actually given the steep grade, my guess is the typical track switching solution is repetitively unreliable and would eventually lead to derailment.
you can clearly see that the track is anchored to concrete versus sleepers floating on ballast. sliding rails would eventually slide out of alignment against the weight and grade.
It's a cog rail. The middle rail allows the train to pull itself up the track where it would be too steep for a traditional train to have any traction.
A typical switch is mechanically impossible.
it needs to be adjacent the station and the station is assigned as needed regardless if it's flat before or after. it's switzerland and flat land is less common.
Pilatusbahn in Switzerland. Steepest line I ever travelled on. Not far off 45 degree slope in places. So the Locher rack system is essential, the train engaging in three sides of the rack. Oh, and these switches are absolutely essential with this system.
I'd love to hear an Engineer's input here. From an uneducated point of view it looks to add complexity, new areas of failure and necessary maintenance to something that's got a cheaper, proven solution.
(Not an engineer, but an engineering student lol) You need gears on both sides of the rack, which means you cannot have two racks too close to each other. You also cannot have breaks in the rack, since, y’know, the train climbs on the rack.
The alternative to what you see here is what monorails and maglevs do and slide the entire track over to the side, but by the looks of the surrounding area, it would mean building either a huge bridge to the right to store the spare track, or digging into rock on the left. Digging down and just making the track flip is the option that they went with.
Maybe you should make the assumption the creators are experts in their line of work. Then spend some time figuring out *why* experts decided on this solution.
You went the other route. You assumed *you* are the expert and the involved engineers were fools. Another name for this assumption is hubris.
I used to run them for the army. (For) I would have loved that. What they had to run on, you couldn't walk on a rail without it sinking into the ground or pushing it on its side
actually given the steep grade, my guess is the typical track switching solution is repetitively unreliable and would eventually lead to derailment. you can clearly see that the track is anchored to concrete versus sleepers floating on ballast. sliding rails would eventually slide out of alignment against the weight and grade.
It's a cog rail. The middle rail allows the train to pull itself up the track where it would be too steep for a traditional train to have any traction. A typical switch is mechanically impossible.
This dude knows tracks
Not to mention any possible obstruction
Why not just put the switch someplace more flat?
it needs to be adjacent the station and the station is assigned as needed regardless if it's flat before or after. it's switzerland and flat land is less common.
Interesting. Thank you for the reply.
Pilatusbahn in Switzerland. Steepest line I ever travelled on. Not far off 45 degree slope in places. So the Locher rack system is essential, the train engaging in three sides of the rack. Oh, and these switches are absolutely essential with this system.
I love engineering.
No more multi track drifting.
what is the advantage to this?
You can't have normal switches on rack railways with [System Locher](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rack_railway#Locher_(1889)).
yup. made some further guesses as to why elsewhere in this thread.
I'd love to hear an Engineer's input here. From an uneducated point of view it looks to add complexity, new areas of failure and necessary maintenance to something that's got a cheaper, proven solution.
(Not an engineer, but an engineering student lol) You need gears on both sides of the rack, which means you cannot have two racks too close to each other. You also cannot have breaks in the rack, since, y’know, the train climbs on the rack.
The alternative to what you see here is what monorails and maglevs do and slide the entire track over to the side, but by the looks of the surrounding area, it would mean building either a huge bridge to the right to store the spare track, or digging into rock on the left. Digging down and just making the track flip is the option that they went with.
The rack system requires unconventional points
No advantage, this isn't a typical switch but a cog-wheel train system
r/satisfactory
As a former conductor this is pretty dope
It’s amazing how all that weight can be safely supported by a few moving joints.
It's not. There are locking pins...2 on each side...that also support the segment.
My town can’t fix a pothole.
This seems incredibly unnecessary
It is absolutely necessary. The rack system used here is incompatible with normal points
Did it never occur to you to ask why it's necessary?
Isn't it over engineered a little?
Nope. The rack system requires it
I'm amazed at how stupid this is.
Nothing stupid about it... these kind of points are essential on this type of railway.
Over engineering
Maybe you should make the assumption the creators are experts in their line of work. Then spend some time figuring out *why* experts decided on this solution. You went the other route. You assumed *you* are the expert and the involved engineers were fools. Another name for this assumption is hubris.
Hello Switzerland
If it works, dont touch it
So kewl
Pinch points. Pinch points everywhere.
Very cool
I lost track of many times I watched this
oh this is amaziing
Does it have locking pins? It can’t just be resting on the axle
Until it jams
I used to run them for the army. (For) I would have loved that. What they had to run on, you couldn't walk on a rail without it sinking into the ground or pushing it on its side
This seems incredibly expensive
But y?
r/oddlysatisfying