What track gauge would you use if we were doing it all again?

[gfisher]

Railroads have been begun with everything from 2'-0 gauge to 6'-0 gauge with a few yet smaller and larger. Most of these were developed in the early and mid nineteenth century using then current technology and many survived until the "standard" gauge was standardized by the US government, and even then some narrow gauge lines exist to this day.

What if we were doing it all over again. What would be the best gauge for a major trunk line railroad?

I've been reading a book, Train Time by John R. Stilgoe, and in it he mentions that in the late 1930's German engineers began to rethink railroads from scratch and investigated both 4 meter gauge and 9 meter gauge lines. The 4 meter gauge was deemed technologically feasible (I guess the 9m was not) with traincars six meters wide and seven meters high. They envisioned a line running from Paris to Berlin and deep into Russia. Obviously this never came to pass.

My own speculation is that the Erie's 6'-0 gauge was ahead of it's time, and if we were doing it again we might go in that direction. What do you all think?

 

[Ferrous]

I'd say anywhere from 5 to 6 feet would be a logical choice.

 

[bl4882]

Which gauge?

Hi,

Interesting question. There simply was not the wealth available to build a railroad of that type long ago, especially if the mission was to tie continents together, and it's probably not available now, yet, is my opinion.

I think we have to keep in mind that, at least in the US, and I'm sure elsewhere, in the late 19th century the issue was how to get everything to hook up. It is quite possible that if the issue were what was ideal, as opposed to what was practical, standard gauge would have fattened out quite a bit. But four foot eight and 1/2 inch was undoubtedly the logical answer at the end of the 19th century. And unless the hookup happened, the wealth would never be generated to develop the need for greater load carrying capacity, much less to construct it. Mr. Brunell advocated a broad gauge a long time ago. The only problem was that few could afford to build or convert to it even in then, and still by historical standards, relatively fabulously wealthy Britain. Keep in mind that it is not just a matter of spreading rails and buying bigger ties, but also of larger and generally more robust track structure.

Having said that, technology evolves and wealth grows. If we all live to 150 we may well see 15 or 20 foot gauge railroads. On the other hand, by then freight and passengers may be transported by Star Trek Transporters(TM).

Anyhow, very intriguing idea, but I don't see a way it could have gone differently.

Thanks for a thought provoking topic.

Bernie

 

[gfisher]

I understand the reasons it went the way it did, and each step seemed logical at the time, but today we are a well capitalized nation and I have to think that constructions costs per mile today (once one eliminates the endless environmental permitting paperwork) have got to be much cheaper than they were in the past with all of our heavy duty construction equipment and automated rail laying processes if one compares things in inflation adjusted dollars. We have high strength and hardened steel for rails and can make reinforced concrete ties any size and shape we need. Just seems to me it points to a wider gauge being more feasible. Move more stuff with the same length train.

 

[teddytoot]

One has to remember that the wider the gauge, the larger the radius of the curve needed. This is why narrow gauge made inroads over standard gauge. As with everything in life one has to compromise. I suspect that given hindsight the "ideal" gauge would not be much different from today's standard gauge. Or we could go mad; have Hitler's 9m gauge for main lines and 15inch for the feeders!

 

[freightcar2]

Toronto Subway Gauge! (Whatever gauge that is! )

 

[bernhart_lossiemouth]

I'd say anywhere from 5 to 6 feet would be a logical choice.

I think it could only be metric, not imperial. If we were 'doing it all again' we should make the gauge 2000mm. Time would be 100 seconds to the minute, 100 minutes to the hour, 10 hours to the day. But still 365.25 days to the year. A dozen wouldnt exist. Neither would miles per hour. Everyone would drive on the right. A universal, global currency would be in place. PC's would rule, Macs would not have been invented, hopefully. We would always drink from 500 or 1000ml glasses. No pints. Shoe sizes would be in centimeters. A football match would be 50 minutes per half. and 100 minutes in total (1 hour in this new world). Hockey/basketball the same. Everything would be measued in degress celcius. Nothing else. Aluminum would only have one spelling world wide. bla bla bla.

 

[ColPrice2002]

I think that the usual railway gauge would be about 5 ft (or so) - if you wanted to unify throughout the world.

The difficulty isn't minor adjustments to the gauge, but with the loading gauge...
In this part of the UK, we had the 6 foot broad gauge installed. Proved (at the time) to be safer and smoother than the standard gauge.
However, looking at the current rail layout, we have 4 standard gauge tracks where we once had two broad gauge.
That means that we can run fast & slow trains both Up & down at the same time (e.g. express from Reading => Paddington in 25 minutes as well as the local stopping service taking 40 minutes).
If you're trying to move lots of people as we do into and out of London (twice a day), you need capacity. Whether this is better served by 1 wide train or 2 "standard" ones is complex.

What is clear is that increasing the loading gauge is expensive when you have to re-engineer lots of bridges, tunnels, embankments that already exist.

And a last point:-
/pedant mode on

Aluminum would only have one spelling world wide

.

