Regarding the stuff about temp rails:
The geometry is wrong. The rationale is asinine. The posts are ridiculous.
I looked at the post. I don’t put any weight on the angle, but not sure I understand the geometry being wrong point. If you increase the circumference of the oval, wouldn’t you be increasing the length of the turn?
Yes, but that is not the bad geometry. The bad geometry is here:
\"Being the speed would presumably allow you a rail trip......the bigger the turn(s) the bigger the advantage that would provide.\"
Correct. And a lot of people get that one wrong when they first look at it.
I still don’t get it. I’ll use round numbers to keep it simple:
First scenario- no temporary rails. Rail trip on turn is 500 ft. A 2 wide trip is 10% further, so 550 ft. Stretch run is 500 feet for a total of 1000 ft traveled for rail horse, 1050 for 2 path.
2nd scenario - temp rails. Rail trip on turn is 600 ft. A 2 wide trip is 10% further, so 660 feet. Stretch is 400 feet for a total of 1000 ft for rail horse, 1060 for 2 path.
Scenario two is more beneficial for horse on the rail, relative to horses not on rail.
I’m not a math guy, so maybe i’m thinking about this incorrectly?
It’s not 10% further. It’s pi times radius further. The additional radius is the width of a path, and that’s true no matter the size of the turn. So the additional distance travelled is the same regardless, about a length.
Ah, thanks for the explanation. I should have paid more attention in geometry.