Jump to content

Talk:Track gauge/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1


Advantages of Various Gauges

This article never clearly says the advantages or disadvantages of having a wide or narrow gauge. Perhaps it should.

Also, this article says that many high speed lines use standard gauge, even in places where standard gauge is not standard. It would be nice to know why.

I'd add this material, but I don't know these answers myself. Kitplane01 07:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added an explanation near the beginning of the article. Biscuittin (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving Gauge List

This page is really long with the list of gauges. I think we should move the list to its own page, List of Rail Gauges. Also, the Grand Funk Railroad external link is broken. I removed it until someone finds a better link. --- AeroIllini (talk) | 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Overview

I heard the reason why Britain adopted the 4 feet 8½ in standard was because it was based on the system of Roman roads, which had used the same width. The 4 feet 8½ in standard is the same width of two horses used to pull a chariot. Should this be mentioned in the article? Iam 07:20, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

This is an urban legend / half-truth. Chariots and horse-drawn carriages/wagons had varying axle lengths, but they tended towards a natural average based on equine and human proportions. Early railways tended to pick a size for wagons that was about the size of a horse-drawn road wagon (sensibly, since they were still horse-drawn) and they had gauges of all dimensions from 3 feet to 6 feet, but a gauges somewhere between 4 and 5 feet were most common. The gauge of 4 feet 8 inches (the half inch was later added to give some room for play) just happened to have been that used on the colliery railways that George Stephenson gained his early experience on, and given his and his son's pivotal influence on the Liverpool & Manchester Railway and other early British railways, this gauge became the standard. —Morven 07:37, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Half-truth? Is that the same as being half pregnant? :) Iam 00:37, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)
I believe this 'two horses patoots' story may have been propagated into popular culture by James Burke's Connections (TV series). I remember him telling the tail ;) Rdhamouris 16:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

George Stephenson had helped engineer quite a number of tram lines before being appointed to engineer the first proper railway, the Liverpool and Manchester. He had also built about 50 engines before even the Rocket. All these engines and lines would have been built to a common satisfactory gauge. By the time the L&M was opened several interconnecting railways were being developed, and these had to be the same gauge. Even planned railways that were temporarily isolated from the L&M system were often engineered by Stephenson or by people trained by Stephenson. Stephenson also trained many of the people who went on to build many of the other early railways in other countries, and they adopted the Stephenson gauge as well, particularly as these lines interconnected with the L&M, or would do so soon after.

The pressure to conform to the standard gauge was very, very strong.

Brunel who introduced the disasterous Broad gauge, followed his own and his father's independent thinking. Brunel wasted the broad gauge by not building say wider carriages.

In 2004, 60% of the world's railways are standard gauge, which demonstrates the value of a uniform gauge, and also demonstrates that the original choice of 4 foot 8.5 inches has been a lucky one, not too narrow and not too wide. In about 2005, Panama converted to Standard gauge as part of upgrade work. In 2006, Peru and Nigeria intend to convert to standard gauge as part of rehabilitation, and in the case of Peru, with the impetus of a possible very expensive tunnel.

Railways can be light duty or heavy duty depending on the weight of the rails and strength of the sleepers and formation. This is largely independent of gauge. It is possible to have very light and cheap standard gauge lines, and on the other hand to have very expensive heavy duty narrow gauge lines such as in South Africa and Queensland. If railways were started again, there would be only two main gauges: 4' 8.5" (1435mm) light and heavy duty, and say 2' 0" (610mm)for cane trams, mountain trains, temporary, military, construction work, and other very light uses.

I know that it is often stated that 4´8" was standard BUT I have seen it claimed that the first edition of Encyclopedica Britannica stated that 4´6" was standard. I know for a fact that many early quarry railways was 4´6" or 7´. (4´8.5" was an adaption used to give some nessecary play between flange and rail.) Seniorsag 17:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)


I have deleted the overview section in it's entirety. Each point was arguable if not outright incorrect, which i will explain point by point in italics Dinna89 (talk) 06:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

  • New railways, especially recent high speed rail (AVE and Shinkansen), are usually built to standard gauge. Advantages are:
  • It facilitates inter-running with neighbouring railways - only true where neighbouring railways are standard gauge
  • Locomotives and rolling stock can be ordered from manufacturers' standard designs and do not need to be custom built, though some adaptation to local conditions may be necessary, for example, regarding loading gauge. 1) bogie design is easy enough to change, the bigger issue with rolling stock is the loading gauge. 2)It is generally more important to maintain the regions gauge rather than build in standard gauge. 3) if you build with a consistent gauge you can use existing rolling stock on new gauge.
  • Generally speaking, of the gauges between 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 3⁄8 in) and 1,700 mm (5 ft 6.93 in), standard gauge works well enough. The supposed advantages of broader or narrower gauges in this range are not enough to overcome the disadvantages of any break of gauge in a railway system. - speculative

Loading gauges

Is it worth mentioning wagon widths in the article? For example I understand that a French carriage would hit the platforms in England despite being the same gauge, so Eurostar needs special variable steps. --Henrygb 00:22, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You need to look up Jane's World Railways ([1]) for information about the width of carriages and the height of platforms, etc. British carriages are considerably smaller than French ones, at least 300mm narrower.
Loading gauge is a more complicated subject even than that. Prior to mergers/nationalisation, different British railways had different loading gauges, which leads to problems operating preserved steam locomotives even today: e.g. the GWR locomotive used for the Harry Potter movies had problems with the platforms on the line in Scotland used for filming.
These days, I believe, there is a common British standard and a common European standard, and likewise for most other interlinked rail networks. However, there are still individual lines that differ, especially those which do not interchange with other networks. It's also not unheard of for locomotives or stock that do not interchange to exceed interchange standards for loading gauge - good example are Channel Tunnel shuttle trains. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The article needs early on to mention running- and loading-gauges and the difference between them. Indeed, there is an argument for a disambiguation-page to distinguish these two types of gauge, and for a renaming of this page as rail(way) running gauge.

The above mentioned discussion really belongs to the Loading gauge article and there is where these issues should be mentioned and discussed. Peter Horn 14:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Standards other than track gauge

Henrygb might like to note the following:

To run a unified system, the following are important.

