WIDE gauge RRs in the USA?

Only one I know off is Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)

Some of the railroads in the Confederate South were five foot gauge.

Mark

Standerd guage was adopted in the late 1800's. There are maybe a handful of five foot or wider transit systems as indicated above.  Then there were the narrower two and three footers of fame. But no "regular" railroad broader nor narrower  than 4 ft. 8 1/2 inches in the US.

The following is a quote fro the Illinois Central Historical Society's web site:

http://www.icrrhistorical.org/icrr.history.html

"...Like most of the railroads in the South, the route from Cairo south to New Orleans was built to a 5-foot track gauge. The entire 550-mile route was converted to standard gauge (4-foot-8-1/2 inches) in one day on July 29, 1881..."

Probably the most famous broad gauge RR in the US was the original Erie (New York and Erie Railway) which was built as 6 foot gauge. It was rebuilt to standard gauge in the latter 19th Century so it could interchange cars with the rest of the RR system.

IINM, there were some in-plant industrial RR's built as broad gauge and some of these may operate. I believe this was mostly in the steel and metals industries...

That is because USA railroads are smart, broad gauge is more expensive to lay and maintain with virtualy no advantage over standard gauge.  Trannsit agencies like BART are governement run presumably and don't worry about such extra costs.  There is absolutely no reason I can come up with that makes braod gauge better for BART. It shoulda been standard.

Narrow gauge on the other hand can save costs, still used in mining and such.

 Your statement is too broad and general...there are some loading guage factors wide guage can do standard can't...and we can't here really determine the advantages and disadvantages, nor the economics of either unless we are transportation engineers and planners.  To say out of hand that transit agencies like BART don't worry about such costs is not a sound enineering nor financialy based statement but conjecture. High and wide products benefit yet today from rights of ways which were originally broad guage avenues.  How much more load up, down and sideways, could a 5 or 6 foot guage do than a standard guage, I can't say.  To redo now, costs would be astronomical; but if 6 ft became the standard back when, Then today's so called Standard guage, would be just as astronomical to introduce even if we saw some kind of fuel consumption or environmental savings in the long run. 

 And narrow guage saved costs often at great expense.  Yes, it was quick and easy to build.  It worked well in tight places for small loadings, but where economics came into play, it was relayed with standard guage or abandoned.

Ya , but give even one example that broad gage can do better the standard gage?  I don't have the numbers, but the examples are there, everyone who went broad gage as a major railway got away from it faster then those that were narrow gage.  The major broad gage systems anywhere in the world have no advantage over standard gage system, like Russia and Spain, and parts of Australia etc... these are big railway systems that don't function better the standard gage railways of the USA.   The heaviest, the widest , the fastest and maybe even the most profitable railways in the whole world are all 4' 8 and a half " gage.   The cheapest railways are narrow gage, wich is at least something.   I find the examples are worth more then number crunching. 

Wider loading gage can be done with standard track gage, it's mostly a matter of clearances and standardisation then track gage.

Why is BART broad gage anyways ?

Transit systems are built to non-standard gauge to reassure the political powers-that-be that nobody will start routing freight over them.

I recall that being stated rather explicitly when the specifications for BART were first made public.

The same thinking led to a number of streetcar systems being built to 42 inch gauge - the city council didn't want freight cars rolling down Main Street in the middle of the night, or any other time.

Chuck

Ok, I can beleive that. But then I ask why choose a wider gage rather then narrower ?  I would think the narrower gage would save money and be able to acomplish the same.

My faint recollection is that the main reason for BART being 5'-6" gage is for added stability against cross-winds while crossing some bridges in the Bay Area - either as part of the inital build, or a likely future expansion.  The initial Rohr cars may have been aluminum, I believe, and when empty of passengers would be pretty light, but would still have a fairly tall profile for the wind to blow against.  It may have been the long bridge across the bay over to Oakland - I know it's not the Golden Gate Bridge.  Otherwise, I'm not familiar enough with the system to know which bridge or where that might be a concern - where it is up on some elevated structures, perhaps ? - so I'll have to rely on someone else to confirm or refute that. 

Another possibility is for added stability against being shaken off the tracks by earthquakes.  I can't rule that out, but designing for a random event like that with unpredictable direction and magnitude doesn't seem as credible to me as for stability against the predictable cross-winds.

