Tradman, I found another nice video (though nothing new with respect to railway curving):

You have not provided a single image or argument to refute the fact that each piece of railroad track is level and collectively cannot curve around a ball, and your lack of explanation for what you do think shows you are incapable of understanding the simplest facts without resorting to ridiculous argumentation and personal attacks.  Haven't got the time.       

Tradman



Watch the first one minute, and then repeat what you said, without blushing:

You have not provided a single image or argument to refute the fact that each piece of railroad track is level and collectively cannot curve around a ball

120m of rail cannot curve 1.12mm?

The rail bows because of the weight of the ties, but that does not mean it wasn't level when affixed to the earth.

The question is, would this heavy rail curve when laid upon a slighty curved surface? (curvature 1mm per 100m) 

The answer is: Yes. Sure it would. Why not? Since when does heavy flexible steel stay up in the air for no reason? Does the video not show that the steel curves down, trying to touch ground?

Further, Tradman stated that they collectively cannot curve around a ball; this is because the point where each of those segments meet would not be flush after a certain distance and the rail would no longer be level.

Sure, laid on a curved surface, the rail is not level, but rather curved. So what?

How can a rail on a slightly curved surface be unstable? What does unstable in this context mean?

A disparity in one rail from another may result in lifting or separation at the joint, which could be catastrophic for a train running over it. Hence why they try to make railways as straight as possible with minimal gradation.

A disparity in one rail from another may result in lifting or separation at the joint, which could be catastrophic for a train running over it. Hence why they try to make railways as straight as possible with minimal gradation.

Didn't you see in the video, that the rail is curved by gravity? There is no such problem.

And if you look the whole first video on rail laying, you can see how they make the joints matching. Even one centimeter off wouldn't be a problem. It's being welded and grinded.

Here is the excerpt from Edward Hendrie's book The Greatest Lie on Earth, speaking of the construction of the Twin Towers:

 

  The blueprints of the WTC North Tower also prove that the earth cannot be a sphere and must be flat. How could blueprints of a building prove that the earth is flat? Because the blueprints show that the North Tower was built as a perfectly square cuboid (with each corner chamfered 6 feet 11 inches). The blueprints show that the horizontal width for each side of the building was precisely 207 feet, 2 inches. That dimension ran from the bottom to the top of the building.
  The North and South World Trade Center Towers were sister towers, with exactly the same exterior dimensions. The North and South Tower buildings were both 110 stories tall. The North Tower rose 1,368 feet from the ground to its roof. Other than their corner chamfers, the Twin Towers were perfectly square cuboids. The North Tower had exactly the same dimensions, with each side of the building being 207 feet, 2 inches wide, at the 110th floor, 1,368 feet above the ground, as it did at the first flood at ground level. Such an occurrence would not be possible if the earth were a globe.
  Using trigonometry, we find that if the earth were a sphere the 110th floor should have been splayed out from the base by .16 inches (almost 3/16 of an inch). One might think that 3/16th of an inch is not very much of a difference in width between the first floor and the 110th floor. But when one realizes that the tower was built using massive steel girders that were prefabricated offsite in uniform dimensions with preset holes, it becomes clear that the tower could not be built with any deviation in floor dimension. That is because the holes for the bolts and rivets must line up perfectly in order for the structure to be assembled. The holes on the girders would line up perfectly on the ground floor, but they would be almost 3/16 of an inch off center by the time the steel workers reached the 110th floor. Indeed, this problem would gradually manifest itself long before the steel workers ever reached the 110th floor. The girders could not be assembled, because the holes for the bolts and rivets would not line up and steel girders do not stretch. Indeed, this would be an issue for all four walls of the building, as the splaying outward of the walls and corners would be in all directions on each floor.
  The 110 story World Trade Center Towers, with their perfectly parallel, vertically plumb walls, could not be built on a spherical earth. The architectural diagrams measure horizontally precisely 207 feet, 2 inches. There is no indication in the architectural drawings for a 3/16 inch allowance for the splaying out of the walls as the tower rose from the ground of a supposedly spherical earth to the 110th floor. The blueprints list the dimensions of every single one of the 110 floors as having a horizontal measure of precisely 207 feet, 2 inches. Such could only be the case on a flat earth.
-Hendrie, p. 210-211

A disparity in one rail from another may result in lifting or separation at the joint, which could be catastrophic for a train running over it. Hence why they try to make railways as straight as possible with minimal gradation.

Tradman says this works, if the curvature is hill-curvature, not globe-earth-curvature. So how can you say that this here is a problem? Does it work in case of hill-curvature and not work in case of globe-earth-curvature? If so, why?

Tradman, regarding railway construction:


from https://flatearth.ws/railroads. It's a great resource.

Sorry, not buying.  Too much information from engineering and governments who attest that no allowance for curvature is ever done for rail.  Disinformation on top of disinformation does not add up to truth. 

It has been proven over and over again how the curvature of Earth is a non-issue in railroad engineering due to it's subtlety. Railroads are built in segments anyway. Those can curve quite extremely as demonstrated by the various pictures we have seen in these threads. These beams need to curve heavily to conform to the terrain they're built on. The curvature is so small (0,001% per mile) that it can safely be disregarded as compared to the quite harsh elevation changes of the actual terrain.

Still, there are theoretical materials (various books etc.) which talk about accounting for curvature for long tracks as dicussed in the link I posted above: https://flatearth.ws/railroads

To conclude this excessively discussed point, whether railway engineers account for curvature of the Earth or not does not at all pertain to the shape of the Earth. Let's focus on other points.