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

[The Railway Rasputin II <bob@fastlink.com.au>]

Shit, there was one but for the life of me I can't remember which one.

rgds

Maurie Daly wrote:
> 
> 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