I was curious as to what type of research has been done regarding gauges. Obviously, we have what we have in North America due to a lot of reasons, but I wonder as to whether or not serious studies have ever been done to determine what is the “perfect” gauge in different settings. If we were to start over and build our railroads from scratch, and we could build locos and rolling stock in any gauge, too, what would decide to use? I just want to get input from folks, especially those with an engineering bent. All opinions are welcome, informed or not. 
As traffic grows, so does the case for a larger gage.
As a rail system grows, so does the case for not changing the gage.
What we now call “standard guage” became the “standard” largely through historical accident (George Hilton’s book on narrow gauge railroads has an excellent discussion of this issue). Essentially, the commercial need for individual railroads to be able to seamlessly interchange with other railroads as part of a national rail network trumped whatever theoretical engineering advantages different guages might have. The narrow guage railroads popular in the late 19th century learned this the hard way. So did the Erie with its 6 foot wide gauge somewhat earlier.
If we were building the rail system from scratch today, a somewhat wider guage might be chosen. One of the past presidents of the BN once suggested 5 foot gauge might be theoretically better. But it’s questionable how much of an advantage it would be. A wider gauge would certainly provide more stability for heavy and high loads. But it probably wouldn’t allow much more more traffic to be handled, as the things which constrain the amount of lading that can be carried by a rail car are mostly not gauge related. You could haul much more weight on a standard gauge railroad, but it would tear the railroad apart (that’s why BNSF’s Matt Rose has reportedly told his marketing people not to even consider 310,000 lb traffic). A wider guage woul
Considering everything I can think of, I would say that the optimum gage for today (at non-recession levels of business) would be something approaching six feet.
All gage factors of capacity and cost rise in an incredible / bewildering geometric progression, so it is not easy to get a handle on all of the tradeoffs. Perhaps only an increase to 5’-4” would yield the capacity increase needed to match today’s demands.
But, in any case, I think the present gage is technically obsolete. It’s just that we are stuck with it. The issue of gage is certainly something to think about in today’s rush to blanket the country with the dedicated track of HSR.
Are you saying Americans are heavier today so we need to increase the gauge of HSR to compensate? [;)] [}:)] [:D]
Seriously, a wider gauge would lower the center of gravity of a HSR train, right? And, this could possibly improve performance of said train. However, that would cause the HSR equipment to be noninterchangeable with the current infrastructure. This would mean, to me, the dedicated lines of HSR will have a hard time being built in to major cities such as Chicago.
The HSR track will be built totally from scratch and be dedicated only to HSR. There need not be any interchangeability with the current standard gage system. Thus it becomes a whole new world of gage selection for HSR.
How would a wider gauge lower the center of gravity? Unless your planning on doing something like the Talgo, and doing without an axle, the axle can not intrude into the passenger compartment. And then people need to be able to stand within the vehicle.
Current width trackage is capable of resisting more overturning force than the passengers would be willing to withstand, tilting is done solely for passenger comfort, not to keep the train from rolling over. A wider gauge would do nothing to mitigate the forces acting on the passengers.
OK, you got me, my knowledge limit is showing. [:I] My thinking was: wider gauge = wider railcars. I was unaware tilting was a passenger comfort thing, only. [B)]
Increasing the gauge might conceivably increase passenger capacity, but not by a huge amount, unless you went up as well as out. This, of course, would raise clearance problems with the existing plant.
I think this comes under the “if we knew then what we know now” department. Of course, if that was the case, a lot of railroads we know and love might not have been built, either…
Yes, Gloucester (pronounced with two syllables) is usually spelled without the letter “h.” English names can trip us up when we attempt to spell them out. I notice that you go back and forth between “guage” and “gauge;” “gauge” has been the accepted spelling. I think, “goo-age” when I see “guage” but “Oua,” as in “Ouachita,” is pronounced “Wah.”
On the whole, I appreciate your post.
I remember the article in Trains, several years back, about what might have been had Adolf Hitler’s railroad been built.
Amazing - somebody’s using sound judgment. In particular, the increases in the wheel/ rail contact stresses, and their disproportionately negative effect on the fatigue life of the rail head - ‘shelling’ - is a principle disincentive.
