English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-12-18 09:35:18 · 30 answers · asked by Charis 1 in Cars & Transportation Rail

30 answers

Because if they didn't they wouldn't be trains, they'd be road vehicles!
The great advantage of rails is that friction is greatly reduced, whilst load is evenly spread - enabling vastly heavier loads to be contemplated on a train than on a road vehicle.
I am assuming that this question was meant to be taken seriously!

2006-12-18 09:39:56 · answer #1 · answered by david f 5 · 2 0

As previous persons answered, the rails allow the heavy weight to be distributed.... A train would sink into a paved street. The reason though is because when trains were invented, the car hadn't been yet. Also, road building technology wasn't what it is today. They didn't have all the modern paving equipment. So it was much easier and effiecient to build rails. Why do modern trains still use rails? because the railroads were already built over decades, so it was easier to keep using the same routes than tear them all up and re-route or change the existing railways.

2006-12-18 12:21:35 · answer #2 · answered by Pen Man 3 · 1 0

The first use of rails was in mines where lots of heavy coal, ore, etc had to be got out and the ground wasn't the smooth tarmac surfaces one finds on modern roads. It was usually very uneven, wet and rock strewn.

The rail and waggon system worked well as the wheels had a smooth surface to run on and so the friction was low and men or ponies could haul a great many waggons of coal or ore to the surface or to the bottom of the shaft.

As the roads in 18th and 19th century were very poor, railways began to appear in the countryside linking e.g.mines and ports. A horse could haul a vast number of wagons while a cart on the road hauled by many horses or oxen would be a laborious business, not best used in Winter, you used pack horses instead.

So railway is an effecient method of transport even today.

2006-12-19 03:11:30 · answer #3 · answered by efes_haze 5 · 0 0

trains run on steel rails because they have no steering wheels. and even if they did, have you ever tried to turn a mile long, a half million ton train with one steering wheel???
the rails are a standard path for many trains to use for decades, centuries even. the engineer only has worry about speed and things crossing the tracks, not finding an exit off the interstate. besides, the trains are then more efficient than a convoy of semis.

2006-12-18 10:05:09 · answer #4 · answered by lith_talon 2 · 2 0

Trains are means of transportation with dedicated path. That means that the path is only for them to use. The circulation is planned in charts so at one time only one train can ocupy a part of the rail. In this way they avoid the bumping of the trains. The train driver does not focus on stirring the weel but only on controlling the speed. It's much safer this way.

2006-12-19 00:23:01 · answer #5 · answered by Mada 1 · 0 0

Bung 2 has it almost superb perfect! on the London underground - as he says - the exterior conductor rail is helpful with comprehend to earth, and the centre rail is detrimental. The 'ability massive difference' - or voltage - between both is about 630 volts. The equipment used on British important lines - usually the former Southern area, London Overground and interior the Merseyside section makes use of basically a third outdoors conductor rail at as a lot as 750 volts d.c., with the go back cutting-edge passing with the help of the operating rails, precisely because it does with the 25Kv a.c. overhead electrification used on different electrified lines. the reason behind the fourth rail on the London Underground is that - at the same time as the first parts of what replaced into to change into the Circle Line were electrified in 1898, a separate 'fourth' go back cutting-edge rail replaced into presented as a fashion to ward off having to electrically-connect ('bond') the operating rails, besides as to ward off stray earth currents interfering with the signalling circuits. The 4-rail equipment replaced into then followed as favourite with the help of a few thing else of the underground equipment, even although later advances in electric powered engineering enabled the signalling circuits and go back traction currents to be kept separate. it may fee too a lot to remodel the present equipment to third rail for no extremely benefit. on the locomotive 'Sarah Siddons' that Bung 2 said, the replace really entailed including a swap that short-circuited the many times insulated go back cutting-edge from the autos to the frames of the locomotive, the position it passes with the help of the wheels to the operating rails at the same time as operating over the 'third rail'.

2016-11-30 22:34:03 · answer #6 · answered by cottom 4 · 0 0

Without the support of the track structure, the equipment sinks right into the ground.

A single locomotive weighs in at around 200 tons. They don't roll very well off the tracks, in fact, not at all.

Your average loaded freight car is around 140 tons per copy. They don't roll off the tracks either.

Engineers have a little more to think about than speed or an obstruction on the rails. It takes years of experience for an engineer to reach full potential and I can assure you that it is considerably more difficult than navigating a highway off-ramp.

2006-12-18 10:11:50 · answer #7 · answered by Samurai Hoghead 7 · 4 1

If trains didn't run on rails, what would they run on, unless you want them to run on the street.

2006-12-18 09:47:10 · answer #8 · answered by robert c 1 · 0 0

Steel wheels on steel rails causes less friction. More efficient.

2006-12-18 09:39:46 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3 0

They run on tracks that are called rails... don't pee on the third rail.

2006-12-18 09:37:33 · answer #10 · answered by Sara ♈ 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers