Talk:Railroad switch/Archive 1

Archive 1

Foreign terms

Removed "the German term is Eisenbahnweiche" -- no reason for the article to include foreign-language equivalents of terms (if German, why not French etc.?) -- Picapica 12:30, 4 December 2004 (UTC)

It crept back in; I took it out again. It's in the interWP links.

This is inconsistant, to find out why, see this page for an example. Myrtone

Diamond Crossings (Switches shaped like an X)

I think we need to include Diamond Crossing (I don't know what the technical term is.) They used quite commonly. For instance where a branch crosses over onto a relief line. I am thinking also of the crossing north of Newark in England, where the local line crosses the ECML.

Also a disambiguation page for "crossing" as opposed to "crossover". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.123.180 (talk) 16:25, 8 July 2005 (UTC)

Their are several terms for this. We like to call them Exicornts because they look like X's between tracks the run parallel. Other known terms: Scissors crossover, diamond crossover, and double crossover. I recently added the Exicornt term to this site, but their is a dispute as to whether the word exists and whether or not the page should be deleted or merged. EddieSegoura 03:35, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

A crossing (as I understand it) allows to lines at an angle to cross (as in the case mentioned above) unlike a crossover. Since there are no moving parts, I suppose it is technically not a switch, but perhaps the difference should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.78.103.204 (talk) 10:19, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Frogs

Three times in the article frogs are described as castings. For strength, aren't they in fact always forgings? The expense of forgings was the reason given by British Rail when it was trying to save money by reducing double to single turnouts at junctions (thus reducing flank protection) and not having provided catch points at the site of the Cowden train crash. Moonraker88 06:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

They really are cast. The material of these frogs is a high Manganese austenitic steel, unforgable because of its high work hardening quality. Many other rail parts are forged. Meggar 04:05, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Great – thanks for putting me right. Moonraker88 07:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Double slip switch

Removed reference to English switch (Mainland Europe). It is really called this only in Dutch (Engelse wissel). (We don't need to say that an adjustable spanner is also known as an "English key" just because of Spanish llave inglesa, etc.)

(PS Hope to add letters to the image of the double slip soon -- no access to suitable software at the moment) -- Picapica 15:27, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Separate articles

Anyhow: IMO derailler and gauntlet should be on their own pages. Esp since not all deraillers are points, although even some of that type have "switchstands". (Otherwise y'might's well throw diamond crossing in here too, and rename it Frog (railway).) Kwantus 22:23, 2005 Jan 26 (UTC)

I agree that gauntleted track should be in a separate article. In normal circumstances there are no moving parts, so there is no "switching" involved. The same goes for diamond crossings, mentioned below. Will move gauntleted track, anyway, if no objections within the next few days. -- Picapica 8 July 2005 16:58 (UTC)

Agree with Kwantus on derails (I assume the term "derailer"/"derailler" is British; correctly or not, it is referred to as a "derail" by the railroads I'm familiar with and also in GCOR, which is the governing rulebook for almost all West Coast railroads). In fact, of the dozens of derails I've run across, all but one are of the type shown in the image Kwantus posted--only one would be even remotely like that described in this article (when in the derailing position, it basically splits the rail apart--hard to describe). I'm not sure that there's enough content to justify "derail" being its own article, but it is sufficiently different from a switch that it's worth considering. cluth 23:53, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Also agree in making a separate article on Gantlet Track. The originator of this type of track was Prof. TSC Lowe who needed to come up with a solution for his Mount Lowe Railway funicular when his designer-engineer David Macpherson told him that the required grading for the common four-rail would be extensive and costly, mostly for the fact that there was a great chasm to backfill in order to accomplish the proper width. Overnight Lowe came up with his version of a "passing track" which allowed a three-rail funicular with the four-rail section only required at dead center. The passing track was listed as a point of interest with its own signage and all. It also became a world wide standard for funiculars. Magi Media 14:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)Magi Media

I came here to agree with the separate-article proposal ...which I now see I proposed myself nearly 9 months ago (and then forgot about)! -- Picapica 11:29, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Separate Gantlet track article now created. -- Picapica 12:34, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Trap points and catch points

I've posted a question at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Catch points and trap points about the difference between trap and catch points, with the hope of clearing up the differences (whether one definition is incorrect, or there is some difference in terminology) and making this article agree with the information at Catch point. If anyone feels they can help in this regard, it'd be great if you could reply at the link above! →Ollie (talk • contribs) 20:57, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

What is a frog?

