 (Toronto subway) is too small so as to be able to accommodate two grooves. Similarly the differences between 1000 and 1067 is too small to accommodate 44.5 mm (1.75 in) grooves. Peter Horn User talk 02:12, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference between 914 and 1000 is 86 mm (3.39 in) or just enough to accomodate 44.5 mm (1.75 in) grooves. Peter Horn User talk 02:21, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

The difference between 1,000 mm (39.370 in) and 1,067 mm (42.008 in) is 67 mm (2.638 in), not really enough to accomodate 44.5 mm (1.752 in). What would be left over would be 22.5 mm (0.886 in) or the difference between 3 ft 3+3⁄8 in (1,000.125 mm) and 3 ft 6 in (1,066.800 mm) is 2+5⁄8 in (66.675 mm). After subtracting 1+3⁄4 in (44.450 mm) there would be 7⁄8 in (22.225 mm) left. Of course this exercise shows a bit of "conversion creep" Peter Horn User talk 18:26, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Do you have any citations for this, particularly the width of the grooves, or is it all unusable original research? Note that Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought. Tim PF (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I have the August 1967 edition of the STEEL PRODUCTS MANUAL Wrought Steel Wheels and Forged Railway Axles by the AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL INSTITUTE, 150 EAST FORTY-SECOND STREET, NEW YORK, N.Y. 10017. American practice has a "normal flange" that is 1+5⁄32 (1.15625 in (29.369 mm)^*) wide and a "wide flange" that is 1+3⁄8 in (34.93 mm) wide and those would require a groove of 1+3⁄4 in (44.45 mm) which in the case of a standard gauge track would leave 56.5 - 3+1⁄2 in (88.90 mm) = 53 in (1,346.2 mm) between the inner edges of the grooves. Now, if my memory serves me right from the time that I worked at Montreal Locomotive Works, the back to back dimensions of the wheels on a wheelset is 53+1⁄4 in (1,352.5 mm), +1⁄8 in (3.18 mm), -0. In the case of two "wide flanges that would make a total of 56+1⁄8 in (1,425.57 mm) from gauge line to gauge line of the "wide flanged" wheels. It will take some work to find a catalogue of level crossing products or the catalogues of manufacturers of parts for switches to establish the actual widths of the grooves. It is all in the arithmetic. All the wheelset dimesions are governed by AAR manuals, not usually available in public libraries, or even on line. Peter Horn User talk 18:05, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

So far I found the HiRAiL site, but it does not give any useful dimensions. I may have to resort to actually measure a HiRAiL installation at the Bois-Franc (AMT) station or find a relevant civil engineering handbook in a public library if any is to be found there at all. The following site groove would hint at a groove as wide as 80 mm (3.15 in) or about twice as wide compared to what I have seen at the Bois Franc station. Peter Horn User talk 14:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The following image will allow one to compare the width of the groove with the width of the railhead. Peter Horn User talk 14:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is nothing to say that those images are to scale, and measuring the groove yourself is original research. In any case, the gap between a gauge pad and the rails may be dictated more by the acceptable gap for a road vehicle to span without causing undue forces to the edges of the pad, rather than the gap required for the railway wheelset flanges.
You need to find a document which specifies the actual minimum gap, such as (GCRT5021). You will also need two more documented dimensions: the minimum width of the railhead needed to support the wheelset, and the minimum width of the LR55 railhead (groove to outside). Even so, that will probably still be WP:SYNTHESIS.

Going back a step, the minimum difference for 3-rail dual gauge is given by the higher of what the two wheelsets will take (larger wheelset's gap plus smaller wheelset's support) and how close the rails can be placed. AFAIK, vanilla flat-bottomed rail hits the limit at about 6.5 inches (170 mm) (such as in Australia 63 and 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm)), whilst you have recently shown that the Columbus, Ohio's tramways had a smaller difference using grooved rail, although I'm not sure what axle loads they would take.
LR55 rail may take normal axle loads and permit a smaller difference than traditional rails, but I haven't even seen any mention of LR55 switches and crossings, let alone mixed gauge versions. Adding evidence for the groove sizes, etc., would be very useful, but that still doesn't mean that we can infer here that LR55 would allow for a smaller gauge difference. Tim PF (talk) 08:56, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

To scale or not to scale, the groove is not as wide as the head of the rail which in the case of 132 lb/yd (65.5 kg/m) is HW = 3 in (76.2 mm). 132 lb/yd (65.5 kg/m) is currently used on the Two Mountains line. As for the inside edge to inside edge distance between grooves, this has nothing to do with road vehicles crossing the track but is stricly designed to accomodate the back to back distance berween the wheels on the wheelset. The LR55 switches and crossings are likely similar to those for traditional grooved rail. If the LR55 switches and crossings had not already be designed the system would not likely be advertised as useful. Peter Horn User talk 16:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

