One of the oddest sites to see is a full size diesel or steam locomotive on very narrow gauge trucks and tracks. Some of them look like you could lean on them and they would tip over.
I think the answer to you question has to do with center of gravity. The higher the center of gravity, the “tippier” the locomotive. To use an extreme example, a 4 in gauge would work…look at those kiddie ride trains you sometimes see in parks… they don’t tip because they are only two feet off the ground. I don’t think modern double stakc trains on a 3 ft. 6 in. gauge would work too well for that reason…they look pretty tippy on standard gauge to me.
Methinks “full sized” is a relative term.
Fer example:
Looks weird, but it works.
Do you have more pictures like the one with the standard next to the narrow gauge? I’d like to see that little engine next to a UP Big Boy.
Found that one on-line.
The URL for that photo indicates that it’s one of the Maine 2-foot gauge railroad lines, next to what appears to be a standard-gauge track.
Back in the day, the 3-ft. gauge East Broad Top RR in Mt. Union, PA (a few miles east of Altoona, about 1/3 of the way to Harrisburg) was famous for lifting up standard gauge cars and rolling narrow-gauge trucks under them, so those cars could be delivered “as is” without having to unload them and then reload them into narrow-gauge cars. I believe CN’s Newfoundland RR also did something similar with its 3-'6" gauge trucks.
- Paul North.
I remember reading George Hilton’s article in TRAINS that included the Newfoundland Ry. The truck-swapping was pretty much limited to 40-foot boxcars (remember those) and certain other cars, including some bi-level auto-racks. Center of gravity was the issue.
ramsey transfer
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsey_Car_Transfer_Apparatus - Quentin/ Modelcar will be interested to see that the Ligonier Valley RR at Latrobe, PA operated one, as well as 2 other railroads mentioned there. A Google search for “Ramsey Transfer” led to page 256 of George W. Hilton’s book, American Narrow Gauge Railroads, which mentions several others - and the ironic fact that “there was thought to have been no Ramsey Transfer at Ramsey [Illinois]” !
The stability of a narrow gauge train would depend on the quality and stiffness of the track (generally, it wasn’t very good), the amount of superelevation in curves, the arrangement and points of support of the suspensions for the cars and locomotives, and the height aspect with regard to cross-winds, etc. With solid track and fairly rigid suspensions, stability would not be a problem, except in high winds or starting in a highly-superelevated curve, etc.
- Paul North.
The picture of the std gauge steam engine next to the NG engine appears to be at the Bridgton Junction transfer yard between the Bridgton & Harrison and the Maine Central.
That would be at Saco Junction, Saco, Maine.
Note that generally narrow gauge equipment was less wide and less high than standard gauge.
However, South African, 3’-6" equipment is almost as wide as USA equipment and wider than British standard-gauge equipment, in general.
Based on contemporary US practice with double-stack trains, I offer the observations that the maximum height seems to be about 4 times the distance between the centers of the rail heads* (gauge plus about 3"), and that the maximum width is about 2 times that distance. Nevertheless, once in a while a double-stack or piggyback car is toppled by high winds - the “high profile vehicle” problem - or pulled off the inside of a curve - “string-lining”, it’s called.
*Gauge line is where the flanges bear - but the weight is carried more on the top. For US standard gauge of 4’-8.5", and a typical railhead width of about 3", that means the distance between the centerlines of the railheads is abour 4’-11.5" = 4.96 ft. - call it 5.0 ft… for practical purposes, as bridge engineers often do.
So, 4 x 5.0’ = 20.0 ft for max. height (stackers are 20’-2" or so, depending on the container type), and 2 x 5.0’ = 10.0 ft. for max. width, for US standard gauge.
For 3’-0" narrow gauge, the same ratios would yield a max. height of about 12.0 ft., and a max width of about 6.0 ft. However, I believe I’ve seen 3 ft. gauge equipment that was closer to 8 ft. in width.
The Maine 2-ft. gauge roads and some amusement parks railroads push beyond these limits, though - but one could question how practical they would be on a more extensive system in more diverse weather conditions, etc.
- Paul North.
According to Maine Two-Footers by Lynwood Moody, the SR&RL had 7 foot wide locomotives and passenger cars. One locomotive was built with an 8’4" wide tank, but that was later cut back to 7’. Passenger cars typically had floors 30" above the rails, which would put the tops around 10’ or so.
- Erik
The extreme width of most freight cars out there is 10’8". As the cars get longer, they get narrower to fit within the clearance diagram on curves.
Perhaps what you need to look at is this overhang on the sides…roughly three feet beyond the gauge on each side. Would that get proportionately smaller as the gauge gets tighter (except in those special cases of re-trucking), or would three feet be a safe constant?
So how narrow would the gauge have to get before it transitions from Real railroad to Model railroad?
I recall a 15" gauge line in the UK that was considered to be a Real railroad, though 60cm/2ft seems to the narrowest gauge used elsewhere for common carrier railroads. As an example, there’s a remnant of a 60cm line in Sweden (Mariefred Jarnvag) still operating as part of a museum, equipment includes 60cm passenger cars.
- Erik
The live steamers here in Kitsap County use 7 or 7 1/2 inch gage track but the have to ride on top and if it gets tippy they can put their feet down
I know the railroad was originally called the Bridgton & Saco River, but Moody’s book and all the maps I can find call it Bridgton Junction. I will let the US geological Survey have the final word:
http://historical.mytopo.com/getImage.asp?fname=kzfl41se.jpg&state=ME
How narrow did the gauges get of the various industrial tracks in places like mines and steel mills? I’d consider them to be as real as real can be. What was the Chicago tunnel railway? 2-foot?