I don't really get what a frog is (both in the context of switches and on crossings and gauntlet tracks) - can someone possibly color in the frog on a picture of a switch (and the other setups)? Also, is the etymology of the term known? --SPUI (talk) 03:07, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I think I understand. So the end of a gauntlet/gantlet track setup also has one frog, and a crossing of two railroads with no switches has 4? --SPUI (talk) 05:42, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Correct. The frog proper is the triangular meeting of two rails at the heart of this assemblage: [1] (it's taken from a piece of electrified model railway track - hence the isolation gaps either side of the assemblage; they wouldn't be there in the prototype). The etymology, I believe, is from the fact that the appearance of this triangular bit of rail reminded the early rail engineers of the "frog" in a horse's hoof - see here: [2] (people were more into looking closely at horses' hooves in those days, you have to remember!). And the name of the horse's hoof frog itself was no doubt inspired in turn by the triangular shape of a frog's body: [3]... -- Picapica 8 July 2005 17:39 (UTC)

I dislike use of the term 'frog' in this context, a term I'd only associate with model railways. On the 'real railway', it's alway referred to as a 'crossing', in my experience.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.77.170.235 (talk • contribs) 18:23, June 26, 2006

(in which country nd period?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugh Watkins (talk • contribs) 04:20, July 12, 2006

Hmm. I think that there's plenty of evidence that frogs are still alive and well on the real railway. Some examples: [4] [5] [6]. -- Picapica 15:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably depends on the country. Here in the U.S., they're definitely known as frogs by railroaders. And be careful about causing even further confusion: I'm not sure how the U.K. does things, but here in the U.S., a crossing is a place where a road crosses the tracks (more officially known as a "grade crossing" or an "at-grade crossing"). cluth 23:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we should start to get paranoid about what we call the individual parts (and more importantly, explain to a lesser mortal what and how it works) . So long as we know what we are talking about and we include alternative names in parenthesis. --7severn7 11:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed this:

One origin of the term "frog" gives its name to the frog war, a conflict that occurs when a railroad company attempts to cross the tracks of another. Another reason given for the use of the word "Frog" to describe this device that it is where the wheel "jumps" over the rail, like a frog jumping. In French, this device is also known as a "bifurcle"--the location where the rails bifurcate in a turnout.

as (1) the first explanation looks like circular reasoning (rail frogs were named as such long before before there were "frog wars") and (2) there is no such French word as "bifurcle" -- the French term is "cœur (de croisement)". -- Picapica 22:41, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Guard rails

Removed this: Guard rails on the outer rails are not needed with the one-piece cast frog as they are part of the casting.

One-piece cast frogs do not obviate the need for guard (check) rails on the inner side of the stock rails. It is the wing rails, not the guard rails, that are incorporated in a one-piece cast frog. -- Picapica 23:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

I had never seen a one-piece cast frog before seeing the picture on here, but it appears to me that with such an arrangement, the need for guard (check) rails is obviated. Guard rails work by preventing the wheels taking the wrong route through the frog by contacting the back of the flange of the opposite wheel. With the pictured frog, the wheels are prevented from taking the wrong route by the raised sections contacting the back of the wheel going through the frog. Thus the normal guard rail would not be needed. Furthermore, as the raised sections do the job of the otherwise absent guard rails, perhaps the raised sections are known as guard rails(this is just speculation)? Philip J. Rayment 01:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I like that commentary, Philip: you make some good points (<-- sorry about that!). It's a pity, though, that we haven't got an image conclusively showing the absence of stock-rail guards in a switch fitted with the kind of frog pictured. Like you, I've never seen such a frog in situ, but I find it hard to believe that the usual railway belt-and-braces attitude would permit their being dispensed with. In any case, one-piece frog castings do not have per se to be of this particular design: see [7] for an image of a one-piece cast frog accompanied by the usual guard rails. I shall need to do some more investigating! -- Picapica 11:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

