Talk:Gauntlet track

Worldwide examples of gauntlet tracks was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 14 December 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Gauntlet track. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Trains Mid‑importance

	Trains Portal
DYK	October 4, 2008

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.

Another ref[edit]

http://groups.google.com/group/uk.railway/browse_thread/thread/7b87d52b6e55183a/b2d0d4a9eb2046ce?q=interlaced+hastings+line+&lnk=nl&hl=en& - ref for future use - re B&) guy named Ganlet. Pickle 18:49, 31 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency[edit]

Okay, is it "gantlet" (current title) or "gauntlet"? Pick a version and stick with it. Also, if both versions are acceptable, mention that in the article. - dcljr (talk) 21:39, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gantlet it is, for the rail usage. LorenzoB 06:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think both should be considered acceptable. Amtrak - the national passenger rail operator in the USA - universally uses "gauntlet". Jpp42 10:56, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where exactly does "Amtrak universally (use) 'gauntlet'"? "Gantlet" is the only correct form of the word. Amtrak is no authority on anything.

71.241.93.124 (talk) 14:49, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The etymology supports gantlet. Reference (ref [1] at time of posting) added. --Old Moonraker (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The correct term for one track INSIDE another is 'gantlet'. The concepts of 'INSIDE' and 'INTERLACED' have become confused with each other. 'Gantlet' has become corrupted into general use by other rail agencies such that the word 'gauntlet' has assumed official currency. Interlaced track (two sets of tracks coming together but slightly off-set from each other) is something else again. An example of 'gantlet' track is the 1067 mm gauge being completely inside the 1435 mm at the bogie exchange facility at Acacia Ridge yard near Brisbane, Australia, where a common centre-line is required to be retained. The section needs to be rewritten to comprehend this.Throttleer (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would also propose that the term "4-rail dual-gauge" used in this article is technically incorrect and that it should be 'gantlet' track. The term 'dual-gauge' surely means (and has historically been intended to mean) two gauges able to run using the same track (in other words, there has to be a common rail involved) and this is NOT what exists where you have one track completely separate but using the same formation or track sub-structure (e.g. cape-gauge wholly within standard-gauge). Neither is 'overlapping' track able to satisfy the requirement to be called 'gantlet'... since only one of the rails for each gauge is 'within'. This latter would more correctly be termed 'interlaced' (or 'overlapping'?) track. Wikipedia has its limitations as an authoritative source of information on anything, and this inadequacy is illustrated by this discussion. These comments deserve to be reflected in the article itself.Throttleer (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three-rail track[edit]

Three-rail track (eg Angel's Flight) is not interlaced, and so doesn't fall within the definition of gantlet/gauntlet track. To avoid misunderstanding, I propose removing references to three-rail track.

Birdhurst 09:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- Three-rail track is interlaced with a spacing of zero! More seriously, unless there is an article somewhere else on WP, and which should be referred to here, the relevant sections should NOT be removed, as this is the most appropriate place for it.

EdJogg 14:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Support -- (After a bit more thought!) Passing track redirects here, yet could not sustain a separate article. The current section on Passing Tracks relates specifically to three-rail systems (especially funiculars), yet they are required on any funicular using either three-rail or gantleted track.

Are Passing Tracks and three-rail track unique to funiculars or other inclined planes? If so, then they should be moved to funicular and/or cable railway. This article can then concentrate on sections of track that 'start wide', become narrow with gantleting, and then widen again once past the obstruction. Funiculars with passing tracks are typically the inverse of this -- narrow at either end, possibly gantleted if required, with a passing track at the half-way point.

Regardless, sections should not be removed from this article without ensuring that the information is added elsewhere.

EdJogg 15:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gemmenich Tunnel[edit]

Reading de:Gemmenicher Tunnel I find confirmed that the railway line is now fully electrified, and from looking at the photo showing overhead conductor rails I'd say that electric locos can use the gauntlet track for wide loads as well. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 12:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Found one web source stating continued diesel tracking for wide loads. Will inquire. -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:05, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling that the, the extra OHL only extended a short way inside, for banking purposes—a definite answer would be good. —Sladen (talk) 13:21, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Issue 1: since 2008 continuous electrification: AC/DC change on the de:Göhltalviadukt / nl:Viaduct van Moresnet

Issue 2: overhead conductor rail, does it simultaneously cover both the normal and the wide loads track? -- KlausFoehl (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Something else[edit]

The external link to http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?68158 seems to show something else altogether.

This shows a method by which stopping trains can be next to the platform edge, whilst expresses or large gauge goods trains can run clear.

Don't know what this is called, mark you.--Robert EA Harvey (talk) 12:43, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would rather say that this link is unnecessary because it shows the same principle as the picture about Kaufungen at the top or the page. Andreas ^(T) 16:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point?[edit]

I think the lede should say why these things exist. What is the point of them? From the article it seems to me that it's necessary when space is at a premium but you want to avoid putting in points which would be necessary for using a single track. Am I right? --Eamonnca1 ^TALK 18:11, 29 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why a gallery?[edit]

I object to the inclusion of a gallery in this article. We already have eight photos for a whopping 526 words of prose. What does a gallery add, exactly? I don't see any real reason for a giant gallery to be added, beyond "look at the pretty pictures". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I second this, even though I'm not completely against the inclusion of more (notable) examples and images of such where encyclopedic and appropriate. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 19:17, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Merged in examples[edit]

I merged the page per the AFD - if anyone wants to clean it up its all cool! Ask me about air Cryogenic air (talk) 22:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken an axe to all unsourced material. All complaints may be addressed to WP:BURDEN. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:21, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Missing reference?[edit]

The "Point gauntlet" section refers to "the Roselle Park Station referenced below", but there is no such reference. MuchosSombreros (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]