Talk:Rail transport

Name

Just wondering if railway is a better title than 'railroad'. If the latter is just the U.S. equivalent of the former, fine; but when I think of 'railroad' what comes to mind is North American trains covering long distances, often carrying heavy freight, only occasional journeys (when I Amtraked and VIA-Railed, the train coming through seemed to be a major event, unlike in Europe) etc., while 'railway' to me is a broader term, encompassing pleasure rail trips as well as long-distance railroads. John Stephenson 04:34, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The first sentence of this article seems to resolve the issue just fine. Russell D. Jones 00:28, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

High-speed rail?

The article has "For long-distance passenger transport, however, airlines have displaced rail travel in many areas." OK, but that is far from the whole story. Europe, Japan, Korea and China [1] all have substantial networks of high-speed trains. China are planning to extend their network South to Singapore and West to Moscow. Even the US is talking of building some such lines, albeit on a smaller scale and at lower speeds. Sandy Harris 05:59, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

I think it depends on how you define 'long-distance'. In parts of Europe and Japan, the reverse effect has been observed on high-speed lines between 250-400 km in length. In these cases, the railway has become competitive with air travel by means of a fast travel time and not having to check in at least one hour before the flight takes-off. As an example, travel between London and Paris (via the Channel Tunnel) is now mainly done by train. So I think it can be stated that for 'medium-distance' travel that high-speed rail has started to displace air travel as the primary mode. - Alan Horton 11:27, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, though I'd say up to 1000 km or a bit more. For example, I used to travel Fuzhou-Shanghai (1200 km?) fairly often, usually by rail. Another factor is that the rail stations are generally in or near downtown while airports are a lot further out, so going by rail saves time at both ends. Sandy Harris 13:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

These look reasonable statements to me. How about making changes along those lines then? (Incidentally, I am trying to put some information together on the Uganda Railway, which apparently is to be revived with Chinese investment, but I cannot find anything except Charles Miller's The Lunatic Express, which is amusing and apparently accurate, but inadequate for a comprehensive account.) --Martin Wyatt 22:45, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

'Rail transport' article?

Is it worth starting an article called rail transport, as on Wikipedia? Perhaps even moving this article there. I assume that with the current 'railroad' title, this article cannot cover monorails. John Stephenson 16:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we should use WP typology as a model. Granted, in looking over this article, it needs a lot of work. Its structure seems to focus on technology and minutia (e.g., individual types of rr cars) instead of conveying broader concepts. I'd suggest we work on the text before we worry about whether or not the title accurately represents the text. Last, I don't see why the article would not cover monorails. What about a ROAD constructed using mono-RAIL disqualifies it from being considered a RAIL-ROAD? Russell D. Jones 14:21, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

So, I added a "terminology" section that addresses that issue and others. "Terminology" may be a bad term. Fix it if you think of something better. Russell D. Jones 14:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)