[An Idea]Concrete Track vs. Wooden Track

tydev417 · Post by **tydev417** » 28 Jan 2006 05:00

In reality, concrete welded track is much more useful than wooden track because it allows for a smoother ride and faster trains.

An idea that could be implemented in the game is have wooden track be slower and less effective and the concrete track which allows trains to run faster.

I'm not sure if this is possible but it would be a nice addition to the game.

Samo · Post by **Samo** » 28 Jan 2006 05:53

cool idea, but it'd defeat it's own purpose, and since some of us max out the track selection, we'd hav to sacrifice

chevyrider · Post by **chevyrider** » 28 Jan 2006 10:36

tydev417 wrote:In reality, concrete welded track is much more useful than wooden track because it allows for a smoother ride and faster trains.

An idea that could be implemented in the game is have wooden track be slower and less effective and the concrete track which allows trains to run faster.

I'm not sure if this is possible but it would be a nice addition to the game.

Not necessary true.
On wood, the speed can be as high as with concrete sleepers.
Personally i like driving on wood more.
It drives smoother and gives less noise.

tydev417 · Post by **tydev417** » 28 Jan 2006 13:44

chevyrider wrote:Not necessary true.
On wood, the speed can be as high as with concrete sleepers.
Personally i like driving on wood more.
It drives smoother and gives less noise.

Wood tracks are much louder and are less smooth because of jointed rail and wooden tracks only allow the train to go but so fast. Why do you think rail companies try to replace wooden track with concrete track when they get the chance? Even our subway has concrete track on most express runs.

Can you imagine the Channel Tunnel Rail Link having wooden track? The Eurostars wouldn't be going nowhere fast.

Daan Timmer · Post by **Daan Timmer** » 28 Jan 2006 15:32

tydev417 wrote:
chevyrider wrote:Not necessary true.
On wood, the speed can be as high as with concrete sleepers.
Personally i like driving on wood more.
It drives smoother and gives less noise.
Wood tracks are much louder and are less smooth because of jointed rail and wooden tracks only allow the train to go but so fast. Why do you think rail companies try to replace wooden track with concrete track when they get the chance? Even our subway has concrete track on most express runs.

Can you imagine the Channel Tunnel Rail Link having wooden track? The Eurostars wouldn't be going nowhere fast.

Personally I belive Chevy more. fyi (if you didnt know it already) he drives trains...

Concrete sleepers are just there because tehy don't require tree's. (AFAIK) and I think they are cheeper....

Villem · Post by **Villem** » 28 Jan 2006 15:49

If i remember right its easier to make concrete sleepers heavier, wich would allow heavier trains pass on them..

Matloughe · Post by **Matloughe** » 28 Jan 2006 16:17

and you get the 'clickety-clack' noise,

andel · Post by **andel** » 28 Jan 2006 16:23

and if you drop one on your foot it hurts.

tydev417 · Post by **tydev417** » 28 Jan 2006 17:58

DaaNtje wrote:Personally I belive Chevy more. fyi (if you didnt know it already) he drives trains...

Concrete sleepers are just there because tehy don't require tree's. (AFAIK) and I think they are cheeper....

Huh?

Amtrak upgraded their Northeast Corridor line back in 1999 and 2000 and replaced the wooden tracks with concrete tracks so that Acela can run at it's fullest and all the trains are able to tilt on the canted concrete tracks. You can't tilt wooden tracks, nor can trains run at high speeds on wooden tracks. Concrete welded track is much more quieter, and has less joints so there is no "clickety-clack" noise and thus is more comfortable inside the train. Whoever told you guys that wooden track is better is wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_tracks

Villem · Post by **Villem** » 28 Jan 2006 17:59

DaaNtje wrote:
tydev417 wrote:Personally I belive Chevy more. fyi (if you didnt know it already) he drives trains...

Concrete sleepers are just there because tehy don't require tree's. (AFAIK) and I think they are cheeper....
Concrete welded track is much more quieter, and has less joints so there is no "clickety-clack" noise and thus is more comfortable inside the train. Whoever told you guys that wooden track is better is wrong.

Uhhh i rode on tracks with concrete sleepers on them, clickety clack still existed, but granted it occurs A LOT less.

