Talk:Iberian-gauge railways

Skip to table of contents

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Iberian-gauge railways article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Trains Low‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Origin

Seems doubtful the explanation for the Iberian gauge being different from the rest of europe. this article (google translation) points out that the Portuguese gauge was adapted to connect to the Spanish gauge and that some tracks had to be reconverted mid-1800 to adopt to the Iberian gauge). --BBird (talk) 13:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actualy the spanish gauge was a consequence of TECHNICAL decisions taken on the base of thay time schience. Simply put it was the bigger the gauge the bigger the power of the locomotive , and this was based on the notion that the terrain over spain was very hilly so they decided on a gauge of 6 castillian feet (1672mm) , and the metre gauge of northern spain is a consequence of another tecnical assumption that it would be much easier to go with a small gauge over the much more mountainous environment. Portuguese iberian gauge is of a much more UNtecnical nature , it is simply the result of the removal of the two innermost nails/screws when the gauge was reconverted and the rails were simply repositioned in the "wrong" side of the outside nails and the iner nail then became the outer nail in a new hole , and thus we get the 1664mm of the original gauge. Sotavento (talk) 08:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good points, BBird and Sotavento. I hope you think my latest revision takes them adequately into account. -- Picapica (talk) 15:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sotavento, where did you find this so very interesting point about the choice of Bitola Larga?

--Grijalvo (talk) 13:21, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

1664 mm more plausible this way. The curent text "5 Portuguese feet" does not add up, because 5 × 330 mm is 1650 mm. -DePiep (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

To change from 1435 mm to 1664 mm, these nails would be 229 mm apart (needs to reposition one rail only) or the nails are 114.5 mm apart when both rails are moved this way.

Of course, resulting in a 1664 mm gauge made sense because the Spanish rolling stock (1668 mm gauge definition) likely would manage these 4 mm difference in itsd tolerance/imprecision. -DePiep (talk) 13:20, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

disappearing

Spain and Portugal will convert to 1435 (standard gauge) around 2013. 121.102.47.39 (talk) 12:11, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That will surelly not be a feasible limit ... most previsions way back in 1989 pointed outo 2020 ... current best expectatios point out that by as late as 2015/2020 there will be trought running in UIC gauge from lisboa to Madrid , Barcelona and from there to France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotavento (talk • contribs) 21:57, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

When?

I've added a tag to query when the 1668 was agreed. The first link is dead, so I cannot really figure out if that was when the compromise was made or just that their original 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) tracks were converted to 1664. My guess is the latter, as I'd expect that an 8 mm (0.31 in) difference would have been close enough for interoperability at 1860s speeds, but that the definition would have needed tightening to cope with faster speeds in the 20th century.

Another matter I find odd is that the original 1672 Spanish gauge is actually closer to the 66 Provincial / Indian gauge as used in Argentina and Chile (after independence from Spain), but I cannot find anything about interoperability or harmonisation of Iberian and Indian gauges. Tim PF (talk) 13:29, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

---

The Iberian gauge was agreed in the 1950's but the fact was not publicized.

Original Portuguese SG was converted to Bitola Larga (five Portuguese feet) in the early days. The change was made many years before the Metric system was accepted in most Continental countries, so it made no sense to define a Portuguese gauge in Castilian feet and inches. They had to sort it out as best they could, same as the "standard" Langreo, actually 1,441 mm (5' 2" Castilian).

When the first Spanish railways were being laid there were none in India. The Subercase Report mentions two short 5' 6" lines in Scotland and says that the gauge is 6,03 Castilian feet. Had they known that this was to be one of the main gauges in the world (Canada maybe, India, Argentina, etc.) they might have proposed adding these three tiny fractions and we (and Portugal) would have a "Broad Gauge Common Market" of some size.

--Grijalvo (talk) 13:18, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A reference

Maybe this page would be an useful reference for this article

http://www.grijalvo.com/Aristogeronte/Ancho_via_en_Rail_gauge_.htm

--Grijalvo (talk) 13:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Standard Gauge

I am writing an article, but it is too heavily anti-Coal cart gauge for the Wikipedia...

--Grijalvo (talk) 13:07, 6 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Worthless reference

Who has put "El ancho de vía del tren español" as a reference? It is chock-full with errors.

--Grijalvo (talk) 17:50, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Which century?

Was the Iberian gauge "finally established in 1955" as in the second paragraph, or "[a]djusted from the original...in the 19th century" as in the "Installations" section?

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Iberian gauge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080327081535/http://apac.cp.pt:80/hist_cp.htm to http://apac.cp.pt/hist_cp.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:35, 24 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Iberian-gauge railways. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:10, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Adjustment

Iberian-gauge railways#Similar gauges and compatibility
5 ft 6 in gauge railway#Similar gauges and compatibility
Talk:5 ft 6 in gauge railway#Adjustment
...a little wheelset adjustment... Nowhere do 1668 mm and 1676 mm gauges meet so this "adjustment" is moot, ditto for the referse. One does not move the wheels on the axle, the fit is too tight. In case of problems one replaces the wheelsets. Peter Horn User talk 03:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 20:04, 25 January 2019 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 20:00, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, there is no "adjustment" possible. One can not move wheels on axles. Therfore one would replace wheelsets. Peter Horn User talk 02:24, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How long

How long did it take to actually implement the compromise over the entire two systems? 1955^{[dead link‍]}? Peter Horn User talk 00:55, 25 April 2021 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 00:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]