Yes they can ride on different profiles BUT not well. (BTW, I think that Canadian and European mainline wheel profiles are the same.) Between some profiles the only problem is increased wear. In Stockholm they tried running with underground profile on a suburban railway but the flange wear was so excessive that after a few years the flanges started splitting the points. There is also the point that if flanges are to narrow there is a fair chance that the checkrail will not steer the flange right in the frog, danger maybe overblown but noted. Tred-with also makes for problems in selfguarded frogs. Flange-depth is a problem at flangerolling frogs. Wrong conicity makes unsteady running at speeed (maximum stable speed drops quite a bit), which have caused problems with overheating when transfeering underground vagons with underground profiles on mainline tracks. (London underground uses mainline profiles.) In short, small deviations are generally acceptable for slow freight and short distances but for good running rail and wheel profiles should be matched. Seniorsag 13:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Syd1435 10:34, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

See below. Peter Horn 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Couplings between carriages, Height, buffer width (Buffer and hook is easy to make compatible while central couplings are VERY picky. Central couplings to hook and buffer sometimes works fine (Finland to former USSR!)). Also for passenger carriages: gangway (height, whith, type).
  • Wheel AND flange profiles. Wrong detail can damage both wheels and track and can cause derailment. In Stockholm one engeneer was proud since he managed to define a wheelprofile that worked on all the standard gauge tracks in Stockholm (Underground, tram, surburban and mainline including harbour).
  • Electrification systems. Not only Volt and DC/AC-frequency but also type of overhead (or third(and fourth) rail) wire. That can be quite a problem. Different wirehanging means different pantographs. Some trains running under the same voltage and frequency still needs two different pantographs but can link home on the other if one breaks.
  • Platforms gauge. Passanger and freight, two different.

Seniorsag 17:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Different wirehanging means different pantographs." ??? Not really! Also, I have added links to Syd1435 10:34, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC) comments above. Peter Horn 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh, yes it does. You can run with the wrong pantograph but it can cause excessive wear. Swiss railways used another wirehanging system than Germany and through trains had double pantographs. There is also some problems with mixing different running surfaces on the pantographs but you usually wear out the old ones when changing but until all are changed you do not get the full advantage of the new surface. Seniorsag 13:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Excuse, I forgot uptrust from pantograph. Too low and you get bad contact with bounces and arching, too high and you lift the contact line too high. On the inauguration train on Ofoten line they had both pantographs up since the king was aboard and lifted the catenary to the tunnelroof. Train stopped for quite a while. Seniorsag 15:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Map?

It would be great if this article had a map. It could show the gauge of various regions as well as national borders where rail networks are disconnected, such as Iran-Pakistan. Any creative, time-rich people out there? Seabhcán 09:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've started work on this by collecting information on international rail connections: User:Seabhcan/RailMap. Please help out. Seabhcán 09:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)
The articles such as Transport in Iran generally list border connections and their gauges. Links allow you to jump across the border easily. Tabletop 05:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Britain

Must say I object to the inclusion of Ireland underneath the header 'Britain' User:fiachs

How would you feel about 'British Isles' instead of 'Britain'? Murray Langton 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Sounds like the best solution to me, personally. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

1600mm

Isn't 1600mm rail also used in parts of Australia and Brazil as well as the island of Ireland? --Kiand 23:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

1600mm is known as "Irish gauge", but not in Austalia where it is called "Broad gauge". Used in Brazil, Australia (Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania for a while), Germany (Badische Staatsbahn), all of Ireland (except for 3' 0" lines), New Zealand (now uses 3' 6"), UK (Northern Ireland), USA (Altoona).

A problem with 5' 3" is that it is too similar to 4' 8.5" to allow decent and safe third rail dual gauge, which would have helped solve the break of gauge problem. The debate about this lasted four decades before it collapsed in a heap of rancour. 5' 6" or 6' 0" would have been better choices. Tabletop (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1500 mm

Break-of-gauge indicates that Russia and former Soviet Union countries use a 1500 mm gauge; I think this is correct, but have not been able to find a definitive source (especially one that would list in details which former Soviet republics use this gauge). Does anyone has more information ? Schutz 22:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC) JANE'S WORLD RAILWAYS (hard copy) is always a good source. --Peter Horn 03:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

1500mm is not correct. 5' 0" metricated becomes 1524mm, which is then metrically rounded to 1520mm, perhaps because of the lack of millimetre tape measures in the old Soviet Union. Tabletop (talk) 09:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
All former Soviet republics, Finland and Mongolia use the 1520/1524 mm gauge (the difference of 4 mm is insignificant). — Monedula 06:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC). 1524mm is the exact conversion of 5 feet 0 inches.
I think it should be noted, that originally the Russian gauge was just 5 feet. At some point the Soviet standard was changed to 1520mm, but in practice many lines still have 1524mm gauge. In Finland the original standard is still in force. The break of gauge between the two countries is thus purely formal. - Beil 22:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
The difference 1524/1520 mm is the same as 1432/1435 mm, ie less play needed with better control of tolerances. Some of the difference casn also be different conversion between metric and imperial messaures.Seniorsag 13:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
1520mm is 1524mm rou rounded to the nearest 10mm. Both ammount to 5' 0". Tabletop (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1432 mm/1435 mm

(Hong Kong) If the difference between 1520/1524 mm does not pose a problem to thru running, what "problem" needs to be "solved" between 1432/1435 mm? Why would the 3 mm between 1432/1435 be any more "significant" than the 4 mm between 1520/1524 --Peter Horn 03:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If two gauges are within 1/4 inch, about 6mm, then they are effectively the same.
It looks like no one has fixed this problem...now the Hong Kong section contradicts itself. At first it says "there's a problem; Hong Kong trains have to run slower on standard gauge tracks" but a sentence or two later it says "there's no problem at all" (I'm paraphrasing, that's what the meaning seems to be to me). Someone want to clear that up? Foxmulder 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
If you allow for some wear and tear on the wheels and rails, a 6mm or 1/4 inch difference is immaterial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabletop (talk • contribs)

Rail gauge#Iberian peninsula

Not even 8 mm or 5/16" seems to have made any difference. Time to "clean up" Rail gauge#Hong Kong.

Peter Horn 16:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No!, this is the first time that I have seen mentioned why through trains had to slow down on the other network. The difference is big enough to make for troubble since it is different aimpoints. It is one thing to tighten tolerances but another thing to change aimpoint.Seniorsag 13:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)


There is something missing from the article. Spain (in the Iberian Peninsula) uses broad gauge (most common) and standard gauge (for high-speed trains), but ALSO narrow gauge in certain train lines in north Spain (Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, Basque Country, and north Castile-Leon) and some in the south (Murcia). There is even a wikipedia article about it: FEVE 62.172.234.2 11:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Alf

Model Railroads

Does anyone know the gauges for Model Railroads, and how they are determined? Also, is it possible to upload a chart displaying the tracks that each gauge of model train uses? trekker767

See Model railroading#Scales and gauges and Category:Model railroad scales

Kaliningrad has 1524 ?