There is such a photo in the EMD SW900 article. Very common in yards. Here is another example [8], and contrasting to it [9] is one with guard (wing) rails. The sentence was a bit cryptic, but Plilip J. was able to reason it out. I will put the sentence back, then we can work on making it clearer. Meggar 19:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Winter operation

i did not see discussion in the article of winter operation of switches. A build up of snow and slush which freezes solid can prevent the switch from operating correctly. In rail yards, I have seen electrically heated switches and switches heated by gas flames. Along the line, in Canada or the northern United States, how are switches operated out in the country? Do they have ac power run to them with electric heat, or do the switchmen carry gas torches for melting the ice build up? I know that in the early to mid 20th century the Section Foreman's job included making the rounds all night and sweeping snow off the switches to make sure they were operable, but I can't envision that with today's reduced work force.Edison 20:28, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I saw plenty of propane 'pigs' next to the track on amtrak from chicago to denver away from any obvious buildings. I did not know their purpose until I read the remark about gas heating - I now assume that they are fuel for deicing important switches. --Jaded-view 06:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Invented in 1832

Can anyone back up the startling suggestion that railway points were "invented" in 1832 and unknown prior to that? It's obviously untrue, but someone must have read something that they misinterpreted to write that, and it would be more helpful to correct the information than just to delete it. Afterbrunel (talk) 15:30, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Brown's edits and questions

First, let me compliment Oliver Brown on his recent work on this article. It is a big improvement. However, I have some questions. Highlighted passages are quotes from the article.

• In talking about trailing through points set the wrong way, there is mention of "variable switches". What are these?
• On lines with heavy and/or high-speed traffic, a movable point frog is often used. As the name implies, there is a second set of points located at the frog.
  Is this ever true? The linked article talks about the V of the frog moving, not additional blades.
• Two switch machines are required to make a movable point frog switch work.
  How true is this? I can accept that two machines might be normal, but are two actually required? Surely with appropriate rodding the one machine could operate both blades plus the frog?
• Guard rails on the outer rails are not needed with the one-piece cast frog as they are part of the casting.
  I had no idea what this meant until I had a close look at one of the pictures, but is this always true?
• A points lever, ground throw, or switchstand is a lever and accompanying linkages ...
  Is a switchstand actually a lever, or is it a device to indicate the lie of the points? The accompanying picture appears to show the latter, although perhaps they are combined levers and point indicators? Regardless, point indicators are not (yet) covered in the article.

Philip J. Rayment 09:29, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments, and thanks for tidying up after me! I hope to get stuck into the rest of the article at some point in the near future. As for you questions, unfortunately I only have limited knowledge of UK usage, so I don't really know. Ollie 12:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Swingnose crossings: It's just the nose that swings; there are no supplementary points/switch blades.

Two machines are required: well, swing nose crossings are used on high speed turnouts, which are very long indeed, so the crossing is a jolly long way from the primary point machine. The swing nose needs to be locked as well as swung, and while all this is theoretically possible with rodding from the primary point machine, it would be a bit hairy, and I don't think anyone has ever attempted it. After all, it's commonplace to provide a secondary point machineto throw long sets of switches, even.

