Re: Why Wooden Sleepers are better. Was [NSW] CityRail DelaysFriday

[mdaly1@tpg.com.au (Maurie Daly)]

In article <38E12EC8.1A4186F@transdata.co.nz> chris 'fufas' grace <chris@transdata.co.nz> writes:
>From: chris 'fufas' grace <chris@transdata.co.nz>
>Subject: Re: Why Wooden Sleepers are better. Was [NSW] CityRail DelaysFriday
>Date: Wed, 29 Mar 2000 10:14:32 +1200

>Mark Bau wrote:
>> 
>> > From: mdaly@pcug.org.au (Maurie Daly)
>> > Organization: PC Users Group
>> > Newsgroups: aus.rail
>> > Date: Mon, 27 Mar 2000 17:44:28 LOCAL
>> > Subject: Re: Why Wooden Sleepers are better. Was [NSW] CityRail Delays Friday
>> >
>> > I suggest then that you take a ride on the Overland or the Ghan or the IP and
>> > compare the ride in NSW or VIC which are wooden sleepers to the ride you get
>> > on the SA side which are all concrete.
>> > There simply is no comparison, concrete wins hands down.
>> 
>> Are you suggesting that a "good ride" is only possible on concrete sleepers?
>> 
>> I have been on much track around the world with wooden sleepers underneath
>> that would put any of the concrete sleepered tracks you mentioned to shame.
>> 

>That begs the question. Well-maintained timber sleepered track will
>give as good a ride as well-maintained concrete sleepered track. But
>the concrete version requires less maintenance.

>If any track is inadequately maintained the ride will obviously
>suffer. However timber sleepered track goes bad more quickly because
>it is lighter and consequently moves more.



OK well if wooden sleepers are as good as concrete, and given that wooden 
sleepers are cheaper can anyone provide a single example in Australia of where 
a concrete sleepered track has been relaid with wooden sleepers.

MD