Why is it written that Kaliningrad has 1524 mm and rest of Russia 1520 ? I think it is very logic that they have same as rest of Russia, since the network in the Kaliningrad are was rebuilt from 1435 mm (German standard). It was heavily destroyed in the war anyway. Why should they rebuild with anything else than Russian standard ? The source stated is not perfect, it states that "All of those ports, including Kaliningrad and Baltisk, are served by the Russian 1,524 mm gauge railway system.". But Russia has 1520 mm, hasn't they ? /BIL 10:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

1524mm is the exact conversion of 5 feet +/- quarter of an inch. 1520mm is within that quarter of an inch tolerance. When quoted in mm, gauges seem to be more precise than when quoted in mm. Remember than on sharp curves less than say 200m radius, gauge can be widened by 25mm. The moral is not to fuss about the nearest millimetre. Tabletop 11:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
The author of the document stated as source most likely do not know the difference between 1520mm and 1524mm. If I recall correctly 1524mm is the old Russian Empire gauge. After the revolution the railway gauge was changed to 1520mm. Finland has 1524mm because it was part of Russia when the railways were built there but not after Russia/USSR changed gauge. As stated, they are compatible. /Samuel

Origin of miniature gauges

If standard gauge is derived from Roman chariots hauled by two horses, could miniature gauges such as 2' 0" be derived from vehicles hauled by a single horse, or by men in a mine?

Tabletop 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically yes, although you are really referring to the origins of narrow gauge railways. Miniature railways are a different thing altogether. The first recorded railways were mine railways in Germany and Eastern Europe, dating back as far as 1556. The De re metallica of that year shows a hand-powered mine railway of about 24 gauge in what is now the Czech Republic. This is, as far as I know, the earliest known railway. Gwernol 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
But the article says that standard gauge is not derived from the roman chariots, so what point does the question have? Philip J. Rayment 10:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
There is some debate about the whole "Roman Chariots" theory. I consider it an urban myth. There are some Roman chariotways with ruts around 5ft apart, but there are others with ruts less than 3 ft apart. The rail gauge of 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) or 56 is coincidental since like Roman chariots the early wagonways were horse drawn. I think the point of the question is there are two "natural" sizes for non-locomotive powered railways, somewhere between 4 ft and 5 ft for horse-drawn wagons and around 2 ft for hand-powered wagons. This is pretty much true. Gwernol 14:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Small gauge differences.

The discussion about 1520/1524 and 1432/1435 is sometimes missing that originally railgauge was the same as distance between flanges (4´8´´) but with better crossties the rails stayed where put so they had to add half an inch for play. Later with better control of wheels and rail and realisation of widening out on curves they shrank the nominal gauge a few mm. If you take it easy you can have quite a difference in gauge, some US trains ran through from 5´ to 4´8.5´´ but they had trouble with some derailments when taking points at speed.

Quite often 2´ and 600mm works together (but not always).

Seniorsag 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for saying that trains ran thru between 1435 mm and 1524 mm? This would have meant unusually wide grooves at switches and crossovers. If what you say is really true then running thru between 1435 mm & 1495 mm (Toronto track gauge) would also be possible. In either case it would be the standard gauge train that would run thru.

Peter Horn 13:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

America has so-called compromise gauge where wider treads on 4' 8.5" gauge wheels allowed the cars to run on 4' 10" tracks. But probably not on 5' 0" tracks. Tabletop (talk) 05:58, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
My source is a book about railway accidents and it mentions the fact as a cause for the frequent derailments in that area. I will see if I can find the book again.
Seniorsag 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image

thumb|320px|Spurweite bei Eisenbahnschienen Can someone incorporate this image from the German Wiki & at the same time translate the text within the image? Peter Horn 13:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent heading "Commonwealth of Nations (Former British Empire)"

This heading is inconsistently used, the African Commonwealth countries are listed separately, though their rail networks were British-built. Also, if the aim is to group countries inheriting British-built networks, most of north-east Africa (Egypt and Sudan) are not 'Commonwealth of Nations' but are 'Former British Empire'. I suggest doing away with it and grouping all countries by continent, noting under each country if it inherited a British-built system.Rexparry sydney 23:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing half an inch?

Why does the article say standard gauge is 4 ft 8 in (1422 mm) whereas elsewhere it says 4 ft 8½in (1435 mm)? Doesn't half an inch matter? Rexparry sydney 05:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at "Small gauge differences".Seniorsag 13:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Rail gauge#Narrow gauge (Canada)

Did they change the wheelsets or the complete trucks? See also Talk:Newfoundland Railway Peter Horn 01:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Most likely complete trucks (bogies). This changes the pin, and connections for the hand-brake and air-brakes. Changing the wheelsets involves more things to change. Tabletop (talk) 12:06, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Future and high-speed use of wide gauge

It would be interesting to see the implementation of wide or extra wide 2m + gauge. Wider gauge could take advantage of exponential economies of scale. A double sized gauge, for example, could bear a load up to four times bigger because the greater stability of a wider track also allows a train to be built higher. Greater stability from increased width would allow for much faster rail transport greatly reducing the cost of high speed rail.

One would have to rebuilt a lot of existing tracks to make this idea worthwhile. Introducing yet another gauge is not clever. Shipping containers are never going to be wider than 8', though there may be advantages in increasing the places where double stacking works. Passenger cars are a tight fit when 10 feet wide (leaving 2 feet or so for a corridor). A slight extra width would be nice. Tabletop 05:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
American "domestic" containers are already 8.5 feet wide. APL is now using this width on their ships; and there is a European proposal to widen their containers too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

597/600 (Decauville)

I think that the railgauge of 597 is an error due to dubble conversion from metric to imperial to metric. I will check and where I am sure I will change to 600(Decauville).Seniorsag 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Standard Gauge (Rail gauge#Britain)

Hi Peter,

It is beginning to look like the statements that 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) was a de facto standard prior to the Liverpool and Manchester Railway are unsupported statements. Baxter (1966: P 56) states that there was no standard gauge for horse railways, but there were rough groupings. In the north of England none were less than 4ft. Wylam, built before 1763, was 5ft 0in; as was John Blenkinsop's Middleton Railway - the wikipedia article says 4ft 1in, and Baxter (1966: P 56) says the old 4ft plateway was relaid to 5ft so that Blenkinsop's engine could be used.

