Standard Guage vs. 6 foot guage

[dinwitty]

Teh internet is ful of the teh mistake an fas responz to get yer point acros quik, whos gona spulchek...

[Anonymous]

[#ditto]

[yellowducky]

Now could someone spell gray (or is that grey) for me?
And is it its or it's?
And their or they're, your or you're, to,too,two.
Oh toot.
And while we're at it, could everybody just be pretty?
Maybe this is a train (TRAIN) of thought I should'nt have thunk!

We's alls makes misstakess. A worse (worst!) goof would be not sharing our knowledge or opinions on these train forums because all our words might not be just right!
Keep on TRAINing. frankly.

[vsmith]

What Hilton also adds is basicly this..

Broad guage engines and cars are bigger, built more robustly, therefore heavier, therefore requiring more fuel be used just to move their own weight . Also broad Guage cars being heavier mean than more of whats being hauled is the weight of the car itself, and less paying cargo. Less cargo/more fuel used -vs- greater speed/greater stability , the former eventually won out over the latter, especially when newer standard gauge trains were shown to able to operate at the same speeds while hauling the same cargos, the end of the broad gauge had come.

[MidlandPacific]

QUOTE: The book "American Narrow Gauge Railroads" by George W. Hilton has a discussion about what the optimal gauge should be.

And Hilton arrived, if I remember correctly, at the conclusion that 4' 8 1/2" represented an approximately optimal gauge, because both smaller and larger gauges were inherently inefficient - the smaller gauges because the lower ratio of tare weight to equipment weight reduced the paying profit per car and train-load. There was some reason why larger gauges (broad gauge was widely used in India) were inefficient, but I can't remember what it was.

The Russians and the Spanish both use a 60" gauge, which is really very close to the 56 1/2" gauge used in most of Continental Europe. It's close enough that we put 200 Russian decapods to work here after the October Revolution - the manufactuerers simply replaced the pilot trucks and installed widened tires on the drivers, moving the flanges inward by about two inches. They were good locomotives but apparently rough on switch frogs and grade crossings.

Whatever the efficiencies, narrow gauges were always a more common engineering choice (at least in the States and Latin America) because they could be built with less of a capital outlay. They usually got lighter bridges and track, less grading, tighter curves, and smaller and cheaper rolling stock. The most notable broad gauge railroad was the Great Western Railway in Britain, which was a railroading superhighway when it was completed. It did, however, take a LOT of initial investment capital to build all of those viaducts and tunnels, and no American railroad could scare up that much money, with the near-exception of the Pennsylvania (and even that was underbuilt, by European standards: find me a curve as tight as the Horseshoe on a British main line!).

[underworld]

QUOTE: gauge, now could someone please spell not right?

Gage, gaige, gaij [:p][:p][:p][:p][:p]

underworld

[:D][:D][:D][:D][:D]

[Anonymous]

The major advantage I can see in broader gauges would be that the trains could be lower and wider (hence more stable). This would allow higher cornering speeds than standard gauge. Certainly the old GWR Broad Gauge system was renowned for higher line speeds than its competitors.

[Eriediamond]

gauge, now could someone please spell not right?

[Anonymous]

Couldn't someone please spell GAUGE right? It's not guage.

Bob Boudreau

[Eriediamond]

Just for arguements sake here, I'm going to disagree with that artical,though I haven't read it. I would think that the wider the guage the more tractive effort would be require. Reason being the curves. First , the wheels are press fitted to the axles, there for if the wheel on one end of an axle turns one revolution the wheel on the other end does also. With that said, when a wheel set goes though a curve the wheel on the outside of a curve has to travel farther then the wheel on the inside of th curve, so even though the wheel contour was designed to compensate for this, there is still some slippage taking place. Now with that in mind, the wider the track guage the farther the outside wheel must travel for the same curve length, thus more slippage, thus more friction, thus more tractive effort required. End of arguement, Ken

[M636C]

The widest gauge in general use is 5'6" (1676 mm) used in India, Pakistan and Argentina and the slightly smaller 1668 mm used in Spain and Pakistan. If there is any advantage in a wider gauge in that amount of difference, it could easily be tested on these systems. Spain is gradually converting to standard gauge for its high speed lines, so they obviously don't see an advantage to make up for disadvantages of a different gauge to other European countries.

Peter

[dinwitty]

history of 4" 8 1/2" goes back to roman times to the wheels on chariots. The width of 2 horses.

There were a myriad of gauges early, standard gauge winning out for various reasons.

Less tractive effort depends on how much friction you have to pull to get moving, thats a difference between slide and roller bearings.
Want zero friction, then go to a maglev.

[cacole]

Personally, I don't see how track gauge could have anything to do with tractive effort of a locomotive. More drive wheels would, but not track gauge. Maybe he thought you were talking about wider rail and wheels?

Russia uses broad gauge and their locomotives can't pull any more than those anywhere else.

[IRONROOSTER]

The argument I heard for a wider gauge was that it was more stable and offered a more comfortable ride. BTW the Great Western in England was built to 7 ft gauge. In this country the Erie RR was built to 6 ft gauge. Both converted to standard.

The book "American Narrow Gauge Railroads" by George W. Hilton has a discussion about what the optimal gauge should be.
Enjoy
Paul

[brothaslide]

A modeling buddy of mine and I were having a discussion of track gauge, etc. He said that he read an article once that stated it would be more ideal for a 6 foot gauge rather than the 4' 81/2" standard gauge we have. He said that the article stated that there would be less tractive effort required to pull a train with a wider gauge.

This doesn't make sense to me. Has anyone heard of this or read the article? Can anyone offer an explanation why a 6 foot gauge would be more efficient?