- Paul North.

Paul,

 Before BART got voted down in Marin County, there was a plan to connect SF with Marin County by placing rails on a lower deck of the Golden Gate bridge and that is what lead to the selection of 5'-6" gauge. A structural upgrade to the bridge precludes running tracks on it now.

- Erik

Does the bomb NBC television drama Supertrain count?

erikem - OK, thanks for the clarifications/ corrections.  I was about half-right, then - got the right concept, but not the locations.  [It wasn't until this morning that I remembered that BART would have no need of running over the Oakland-SF bridge . . . because it has that dandy tunnel under the bay instead . . . .   ]

Otherwise, if trolley systems are still within the scope of this question and answer - don't forget Philadelphia's former Phila. Transit Co. - an earlier 'PTC', if you will - now SEPTA's various subway-surface and suburban trolley lines, which are either the 5'-2-1/4'' or 5'-2-1/2'' gage, though I have no certainty as to why it was adopted as such way back when.

- Paul North.

I seem to recall that even today there are those who feel we should be looking at a broader guage - again, loading factors are the issue.

Knowing some of the old Erie line between Port Jervis and Binghampton, six foot gauge must have been interesting - there are several fairly tight curves.

From 1874-1880, you could go "broad gauge" (6'-0") from New York to St. Louis or Chicago...

Today, standard gauge seems like the perfect choice because it emerged as the consensus over a century ago, nobody questions it, and it appears to work perfectly.  The larger reality, however, is that there is no point in questioning it because it cannot be changed. 

Before the consensus, when there was freedom to choose the gauge, there were many opinions on what the ideal gauge should be, all based on the cost of construction and operation for each individual railroad.  This engineering and operating cost analysis was quite complex, and there were some brilliant minds working out the problem.  Even for an individual railroad company, the choice of gauge was a big commitment. 

But more important than an ideal gauge for individual railroad economics was the need for consensus for a common or standard gauge because it was an absolute necessity for interchange compatibility.  So they picked what seemed like the best gauge on average for their 1800s era, and put the matter to rest.  

Since the adoption of standard gauge, however, the physical dimensions of locomotives, rolling stock, and track components have increased considerably while the gauge has remained the same.  There never has been a consensus on those equipment and track component dimensions simply because there never was a need for one.  Had there not been that need for the standard gauge consensus for gauge compatibility, I believe that gauge would have evolved right along with the other physical dimensions.  So while standard gauge may seem like the optimum now, it is actually likely be as obsolete as the 30-ft. boxcar. 

The evolution of increasing locomotive, rolling stock, and track component dimensions is strong evidence suggesting that the perfect gauge for today would be larger than today’s 56.5”-gauge, if the matter were not permanently frozen by a decision in the pioneering era of the 1800s.  Therefore, it is quite possible that today's standard gauge might be railroading's greatest flaw.

Bucyrus

Today, standard gauge seems like the perfect choice because it emerged as the consensus over a century ago, nobody questions it, and it appears to work perfectly.  The larger reality, however, is that there is no point in questioning it because it cannot be changed. 

 

Before the consensus, when there was freedom to choose the gauge, there were many opinions on what the ideal gauge should be, all based on the cost of construction and operation for each individual railroad.  This engineering and operating cost analysis was quite complex, and there were some brilliant minds working out the problem.  Even for an individual railroad company, the choice of gauge was a big commitment. 

 

But more important than an ideal gauge for individual railroad economics was the need for consensus for a common or standard gauge because it was an absolute necessity for interchange compatibility.  So they picked what seemed like the best gauge on average for their 1800s era, and put the matter to rest.  

 

Since the adoption of standard gauge, however, the physical dimensions of locomotives, rolling stock, and track components have increased considerably while the gauge has remained the same.  There never has been a consensus on those equipment and track component dimensions simply because there never was a need for one.  Had there not been that need for the standard gauge consensus for gauge compatibility, I believe that gauge would have evolved right along with the other physical dimensions.  So while standard gauge may seem like the optimum now, it is actually likely be as obsolete as the 30-ft. boxcar. 

 

The evolution of increasing locomotive, rolling stock, and track component dimensions is strong evidence suggesting that the perfect gauge for today would be larger than today’s 56.5”-gauge, if the matter were not permanently frozen by a decision in the pioneering era of the 1800s.  Therefore, it is quite possible that today's standard gauge might be railroading's greatest flaw.