Baxter (1966: P 56): Others were 4ft 4in Beamish or 4ft 7.5in (Bigges Main and Kenton and Coxlodge). Stephenson favoured 4ft 8in for waggonways in Northumberland and Durham and used it on his Killingworth line. The Hetton and Springwell waggonways also used the gauge. Stephenson's Stockton and Darlington railway was built to 4ft 8in and used it for fifteen years before being changed to 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm).

Whishaw (1842): The Chester and Birkenhead railway, authorised on 12 July 1837, was 4ft 9in (page 54); The Eastern Counties Railway, authorised on 4 July 1836, was 5ft 0in (page 91); London and Blackwall Railway, authorised on 28 July 1836, was 5ft 0in (page 260); The London and Brighton Railway, authorised on 15 July 1837, was 4ft 9in (page 273); The Manchester and Birmingham Railway, authorised on 30 June 1837, was 4ft 9in (page 303); The Manchester and Leeds Railway, authorised on 4 July 1836, was 4ft 9in (page 319); the Northern and Eastern Railway,authorised on 4 July 1836, was 5ft 0in (page 363). The 4ft 9in railways were intended to take 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) gauge vehicles and allow a running tolerance. The rest of the railways in England, excluding the Great Western Railway were 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) gauge. I've not included Scotland, Wales or Ireland.

From this the so called standard gauge could be regarded as 4ft 8in to 5ft 0ft.

  • Baxter, Bertam (1966). (The Industrial Archaeology of the British Isles. Stone Blocks and Iron Rails (Tramroads) Newton Abbott: David & Charles.
  • Whishaw, Francis (1842). The Railways of Great Britain and Ireland: Practically Described and Illustrated. Newton Abbott: David & Charles Reprints. (published 1969) ISBN 0-7153-4786-1.

Pyrotec 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste from User talk:Peter Horn Peter Horn 23:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that 4' 8.5" and 4' 9" vary by only half an inch, which is much less than the width of the tyre of the wheel, these gauges are surely the same for practical purposes. Today, gauges are widened by 1 inch on curves sharper than 10 chains (200m). As traffic and speeds increase, tighter tolerances may have been introduce, as experience accumulated. Tabletop 05:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
In the U.S., when the Southern railroads converted from 5' broad gauge after the Civil War, they converted to the Pennsylvania Railroad gauge of 4' 9" rather than the 4' 8.5" used by most Northern railroads. (They converted the whole South in 2 days by just moving one rail on every track over by 3"!) However, it was close enough that they could interchange freight cars freely with the Northern railroads, which was the point of the whole exercise. Later on, they gradually reduced their tracks to 4' 8.5" in piecemeal fashion during the course of normal maintenance, because it did make a bit of difference and resulted in fewer derailments. RockyMtnGuy 14:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
Firstly, there has been some good research here that shows that there were similar but not identical gauges to 4' 8.5". However, Stephenson and his flock of disciples managed to give 4' 8.5" such a headstart compared to other gauge that it became the defacto standard. Tabletop (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
In the British Isles, it became the legal standard - read the article: "In 1845 a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Royal Commission recommended adoption of 56.5 as standard gauge in Great Britain, 63 in Ireland. The following year the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed the Gauge Act, which required that new railways use the standard gauge. Except for the Great Western Railway's broad gauge, few main-line railways in Great Britain used a different gauge. The last Great Western line was converted to standard gauge in 1892". Pyrotec (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Useful short cuts

The following nifty short cuts print the gauge in metric and its imperial conversion, and visa versa. (Note that imperial measurements are inputted in inches but outputted in feet and inches.)

example

  • {{RailGauge|1.6}} gauge and in reverse {{RailGauge|66}}

broad gauge

  • 1.676 gauge and in reverse 66
  • 1.6 gauge and in reverse 63
  • 1524 gauge and in reverse 60
  • 1.520 gauge and in reverse 60

narrow gauge

  • 1 gauge and in reverse 39.375
  • 1000 gauge and in reverse 39.375
  • 1067 gauge and in reverse 42
  • 914 gauge and in reverse 36
  • 762 gauge and in reverse 30
  • 610 gauge and in reverse 24
  • 0.600 gauge and in reverse 23.5

standard gauge

  • 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) gauge
  • 1435 gauge and in reverse 56.5

Incomplete lookup table

  • 1.524 gauge and in reverse 60
  • 1.067 gauge and in reverse 42
  • 0.914 gauge and in reverse 36
  • 0.762 gauge and in reverse 30


Tabletop (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Gauge mistakes

The following gauges are incorrect.

  • Broad 1520mm in China used by Russian shortcut railway across Manchuria - [3]
  • In Sweden and only on the Köping-Riddarhyttan railway, the gauge was measured incorrectly when ordering locomotives and cars. The railway track was then rebuilt from 1067 to 1093 mm. See User talk:BIL#Gauge mistakes [1]


  • In Italy the standard gauges were defined from top of trail to top of other rail, leading to odd gauges such 950mm instead of 1000mm.
  • In 200x, somewhere, a standard gauge railway on concrete sleepers had wheels squealing on sharp curves, so they filed a bit off the rails to make the gauge larger.
  • 5' implies a tolerance of +/- 6" (then +6"/-4") which would be a disaster.
  • 5' 6" implies a tolerance of perhaps +/- 3" or 1", the former being a disaster, and the latter perhaps tolerable.
  • 4' 8½" implies a tolerance of +/- ¼" which is about right and safe.
  • While 4' 8½" looks strange it encourages greater care with the gauge.

Tabletop (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Tabletop (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Tabletop (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you made the last part of this up? It appears to be mostly nonsense. If "4' 8½" implies a tolerance of +/- ¼" which is about right and safe" is accepted as a resonably-valid statement (I think we both agree that it appears to be so) then "5' 6" implies a tolerance of perhaps +/- 3" or 1", the former being a disaster, and the latter perhaps tolerable" is nonsense: it is only some 10" wider (approx 20% wider) than standard guage so a tolerance of +/- ¼" (perhaps 20% more) is also implied for this gauge; however, it could also be argued that since the standard gauge is defined to a ½" the implied tolerance is +/- ¼" and 5' 6" is specified to the whole inch so the implied tolerance is +/- ½". The statement "5' implies a tolerance of +/- 6" which would be a disaster" is a mere play on words: the gauge is 5' 0". This is sufficiently close to standard gauge to have a similar implied tolerance of +/- ¼" (or +/- ½"). Furthermore, I very much doubt whether any railway works on implied tolerances. Tolerances of gauge will be covered by standards. You can look up the standards for the UK, they are publically available. The nominal tolerance for newly laid and relaid straight track is not symmetrical: the tolerance on over-gauge is wider than the tolerance on under-guage; and it is dependant on the maximum line speed. It's also (now) metric:- 1435 mm. Pyrotec (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference in implied precision between writing (A) 5' and (B) 5'. 0". (A) implies less precision than (B). Tabletop (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
I'm not aware of any real railway system that works on implied gauge, or has implied precision in their track gauge. Pyrotec (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Metric measurement is safer than English measurement. 121.102.47.215 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily.
  • 1668mm in Spain may imply precision of +/- 1mm. (which maybe too precise).
  • 1435mm may imply precision of +/1 2.5mm
  • 1600mm in Ireland may imply precision of +/- 50mm. (could be 1.6m not 1.600m)
  • It all depends on how the numbers look to be rounded to. This is basic Mathematics.
  • Of course rail gauges aren't measured with a tape measure. A set of caliper-like rods (aka "gauge") are used, so that mistakes are avoided. This avoids measuring from rail centre to rail centre which is wrong except in Italy and ensures that you measure from inside face of rail to inside face which is correct. Tabletop (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible error on the map