‘Guage’ is a little archaic, but still accepted in the legal and financial communities - it’s almost required in the latter - been used that way for a few centuries there, and so they’re reluctant to change, is my understanding.
We had a heckuva thread on this same topic about 6 months or so ago, at the time of the Narrow-Gauge special Trains magazine issue. Would be worthwhile looking for and finding that one . . .
- Paul North.
Is this the one?
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/131049/1474747.aspx#1474747
There are two aspects to the definition of optimum gage:
-
Hauling capacity.
-
Standardization of manufactured components of track and rolling stock.
If you include both items #1 and #2, then 4’-8 ½” is clearly the optimum gage overwhelmingly because of item #2.
However, I think the original poster was posing this question:
What is the optimum gage in terms of hauling capacity only?
I believe this question has never been answered, and that the answer has changed as railroads
Sorry - no, that’s the Track Gauge & Loading Gauge thread from June and July 2008. It’s not the one I had in mind - aside from the time frame, it’s only 1 page and 8 items, and a pretty civilized discussion throughout. [;)]
I’ll see if I can find it later on this morning or at lunchtime.
- Paul North.
EDIT: I think this is it -
WIDE gauge RRs in the USA? - 6 Pages, 84 posts, starting 08-23-2009, at -#### http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/158995/1752619.aspx#1752619#### See also - Doesn’t fit the wide guage thread (1 Page, 11 posts, 08-29-2009) at -
http://cs.trains.com/trccs/forums/p/159344/1756212.aspx#1756212
The subject also showed up a little bit in this thread
Back in the sixties GATX (yep, the freight car lessor) were promoting an 18 foot (!) gauge HSR system called RRollway, the idea being that automobiles could be driven straight on and off the train garage style (i.e at a right angle):
However, I note that most existing HSR systems run on good ‘ole 4’8’’ and a half so why reinvent the (flanged) wheel…after all broad gauge increases ROW costs and a wider vehicle needs more juice (air resistance) to push it up to 225 M.P.H…
A new gauge for HSR would be practicable if you could afford new rights-of-way in built-up urban areas, similar to what was done in Japan. The French seem to have a more realistic approach in that the TGV has a separate right-of-way outside the cities but uses existing trackage in urban terminal areas.
The only advantage of a 6’ wider guage might be the rolling stock could be much wider allowing more space inside any car especially passenger cars (could make for some nice sleeping rooms). Wider bulk cars would call for shorter cars for same axel loadings (would require less steel for the whole car)… That might make iron ore cars too short? That requires bridge loadings to be stronger. Also moving wide loads that could be wider ( 2-4 ft). A wider guage would also decrease the tendency of stringlining a train on the inside of a curve. A wider guage would call for curves not to be as tight because of wheel creep and requiring loco trucks to be more curve adaptable?
There would be no advantage for passenger train speeds on curves since the same amount of cant for a given speed and cant deficiency would be the same.
The cost of RR ties and ballast would be much greater because of the need for them to cover the wider track bed. ROW cleariing costs would be greater.
Falcon48 an increase in gauge would bean that bridges and such would have increased loads. Wider bridges would certainly weigh more and they have to support their own weight first. In addition everthing would cost more with no return on that investment.
The reason I go back between “gauge” and “guage” is simply because, while I’m a pretty fast typist, I’m a notoriously poor proof reader. When I look at my own stuff, I see exactly what I expect to see, not necessarily what’s there, so I often don’t catch errors like this. Until I saw your post (and Paul North’s), I wasn’t even aware I had spelled the term two different ways in the same post. Maybe what I ought to do is spell it the way FRA spells it in their track rules - “gage”. It’s hard to mess that one up, even by typing it backwards.
We have discussed this subject in several threads in the past, and each time, there is a consensus that the present gage of 4’-8 ½” is perfect and should not be changed. But the original poster of this thread was not asking if we should change today’s standard gage to a better gage. That would be impossible. There cannot possibly be an alternate gage that would offer enough of an advantage to change all of the physical plant we have today.
What the original poster was asking is this: Has there ever been an engineering / economic study to determine with certainty what the optimum gage would be if we were starting from scratch and had no prior commitment to 4’-8 ½”?
I speculate that the answer to that question is no. And I would also speculate that 4’-8 ½” is not the optimum gage today in the terms of the original poster’s question. The odds of that would be impossibly remo