Following your logic then, is the 8 and a half foot lane width on the interstates over the road truckings "biggest flaw"? After all, a tractor trailer built to run in a 12 foot wide lane would carry considerably more cargo than what we have currently..

 I would love to see some actual numbers that would support the claim that re-gauging the rail network (with the corresponding increases to the loading gauge/clearances) to some sort of super broad gauge would make any economic sense at all, especially considering the fact that freight (and passenger) equipment has increased in size by several orders of magnitude since the 19th century.

A big problem with changing the gauge is that the clearances must be increased or you don't gain anything.  All yard and double track, signals, lineside obsticles must be respaced and that is a huge cost.  The real gain would be the larger clearnce (loading gauge), not neccessarily a larger track gauge.

Look at the Newfoundland railway (CNR) , that was narrow gauge with standard 40' boxcars.  In some counrtys standard gage rail cars are piggybacked on narrow gage lines.  In Japan narrow gauge trains are capable of 140 mph runnuing, exept for that the curves are too sharp and the right of way in most places is too old. But the gauge does not restrict much. 

So my conclusion is that if narrow gauge railways can handle standard roling stock, then standard gauge track should handle broad stock.  There are examples of this in a few places outside the USA.  Although I do beleive some heavy interurban trollys in California had 12' wide coach bodys at one time.

It's hard to beleive that a broader gauge would help a train from blowing off the tracks by wind. If the train is too light , it's gonna be too light for any gage in the wind.

Carne, follow what Bucyrus and others have said.  Today's standard guage was adapted over 100 years ago and we are entrenched in it.  Possibly to a fault.  Trying to change to a broader guage is probably too costly to undertake now. That being said does not mean that a broader guage would be without advantages (and disadvantages) both economic and operational.  The major disadvantage right now, of course, it the immense cost of converting, probably a cost never recoverable by any gains made by doing it. But it doesn't mean that standard is better either.

The same goes for those who are proponents of narrow guage.  It did have its advantages as to cost of building and in operating to a degree.  But it could not take the load demand of commerce except in a few, provincial applications. 

And as for your comparison to highway lanes, Carne, it doesn't make sense to even mention it.  We have (the world) set our standards of width and hight at what they are.  But compare a c1900 auto compared to a modern semi, and you see there has been a growth in hight and weight.  And with the help of the highway and oil lobby, the end is not in sight as they have again asked congress for bigger rigs on our highway system.

I'm not an engineer, TH&B, but even I know that a lower center of gravity and a broader footprint brings stabilazation.  Look at towers and poles that are guy wired then look at 100 story buildings that aren't.

You do make some points in that what you say has been done.  It just doesn't mean that it is economical or even effecient.  If it were, for one thing, it would be being done all over.

carnej1

Bucyrus

Today, standard gauge seems like the perfect choice because it emerged as the consensus over a century ago, nobody questions it, and it appears to work perfectly.  The larger reality, however, is that there is no point in questioning it because it cannot be changed. 

 

Before the consensus, when there was freedom to choose the gauge, there were many opinions on what the ideal gauge should be, all based on the cost of construction and operation for each individual railroad.  This engineering and operating cost analysis was quite complex, and there were some brilliant minds working out the problem.  Even for an individual railroad company, the choice of gauge was a big commitment. 

 

But more important than an ideal gauge for individual railroad economics was the need for consensus for a common or standard gauge because it was an absolute necessity for interchange compatibility.  So they picked what seemed like the best gauge on average for their 1800s era, and put the matter to rest.  

 

Since the adoption of standard gauge, however, the physical dimensions of locomotives, rolling stock, and track components have increased considerably while the gauge has remained the same.  There never has been a consensus on those equipment and track component dimensions simply because there never was a need for one.  Had there not been that need for the standard gauge consensus for gauge compatibility, I believe that gauge would have evolved right along with the other physical dimensions.  So while standard gauge may seem like the optimum now, it is actually likely be as obsolete as the 30-ft. boxcar. 

 

The evolution of increasing locomotive, rolling stock, and track component dimensions is strong evidence suggesting that the perfect gauge for today would be larger than today’s 56.5”-gauge, if the matter were not permanently frozen by a decision in the pioneering era of the 1800s.  Therefore, it is quite possible that today's standard gauge might be railroading's greatest flaw.