This article uses the map: Rail gauge world.png It says on the map that Sakhalin (part of Russia) uses the Russian rail gauge. But the article about Sakhalin states:

The railways are only now being converted from the Japanese 1067-millimeter (3'-6") gauge to the Russian 1520-millimeter (5') gauge. All mainland rolling stock is regauged at Holmsk.

This suggests that a significant amount of the rails on the island use the Japanese gauge. If there are any rails on Chishima, the same gauge might be used there too. Compare with Formosa (another island formerly part of Japan), which, according to the map, also has Japanese gauge.

Rolling stock in Sakhalin mainland (using 1067mm) isn't regauged. All Sakhalin mainland rolling stock will be replaced by Japanese Shinkansen rolling stock (except series 400, E3 and E5 "mini") which is regauged (from 1435 to 1520) at Holmsk and in Japan, and new rolling stocks. 121.102.47.215 (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there an error with the map? Or is the error in the Sakhalin article? (Stefan2 (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC))

Countries are not sub-divided to show minor gauges in particular regions. For example Australia is shown as standard gauge although say the state of Queensland is mostly narrow gauge. Sakhalin is similarly a subdivision of the Russian Federation. Tabletop (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sakhalin was 1067 to begin with. Cannot comment about any regauging.

Taiwan was 1067 on the west coast, and 610 on the east coast but isolated, now all converted to 1067 and connected together.

Highspeed lines in Taiwan are 1435. Tabletop (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Future gauge in the Rail Baltic -project: Standard or Russian gauge?

I've been trying to reference the "EU funds have been dedicated to convert key railway lines in the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia from 1520 mm gauge to standard gauge" in the Rail_gauge#Future -section, but I'm unable to find facts to prove it right or wrong. There's been lot of studies and projections whether the gauge should be standardized at the same time when making such huge rail investment, but someone with access to the facts and conclusions should reference it to the article.

One of the closest ones I can find is "The extension of the European standard gauge along the rest of the route to Tallinn remains an option for the future. This idea will in any case be developed and investigated by the Baltic States in the three study projects that have been accepted under the 2007-2013 call for proposals to be part-financed under the TEN-T." which can be found from the Annual Activity Report (July 2007 – July 2008, Pavel Telika), but that basically says it will be developed and investigated in three study projects, not that it was decided.

More to follow...

Baldwin040 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Baldwin040

Baltic States should remain Russian gauge not install standard gauge reason:

  • Russia and neighbouring states (Russia, Central Asia and Baltic States) not North America uses very heavy and strong rails compared to other parts of the world, which makes it unnecessary to change the gauge.
  • Baltic States is too near Russian border. If Baltic States install standard gauge, Russia will war again.

121.102.47.215 (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise?

The statement "Standard gauge is a compromise between the narrow and broad gauges" may be misleading.

Generally speaking, standard gauge came first, then broader gauges became popular for a while, and then narrower gauges became popular, supposedly on cost ground.

The flawed statement above may imply that broad and narrow gauges came first, and then standard guage was developed as a compromise.

Tabletop (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what's meant is that standard gauge has become/remained standard in part because it is a compromise between the advantages of broader and narrower gauges. Does this sound like a reasonable point to make, and thus change said statement to say? --NE2 07:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Tolerances

Standard gauge trains in North America (except Mexico) has smaller tolerances than any other standard gauge trains. 121.102.47.215 (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The figures you quoted were incorrect, so I have reverted them and added the reference. David Biddulph (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

This article needs a good simple graphic early on showing the curved train wheels on the tracks, to convey the basics of why some variation in gauge can be tolerated -- and then a good prominent link to a extended detailed discussion of the way the wheels ride on the tracks and the ways they wear.-96.237.79.6 (talk) 03:24, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Untrue statement in the article!

> Whatever the origin of the standard gauge, it seemed to be a satisfactory choice, not too narrow and not too wide.

To the contrary, the 1435mm gives very little space. With 3-abreast or 4-abreast (1st/2nd/3rd class seating) the remaining corridor is so narrow, no one can keep standing when the saleslady arrives with the snacks cart. If you use 2-abreast with individual cocoon seats, the "meat density" per square meter measures so low the 1435mm train service becomes uneconomical or tickets become to pricy for the average people. Japan's shinkansen prices are shamelfully outrageous, even though asians are petite people compared to the world average and more of them can fit per area!

The flaw in this arguement is that you can have wider carriages without having wider gauge, and visa versa. UK carriages are very narrow, while Shinkansen carriages are rather wide, even though the gauge for both is the same. Tabletop (talk) 12:30, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
German trains can be 3.1m wide, while Swedish trains are IIRC 3.6m wide. Tabletop (talk) 09:51, 21 September 2010 (UTC)
Swedish/Norwegian/Danish trains cannot run as fast as the rest of Europe. 121.102.122.122 (talk) 04:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

The tiny nature of 1435mm has also been a huge factor with USA's massive loss of passenger railway travel, because the yankee are very tall, beefy people and quite obese nowadays and they simply find 1435mm waggons too cramped for comfort, compared to their beloved V8 limousines.

In fact Obama has been given a proposal to install a separate right of way, brand new, hispanic gauge 1668mm track super-express network between NY, Chicago and LA. This would provide airline-equivalent, executive-class sleeping seats with economically high people-carrying capacity in 400 meter long train powersets. This simply cannot be done over 1435mm track in obese America, where people are used to limousines!

