Jump to content

Talk:5 ft and 1520 mm gauge railways

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Russian gauge)

Untitled

[edit]

1524 mm / 1520 mm but only one name. How to solve, what are other names?

  • 1524 mm: Russian empire gauge? Imperial Russia gauge? Finnish gauge?
  • 1520 mm: Soviet Union gauge

The reference given for New Russian gauge is nice, but in pre 1960 context and old docs when reading about Russian gauge one will not mean that post-1960 one. TrackConnect (talk) 11:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Russian/CIS gauge is 1520mm. In the same way that European electricity is 230volts.
(Historically, European electricity was 220v in continental Europe and 240v in UK/Ireland. When new equipment is installed it is done so to 230v. Older equipment is just arranged to be within the tolerances allowed by the standard).
Generally I've heard "Finnish gauge" for 1524 mm since this is the primary country still using it. According to [1], VR send technical specifications to EVR upon joining the EU; so Estonian is now nominally 1524mm too; again close enough for interoperability—in which case there are two countries. Though that could do with sourcing from somewhere else. —Sladen (talk) 11:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Finland has a tolerance of 10 mm, Russia has a higher tolerance, so there is a paper difference only. The real railways differ randomly more than these 4 mm. --BIL (talk) 18:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just a paper difference, as the Finnish tolerance range is centered on the different nominal gauge, 1524 mm instead of 1520 mm, which makes the extremes of the tolerance ranges incompatible on high-speed-low-tolerance rolling stock. Current newly built Finnish class 1AA track (highest grade, Vmax = 220 km/h) has a tolerance range of 1521 to 1527 mm (worn 1AA track has absolute limits of 1518 and 1539 for inoperability), newly built class 3 or lower (Vmax = 110 km/h or lower) 1520 to 1536 mm (worn 3 or lower track has absolute limits of 1514 to 1554 for inoperability), and new switches have a tolerance range of 1522 and 1526 mm in Finland (1520 to 1535 for worn). On the contrary, Russian standard has a tolerance range of 1516 and 1528 mm for new track and absolute limits of 1512 to 1548 for worn track. The Russian lower end of the tolerance range falls outside Finnish tolerance ranges and this occasionally causes problems with Finnish rolling stock on Russian rail yards. 1 2 3 --XoravaX (talk) 23:13, 15 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Original research

[edit]

I've tagged this article as containing a great deal of original research. It has numerous uncited claims that appear to be speculation on the part of the author. These need to be sourced or removed. Thanks, Gwernol 12:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Introduction

[edit]

The introduction (the area above the Table of Contents and before the first heading) should be a high-level introduction. It does not need to include detail and should make sense when read without the original article and to somebody who does not know the area the article is discussing.

There is a whole article to discussion variations, tolerances, exact details, curiosities (WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT). I would like to return the introduction to the high-level, streamlined, contextual introduction as of [2]. But I prefer that this was agreed which so that we don't end up with WP:3RR.

Generally the order is that if a bold change is made and it is reverted then the change should not be re-added without discussion (WP:BOLD). I appreciate everyone's thirst for detail, but please remember that an article needs to start at the beginning, not in the middle. —Sladen (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