There is one standard spelling (IUPAC) - it's "aluminium" - though we had to trade "sulphur" for "sulfur"
/pedant mode off

Colin

 

[themnax]

30", (two cubit gauge, a relatively broad guage actually, for the smallest form factor of rolling stock capable of sitting completely inside of, surrounded by all weather comfort), stored energy multiple unit of course, and i'd never have invented the automobile, nor the use of burning anything for anything other then keeping warm and cooking. nor built any pavement wider then a two lane bike path.

of course i'd have started somewhere arround 1100 ad, which would have been possible because there had never been a roman empire. and put something in the water to keep human fertility from getting out of hand.

monorail cable cars running on megalithic henges would have been quite popular too! (cable wound by windmills and water wheels through gearing)

=^^=
.../\...

 

[atsfrr3000]

Nine-meter gauges?

Wouldn't they pretty much be jetliners confined to tracks at that point?

 

[bernhart_lossiemouth]

and put something in the water to keep human fertility from getting out of hand.

I think the ancient Greeks did that when they started practicing soddomy.

B Be Ber Bern Berni Bernie Berni Bern Ber Be B

 

[martinvk]

chicken and egg question

What an interesting idea. Although the difficulty is in applying modern technology and material science to past ages. Even if we could send a message back in time to the railway powers that were (and that they believed it) and told them what the best gauge would be, could they have built it with the resources that were then available? Naturally we would also have to tell them how to make high strength steel and other exotic materials. Of course they would have to first build a transportation system compatible with their own technology in order to bring together all the raw materials we specified. By the time they were ready to build according to our plans, they would be us with all their existing railroads built to the wrong gauge. :'(

 

[themnax]

i was thinking more along the lines of wrot iron rims on wagonwheel boggies with varnished wood superstructures and polished brass fittings.

on cartrut track, i mean as far as starting things up in 1100, if the library at alexandria hadn't been burned by fanatics who made tecnology a dirty word for almost a thousand years.

there ARE things that could be done with materials available then, and development paths not fallowed that could as easily have been.

but then of course i'm not thinking entirely back then either.

=^^=
.../\...

 

[busutakos]

Toronto Subway Gauge! (Whatever gauge that is! )

That is known as the Toronto Gauge and it's also used on streetcars.

 

[lewisner]

i was thinking more along the lines of wrot iron rims on wagonwheel boggies with varnished wood superstructures and polished brass fittings.

on cartrut track, i mean as far as starting things up in 1100, if the library at alexandria hadn't been burned by fanatics who made tecnology a dirty word for almost a thousand years.

there ARE things that could be done with materials available then, and development paths not fallowed that could as easily have been.

but then of course i'm not thinking entirely back then either.

=^^=
.../\...

Interesting fact; according to a poll three years ago, only 13 percent of Americans believe in natural evolution. 78% either deny it flat out or claim it was caused by "god".
http://hubpages.com/hub/Poll-Most-Americans-Dont-Believe-Evolution

 

[magickmaker]

I think Brunel's 7 foot gauge was just about spot on. It allowed for greater speed and better stability. If they could have kept up with the technology of the day, could you imagine what things would be like today? Imagine a Class 66 gauged for 7 feet...

 

[American_Connections]

Interesting fact... only 13 percent of Americans believe in natural evolution. 78% either deny it flat out or claim it was caused by "god".[/url]

Evolution mis just a theory, and that has been proven to be impossible. If there is or was such a thing, why it does not continue to happen today! Maybe to numbers speak for themselves! Hey dude, even 9 out of ten people tell you not to step in front of a moving bus, will you do it anyway just because the other one tells you it will not hurt?

 

[martinvk]

Evolution mis just a theory, and that has been proven to be impossible. If there is or was such a thing, why it does not continue to happen today! ..

I thought this was a trainz forum and not a place where obvious nonsense would be spouted.

 

[paulzmay]

I thought this was a trainz forum and not a place where obvious nonsense would be spouted.

It did just prove Lewisner's point though. There are seriously a lot of Americans (and I think that the USA is probably alone in this in the western world), who don't have the same viewpoint on such things as most of the rest of the world. From the dealings I've had with many Americans, they often seem to be oblivious of the way this is seen from outside the USA. I'm not trying to be controversial here, but it is probably at the heart of why Americans and Europeans so often misunderstand each other...

as far as evolution is concerned, there is countless evidence that supports the theory. Creationism has only one piece of evidence in support - the Bible. That's enough evidence for a lot of folks, and that's their business - I certainly won't try to talk them out of it, if they return me the same courtesy.

Oh, and gravity is only a theory too...

Paul (who is probably sailing close to the wind here).

p.s. On topic: 2'6" - standard 4'8½" - 7' broad gauge - that should cover it - anything else is just duplication.

 

[legolistic]

I'd say,
Russia to 4ft, 8.5in, (1,435mm.)
or America to 5 feet wide.

just in case we get the bering strait bridge