Talk:Telescoping (rail cars)

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the Operations task force.

This article lacks references.

Disaster management High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Disaster management, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Disaster management on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Disaster managementWikipedia:WikiProject Disaster managementTemplate:WikiProject Disaster managementDisaster management articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Non-WMATA telescopings

I admit - every rail telescoping I've seen has been a WMATA telescoping, where the overriding car is the one that loses its survival space, rather than the bottom car as the article says. I was about to change "The car riding on top will destroy most of the structure of the car below, leaving very little survivable space" around to reflect that the overriding car is the one that is usually destroyed, before I realized that all the telescopings in my experience were WMATA telescopings, which all stem from a known structural defect in the older rolling stock. The reason for wanting to change it is because the photos show something opposite from what the text says.

So my question is, in non-WMATA rail telescopings, is it the case that the overriding car destroys the lower car as described in the article, or is it again the case that the overriding car is destroyed in the telescoping? SchuminWeb (Talk) 14:49, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

19th-centuury image

The official report into an accident at St Johns railway station on 21 March 1898 contains the phrase "the two rear vehicles were telescoped" on p. 100, in the fifth paragraph proper (the one beginning "The Tonbridge train consisted ..."). Page 108 gives their details as "1690, third class—Body broken up." and "289, brake van—Body broken up." Careful examination of this image shows the number 1690 and the word "Third" on the left-hand vehicle, and just above the word "Third" there is an open window, through which is visible the word "Van" on the right-hand vehicle; it therefore shows the two vehicles that were telescoped. More at File talk:St Johns train crash 1898.jpg --Redrose64 (talk) 20:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Metro

Just out of curiosity, why are three of the 4 photos of Washington Metro crashes? Is this line so much unsafer than other lines, do they use sub-standard equipment, or is someone against the Washington Metro and trying to make them look bad. Surely there must be photos of telescopings that happened on other lines, or better yet, how about more historical photos of telescoped cars? Whatever the reason is, three photos of basically the same thing at different times on the same line seems less than ideal somehow. Just a thought..45Colt 01:26, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We are somewhat constrained by the availability of free-use (as opposed to non-free) images. If you find an image that is free-use, and which depicts telescoping, and which isn't in Washington, suggest it here. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:25, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stupid question

What does it mean in the second paragraph "(physics of the incident can often reverse this damage)" 99.226.18.73 (talk) 03:36, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

That follows the phrase "The car riding on top will often be destroyed by the structure of the car below". I think that it means that the car below can be destroyed by the structure of the car riding on top. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:15, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree w/ RR's explanation, and have changed the misleading language accordingly.
--Jerzy•t 03:47, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Article title

"Telescoping (railway)" is cryptic in suggesting reference, most ~~vividly~~ readily and convincingly, to "telescoping of a railway", i.e. of a track or a company, rather than to "telescoping of something (e.g. a car/carriage) otherwise associated with railway operations".
I'm WP:boldly renaming w/ (w/ the old title as a Rdr to the accompanying article ), bcz i can't imagine why not to; if you can make a case to me that i'm plausibly mistaken in considering it the new title harmless, i'll self-revert. (No one should "move" it by cutting and pasting.) And if you won't take ~~"no"~~ "You've' only convinced me that you're stubborn" (when & if i become satisfied that that's the case) ~~for~~ for an answer from me, -- but you don't already get the difference between C&P and a move operation, then you'lld need to convince someone else (hmm, it'd probably takes an admin in this case ...) who does, that your complaint has merit, & let them either do it or train you how to.
--Jerzy•t 03:35, 04:05 & 06:31, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe Telescoping (train) would be a good title? G-13114 (talk) 19:04, 24 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Jerzy: Where was a cut-and-paste move suggested? --Redrose64 (talk) 20:47, 26 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Redrose64: Ah! Indeed there was no such suggestion. (In the midst of responding in detail, lost my first reply-in-progress, but perhaps this is enuf said, anyway.)
--Jerzy•t 04:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@G-13114: Sounds reasonable to me, as does Telescoped train. But i discount the value of my own opinion, as i lack subject-matter knowledge.
--Jerzy•t 04:53, 28 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]