henry6 Standard guage...equipment is cheaper when it is bought off the shelf rather than reinvented. Also see the remarks I made to TH&B.
Indeed, which is why my theoretical test would most likely never take place.
Still, leave it to an accountant to figure out that by running cars that carry X tons of something (ie many more), instead of what we're running now, and with the same crew, the railroad can make more money.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
I will quote an engineering professor I heard 25 years ago in college, who reiterated the same feelings that were cited in a "Quotes of the Month" in Trains at around the same time:
"The first thing you need to know with regards to the engineering demands of railroads is that the tracks are too damned narrow. If we had the entire concept to do all over again from scratch, we'd start with a gauge of at least two meters or six feet. But in all likelihood you're never going to get a chance to start from scratch, so assume you're stuck with standard gauge, meter gauge, or at worst Russian gauge."
This speaks strictly from an engineering standpoint, not an economics standpoint. George Hilton's book American Narrow Gauge Railroads did a fairly good job of debunking the popular myth of economies of scale in narrow gauge rail construction; one could extrapolate that a similar rationale applied to the extra incremental cost of right-of-way, track, etc. of a six-foot or eight-foot-gauge system could show long-term savings. Note that as engineering has advanced, car loadings and sizes have increased dramatically as well. Today's unit trains are basically double the weight, capacity, etc. of even the longest trains of the steam era, with 100+-ton coal hoppers the norm rather than 50-ton hoppers in steam days.
Nobody is even attempting to make a case for refitting any of the current North American network to a broader gauge--the costs of new engineering, loco and car designs, etc. are just too great unless someone is working with a grandiose 50- or 100-year economic plan. But upgrades have happened, such as Japan's Shinkansen being built to standard gauge rather than Japan's "normal 42-inch gauge.
Paul_D_North_Jrerikem - 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 . . . . ]
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 . . . . ]
You did have the right idea about the bridges. Too bad that Marin County voted the way they did (along with San Mateo and Santa Clara) - BART could have been a very impressive system.
LNER4472 I will quote an engineering professor I heard 25 years ago in college, who reiterated the same feelings that were cited in a "Quotes of the Month" in Trains at around the same time: "The first thing you need to know with regards to the engineering demands of railroads is that the tracks are too damned narrow. If we had the entire concept to do all over again from scratch, we'd start with a gauge of at least two meters or six feet. But in all likelihood you're never going to get a chance to start from scratch, so assume you're stuck with standard gauge, meter gauge, or at worst Russian gauge."
Who was it that said that in Trains? I remember reading that quote, but I can’t recall who said it. It was somebody with railroad credentials though.
I am not sure what this guy’s credentials are, but he is advocating a 47-foot-gauge railroad for economies of scale and improved piggyback service:
http://members.tripod.com/~charles_W/widerr.html
Does the Panama Railroad still exist? Isn’t it 5-foot-gauge? Isn’t the Strasburg RR 4’-9” gauge? Do they maintain it to that gauge when they replace ties, or do they just let it atrophy back to standard gauge as they maintain it. I seem to vaguely recall another 4’-9” gauge railroad in the south that operated in this recent era. Maybe it is still in operation.
When you talk about track gauges on conventional railroads, the key question is whether the supposed advantages of a particular gauge outweigh the disadvantages of having a gauge that's incompatible with most other railroads. What we call "standard gauge" became "standard" more by chance rather than because of any intrinsic advantages over other (particularly broader) gauges. If we were designing the U.S. railroad network from scratch today, we probably would choose a somewhat wider gauge. But "standard gauge" became the "standard" for the U.S rail network by the late 1860's. Interchange traffic wasn't very significant for early railroads but, as the railroads became more of a network and interchange became more important, the ability to freely interchange easily trumped any intrinsic advantages of non-standard guages, whether broad or narrow. There's a good discussion of the gauge issues in Hilton's book on narrow gauge railroads.
With respect to BART, the decision to built this as broad guage was almost certainly a mistake, but there were a lot of mistakes made with BART (after all, BART was designed by aerospace people to show railroad people how to do things the "right" way). I'm not aware of anything in a rapid transit system that would make the broader gauge a superior choice - certainly loading gauge isn't a problem with their equipment. While interchange is obviously not an issue with BART, every rail borne vehicle they buy - from MOW equipment to passenger cars - has to be customed designed for their unique gauge. Some things are gifts that keep on giving, but BART's wide gauge is a gift that keeps on taking.
carnej1 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..
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..
