> At Clapham Junction I think that it has been theQuote
> Do I understand you correctly?
> Are you saying that the ruts were pre carved and
> constructed. A designed and constructed
> case. But in my opinion, no full carving was
> necessary, only shallow traces to open a guiding
> path, necessary a compromise to carry heavy loads
> along a track making an angle in relation to
> maximum slope. This in order to reduce braking
> force, so generating a moderate side strength of
> deflection of trajectory. Rails were here to
> control the lateral deviation. Engineer's
> Quarry work organization (In Clapham Junction)Quote
> What caused the vehicles to follow exactly the
> same route time and time again?
> Before opening of the quarry, they didn't.Quote
> How were they navigated prior to the
> development of the ruts without defined roadways
> or choke points??
> In Clapham Junction, quite all the terrain is soQuote
> Why do we see central depressions in only a
> very few places, yet rut tracks in 100% of
> eroded, disturbed, full of totally random bumps,
> holes and cracks, looking so old, that you cannot
> honestly say what was inside the vast majority of
> tracks pairs, and so the point is unconclusive to
> The uphill return journey was performed as youQuote
> Even if the loaded journey was downhill the
> empty vehicle would need to make an uphill return
> said with an empty vehicle, and along a slope,
> thus creating only a moderate pressure on cart
> ruts, and needing limited hauling power.
Regardless of how wide each individual rutway track was hewn, assuming the cart wheels were narrower than that original rut width, repeated cart runs would form a narrow trough withing the trough and wheels would wear out quickly and/or sieze due to friction along the side margins. This would require further hewing to widen the deepest aspects of the worn troughs which only allows them to further erode narrow deeper ruts as additional cart runs ensued, etc, etc. It would get to the point where the ruts were too deep so that it would be necessary to abandon that pair of ruts and create another shallow path and have the entire process start all over again. So why not just lay blocks of stone atop the road and replace them as they wear down? Furthermore, such carved rutway grooves mandate that every cart have the same wheelbase regardless of the load. What's the practical value of such a harsh restriction? Also, how many cart runs are required at what load to erode the rut down, say, 1" into the bedrock? How does that compare to the "animal tracks" between the ruts?
From an engineering standpoint, rathat than carve two separate tracks into the bedrock and require all carts to follow those specific tracks thereby incorporating a deliberate, early onset obsolerscence due to the focused wear and tear, why not just hone a broad flattened surface across a wider path such that carts of varying size and wheelbase would be allowed to follow slightly different runways so that the road would last far longer due to each cart following slightly different paths along that track, just as is the case with modern roadways?
The notion of a carved rutway to accommodate animal-drawn wheeled carts really makes no logical sense to me from a practical or engineering perspective.
How can any of us ever know, when all we can do is think?
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 28-Nov-17 15:55 by Origyptian.