Following your logic then, is the 8 and a half foot lane width on the interstates over the road truckings "biggest flaw"? After all, a tractor trailer built to run in a 12 foot wide lane would carry considerably more cargo than what we have currently..

 I would love to see some actual numbers that would support the claim that re-gauging the rail network (with the corresponding increases to the loading gauge/clearances) to some sort of super broad gauge would make any economic sense at all, especially considering the fact that freight (and passenger) equipment has increased in size by several orders of magnitude since the 19th century.

 

 carnej1,

With all due respect, I believe you are missing my point.  For example, there is nothing analogous between railroad gauge and interstate lane width that pertains to the point I am making.  On the contrary, freeway lane widths are not frozen by a long-standing consensus to be identical for the purpose of interchange.  They don’t need to be since lanes do not have to specifically match the features of road vehicle running gear the way that railroads do.

You say that you would love to see some actual numbers that would support the claim that re-gauging the rail network to some sort of super broad gauge would make any economic sense at all.  I don’t know of anybody who is making that claim let alone trying to support it. 

The point has to be moot since it cannot possibly make any economic sense because everything would have to be converted, and the conversion would have to be simultaneous and nearly instantaneous.  The horse has left the barn when it comes to the selection of a standard gauge.

And if somebody did make an economic study showing that a different gauge would be preferable within the context that we were hypothetically starting from scratch with no prior commitment, that person would be wildly debated by others coming to different conclusions as they crunched the numbers of component size, equipment capacity, wear, stress, etc.

Overall, my point is that standard gauge was developed according to engineering criteria as it stood over a century ago.  If we were free to develop a standard gauge today on the same criteria, I bet the result would not be 56.5-inches.  So the fact that standard gauge today is prevalent is not evidence that it is optimum as is widely presumed.     

True, there is the high center of gravity issue.  But don't you think huge double stack cars and Automax cars raise the center of gravity in height ?  There are ways of engineering around this that is easier then widening the gauge. Trains generaly do have high centers of gravity compared to trucks and cars anyways, a high center of gravity presses down on the rail more then sideways, wich is what you want.

Narrow gauge died slower then broad gauge in the private railroads of the USA, wich suggests to me it wasn't as bad an idea as broad gauge.

    Maybe a test, of several theories put forth here would be captive, mine to powerplant railroads that don't interchange with any other railroad.  What gauge were they built with?

Murphy Siding

    Maybe a test, of several theories put forth here would be captive, mine to powerplant railroads that don't interchange with any other railroad.  What gauge were they built with?

On the other hand, if the test bed proved profitable, it might convince others in a similar situation to re-guage, eventually leading to a decision to reguage the entire network.  Since we'd be going to a wider guage, existing cars would still work (unlike a move in the opposite direction, where you'd have significant clearance issues if moving a broad guage car into a line with standard guage clearances).  They'd just need to be re-trucked.  Certainly not an inexpensive option, but one that would allow continued use of existing equipment.  Obviously new equipment would be built to new standards.

Of course, now we have all new clearance issues which would affect everything from industries to two-track mains....

I'm not coming down as an advocate for broad guage, and I don't see the economics as being favorable,, but never say never...

TH&B, you are trying to operate a merry-go-round here instead of drawing lines of acceptence.  Evidently there seems to be no place any of us can meet you with explanations and facts.  You are trying to reinvent the wheel and it just isn't working.  Nothing anybody says will satisfy you.

Murphy Siding

    Maybe a test, of several theories put forth here would be captive, mine to powerplant railroads that don't interchange with any other railroad.  What gauge were they built with?

They have tended to be standard gauge because its application advantage has grown to extend beyond the need for interchange compatibility, and on to the benefit of standard off-the-shelf components being the lowest cost compared to customized components.

There is a very heavy duty 3-foot-gauge railroad in Columbia that I don’t know much about, but it would be interesting to learn its history and why it is narrow gauge.  Maybe somebody has some information about it.     

Murphy Siding

    Maybe a test, of several theories put forth here would be captive, mine to powerplant railroads that don't interchange with any other railroad.  What gauge were they built with?

Standard guage...equipment is cheaper when it is bought off the shelf rather than reinvented.  Also see the remarks I made to TH&B.