Talk:Cant deficiency

Cant deficiency

This was a phrase I heard a lot around Derby in the sixties and seventies. Perhaps the subject of cant and cant deficiency can be linked articles on the APT, Pendolino and other Tilting Trains. For references someone might get out some standard text books on the subject of track design. 81.132.202.197 (talk) 13:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Suggest merge with banked turn and Cant (road/rail) into "Banking/Cant (engineering)"

FengRail (talk) 21:25, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

The article on cant deficiency is OF GRAVE AND VITAL SIGNIFICANCE and must never be merged with other aspects of camber et al., because of the as yet largely unaddressed nature of cant deficiency that is the underlying cause of many road accidents and even deaths. Without building a separate cant deficiency section on Wiki council workers - many of whom are not qualified engineers - who are building roads and absenting responsibility for cant deficiency accidents continue to go unaccounted. The issue if cant deficiency continues to go largely inb be ignored as a result of motorists own lack of knowledge and the lack of available public information made ready to citizens and communities via Government, the Dept of Transport,Councils et al., Road maintenance teams should be out there under inspection and guidance of highly skilled and experienced engineers and rectifying this problem.

Thus the argument for CANT DEFICIENCY will be eternally linked to camber et al on wiki whilst at the same time maintaining it's singular and sole identity that must be stopped from merging and loosing purpose on and off line. Karen.

-- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.179.160.30 (talk • contribs) 18:53, May 2, 2009 (UTC)

There has been no support for the proposed merger between banked turn and Cant (road/rail), and the editor who proposed it has not been active at WP since just after the proposals were made. Hence it may be safely said that this merge proposal is now dead. (But see below...) -- EdJogg (talk) 10:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

However, there currently exists four separate articles that cover this topic: Banked turn, Cant (road/rail), Cant deficiency, and Cross slope. Even Camber angle chimes in. The fact that banked turn discusses both ground-based and aerial maneuvers only suggests that that article should be split. A similar argument can be made about Cant (road/rail). The fact that the editor who proposed the merge has not been active should have nothing to do with it. I suggest we either put everything in one article with separate sections for rail, road, and aerial, or separate the topic into three articles along those same lines. -AndrewDressel (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Cant (road/rail) upon improvement

If any merger should occur, it should be with the Cant (road/rail) section. As the current article offers nothing on cant deficiency on roads (of which I currently know nothing, I'm a railway civil engineer), the current article should probably be merged with the subheading on rail, of which cant deficiency is of great importance in railway curve design. However, this should probably occur after the current article is improved and has appropriate citations added. Slopes09 (talk) 00:40, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you can advise whether there is actually a need to merge at all. 'Cant deficiency' is large enough to exist as a stand-alone article, but Cant (road/rail) itself is not very large. I guess the question is, should it be considered as a topic in isolation from Cant (road/rail)? Combining the two articles would not result in an article of excessive length, and "Cant deficiency" would remain as a redirect to the section within the larger article.

Merging, as you suggest, would not be a difficult task, and need not wait for article improvements (unless you had it in mind to apply them soon!)

EdJogg (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Merge - As mentioned above, this article would fit nicely into the subheading on rail. -AndrewDressel (talk) 13:30, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment -- this merge proposal has been hanging around for a very long time. If no merge is to take place, the banners should be removed. -- EdJogg (talk) 15:11, 2 February 2011 (UTC) -- not watching page

The original author suggests that the article be cross-referenced with railroad track and with the topics thereunder of curvature and super-elevation [User: Louis T Klauder Jr.]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lklauder@wsof.com (talk • contribs) 02:24, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

The article of cant deficiency has to be merged into the section of rail cant of the article Cant (road/rail)--TransportObserver (talk) 08:01, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep but expand both articles

These two subjects can stand on their own. Cant applies to all types of ground transportation but cant deficiency only applies to railroad. While each of these articles looks very light in the current form of contents inviting an idea to merge, but it is just that there are other things that have not been included yet. The article on cant for rail should focus on the cant itself while cant deficiency should focus on speeds, tilting, and wear and tear of wheels and rails. After all the things are included, it will be obvious that they need separate articles.

Cant (for rail) could include construction techniques such as [1] dapping and shimming of timber ties, bridge design with superelevation, ballasless and superelevation.[2]

Cant deficiency could include cant deficiency vs. cant excess and associated safety risks, effect on angle of attack on different cant deficiency levels, concerns with shared track between low and high speed trains, optimal level of cant deficiency for ride quality in passenger trains, tilting in passenger trains, etc.[3][4] Z22 (talk) 04:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)