HOb60??

[cefinkjr]

I'm researching and considering a move -- not a change -- more like an expansion -- into On30 and it occurred to me that I've never seen similar notation for what would be considered broad gauge (anything wider than 4'8.5"). Would an HO model of Russian railroads be HOb60 (for Broad gauge) or, maybe, HOw5 (for Wide gauge)?

While in that neck of the woods, weren't some traction lines in this country built and operated for most of their lives with 5' gauge? And wasn't the Erie originally built with 5' between the rails?

So if anybody is modeling any of these or other broad gauge prototypes, just how do you refer to your scale/gauge choice?

Chuck

PS: My goofy question for the month. [:I]

[Jetrock]

Actually, the notation is "w" for wide-gauge locoomotives. HOw5 was common, and of course BART in the San Francisco Bay Area also uses broad-gauge track (6 feet, I think.) Logging railroads sometimes used broad gauge for surer footing--the Gualala Mill Co. of Mendocino County used 68.5" gauge.

Probably the most unusual broad-gauge locomotives were pole roads: these were logging railroads done so cheaply that instead of using metal rails, the trains ran on two rows of logs spiked down into the roadbed! The wheels were double-flanged and looked something like a modern auto rim, and had gauges of 6-8 feet!

Traction lines sometimes were forced to use non-standard gauge by municipalities who wanted to ensure that those traction lines would be used only for streetcars, not for freight trains running down their city streets: I think 5 foot gauge was used in a few places, but often narrow gauge would be used because it reduced the amount of space needed for track in the streets (like Los Angeles' original city streetcar system, or San Francisco's cable cars.)

Adding to the confusion: For most of its history, O gauge model railroaders have operated on track that is 1.25" wide--in 1:48 scale, that means that standard-gauge O modelers have been operating on Ow5 track for decades!

Why? Because in the original O scale (1:43.5, the one that "HO" is half the size of), 1.25" is just about 4'8.5"...

Proto:48 modelers actually gauge their track at the proper 4'8.5" in 1:48 scale.

And then there's British OO...but that's technically narrow gauge. Never mind.

[M636C]

In Australia, two states (South Australia and Victoria) used 63" gauge. I think there are a few modellers using British 00 scale 4mm/foot in conjunction with 20mm gauge hand laid track. This is still a bit narrow (should be 21mm), but apparently allows the use of existing British components suitable for models of the early Colonial period (19th Century).

Modern modellers tend to disregard the gauge difference, since most locomotives operate on both gauges at different times.

I don't know if they have a "code" for the model scalle but I guess 00B63 (in Australia, it was always "broad", not "wide" gauge.)

Peter

[cacole]

I have a video from Australia called, "Railway Adventures Across Australia" that shows one town that had a triple-gauge turntable and engine service facilities -- narrow, standard, and broad gauge, where the three different rail lines intersected. The narrator even indicates that this difference in gauges hindered economic development for many years in Australia.

[cefinkjr]

QUOTE: Originally posted by cacole

...a triple-gauge turntable and engine service facilities ...

[8D][wow]

I don't suppose there's any way you could post some pictures of some triple-gauge turnouts? I'm sure they would be fascinating.

Reminds me of an MR article many years ago about scratch building turnouts. The article's title (or sub-title?) was "Basket Weaving in Nickel Silver."

[:D][:D]
Chuck

[IRONROOSTER]

Wide gauge was used quite a bit in the early going. Most railroads in the South were originally built to 5' gauge. These were converted in the late 1800's (1886?) to what we call standard gauge. President Lincoln picked what we now call standard gauge for the first transcontinental railroad (Central Pacific and Union Pacific) and eventually the other mainline railroads converted. Erie was originally built to 6' gauge. The Great Western in Great Britain was orignally built to 7' gauge. By 1900 many narrow gauge lines had converted, because interchange was important and the cost of transfering cargo became expensive. Some such as the 3' railroads in Colorado, the East Broad Top, the Maine two footers, etc never did. Most of these were gone by WWII.
Enjoy
Paul

[modorney]

I've always heard the "n" in abbreviations like "HOn3" pronounced "number", so I would expect a boad gauge to be shown as "HOn6", etc. But, I can see how a "b" or a "w" would also make sense.

Jetrock points out that municipalities picked different gauges, because they were forced to by commercial railroads. The commercial railroads did not want to inherit the passenger operation, if it went bust. Toronto (4 foot 10 7/8 inch) and BART (5 foot 6 inch) were in that category. Both were dseigned about the same time, and the local railroads were willing to allow use of their rights of way, as long as there was no compatibility with the tracks.

Unfortunately, BART's gauge is so close to standard gauge, that it precludes double tracking (which would allow it to share tracks with Muni). Of course, four-rail double track would be possible.

For a triple track turnout, check the National Railway Museum in Port Adelaide, Australia.

[Jetrock]

modorney: The "n" in HOn3 stands for "narrow"--broad gauge are typically indicated with a "w" or "b".

And actually it is kind of backwards--the cities typically wanted to prevent freight trains from rolling through town, but the railroads wouldn't have minded the short-cut!

BART in the East Bay made much use of the old Sacramento Northern right-of-way, then under abandonment.

[dinwitty]

the use of some models that the prototype was narrow/broad gauge was compatibility for model running, like the Walther's BART cars.

the early US railroads were a real mix of gauges where the standard gauge won out. Yes, there were places with triple gauges and such switches.