TheGrew · Post by **TheGrew** » 28 Jan 2006 18:04

They use concreate because it has a longer lifespan and also heaver high speed rails can be put on them. I read it in book

Plastikman · Post by **Plastikman** » 28 Jan 2006 20:00

as i understood it, the concrete cost less, lasts longer, less flex and lateral movement (less chance of a derail from from rails spreading), you can put heavier rails and trains on concrete. i would assume then, because of all those factors you can put faster trains on those rails. i can understand the "tilting train" only on concrete, i would assume that at a high speed turn ther would be lateral "slop" in a wood tie. Amtrak had a lot of problems with the SDP's derailing from the water sloshing around in the boiler over rear truck causing the rails to spread on turns.

as far as noise. i bet concrete is louder, you may loose SOME of the clickity clack, but the wood ties absorb train noise, the concrete reflects it back. also even welded rail needs gaps cut in it, especialy in hot climates. when rail heats up it expands and can pop off the ties if it cant expand enough. i have seen on hot days MOW crews slicing gaps in tracks.

lol this topic is almost amusing because marc__1 and i were talking about a new rail type a few weeks back. somthing that only allowed the largest turns for the oversized US trains we were playing with. lol call it "mainline rail" or code 100 or something. like the NL maglev track but with rail. never seriously looked into it. this would probably be pretty easy to make or really hard. just would take a bit of time and testing. the only issue would be making sure it was "backwards compatable" with existing trains and how many track types you re allowed in the game.

<edit> I also have recently seen them using plastic looking ties by me, what are those?

Illegal_Alien · Post by **Illegal_Alien** » 28 Jan 2006 20:22

You cant create new tracks wich are compatible with existing ones

, you could however make a "add on" for the existing track (Just like the catanary thirdrail en the helprail for teh narrow gauge) This woul make your track backward compatible.

dont ask me the technical stuff however

Plastikman · Post by **Plastikman** » 28 Jan 2006 20:39

Illegal_Alien wrote:You cant create new tracks wich are compatible with existing ones , you could however make a "add on" for the existing track (Just like the catanary thirdrail en the helprail for teh narrow gauge) This woul make your track backward compatible.

dont ask me the technical stuff however

That is how i figgured it would have to be. if that was the case then. you wont get that prototypical look of concrete mainline and wood spurs/branchlines since i am lazy and would click "all connected track".

marcf · Post by **marcf** » 28 Jan 2006 20:40

would it be possible to give the smaller trains 2 compatible track types (standard and mainline) and the larger trains mainline only, or, are vehicles only able to have one tracktype?

Plastikman · Post by **Plastikman** » 28 Jan 2006 20:44

marc___1 wrote:would it be possible to give the smaller trains 2 compatible track types (standard and mainline) and the larger trains mainline only, or, are vehicles only able to have one tracktype?

I am almost positive one type. but if you did the "upgrade" method. you can have your heavy/fast trains on the concrete only. and then let the other trains us "normal track only " and it would still be able to run on the "upgraded concrete".

otherwise we would be able to make the dual power locos that have both 3rd rail/overhead or diesel/3rd rail that are out there.

chevyrider · Post by **chevyrider** » 28 Jan 2006 22:28

The Schiphol tunnel (Amsterdam Airport) is about 7 km long.
The rail is screwed right on the concrete bottom of the tunnel floor.
Much troubles with good connection.
When i drive into the tunnel at a speed of 130 km\h it's loud like hell and conversation is impossible.

In the newer tunnel near Rotterdam (Blaak) there is first placed a rubber mat, then broken stone and on that the wooden sleepers.
Its even more quit now than normal track.

About the kaboem, kaboem noise.
It's now possible the weld the tracks to 1800 meter in one piece, even with wooden sleepers.
The rail is first heated over a long distance and then bolted on the sleeper.
so when it's heating up in summer it first takes away the pull tension, before it expands.

Transport Typhoon · Post by **Transport Typhoon** » 28 Jan 2006 23:33

Long live MagLev. No wheels, only noise must be the wind

.

And Chevy, if you have 31 years experience i can't argue about this.
The reason for concrete to be more nosier and so forth could lie in the fact that wood dampens more and isn't that hard of a material.

The harder the material the more sound it reflects (= more noise).
That's what i learned in school.

chevyrider · Post by **chevyrider** » 29 Jan 2006 01:22

Concrete is good,only if the wheels are perfect round.
After a slippery stop that's over very fast i'm afraid.
Leaves on track you know.

Samo · Post by **Samo** » 29 Jan 2006 04:55

i prefer wooden for 2 reasons, it's not an eye sore, and i love the steam engine age

Transport Tycoon Forums

[An Idea]Concrete Track vs. Wooden Track

[An Idea]Concrete Track vs. Wooden Track

Re: [An Idea]Concrete Track vs. Wooden Track

Re: [An Idea]Concrete Track vs. Wooden Track

Re: [An Idea]Concrete Track vs. Wooden Track

Re: [An Idea]Concrete Track vs. Wooden Track

Re: [An Idea]Concrete Track vs. Wooden Track

Who is online