it was more about correctness than detail. 1520 alone is very misleading. And the introduction of course can adapt to the topic, if it is little more complex than what can be said in one sentence than it can get longer. But most important: You cannot define something in the intro and than revoke this in the text. That's wrong definition in the first place and does not belong in WP. TrackConnect (talk) 14:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think if the Russian Railways have a quarter of a million kilometers of track and describe this as being 1520mm wide, then it's fair enough to have the first paragraph of an article entitled "Russian gauge" follow that definition.
To go back to my previous example above of electrical supply; the IEC 60038 mains electricity articles do not open "...220 V (+10%/-6%) to 240 V (+6%/-10%)...", the detail is confusing when just a plain "230 V" provides what the reader is actually after.
Everything is flexible, but Wikipedia project policies and guidelines are there to help people work together in a sensible style; it unusual to have large WP:BOLD changes immediately re-added if they have been removed. Especially ones that introduce error-messages into the opening line of an otherwise satisfactory and (not wrong) article. —Sladen (talk) 14:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Large bold change, hey, you made the first large bold change after I created the article? Introducing the incorrectness, and reinserting it all the time. IEC 60038 does not cite a wrong number in the intro. TrackConnect (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think counting adding references (most of that diff) as churn or WP:BOLD changes might be pushing the spirit of the BOLD policy a little far.
I may remind you that the conflict is about "1519 mm up to 1525 mm" and that is what you deleted and redelete all the time. TrackConnect (talk) 10:19, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To your second point, and quoting myself "...the IEC 60038 mains electricity articles do not open...". This is precisely the point I was (attempting) to make; unnecessary detail is not presented in the opening lead-section of the article.
Are you happy if we (return to) including only 1520mm in the opening line; with the 1524mm reference being made to the historical definition and to that has been used in Finland through-out. I think the strength of RZD knowing the gauge of their own railway tracks far outweighs a third-party page that has chosen to casually group certain gauges together, whilst keeping other mentions of 1524mm separate. I do not feel that the particular third-party site being used as a reference to strong enough to supersede that presented by RZD and the 1520 Partnership. —Sladen (talk) 14:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If RZD only knows about 1520 mm, it would seem they know less than we do. 1520 _and_ 1524 in the intro seems fine to me. I also think the references can be moved to the article (maybe to section "redefinition"?), and are not needed in the intro? I will be offline now. Thanks for working with me. Also thank you to Gwernol, for being tough on the original research stuff. Best regards. TrackConnect (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent, done! —Sladen (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant 1520 and 1524 on equal standing. Both are defs for "Russian gauge". forum1520 for installed base also mentions both. Well, they have not named it Russian gauge. But shall we say 1520 refers to 1524 and 1520? It's like with Spanish. There is Spanish-Spanish and lot of other Spanish. Current Russian-Russian gauge is 1520, but Estonian-Russian gauge is 1524. Historic Russian gauge is same for Finland, Estonia and Russia 1524.TrackConnect (talk) 15:59, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you think of any reasons why "forum1520" (1520 Strategic Partnership) might have chosen their name? (Instead of 1524 Strategic Partnership). —Sladen (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I can think of such reasons, but I don't see how this does matter. TrackConnect (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that a sheet of A4 paper is defined as having a width of 210mm +/-2.0mm; which is a similar level of tollerance allowed for by interworking across Russian gauge networks; However, that does not mean that A4 paper is sold as being 208mm wide. —Sladen (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent example, you proved my point. TrackConnect (talk) 17:03, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

forum1520 is contradicting itself and having extra errors

[edit]

http://www.forum1520.com/about/about1520.php

"1520 mm is the official gauge of railways operated within the Commonwealth of Independent States, the Baltic states, Mongolia and Finland."

versus, "Breakdown of 1,520 (1,524)-mm railways in km by countries:"

Where from other sources it can be found that Finland, historic Panama and maybe even Estonia are 1524mm, i.e. the first sentence stating 1520mm is plain wrong.

Furthermore it counts "Panama [78]" - the 78 seems to refer to Panama Railway which has been converted to standard gauge.

TrackConnect (talk) 10:29, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trans Continental

[edit]
direct connection between 1520mm and 1676mm

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.138.25.165 (talk) 05:16, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Russian gauge/Indian gauge direct connection 58.138.25.165 (talk) 06:42, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Afghanistan

[edit]

Afghanistan will use mainly 1676 Indian gauge, 1520 Russian gauge in the north part.