Somewhat OFF-TOPIC, BUT; mandated lane width for the Interstate Highway system is 12 feet. Maximum allowed vehicle width (excluding mirrors, etc) is 8 1/2 feet!
Mike
The one thing that I haven't seen mentioned in this thread is the actual source of the 'standard' in standard gauge.
Would you believe - Congressional fiat!!!
First, when the Pacific Railway Act of 1862 specified that the trans-continental railroad would have to adhere to the dimensions of the B&O - including the 56.5 inch track gauge.
Then, after a really horrible accident involving a train with wheels designed to handle everything from 54 inches to 58 inches, Congress decreed that all railroads which interchanged cars would be built to, or rebuilt to, the B&O standard.
So, the first thing you would have to do to change over to a wider gauge would be to repeal a couple of Acts of Congress. Please let me know when you plan to do this - I want time enough to take cover.
Chuck
Bucyrus LNER4472 I will quote an engineering professor I heard 25 years ago in college, who reiterated the same feelings that were cited in a "Quotes of the Month" in Trains at around the same time: "The first thing you need to know with regards to the engineering demands of railroads is that the tracks are too damned narrow. If we had the entire concept to do all over again from scratch, we'd start with a gauge of at least two meters or six feet. But in all likelihood you're never going to get a chance to start from scratch, so assume you're stuck with standard gauge, meter gauge, or at worst Russian gauge." Who was it that said that in Trains? I remember reading that quote, but I can’t recall who said it. It was somebody with railroad credentials though. [snip] Does the Panama Railroad still exist? Isn’t it 5-foot-gauge? Isn’t the Strasburg RR 4’-9” gauge? Do they maintain it to that gauge when they replace ties, or do they just let it atrophy back to standard gauge as they maintain it. [snip]
Perhaps it was said by the late Dr. Lewis K. Sillcox of the New York Air Brake Co.
For the Panama Railroad, Google "Urban Engineers" of Philadelphia and look on their railroads page - they designed some replacement trackwork for the mechanical "mules" a few years ago.
Strasburg has been 4'-8-1/2" gage for at least the past 50 years, though way back when it was supposedly the 4'-9" dimension. The track contracting company I worked with for 13 years from 1975 - 1988 did and still does the SRR's track maintenance, and I even got over there a few times on official business. I can assure you that it's all 4'-8-1/2" gage, except where it is intentionally widened on the sharper curves a couple of 1/8" for curve and wheel clearance - oddly enough, 4'-9" is the common figure there, for No. 8 turnouts and 10 to 12 degree curves, etc. - or the random spots where a few ties have deteriorated and/ or the track needs general maintenance-type regaging - which are few and rare, prudently and fortunately.
-Paul North.
Broad gauge died quicker because most of the railroads involved, ie Erie and its connections and the pre Civil War southern roads among others, were involved in significant interchange of loads and needed to be compatible with their neighbors. Additionally, the government got into the mix and as part of the legislation enabling the construction of the transcontinenal railroad determined that the gauge of railroads who would participate in interstate commerce would be 56 1/2 inches. Lincoln stated that he thought that it was an odd gauge and would prefer 5 foot but enacted the law as Congress wrote it.
The narrow gauge lines for the most part had much less interchange, or the nature of the interchange did not interfere with the difference in gauge. The EBT is the best example, narrow gauge raw coal to the cleaner, then standard gauge cars to the PRR. Many others brought agriculture products to an interchange where brokers would combine individual farm lots into car loads.
It is also much easier to adapt the larger clearances, bridges and tunnels of broad gauge to standard than it is to widen cuts, replace bridges, and enlarge tunnels of narrow gauges to permit standard gauge operations.
Perhaps in this 'bigger gauge' question, we should look at the vertical dimension instead of the horizontal. In brief:
We humans live mainly on the surface of the land, and those 2 'flat' dimensions are generally the most important to us from an ownership, right-of-way, and usage standpoint. The 3rd dimension - up - is less critical, and usually does not require as extensive or troublesome additional R-O-W acquisition or impacts as would a 'wider' track and R-O-W. I readily acknowledge that 'air rights', low overhead bridges, tunnels, and the like are obstacles, but I'm don't know that dealing with those vertical obstacles would be any worse or more expensive than dealing with the same or similar physical obstacles to going 'wider'.