Guard rail not needed? Well the picture is of a special design of cast crossing (as someone else has explained). With that design, check rails aren't needed, but this special design is only suitable for low speed operation (and is unknown outside North America, I believe) so the generalisation is highly misleading. It would be better to say (a) check rails are generally used; but (b) here is a special design of cast crossing for yard use that obviates them. Afterbrunel (talk) 15:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Frog: wheels going the wrong way

"There is also a small risk that the wheels may go the wrong way": I tagged this with a {{cn}} request, as it seems to be contradicted by the following section on guard rails. I was going to add "and common sense", but this is Wikipedia and, using only common sense, I have been caught out in the past! --Old Moonraker (talk) 07:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Safety

I added the Eschede train disaster to the "Safety" section, since it killed over 100 people and was directly the result of a failure of a railroad switch. The safety issue was the design of switches in Germany which placed the manual switch box close to the track. Since this accident all such boxes in Germany have been moved. Nick Beeson (talk) 14:21, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Commonwealth vs US usage

I understand that Wikipedia is a multinational project, and I've always tried to be sensitive to how countries outside of the U.S. use the English language (which, admittedly, we did not invent). I definitely don't go around editing articles to conform all to American usage. However, the radical difference in terminology between North American railroads and railways in the rest of the English-speaking world can lead to some very choppy and inconsistently-written Wikipedia articles. In most rail-related articles, it's very obvious that the articles were written by many different people, as terms, usage, and style vary wildly between paragraphs and even sentences in the same paragraph. Non-cohesive writing is, I believe, somewhat destructive to the sense of flow and order that should be in every Wikipedia article.

I'm not sure what the solution is--I hesitate to call for standardizing terminology to one standard or the other, and it's very cumbersome to put "U.S.: xxx, U.K.: yyy" (or the longer but more inclusive and accurate "North America: xxx; Commonwealth: yyy") at every point (no pun intended) in the article . Any suggestions? Or do you all vote that it's OK as is?

I'm going to place a copy of this post in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#The Regional Terminology Problem--the discussion's kind of started there. cluth 02:29, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

It appears that in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Railway station v Train station, User:JYolkowski said that Wikipedia:Manual of style#National varieties of English says that it's OK to be inconsistent across articles as long as you're consistent inside each article--and that it probably works best to defer to the style used first in each article. That makes sense, but it still presents problems in places like crossing loop that were mentioned in the Regional Terminology Problem section. To keep things from getting confusing, if you have a reply on this subject that's not related to this article, please post it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#The Regional Terminology Problem. Thanks! cluth 02:41, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is supposed to be based on authoritative sources. The International Union of Railways (UIC) has an official dictionary and glossary of standard railway terms in English (as well as its other 2 official languages). Surely we should standardise on that except when articles are about specific geographical area that uses different terminology? --Bermicourt (talk) 19:59, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

The main figure

I would suggest to replace the main (first) figure by one of the multiple pictures of the real switches. I am not sure if we need the toy switch picture here, and it actually does not look very well. Audriusa 17:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. But not replace with real switchs. How about a diagram of how a switch works, animated so it shows the two positions it can be in? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.118.149 (talk) 22:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Now replaced with an image of the real thing. (Animation will have to await someone more skilled, however!). -- Picapica 12:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Lol I was bored, so here. Animation It sucks though, so be warned. This is just a very basic diagram of it, not fancy at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazy Fox (talk • contribs) 23:59, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The animations are really really annoying. Better to have before and after pictures. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.41.83.52 (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Single Slip

O boy, this section needs a picture or diagram. CapnZapp (talk) 08:11, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Animated example

At the top there is a photo and then a diagram and I wondered on 2 birds with one stone, or just improving the photo's uses. I had issues uploading to common's stating information on the original file it's derived from, so the 2 junction switch's are on photobucket, since it took about 3 times longer failing to upload there than it did just photoshopping the original image! I read this artical with great ignorance, so this picture is only as the diagram beneath described it and guess work...The images are public domain, do as you please. 1, 2 Ben Robbins (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Spring switch

Displaying my ignorance: How can we tell from the photo of a low switch stand (caption starting with "An example of a mechanism used at a switch.") that it's designed to be trailed through? I don't see a spring per se, but do note that the lever has a weight that could serve to return the points to the normal (or even to the last manually-set) postion after a trailing movement. Whatever the clue is, perhaps the caption could explain this. The article text doesn't really say exactly how a spring switch works, or address whether it can be trailed through from either diverging track if set for the other. Casey (talk) 06:45, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