Also, Siemens-Velaro says they can provide 415km/h average speed over long non-stop distances in 1668mm size, because the wide wheel-set gives better ride stability and allows for bigger electric motors. Also, wider track allows much wider superstructure, so lots of acousting dampening can be applied and triple windows glazing, so very high speed comfort inside the cab shall be excellent. 1435mm will always be to noisy over 320km/h, which is too slow for a sensible transcontinental US trip.

The article should say clearly that the 1435mm track is too narrow for needs of the modern industrialized society, where people grow an average 1.5 heads taller than their great-grandfathers and obesity is rampant! Train travel lost to petrol cars and jetplanes due to the silly choice of undersized 1435mm track width! 91.82.32.254 (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing track gauge with loading gauge. Using standard railroad technology, the loading gauge can easily be at least twice the track gauge. A 1435 mm track gauge easily allows vehicles which are over 2.8 metres wide. Comparing it to airline standards, using a 600 mm aisle down the middle allows 2.2 metres for four-abreast seating, which means each seat can be 55 cm wide. By comparison, a standard first-class airline seat is 53 cm wide, so standard-gauge railroad cars allow seats wider than first-class airline seats. Most American railroads use an extremely wide 3.3 metre (10' 6" ??) loading gauge, which would allow 6-abreast seating with economy-class airline seats, so seat width was definitely not the reason for loss of passengers - it was cheap gasoline, high costs, and poor service that caused their decline. European and Japanese railroads often use loading gauges and seat widths that are smaller than desirable, but that has little to do with track gauge and more to do with the limited width rights-of-way they have to use. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
Note 10' 6" is 3.155m Tabletop (talk) 08:52, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
The widest high speed trains anywhere are probably the piggyback trains on the Channel tunnel which carry cars, trucks and buses. These trains are however too wide to fit through platforms elsewhere on the route between Paris and London. The Eurotunnel Shuttle article unhelpfully does not say what this width is.

Tabletop (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Try a translation of the japan page http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%BB%8A%E4%B8%A1%E9%99%90%E7%95%8C or ja:車両限界 which includes broad gauges - finland, russia and india are all bigger. What is more remarkable is that 1067mm japan trains are 1 foot (305mm) wider than british 1435mm standard. Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:45, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
oh you meant the wagons. Eurotunnel is 5.6m high , 4.1m wide see [4] . (according to some this is the wagon size not the loading guage - no idea) Sf5xeplus (talk) 03:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
See Loading gauge, Berne gauge Tabletop (talk) 12:38, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
The big problem with 1435mm is that it becomes impossible to sleep comfortably. Trains will always be too slow to cover very long trips from sunrise to sunset. Sorrowfully berthing in couhettes is rather cramped at 1435mm gauge and a real deterrent. Standard gauge railways are all too busy discontinuing nightime passenger service and sleeping waggons, killing their own markets. In contrast, all people who ride the 1524 mm russian trains, like the week-long trans-siberian express, are much suprised about the big beds in those ultra-wide carriages and generally find the wide corridors and spacious cabins comfy and loveable, even if those are outdated and a bit worn.
To fulfill the requirements of very high-speed stability AND the need for large interior volume, high-speed dedicated railways line should be laid in 166xmm ibero-indian gauge, just like air travel moved from DC-9 to Jumbo and Superjumbo widebody planes! Sorrowfully railways are still in the "DC-3" era, considering their passanger service mindsets... 87.97.100.137 (talk) 12:21, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Switching to 1676mm for Afghanistan, Bering Strait Tunnel, Alaska, Canada and the Continental United States. 1676mm gauge high-speed/double-stack rail for Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq. 1668mm gauge high-speed rail for Australia. Switching from narrow gauge to 1435mm for Iceland. 121.102.122.122 (talk) 03:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Australia

The article says that "In the 19th century Australia's three mainland states adopted standard gauge...".

Australia has **five** mainland states, plus the extensive Northern Territory (and the small Australian Capital Territory, which is served by a spur line of the New South Wale railways).

These states did not exist as states until 1 January 1901, so they can't have done anything in the 19th Century. Before that they were colonies. But there were five of them, not three.

Agemegos (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When railways started around 1854-55, Queensland had not yet split off NSW as a separate colony. Also, Western Australia (which was separated from the eastern colonies by 2000km of desert) didn't start their railways until about 1880. Northern Territory was part of South Australia (Until 1910), and the ACT didn't exist. So in 1854-5 there were only "three" mainline colonies with railways. The colonies become states in 1901. Tabletop (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
One could of course say "In the 19th century Australia's THEN three mainland colonies (now states) adopted standard gauge...". Tabletop (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

What is wrong with calling the 1067 gauge "Cape Gauge"? --Bk1 168 (talk) 22:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Or even CAP-gauge (see below Talk:Track gauge#Name for narrow gauge in Queensland). Pyrotec (talk) 22:25, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved Kotniski (talk) 08:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)


Rail gauge → Track gauge — The current title of this article does not appear to be used by authoritative sources. The Oxford Dictionary of English (which is international) and Jackson's Railway Dictionary just use Gauge. Ellis' British Railway Engineering Encyclopaedia and, significantly, the International Union of Railways use Track gauge. Bermicourt (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I'd probably Support this. I suspect the current title was selected because what you'd want is Railway gauge or Railroad gauge but those would be deemed to be having a {Rest of world,US} bias and thus it ending up as Rail gauge. —Sladen (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Support this. Track gauge would be more meaningful than rail gauge since it does distinguish it from loading gauge. Rail gauge implies it indicates the width of a rail rather than the distance between them. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Usage of track gauge does seem more common but sources such as UIC also use rail-gauge, issue is that "track gauge" appears to be used by railway modellers as well which may cause confusion. Also in common use ie news reports "rail guage" appears much more common.Sf5xeplus (talk) 06:00, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: The UIC's official thesaurus only uses "track gauge" both as a term and as a category. A search of the UIC's own site produced 32 hits for "track gauge" and just 3 for "rail gauge". Searches of UIC documentation as well as a crude google search resulted in 3 times as many hits for "track gauge". --Bermicourt (talk) 16:35, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Modifying the search with -model cuts a lot of results from "track gauge" - the main thing is that "track gauge" doesn't seem common at all in non-specialised use ie in news reports "rail gauge" is used much more often.Sf5xeplus (talk) 19:31, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
Also interesting is an image search which seems to suggest that "track gauge" is quite synonymous with devices used to measure the gauge (rail). Does usage vary - a lot of the results I found for "rail gauge" were from Commonwealth of Nations countries, but not US...? Sf5xeplus (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
I would not worry about usage in popular press except to include {{distinguish}} hatnotes in the relevant articles. In US state and federal standards the distance between parallel rails is "track gauge". In the US too, "rail gauge" is a measuring device. 69.3.72.249 (talk) 04:13, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
I've added both terms to the lead, and a mention of the measuring device, there are currently two images at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Rail_gauge_measure , and maybe one should be added, along with a section about these at the end. There are also devices that look much like a big metal ruler but couldn't find an image of one on commons. Otherwise I have no objection or support either way on the title name. 50:50. Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
Only the czech wikipedia has an article cs:Rozchodka. I think it can be covered in this one.Sf5xeplus (talk) 16:57, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

