Regarding the stuff about temp rails:

The geometry is wrong. The rationale is asinine. The posts are ridiculous.

Bet Twice: 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?

Rich Curtis: 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.\"

TGJB: Correct. And a lot of people get that one wrong when they first look at it.

Bet Twice: 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?

TGJB: 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.

Bet Twice: Ah, thanks for the explanation.  I should have paid more attention in geometry.