Suggested move to "Switch (railway)"

The term "switch" now appears to be in common usage in British railway engineering (alongside "points") as well as North America without the qualifier "railroad". However "railroad" is specifically North American, whereas "railway" is not just British Commonwealth, but also used by the worldwide body, the Union Internationale des Chemins de Fer. May I suggest we tidy up the article by renaming it "Switch (railway)" and use "switch" in the article without either "railroad" or "railway" in front of it to make it more neutral/international? The precise distinction between "switch" and "points" may also need clarifying - I'll check out what my engineering encyclopaedia says! --Bermicourt (talk) 21:02, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Pivoting of moveable points

The article needs to explain what type of hinge mechanism connects the blunt end of the movable points to the fixed stock rail. Is a "loose" conventional joint used, or is the unspiked last portion of rail merely forced to bend into the desired position (but I think that would put a twist in the rail)? Colloquially in North America the term "bending the iron" has been heard. I saw an example in Europe where metal had been removed from both sides of the bottom flange of the rail cross-section to make it easier to bend at the desired pivot point. Casey (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Flange tip running

This article works by railroad terms, assuming all switches are "deep," where the thread of the wheel is usually wide enough to always support the vehicle when passing switches. However, in tramways, the wheels used to be so narrow that this was not possible, hence it became standard practice to design the switches so that they were passed by running on the flanges.

In the EU, where there are plenty of old streetcar systems, there is a trend to get rid of most of the flange running switches (where the radius permits), as they require lower speed to pass, compared to tread running. I don't have good enough English to incorporate these additions to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.100.221.225 (talk) 10:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Transport

Transport of switches by rail creates problems as they are so long and wide.

Tabletop (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

"Expansion joint" is completely wrong here

Only because it looks like a tongue to the layman does not at all make it anything even remotely related to a railroad switch. --haraldmmueller 10:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldmmueller (talk • contribs)

On the other hand, the number of different kinds of expansion joints does not really justify a separate article, so leave it here. Tabletop (talk) 05:48, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

I removed the shaky explanation, as there is a separate section at expansion joint#Railway expansion joints (which I also had to rewrite. --haraldmmueller 10:51, 1 September 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldmmueller (talk • contribs)

How does the train stay on the track?

It's never been entirely clear to me how a train passing over a switch like this doesn't fall off the track. Or exactly how extra rails like this are helpful. Some diagrams would be very informative. It would be especially helpful to point out which elements of the wheel and rail have standardized dimensions, and which are allowed to vary. This article mentions 75-degree flanges and 1:20 tapers, and it would be helpful to explain such terms. -- Beland 17:14, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

In similar vein, it is not clear from the article why a wheel will preferentially follow the tapering rail in contact with the continuous rail rather than stay on the continuous rail. Would a cross-sectional image of a typical rail and wheel contact be useful in the "Operation" section? It is hinted that the wheel flange is responsible, which is why in the animated diagrams the points are placed on the inside of the rail, the same side as the wheel flanges, but I reckon it would save the reader having to speculate if the reason were made more explicit in the article. JBel (talk) 12:22, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

The animated diagram at the top explains that - only ... the animation is way too fast. Could anyone slow it down by a factor of 3 or so?? --User:Haraldmmueller 10:42, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Three-way switch pictures

Three-way rail switch at the train station of the Chemins de Fer de Provence in Annot, France

I took a nice picture of a three-way switch in the Annot station of the Train des pignes. Compared to the current picture about the Brisbane Tramway Museum, I think mine depicts more clearly the blades, guards and the overal arrangement in the station; besides, it shows a three-way switch in current usage (the line Nice-Digne has four daily services through this station). Daniel Callejas Sevilla (talk) 08:04, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Your picture is much better for showing a standard 3-way switch than both in the current text, because it shows why the original text was way off: 3-way switches can be used also on normal running tracks, and they are typically not stub switches. I plan to replace the Brisbane picture with it - the 3-way stub switch has a certain "curiosity value" - although Wikipedia should strive to explain normal uses, not extraordinady exceptions, so maybe this rare 3-way stub switch should be thrown out. Any comments? --haraldmmueller 21:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haraldmmueller (talk • contribs)