A 1.75 in (44.5 mm) groove in the case of 1524 and 1435 dual gauge would leave a flat of 1.75 in (44.5 mm) for the wheel of the standard gauge wheelset. however since the wheel, including the flange is 5+1⁄2 in (139.7 mm) part of the wheel could rest on the "head" of the wider gauge. Incedentally the minimum height of the wheel flange is 1 in (25.4 mm) and the maximum 1+1⁄8 in (28.6 mm). Remember that it is intended that the two grooves be rolled into the same steel X section so that the entire profile with the two grooves would be 3+1⁄2 in (88.9 mm) wider than a regular LR55 rail profile. The minimum wdth of the groove needs only to be governed by the maximum width of the flange on the wheel which in the case of a ""wide flange" wheel is 1+3⁄8 in (34.9 mm). Now as for the 5.5 in (139.7 mm) of the Columbus street car tracks, That would allow two CP Rail 85 lb/yd (42.2 kg/m) side by side. That was all that we had in the one time MLW yard and those tracks carried every standard gauge loco that MLW ever built. North American industrial sidings and even older main lines have rails as light as 85 lb/yd (42.2 kg/m). BTW, the 6.5 inches (170 mm) difference in Australia could accomodate rail as heavy as 132 lb/yd (65.5 kg/m). Peter Horn User talk 17:51, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

I just read sections 4.5.3 through 4.5.5.2 of GCRT5021 which specifies 60 mm (2.36 in) gaps. I assume that the 1,375 mm (54.13 in) is measured from center to center of the gaps? That would mean 1,320 mm (51.97 in) from inside edge to inside edge of the gaps (or grooves). As for the single groove on a LR55 rail section, the client would be free to order LR55 any width required. A 1.75 in (44.5 mm) wide groove could be problematic on curves where track widening is required. Peter Horn User talk 19:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

 Done Please review the revised wording. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:46, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

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)

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)

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

"The guard carries no weight, but may act as a checkrail." What does that mean? Equinox (talk) 16:22, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Check rails, guard rails and wing rails are much the same thing - they are extra rails mounted inside the running rails, on one or both sides of the track. There is sufficient space between running rail and this extra rail to allow a wheel flange to pass, and by bearing against the back of the flange, they prevent the wheel from slipping off the rail, and in pointwork, they prevent the two wheels from taking paths at the crossing. Wheels do not run on the upper surface of these extra rails, hence "carries no weight".

Check rails are used on tight curves, typically inside only one of the running rails, and can extend for some distance; guard rails and wing rails are much shorter, typically inside both running rails. See this pic which is a turnout with guard rails and wing rails. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:45, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)A checkrail is a rail placed inside the track at points, crossings and sharp corners. As a train passes over the frog (the V shaped bit where the two tracks finally part) there is a gap to allow the flange to pass to one side or the other. To prevent the risk of a wheel following the wrong path, a short length of rail is placed inside the other side of the track where it stops the flange being able to move over. Have a look at the picture to the right of Railroad_switch#Guard_rail_.28check_rail.29 where it can be clearly seen. There's another nice picture below that at 7.11 Rack railway switches and at 7.12 Switch diamond where you can see a pair of them either side of the crossing frog at the bottom of the picture. On tram tracks the guard is mainly there to prevent the ingress of stones or other rubbish. However, on a tight corner or at a set of points the guard will engage with the back of the flange and force the wheel set to follow the curve, just as a checkrail would do so. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:01, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Have a close look at the illustration in the main page, The main bearing surface is to the right, weight is transmitted straight down through the vertical web. The arm to the left is weak, loading it on top would cause it to bend to the left and probably break. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:17, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

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)

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)

• Good Question. Maybe GB was so used to "chairs" used to hold many kinds of rail, including Bull head, that chair-less FB track was too radical.

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)

The early tramways that preceded the Liverpool and Manchester Railway of 1830 mostly had chairs on stone blocks, which held each end of a 3-foot long rail. These included Fishbelly rails. The chairs rested on mostly stone blocks which left a smooth surface between the rails for horses to tread on. At this stage, longer rails were not practible to make. Sleepers were intorduced on the locomotive-hauled L&M particularly over the swampy Chat Moss to help keep the [[gauge}}

Gradually bullhead rails became the most common type. Flat bottom rails were an early alternative.

Rail profile#North America crane rails What was Dudley? Peter Horn User talk 23:13, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Is it this? Peter Horn User talk 02:27, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Does it mean "as used on the Dudley Section", being a portion of the NYC? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 11:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: (Dudley} appears to imply a supplier, not a part of the NYC. But it could have been a section of the NYC. How could one determine that? There is no answer on New York Central Railroad.

80 lb/yd (39.7 kg/m) (Dudley) New York Central Railroad 105 lb/yd (52.1 kg/m) (Dudley) New York Central Railroad 127 lb/yd (63.0 kg/m) (Dudley) New York Central Railroad

Peter Horn User talk 15:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Your two links to the Companies House website are for the same company. I seriously doubt that a British company would supply steel to the United States, which had plenty of steel manufacturers of its own - particularly in Pennsylvania, through which the NYC passed. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 17:03, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Dudley refers to the rail profiles designed by Plimmon H. Dudley, a New York Central rail engineer. They could be sourced from more than one steel mill. n2xjk (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Under the heading "Flanged T rail" is the following uncited wording:
Flanged T rail (also called T-section) is the name for flat-bottomed rail used in North America. From my reading, industry magazines such as 'Trains' appear to use "flat-bottom" or occasionally "Vignoles", but not "flanged T rail". (I'm happy to be corrected.) Changing "is" to "was" might be a solution. Cheers, Simon – SCHolar44 🇦🇺 💬 at 05:23, 6 November 2025 (UTC)