5 ms·

It's an exaggeration to claim that ballast would have been used for railway tracks for centuries as the article claims. Railways haven't even existed for 2 cent

It's an exaggeration to claim that ballast would have been used for railway tracks for centuries as the article claims. Railways haven't even existed for 2 centuries. Although there are only 2 years left. Still in the 1970s, only 50 years ago, Finland had railways build with weaker material, small round stones.

zimpenfish 3y ago
> It's an exaggeration to claim that ballast would have been used for railway tracks for centuries "At Whitley in 1704, when the word first occurs in a railway context, clinker from the salt-pans was used 'for the ballast of the waggonway'"[1] By my reckoning, 2023 - 1704 = 319 which I think comfortably fits into "centuries"? [1] https://www.railscot.co.uk/articles/A_brief_history_of_railway_track_ballast_with_special_reference_to_the_north_east_of_Scotland/ https://www.railscot.co.uk/articles/A_brief_history_of_railw...
- usr1106 3y ago
  Of course it always depends what borders you draw. I started with steam railways. Of course horse driven railways existed before, but they were of a completely different load class. I don't know what clinker from salt mines looks like. But I guess it's significantly different from sharp, crushed rocks the NZ article describes. Also the Scottish article says that just some sentences later that ballast had completely different properties those days. Some ballast has been used for centuries. But not the kind consisting of sharp, crushed relatively coarse rock pieces we know today.
  - zimpenfish 3y ago
    > Of course it always depends what borders you draw. You seem to be rapidly redrawing yours in a different place all of a sudden. "It's an exaggeration to claim that ballast would have been used for railway tracks for centuries" You may well have meant "ballast (specifically sharp crushed rocks as they use nowadays)" but that's a very different statement. > Some [X] has been used for centuries. But not the kind [...] we know today. I mean, yeah, truism.
    - usr1106 3y ago
      Ah sorry, I thought I had written ballast of the current form. That was my intention, but I failed to type what I had thought. Otherwise there wouldn't be a point to mention that 50 years ago other, less stable ballast was still in use in some places.
- biorach 3y ago
  That's a wagonway, the wagons would have been pulled by horses. Steam powered railways were only widely deployed from the 1830's
  - usr1106 3y ago
    Right. I referred to Stockton - Darlington 1825.
  - zimpenfish 3y ago
    > Steam powered railways were only widely deployed from the 1830's Sure but GP didn't specify steam powered / iron-railed / commercial usage / whatever kind of railways in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36184243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36184243. GP suggested that "ballast hasn't been used on railway tracks for centuries" (incorrect) because "railways haven't even existed for 2 centuries" (incorrect).

zimpenfish 3y ago

> It's an exaggeration to claim that ballast would have been used for railway tracks for centuries "At Whitley in 1704, when the word first occurs in a railway context, clinker from the salt-pans was used 'for the ballast of the waggonway'"[1] By my reckoning, 2023 - 1704 = 319 which I think comfortably fits into "centuries"? [1] https://www.railscot.co.uk/articles/A_brief_history_of_railway_track_ballast_with_special_reference_to_the_north_east_of_Scotland/ https://www.railscot.co.uk/articles/A_brief_history_of_railw...

usr1106 3y ago
Of course it always depends what borders you draw. I started with steam railways. Of course horse driven railways existed before, but they were of a completely different load class. I don't know what clinker from salt mines looks like. But I guess it's significantly different from sharp, crushed rocks the NZ article describes. Also the Scottish article says that just some sentences later that ballast had completely different properties those days. Some ballast has been used for centuries. But not the kind consisting of sharp, crushed relatively coarse rock pieces we know today.
- zimpenfish 3y ago
  > Of course it always depends what borders you draw. You seem to be rapidly redrawing yours in a different place all of a sudden. "It's an exaggeration to claim that ballast would have been used for railway tracks for centuries" You may well have meant "ballast (specifically sharp crushed rocks as they use nowadays)" but that's a very different statement. > Some [X] has been used for centuries. But not the kind [...] we know today. I mean, yeah, truism.
  - usr1106 3y ago
    Ah sorry, I thought I had written ballast of the current form. That was my intention, but I failed to type what I had thought. Otherwise there wouldn't be a point to mention that 50 years ago other, less stable ballast was still in use in some places.
biorach 3y ago
That's a wagonway, the wagons would have been pulled by horses. Steam powered railways were only widely deployed from the 1830's
- usr1106 3y ago
  Right. I referred to Stockton - Darlington 1825.
- zimpenfish 3y ago
  > Steam powered railways were only widely deployed from the 1830's Sure but GP didn't specify steam powered / iron-railed / commercial usage / whatever kind of railways in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36184243 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36184243. GP suggested that "ballast hasn't been used on railway tracks for centuries" (incorrect) because "railways haven't even existed for 2 centuries" (incorrect).