[TomaszZielinski]

Ah, that's a very good distinction between the national perspective and the rail perspective!

> I wonder: If the rolling stock becomes immobilized, does it now count as immovable stuff?

Assuming it's a philosophical question, and not a legal one, how about: - A runner that's currently running is obviously a runner - A runner that finished running for today is still a runner - A runner with serious knee problems is a former runner ?

[TeMPOraL]

Also practical question: how much of the rolling stock has to become immobilized before the immovable parts of the infrastructure become useless? At which point you can start throwing the book at whoever's responsible?

[p_l]

Locking up (or causing possibility of doing so) a non-siding line sounds like Denial-of-Service on rail line.

[jacquesm]

We routinely call servers and such 'infrastructure' when they are in fact much easier to move (if not by themselves) than your average rail road car or locomotive. A kid could do it, all by themselves.

[TomaszZielinski]

Yes, I agree, but AFAICT we have two questions in this subthread:

- about common usage of the word - and here it _seems to me_ it's context- and domain-specific, because for instance we don't call cars a road infrastructure

- whether Polish penal code treats trains as rail infrastructure - and here I don't know, but I found a railway transport bill that lists what's considered infrastructure, and trains are not there

[jacquesm]

In NL I know for a fact the locs wouldn't be infrastructure, the term used is 'rolling stock' and they are usually owned by different companies from the infra.