The railroad technology - with its essentially rigid steel rails and wheels, etc. - is far better suited to provide more stability for taller vehicles than the soft rubber-tired vehicles on highways. present-day heavy-duty track technology is now much better towards providing stiffer and more 'solid' track, and measuring and eliminating the cross-level deviations that cause cars to rock. So the remaining challenge is to develop more stable vehicles than the relatively 'tippy' present-day cars, which are usually balanced on only 2 points of support at the truck bolster center plates, and rely on the side bearings to keep from rocking. Instead, a more sophisticated suspension - such as for the Cascades Talgo cars or Amtrak's Acela - would provide a stance of support resting more directly on the 4'-8-1/2'' gage steel rails, and hence would be more stable. With that accomplished, the present day envelope/ loading gauge of vehicle height could be pushed further upwards - perhaps to 25 ft. for passengers, and to 30 ft. for freight.
Anyone for triple-stacked containers ? [Of course, then we'll be back to my frequent refrain and concern: ''And then you'll be overloading / overstressing the wheel-rail contact area - and possibly other components - for no net gain.'' But that's another discussion . . . ]
Comments and criticisms ?
- Paul North.
I understand the OP mentions North America specifically, but as an aside the trend seems to be running somewhat in favor of Broad to Standard gauge, specifically in the new High-Speed lines in Spain & Portugual which are Standard gauge (the rest of Spain/Portugual trackage is mostly broad gauge), in a line in Austrailia (Melbourne-Adelaide, converted from Broad to Standard in 1995), and in the planned conversion of the Baltic States from Russian gauge to standard Gauge (however, even Wiki is skeptical of this, and marks it with a 'cite' request - I'm a bit skeptical too).However, lovers of Broad Gauge, don't fret, as Indian has a long term project to convert it's narrow gauge line to Broad gauge lines (I'd hate to be the infrastructure lead on that project, going from 610mm narrow gauge to 1676mm Broad gauge - over 2 1/2 times the ROW requirements!)
I like the map of world track gauges in the Wiki article, though
chutton01I understand the OP mentions North America specifically,...
Has this thread been edited by the revision of the original post and removal of some of the earlier posts in order to confine the topic to the U.S.? I seem to recall that the OP did not stipulate the topic being confined to the U.S., and subsequent posters were of differing opinions about whether the OP intended to confine his question to the U.S.
Can anybody clarify this?
The conversion in India is from Meter Gauge to Broad Gauge and is an ongoing project since the Meter Gauge network is/was quite sizable.
henry6 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.
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.
You are correct in your statement about the size comparison between a c1900 automobile and a modern tractor trailer. Make the same comparison between a c1900 freight train and a modern mile long doublestack train and you will see my point: it is the loading gauge rather than the distance between the rails that is really important, and in North America that has increased many times..
While one can make the argument that "if a doublestack is good a quadruple stack (2 high but double wide) is better" but I would be very surprised if the cost of a "clean sheet of paper"" ultra wide gauge system would be economically favorable compared to increasing capacity through improvements to the existing network...
As to your statement that "We have (the world) set our standards of width and height at what they are" ;that's true for the interstates and true for the rail gauge as well...
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
Paul_D_North_Jr Bucyrus LNER4472 I will quote an engineering professor I heard 25 years ago in college, who reiterated the same feelings that were cited in a "Quotes of the Month" in Trains at around the same time: "The first thing you need to know with regards to the engineering demands of railroads is that the tracks are too damned narrow. If we had the entire concept to do all over again from scratch, we'd start with a gauge of at least two meters or six feet. But in all likelihood you're never going to get a chance to start from scratch, so assume you're stuck with standard gauge, meter gauge, or at worst Russian gauge." Who was it that said that in Trains? I remember reading that quote, but I can’t recall who said it. It was somebody with railroad credentials though. [snip] Does the Panama Railroad still exist? Isn’t it 5-foot-gauge? Isn’t the Strasburg RR 4’-9” gauge? Do they maintain it to that gauge when they replace ties, or do they just let it atrophy back to standard gauge as they maintain it. [snip] Perhaps it was said by the late Dr. Lewis K. Sillcox of the New York Air Brake Co. For the Panama Railroad, Google "Urban Engineers" of Philadelphia and look on their railroads page - they designed some replacement trackwork for the mechanical "mules" a few years ago. Strasburg has been 4'-8-1/2" gage for at least the past 50 years, though way back when it was supposedly the 4'-9" dimension. The track contracting company I worked with for 13 years from 1975 - 1988 did and still does the SRR's track maintenance, and I even got over there a few times on official business. I can assure you that it's all 4'-8-1/2" gage, except where it is intentionally widened on the sharper curves a couple of 1/8" for curve and wheel clearance - oddly enough, 4'-9" is the common figure there, for No. 8 turnouts and 10 to 12 degree curves, etc. - or the random spots where a few ties have deteriorated and/ or the track needs general maintenance-type regaging - which are few and rare, prudently and fortunately. -Paul North.