  • north part: 1520 and 1676
  • central and south part: 1676 only
  • Iran - Herat freight line: 1435

58.138.45.84 (talk) 22:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bering crossing

[edit]

Russia wants Bering Strait Tunnel which will use 1520 Russian gauge and railroad networks in Alaska, Canada and the continental United States to convert to 1676 Indian gauge.

  • Bering Strait Tunnel should be built at 1520 Russian gauge.
  • Railroad networks in Alaska, Canada and the continental United States should be converted to 1676 Indian gauge including double track electrification 25kV AC and enlarging loading gauge (and further extension of the networks).

58.138.45.84 (talk) 22:56, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is maybe a dream of yours, but converting all railroads of Canada and the United States to Indian gauge is very unlikely to happen ever, and does not deserve mention in any article. --BIL (talk) 23:22, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All this '1520 mm gauge is proposed' etc stuff is nothing but russian propaganda. The global winning gauge is standard gauge (1435 mm), Russia is furious that they're losing again, and instead of adapting to the situation, like permitting standard gauge transit lines across their territory, they try to find useful idiots to support their lost cause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2403:6200:8810:699C:E147:72FF:D7C2:845B (talk) 11:14, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Map please

[edit]

Could we have a map of the main tracks that use Russian gauge? TIA.--78.48.163.180 (talk) 16:29, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Now there is a map of the countries that use Russian gauge. --BIL (talk) 21:23, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Use in light rail systems

[edit]

The statement "The Saint Petersburg, Russia, tramway network is entirely broad gauge, with some of the world's widest trams, and indeed the widest in Europe (European trams are generally narrower than European buses and trains and also tramcars elsewhere such as America and Australia)." is misleading at best, incorrect at worse. Saint Petersburg trams are 2.55m - 2.6m wide (according to these wiki pages on Saint Petersburg trams: LM-33, LM-49, LM-57, LM-68M, LVS-86) Melbourne's trams are 2.65m - 2.73m wide (W-class Melbourne tram, Z-class Melbourne tram, D-class Melbourne tram) and many new tram systems are built at 2.65m wide, for example both Mulhouse tramway and Public transport in Istanbul#Trams use 2.65m Alstom Citadis (that page has a list showing how varied width can be). I think the original editor was trying to explain that the The Saint Petersburg trams are wider than many in Europe (particularly the east) this would make sense as the Tatra T3 (one of the most produced trams in the world) was 2.5m wide. I'm hoping that the original editor (or someone else) may be able to clear this up a little, as it stands now is not quite correct. Liamdavies (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Track gauge definitions

[edit]

I want to re-research the various definitions for this family of gauges. We have:

A. 5 ft
B. 5 ft/1524 mm, 1842–1960s. Called "Russian gauge" in the Russian area (Russia + neighbors), or "old Russian gauge". Metric used in Finland.
C. 1520 mm, since 1960s, also called "Russian gauge".

Notes:

  • A. "5 ft" is an early and independent definition. It is used without being "Russian" at all (e.g., in US, Panama). Has target page five-foot gauge railway (now a redirect). Should only be called "Russian gauge" when it is about the early Russian area gauges. In other words, it is a cultural, not a global definition (see likewise Cape gauge name or size definitions)
  • B. I don't know how "5 ft/1524 mm" was defined in the Russian empire in 1842: imperial, metric or Russian units. Russia went metric in 1918, and before that it had localized/imperial units. So a metric "1524 mm" is not probable for that era. However, since it is explicitly used in Finland (metric since 1886), we can assume for now that the definition exists in metric (to be sourced for Finland).
  • C. The 1520 mm gauge is definitely defined in metric in today's Russia, and so is defined. Also, currently this metric definition should carry the name "Russian gauge". Its conversion into imperial units is calculation only.

Recap: A. "5 ft" is to be used in topics outside of the Russian area always, never referred to as "Russian". C. "1520 mm" is the Russian gauge (primary nowadays), with no imperial definition. This one can be classified as either "Russian gauge" or "1520 mm gauge", with no confusion by any "5 ft" meaning. The in-between "5 ft/1524 mm" is appropriate only in topics of Finland, and Russian railways history. It is to be subcategorised under "5 ft", not a separate definition.