I fixed Gauge/Rail gauge -> Track gauge, but was reverted by Bermicourt. [5]. He also attacked me on my talk. I reverted him, and posted a link to his talk page, pointing here, so he can check up the consensus. HTML2011 (talk) 20:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Fastest Gauge, Strongest Gauge

Fastest steel wheel on steel rail

Testing
  • 1435 (500 km/h) France TGV
  • 1435 (400 km/h) Spain, Japan Shinkansen
Service
  • 1435 (350 km/h) Spain AVE /China operates the fastest high-speed services trains.
  • 1435 (320 km/h) France SNCF TGV POS
  • 1435 (300 km/h) Germany ICE 3/Italy/Belgium/Netherlands/South Korea/Taiwan/Italy
  • 1435 (220 km/h) UK HST/Switzerland
Non-standard gauge
  • 1520 (250 km/h) Russia
Proposed
  • 1435 (350 km/h) Mexico, Brazil
  • 1435 (250 km/h) Sweden
Non-standard gauge
  • 1676 (350 km/h)
  • 1520 (330 km/h)

Strongest

(test trains)
Generally iron-ore - see Heaviest trains
(regular)
  • 1435 United States ; Malmbanan, Sweden (8,600 tonnes, mountains), Australia Pilbara (30,000t)
Non-standard gauge
  • 1676 India
  • 1520 Russia + former CIS

Tabletop (talk) 06:10, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Name for narrow gauge in Queensland

Queensland pioneered 3' 6" gauge for a large entire network (earlier 3' 6" gauge lines in Norway may have been CMIIAW isolated lines feeders off standard gauge lines), and other states in Australia and NZ followed suit.

The Norwegian engineer Carl Phil was very active in person (?) and by correspondence regarding the adoption of 3' 6" in Queensland. Was the gauge always called "narrow gauge" or "3' 6"", or was is ever called "Cap gauge" or "Cape gauge"? Need to check.

Fairlie was also an active agitator for narrow gauge in general.


Pilbara railways are not only standard gauge, but are built to very heavy American standards which dwarf in every way lightweight standard gauge lines in the rest of Australia.

Tabletop (talk) 03:21, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Pihl (not Phil) promoted the adoption of this gauge by correspondence in Canada, on the Toronto and Nipissing railway. He also influenced Sir John Fowler, a Member of the Indian Gauge Committee, who visited Pihl in Norway, and after the contract was awarded Fox stated that the line would be built "after the principles adopted in Norway by Mr Carl Pihl"; and Sir Charles Fox, builder of the railways in Australia, who sent his son C Douglas Fox to see Pihl. Pihl also promoted the gauge at the 1884 International Railway Congress, Brussels. "Cape gauge" appears to be a misnomer, it should be CAP-gauge; after Carl Abraham Pihl.
P.S. This information comes from a book on Norwegian railways, so there might be a bias towards Pihl, but it seems plausible. Pyrotec (talk) 08:59, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Doing a rough search of the Australian National Archives (up to 1955) there are 7000 odd mentions of "narrow gauge" even when talking about foreign countries, while 7 mentions of "cap gauge" seem to refer to the gauge of the cap on the top of an automotive "spark plug". I have yet to check the misspelling "guage", so you never know. Gauge is still an active issue in Australia, even in 2010.

The ship (barque) Carl Pihl made a few visits to Australia.

It will require some work to separate Carl Pihl the man from CR the ship. There are 233 mentions of Carl Pihl whether the man or the ship.

References

An English translaion of # 8 is available at

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

--Grijalvo (talk) 19:20, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Sizes other than standard gauge - triplication of content

This section duplicates (triplicates) content. The dominant sizes are discussed in their articles, and also mentioned in the articles broad gauge and narrow gauge. All specific articles can be reached from the list of track gauges by size, and the dominant gauges specifically from the overview article track gauge in the section dominant gauges. HTML2011 (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

gauge - gage difference?

In this document: http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/safety/tss_compliance_manual_chapter_5_final_040107.pdf it looks like the word “gauge” is used for the nominal track gauge (like 5’ 8-1/2’’) for standard gauge) while the word gage is used for tolerances and actual dimensions within a gauge. The term narrow gage is used for the min. allowed dim. while the term narrow gauge has normally afaik a different meaning. On the other hand, I could not find any other reference on such difference yet. So is there a difference between gauge and gage in the described way? (English isn't my first language)--Helmigo (talk) 17:47, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Chariots and Gauge

Archeologic excavations that dig up ancient chariots are not unknown. Unfortunately, they often do not bother to quote the dimensions of the distance between the wheels. Looking at the picures of a chariot for two horse side by by side, the distance between the wheels MIGHT be 1435mm.

So the extent to which old chariots inflences say the standard gauge, is hard to say. Examples include:

Full view

  • Rome - Pompeii - ruts and stepping stones [8]

Side view only

Other

  • Other [12]
  • Modern [13]
  • Width of chariot but not spacing of wheels [14]
I think chariot ruts only influenced "standard gauge" if we believe that George Stephenson went to Pompeii to help him decide on the track gauge in Northumberland.
The most likely explanation for the sizing of Standard Gauge is that on his travels Stephenson made a list by simply asking the local coach builders what size they used for their road vehicles and then averaged the measurements to come up with a 'standard'.
No need to have gone to Pompeii, there are Roman roads in England. Peter Horn User talk 01:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Iberia??

