So the standard gauge of the world is 4’ 8 1/2" can’t change that. But if we could choose an optimal gauge would it be wider or narrower? Is there any advantages to Russias slightly wider gauge? I see that Africa can run trains as heavy as those in USA on narrow gauge and Japan can run over 200km/h on their narrow gauge lines when alignment permits.
So what do you think is the best gauge? Could it have been wider or narrower to be better?
Russia established 5-foot gauge to make an invasion more difficult since most of the rest of Europe uses standard gauge.
It’s interesting to note that while most of Japan uses 3’6" gauge, the New Tokaido Line was built to standard gauge in 1964.
Again, while many of Africa’s railroads and some of Australia’s railroads were also built to 3’6" gauge and move some pretty heavy tonnage, the Pilbara ore lines in Australia were built to standard gauge and move astounding tonnage.
The Erie RR was originally built to 6’ gauge and Isambard K Brunel originally built the Great Western RR in the UK to 7’ in the 1840’s.
Three things come to mind - Clearance, Center of Gravity and Car Construction.
Center of gravity - A wider gauge means the car (and it’s load) can be higher. If you are carrying light things, you can build a pretty high car. Putting an Auto-Max on 3’ gauge trucks wouldn’t be any too stable. If you ran a wider gauge, you might be able to put two automobiles side by side, or load them sideways.
In the case of a very heavy commodity (like iron ore), the load isn’t very high, so the center of gravity isn’t either. Narrow gauge is a perfect fit, not to mention the tighter radii you can use when laying track.
As for Car Construction, you might reach a point as you widen the cars where the necessary crossmembers begin to seriously affect the weight and height of the car. Maybe not, but it’s a consideration.
Clearance. One key reason that narrow gauge was employed in the mountains was the tight curves and the need to blast a right of way out of solid rock. Less blasting costs less, and narrow gauge can have the tighter curves. Further, if you are digging a tunnel (even in the east), that extra 2-3 feet you need for your wide gauge cars will cost you money. Witness what the railroads have had to do with tunnels and other such situations as cars have grown, especially up. Remember that NYC had to tailor many of their big engines to fit close clearances.
And for today’s trivia, why is the gauge 4’8 1/2"? Everybody should know this one.
I recall reading somewhere that Abraham Lincoln tried to change the gauge to 5 foot guage because it would be more stable.
…Can’t change it now…All the tunnels are of a certain size and money has just been spent to LOWER the floor in many to permit double stack, etc…type cars.
I believe the answer is that back in Roman times the chariots were built to a width of 4’ 8 1/2" on the wheelbase. I think I heard that there were grooves of that width in the roads themselves. [swg]
P.S. What do I win…Maybe two tickets to the American Orient Express?[:-^]
Well I was thinking that if the North American standard had been just 4foot gauge, virtualy nothing would be otherwise different today exept that every mile would be a little cheaper.
I don’t figure a 5foot gauge would be more stable because of all the HSR lines use standard gauge and I never heard that Australia’s or Russia’s wide gauges are better for that reason. For that matter I think our trains could easily be 12feet wide inatead of 10feet and ride ok if it wasn’t for clearances especialy if the track was well laid. Am I right or wrong on this???
ps; I heard that the Roman chariot is just a popular myth and any resemblance to the Romans is coincidental. So NO FREE TICKETS FOR YOU!! 
I’ve heard a revised chariot story. By Roman times chariots weren’t needed to carry armored soldiers. Horses were by then bred big enough to carry soldiers on horseback.
The Persian empire 500 years earlier did need chariots. The empire’s communication lines depended on fast chariots. To safely speed through the mountains grooves were cut to fit chariot wheels. I read these grooves can be found in Iran’s mountains and they are standard gauge.
I’ve read that the Romans paved their roads with slag.Does this mean that if a Roman official rode in an iron wheeld chariot,down what was,quite litteraly,an iron road,that his mileage would count?[:)]
I’ve read that the gauge was handed down because the Romans built their roads wide enough to permit the legions to march down them without having to be strung out in a long line. I’ve also read that they designed them so that a chariot, being pulled by two horses side by side, could travel down the road. The width is for the horses, not the wheels, so the gauge has been determined by two horses’ [censored]s. [:D]
Roman roads were built from large stones sunk into the soil for stability, crushed stone to serve as a subroadbed for drainage, then the cobblestones were placed on top of the crushed stone. The whole thing would have been made stable by forcing sand between the cobbles. The Romans also discovered concrete (the later arenas were partly made from it ) was a cheaper way to build things, but not used on roads. The chariot wheels were wooden with iron bands around the rims, a design used until the advent of rubber tires (or tyres as Mr. Dunlop would call them)…
Well, I had to do a search to verify it. Still not sure it’s accurate, since the subtitle on the page was “Urban Myth”, but it did contain this passage:
A list of worldwide gauges is given at http://parovoz.com/spravka/gauges-e.html, and their full explanation of our standard gauge is at http://parovoz.com/spravka/gauges-standard.html
Jordan - if you’d be so kind as to send my your credit card number, I’ll get your tickets to the AOE out right away…
[}:)][^]
There were at least 2 studies 1880-1900 that refuted the fact that the construction costs were substantially reduced by going narrow gauge vs. standard gage. What in effect you got with a narrow gauge line was a less reliable and slower transportation system built to poorer standards that fell apart when you turned your back on it.
Many states, Ohio and Illinois among them , dictated by law in the 1850-1870’s that standard gage was to be 4’-10" instead of the 4’-8"1/2 that we are used to today. Until the railcars get substantially larger and taller than today’s standard, there is no logical reason to change gage. (Fairlie promoted a false economy by advocating Narrow Gage!)
Clearances are so agonizingly tight in places today that any change in width would be counter productive without re-engineering side clearances in thru-truss bridges, removing buildings, signals, buttresses, cuts & fills and a host of other things. Once you got to that point, then you would have to drive new piling bents and footings for widened bridges. (As an example, there are multiple places in the eastern US that double-stacks dare not run)
It is not only the railcars that would have to be protected, what about the switchman hanging on the side of the car? Remove every other track in most yards? In general, If there is not a rectangular envelope centered on the track that is 17-20 feet wide and 22.5-23.0 feet tall above the rail, the train is not going to go there, especially on a main track. Those numbers get larger under catenary.
Go read the first half of Prof. Hilton’s book about the American Narrow Gage movement.
[banghead][banghead][banghead]