I fully agree and as nobody has opposed after more than a year, I'll replace the picture. PiusImpavidus (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Crossovers

Crossover is not a "type of switch"

The whole crossover section is misleading, IMHO. This is not a type of switch - also a ladder track and multiple other configurations using switches are not "types of switches". The Germany-focussed part about Überleitstellen contains contradictory statements:

The official categorisation of an Überleitstelle as a type of junction ... Previous to that ... they were considered as junctions

So they are now junctions, but previously they were junctions?? Moreover, this part is useless for anyone who wants to know about switches. A possible solution: Add a section about "Track layouts using of switches", which could then contain diagrams and short text about crossover (types), ladder track, wye (a link suffices here), etc. haraldmmueller 09:15, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Scissors with switch guardrails inside the diamond

• Crossovers, when the two tracks are closely spaced, centerline to centerline, and scissors crossovers, almost always, are typically designed and manufactured as a unit because the spacing between the primitive elements (diamonds, switches) are so close that one is not finished before the next begins. Take a close look at the Japanese scissors crossover illustrated here, for example, and you will see that the guardrails on the diverging sides of the 4 turnouts are inside the diamond. If the track spacing were a bit wider, the wing rails of the frogs at opposite ends of the diamond would serve as guardrails for the diverging routes. Look closely on the left side in the photo and you will see that the outside frogs (K crossings) of the diamond are manufactured as a single unit with the opposing frogs of the adjacent turnouts. A spare triangle of rail joining the three frogs is sitting on the left side of the photo. Or consider this photo of a scissors crossover assembled at the factory, before disassembly and shipping to its point of final use: VoestAlpine scissors crossover. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 03:15, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Singapore LRT photo is irrelevant

A crossover in track of Singapore LRT

And while we're talking about crossovers, this illustration from the Singapore LRT is not a crossover, despite the caption someone gave it. I think it's what the British call a flying junction. If nobody objects to its removal, it should be removed from this section. Perhaps it belongs in a section on switches in alternative rail technologies -- in this case, rubber tired guided vehicles? Douglas W. Jones (talk) 18:19, 25 August 2016 (UTC).

Having seen no discussion of this issue over a period of months, I just deleted the inappropriate illustration. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 16:33, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

High Speed Switches

Perhaps someone could tell us if switches can be used on really fast trains - eg. TVG does 199 mph. Anyone know how slow they need to go to handle these?martianlostinspace 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Answered my own question. The TGV article records an accident of a train going over points at 168 mph, although the point was not the cause of the derailment. I take this as assuming that the TGV is designed to pass over points at this speed. If you disagree, RV.martianlostinspace 15:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I have reverted, for a couple of reasons. First, it was not a very encyclopedic statement; it was more like gathering notes to solve a puzzle. Second, it could be quite misleading if the speed that TGV trains go through points is nothing like this figure. And this appears to be the case. Doing a bit of research, I found this mention of points designed for a diverging move of 220 kph/137 mph, but there's no reason to think that's the upper limit. The same page also records a record-test train going over points at 501 kph (also mentioned here), but it is not clear that the train was doing the diverging move. Philip J. Rayment 08:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Apparently, 220 km/h is the current maximum on the diverging branch. The German Wikipedia article is quite detailed on switches in Germany, and the maximum there is 220 km/h. For China, the maximum of 220 km/h is stated in "Design of High-Speed Railway Turnouts: Theory and Applications" by P. Wang. AFAIK, the fastest railway switches in France are 220 km/h, too (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_France agrees). I remember to have read the same limit for Japan, but can't find a source now. This means that practically those switches are safe for at least 242 km/h (as new lines and equipment are tested at least at max speed + 10%). SPTH (talk) 10:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)