The track gauge in Spain and in Portugal is not identical (leaving aside the new standard gauge lines). The gauges are close enough for interoperaibility at moderate speeds, but 9mm or so different. I'll try and find acitation for this. There is already a lot of well-meaning but inaccurate material on this page. Afterbrunel (talk) 21:00, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

>>> This was true quite a few years ago. Nowadays, most of the surviving broad gauge railways have been regauged to 1.668 mm in both countries, in the middle of the old Portuguese "bitola larga" end the Spanish "vía normal".--Grijalvo (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ping-Uttersberg-Riddarhyttans_J%C3%A4rnv%C3%A4g
  2. ^ http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/09/pictures/110927-chariots-horses-tomb-science-luoyang-china/
  3. ^ http://www.metmuseum.org/Collections/search-the-collections/130007494
  4. ^ http://news.discovery.com/history/king-tut-chariot-egypt.html
  5. ^ http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/chariots.htm
  6. ^ http://factsanddetails.com/world.php?itemid=1974&catid=56&subcatid=371
  7. ^ http://bharatkalyan97.blogspot.com.au/2011/07/ancient-chariots-in-indian-civilization.html
  8. ^ http://www.flickr.com/photos/13984963@N03/4159217516/
  9. ^ http://www.greece-athens.com/page.php?page_id=415
  10. ^ http://www.eh*w.com/info_10045409_craft-project-make-ancient-egyptian-chariot.html
  11. ^ http://www.flickr.com/photos/legomonster/4890836756/
  12. ^ http://www.flickr.com/photos/historybricks/4376003700/
  13. ^ http://www.flickr.com/photos/rikdom/2376668385/
  14. ^ http://chariot.askdefine.com/

Substantial rewrite

I am worried about this article: it is an important subject, but a reader coming here would struggle to find a clear explanation. There are a lot of well-intended but peripheral and sometimes anecdotal statements in it, and a few that are just plain wrong.

I propose a rewrite, thinning the text down to the essentials. FInding citations -- essential for an authoritative article -- is not easy, as there are plenty of facts that "everyone knows" but can't be verified (as Wikipedia rules require).

As I realise that many people have already contributed to this and may have a personal attachment to sections of the text, I invite comments on this before I do anything that might offend them.

I emphasise that we need a fact-based, authoritative article here, and we will need a lot of help with it; but there is no point in starting if there will be too many reversions.

Constructive comments please? Afterbrunel (talk) 21:18, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Feet and inches

I've done the changes above. It still needs some background.

Meanwhile someone has improved the spacing of dimensions -- changing 4ft to 4[space]ft for example. "Space" is a non-breaking space, written  . This is 100% in accordance with Wikipedia policy, thanks. (Though I notice there are quite a few more untouched).

Anyway, the Wikipedia guidelines I have seen don't seem to tell you what to do with "four feet six inches", for example. Outside of Wikipedia I would tend to write that 4ft[space]6in. On Wikipedia should it be 4[space]feet[space]6[space]in, or what?

Then again, perhaps life is too short. Afterbrunel (talk) 20:17, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Mixed Gauge

I have removed this statement: "When a third rail was proposed to allow dual gauge between the Australian broad gauge and Standard gauge in Australia, the gauge difference of 6.5 inches was found to be too small to allow the third rail to be located properly.[16]" because the quoted article goes on to say that the problem was solved. It is possible that the small difference in the gauges can make installing or using dual gauge track difficult, but this Wikipedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge_in_Australia shows two pictures of broad gauge in Australia so it is in use. Chris.Bristol (talk) 19:58, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Well done; I didn't like that either, but I had already done some surgery on the page and didn't want to be accused of cutting too much out. Afterbrunel (talk) 11:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Broad-Standard Dual Gauge was strongly opposed in the 1910s and 1920s, and Broad-Narrow and Standard-Narrow was also opposed for good measure. This even though Prime Minister Hughes had supported it.
By the time of the 1960s, BG-SG Dual Gauge came to be allowed for low speed use, and SG-NG was allowed for main line use in Western Australia. Speeds on this section may be limited by moderately sharp curves.
The pictures are for track installed in the 1980s, when the fears of engineers and politicians had diminished.
Pity that they hadn't thought that back in 1910s!!
Thus the caveat can be put back in. Tabletop (talk) 12:34, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata Property Proposal - Track gauge

http://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Property_proposal/Unsorted#Track_gauge HSRtrack (talk) 02:54, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

S&D rails

The weight of the original Stockton and Darlington Railway rails seems exceptionally light when converted to lb per yard (3 feet); 15 feet (4.6 m) long and 28 lb (13 kg) . Tabletop (talk) 12:19, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Opening text update

The opening text does not seem to clarify what is (or is not) track gauge. It presently states 'Track gauge is a technical term used in rail transport to define the spacing of the rails on a railway track'. To the uninitiated or casual reader this could include all rails (load bearing, check rails, electrification rails) so I added some text to help define what is is (i.e. load bearing rails and disregard 3rd and 4th rails used for electrification).

Also to have a page on rail / track gauge and not mention dual gauge in the body of the article seems a bit odd to me.

Looking back in the article I found text which had been in the opening paragraph of the page for some time, so included some of it in with the existing text.

However the above was swiftly reverted with the comment 'this page is about track gauge, not electrification, dual gauge etc'.

Anyone have any constructive comments? I think including a better definition of gauge to exclude 3rd and 4th rails and mention dual gauge which is / has been a feature of railways since their very beginning is needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.151.198 (talk) 14:11, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Move proposal: template {RailGauge} into {Track gauge}

I initiated this move proposal in Template talk:RailGauge#Requested move. Please take a look and join if you are interested. -DePiep (talk) 23:29, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Russian and Finnish gauges in Dominant gauges tabulation

Surely two gauges that are contiguous and generally compatible are actually the same gauge, at least in so far as a tabulation of gauges is concerned. The fact that they are nominally 4mm different is more a question of tolerances than basic gauge; worth a note in the usage column perhaps, but not a whole different entry. Any thoughts on making it so? -- chris_j_wood (talk) 09:28, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Predecessors of Iberaian gauge (1668 mm)

Track_gauge#Dominant_gauges currently says:

The Portuguese network is actually at 1674mm<ref group = note>According to Alvarez both Spanish and Portuguese national networks were originally built to 1674mm, but the Spanish network "has been converted" to 1,668 mm.</ref>

However, 1,668 mm (5 ft 5+21⁄32 in) Iberian gauge says in the intro: originally Portuguese 1,664 mm (5 ft 5+1⁄2 in), Spain 1,672 mm (5 ft 5+13⁄16 in), later merged into the straight average of 1,668 mm (which is technically a sound idea).

This "Alvarez" source is not mentioned in the article afaik. Shall we ditch this unsourced statement, and stick to the defining article's explanation? -DePiep (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Removed the "1674 mm" claim, not sourced. -DePiep (talk) 13:35, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Afghanistan Incorrect

According Wikipedia's own article Afghanistan has zero passenger rail and virtually no freight railways. Also, there are three different gauges in use. I think that Afghanistan should be coloured grey on the map with dots of the appropriate colour for the different gauges. See Rail transport in Afghanistan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Golden herring (talk • contribs) 13:10, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Archive 1
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Track_gauge/Archive_1&oldid=1074295767"