Consequences for Category:Broad gauge railways and Tempalte:RailGauge are to follow. -DePiep (talk) 12:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More exceptions: Estonia has redefined its gauge to the Finnish 5 ft standard: Track gauge in Estonia. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:58, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

More and more I am convinced: each article should be able to use the gauge definitions as its sources say. The rest should follow. So {RG} should allow that source, and not imply covering generalisations (as already with gauge namings we had to withdraw: improvement). In this Estonian case I must doubt the source ;-) "Estonian railways today", because they say "1520 mm" for 1870. (1520 mm was only defined in the 1960s). I am not sure whether to mention the Russian Empire age gauge "5ft" or "1524mm" yet. Anyway, the proposal allows for Estonia to describe gauges fine. Article categorisation should follow too, but can have a merging aspect (Estonia: into a group category 1520mm & 5ft & 1524mm makes sense). -DePiep (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. So we are getting the numbers right. Now this: when is it OK & good to actually use (show in article) the wording "Russian gauge"? -DePiep (talk) 23:26, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All the 5 ft railways built in the Russian empire, subsequent Soviet Union and its sphere of influence (when connected to this network). This includes Finland, China and Afghanistan.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. And this includes the 1520 mm gauges build/reconstructed after the 1960s move I understand?
Subsequent question. What should be the wikilink for "Russian gauge", at least for {{RailGauge}}? (note: per {RG} input option, there can be a different one: 5ft, 1524, 1520mm). -DePiep (talk) 21:26, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also the redefined 1520 is "Russian". Subsequent q/a: 5-ft to Five-foot gauge railways or Five-foot gauge railway and 1524 / 1520 to Russian gauge.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Baltics and Finland

[edit]

I've just taken out an uncited claim that there is a debate about regauging the Baltic states "as they are EU countries now" [like Spain, Portugal and Ireland?], which also claimed Rail Baltica would be "using Russian gauge from Kaunas, Lithuania and north"; the whole point of Rail Baltica is that it would be standard gauge.[3] Maybe something has been lost in translation. Wheeltapper (talk) 14:20, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown track gauges

[edit]

Recently added:

  • 1638 mm
  • 1588 mm
  • 1581 mm
  • 1575 mm
  • 1473 mm

None of these are known in {{track gauge}}. They need a source or other background. Discuss at Template talk:Track gauge. -DePiep (talk) 11:30, 1 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Removed them from the article, unsourced assumed not existing. -DePiep (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 5 ft and 1520 mm 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) 05:15, 21 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 5 ft and 1520 mm 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) 04:50, 23 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

24 km broad gauge in Mukran / Sassnitz port

[edit]

According to German Wikipedia there are 24km of tracks in Russian gauge on the Sassnitz port area. Should this be mentioned here in the article, too? --RokerHRO (talk) 11:14, 26 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Russia and China

[edit]

5 ft and 1520 mm gauge railways#Loading gauge The structure gauge and loading gauge of the 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) standard gauge railways is as generous as that of the Russian railways. The loading gauge of the American 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) Big Boy EXCEEDS that of Russia and China. Peter Horn User talk 20:39, 18 August 2020 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 20:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:53, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Contradiction

[edit]

Both this article and Iberian-gauge railways claim their gauge is the second most common gauge in the world. They can't both be. Which is it? Stifle (talk) 10:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Stifle: There is no contradiction. This gauge is the second-most common (i.e. "item 2 in the list of gauges, ranked by widest use"); Iberian gauge is physically second-widest (i.e. "item 2 in the list of common gauges, ranked by width between the rails"). Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 01:16, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Either it's been edited since I posted this, or I have misread. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:5_ft_and_1520_mm_gauge_railways&oldid=1197069664"