Talk:Slippery rail

Photos?

If anyone has photos of... oh... Autumn leaves on railroad tracks, this is the perfect place for it. --Oakshade 04:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Been looking all over the web. The Wall Street Journal has a good one on their website [1] and this accompanied one of the sources to this article. But unless they give permission, we can't use it here. I uploaded another , [2], and the owner granted kind permission for use here, but it's of a rusted abandoned railway and doesn't have that silvery smooth surface active railroads have. Since this article is primarily about active railroads, it probably doesn't fit here. Others might have different opinions. --Oakshade 03:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The WSJ picture was obviously "staged", so I see no reason why a picture of an inactive line wouldn't make the cute. Obviously a nice shiny rail would make a nicer picture, but until we have that, this will do.

Unfortunately, it seems to be having licensing problems. I was going to add it myself but I think you'd better address the license on the image's description page before we go putting it up on the page. 61.24.83.175 06:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

*sigh* I'm new at image managing. I'll send a request to the owner for GFDL licensing. This might take some time. --Oakshade 06:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this will help as an image, but I have a photo of active track, without leaves, but with some residue (barely visible) from SEPTA's leave cleaning spraying. The photo is on the Commons, licensed under the GFDL, under the name Image:Elkins Park Tracks.JPG.-- danntm ^T _C 16:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

weird

What a weird problem. $100 million yearly?? Why can't they just use, oh I don't know, A BRUSH on the train?!?--Deglr6328 03:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Because a brush will not remove leaves which have been compressed onto the track, nor prevent the compression of leaves when the bursh is ovewhelmed by the volume of leaves it finds itself pushing along. The problem is real. Better minds than you, with more knowledge of the problem, have sought solutions from the obvious to the arcane. Wishing the problem away ("use a brush") does not get rid of it :( --Tagishsimon (talk)

But LEAVES?!?! lol.--Deglr6328 03:53, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Cost and Currency Conversion

The original version of the article quoted the Wall Street Journal as saying that the cost to Network Rail was $95 million USD. The article now states that it is £60 million with the $95 million in parentheses.

At the current conversion rate of around $1.90 per pound:

• $95 million equals roughly £50 million and
• £60 million pounds equals roughly $114 million.

According to Yahoo.com, the exchange rate between the USD and GBP has been greater than that implied by the pairing of £60 million and $95 million since late 2002. Clearly, the combination of £60 million and $95 million is not correct, but which half is correct, assuming either is?

As I do not have a WSJ subscription, I cannot see the whole article. Can anyone see what the article itself said so we can understand the correct cost?

Mmccalpin 04:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The stat in the Wall Street Journal article about the UK and specifically Network Rail is US$95 million and doesn't mention pounds and the York Press (UK newspaper) article says the "rail industry" spends £60 million (that stat is repeated in the cited Network Rail press release). It appears the figures needs to be tweeked (might be my bad). I'll change it to be a general UK stat and not specifically Network Rail and cite the York Press. --Oakshade 04:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As for the US currency conversion correction, I came up with about US$116 million (fx conveter at oanda.com). I'll cite US$115 million as a happy median, but others might choose to tweek that constantly fluid statisttic. --Oakshade 04:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Slippery Rail as a Source of Humo(u)r

In recent years the British Rail companies have taken to explaining all sources of delay in more detail than they used to. For this reason, commuters began to hear about "leaves on the line" in autumn, and like many people were very bemused, thinking "why don't they brush them off" as with the commenter above. It was common to imagine the delay as being caused by company incomptence. At one time, new equipment was brought in to help clear the tracks, and when the new equipment on occasion failed the excuse became "the wrong kind of leaves". The phrase "the wrong kind of leaves" along with "the wrong kind of snow" is sometimes used in the UK to denote either a feeble excuse or a failure of some very expensive system upgrade. Rob Burbidge 09:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Of course, "wrong type of snow" was entirely true. It referred to a fall of very light snow which was getting sucked up into the traction motors of some EMUs causing flashovers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.6.41 (talk) 12:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

i'm one of those editors who thinks this sort of information, well written, sourced and perhaps briefer than this, adds to encyclopaedic articles, that it adds cultural chrome. but i suspect there are others who disagree. --Mongreilf 11:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that's why I added it to the talk page (not feeling too "bold" in the wikipedia sense). Serious point is that the UK public is aware of the issue at a superficial level but generally people don't understand the issues involved. If you want to add to the main page, and I don't mind either way, you could always go with something like "The phrase 'leaves on the line', and various derivatives such as 'the wrong kind of leaves on the line', have passed into common usage in Britain as an excuse for poor levels of service on railway network, and by extension in other services too". Example citations: http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/15/5/3, http://www.rfs.org.uk/woodshed.asp?woodshedDetails=114 and if you like a laugh, http://www.btinternet.com/~brentours/RAIL21.htm. Rob Burbidge

Good point – I’ve added it, with various refs (inc. the RFS link you cite) – thanks!

—Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 00:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Dart Apology Poster

This poster just is not legible on the Wikipedia page and I am removeing it

Afterbrunel (talk) 10:50, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

• I don't think it's important for the actual poster in the photo to be legible, but that the posting about leaves on the line is present on the train. --Oakshade (talk) 16:29, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Interesting links, maybe

Found these while looking up something for Sandite, but they are of relevance here:

• Rail Head Treatment Train (RHTT) in Scotland
• Direct Rail Services RHTT
• 2003 Guardian article regarding removal of lineside trees - very informative

EdJogg (talk) 15:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Square wheels

According to the article: Slippery rail is also a problem in the Netherlands, addressed by Nederlandse Spoorwegen.[15] Informally, the problem is referred to as square wheels. I've removed the remark about square wheels, because it refers to a different problem: that of flat spots.

"ferrous particles"

Are the "ferrous particles" mentioned in the "railhead treatment" section a synonym for iron filings? I was going to pipelink the phrase to that article, but I'm not quite sure enough that it's the same substance. Joyous! | Talk 23:57, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Pectin

Worth mentioning that the teflon-like coating created by compressed decomposed leaves is called Pectin? Multiple sources available. I'm sure I read this somewhere before and came to the Wikipedia article for the name of the chemical but left disappointed. 110.142.214.120 (talk) 05:19, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Could you state these sources? A quick search in Wiki shows that Pectin "is a structural heteropolysaccharide contained in the primary cell walls of terrestrial plants", so it's certainly involved, but there are other plant sugars and sap which when crushed by trains combine to make a gooey pulp. Also there are substances which are already present on the railhead such as grease, oil, dust, water etc.

So it would be true to say that it contains pectin, or even pectin is the major constituent, but it's not true to say that railhead contamination IS pectin. Dr Sludge (talk) 09:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I am completing a PhD related to leaves on the line and have read a few journal articles on the composition of the contaminant layer that is formed (pectin/tannin etc). I will review if they are open access and add to the page if availible Thirdbodylayer (talk) 13:46, 26 April 2022 (UTC)