I believe the question was about the Panama canal railway, which runs along the canal route across Panama, rather than the track system for electric locomotives used as "mules" in the original locks (the new locks are being built wide enough for tug boats to be employed, although the older ones will still be in use). The PCR was built to a 5 foot gauge IINM. When it was rebuilt and reopened by Kansas City Southern industries it was regauged to standard. It operates with secondhand rolling stock and locomotives from the US..
carnej1 henry6 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. You are correct in your statement about the size comparison between a c1900 automobile and a modern tractor trailer. Make the same comparison between a c1900 freight train and a modern mile long doublestack train and you will see my point: it is the loading gauge rather than the distance between the rails that is really important, and in North America that has increased many times.. While one can make the argument that "if a doublestack is good a quadruple stack (2 high but double wide) is better" but I would be very surprised if the cost of a "clean sheet of paper"" ultra wide gauge system would be economically favorable compared to increasing capacity through improvements to the existing network... As to your statement that "We have (the world) set our standards of width and height at what they are" ;that's true for the interstates and true for the rail gauge as well...
While it is true that railroad gauge and interstate lane width has been standardized, the point of difference is that interstate lane width is free to increase without affecting interchange compatibility, and railroad gauge is not.
You mention the prospect of a “clean sheet of paper” with no prior obligation to interchange compatibility resulting in an ultra wide gauge system. While a clean sheet of paper design might lead to a larger gauge, I suspect that it would not be what would be characterized as ultra wide, considering what that would imply.
If I were to take a wild guess as to what the optimum gauge for today is, I would say 64-inches.
FWIW, there was a scheme, never carried out, to cover the European continent with a three meter gauge super-railroad. The main backer, a cat with a toothbrush moustache who was then Chancellor of Germany, ran into some difficulties (losing WWII, for openers) that killed the idea.
BucyrusHas this thread been edited by the revision of the original post and removal of some of the earlier posts in order to confine the topic to the U.S.? I seem to recall that the OP did not stipulate the topic being confined to the U.S., and subsequent posters were of differing opinions about whether the OP intended to confine his question to the U.S.
tomikawaTT FWIW, there was a scheme, never carried out, to cover the European continent with a three meter gauge super-railroad. The main backer, a cat with a toothbrush moustache who was then Chancellor of Germany, ran into some difficulties (losing WWII, for openers) that killed the idea. Chuck
1. H ey - please don't insult cats !
2. Killed him, too, supposedly.
3. Hitler's super railway Trains, August 1984 page 38 gigantic trains proposed for Germany ( DR, "DRURY, GEORGE H.", GERMANY, HITLER, "JOACHIMSTHALER, ANTON", TRN )
- PDN.
tomikawaTT FWIW, there was a scheme, never carried out, to cover the European continent with a three meter gauge super-railroad. The main backer, a cat with a toothbrush moustache who was then Chancellor of Germany, ran into some difficulties (losing WWII, for openers) that killed the idea.
Time to repost some conceptial artwork (by Robin Barnes, this artwork painted well after WWII) of the 'Breitspurbahn' - go to the 'Broader than Broad'
http://www.robinbarnes.net/broad1.jpghttp://www.robinbarnes.net/broad2.jpg http://www.robinbarnes.net/broad3.jpg
The Indian Ministry of Railways might take issue with "standard gauge." They're practically bankrupting themselves converting everything they can to 5'6" gauge.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Unigauge
How custom-designed does the MOW equipment need to be for BART except for just wider trucks? Surely I'm missing something exotic and bizarre besides wider trucks.
ONEHAGGIS Some of the railroads in the Confederate South were five foot gauge. Mark
Some of the railroads in the Confederate South were five foot gauge.
Mark
One of the problems the CSA faced was (IIRC) the railroads of the South operated on something like 4 different gauges, so it was impossible to ship men or material very far without having to transload everything. The North by comparison had much more standard gauge trackage and was more uniform.
BTW re wide gauge, it's interesting that since the Mallets were retired, loading gauges have actually been made narrower, even as freight cars grow in capacity. One reason a Big Boy would be hard to operate today is it would require a major reworking of the right of way in many areas, like curves, bridges etc.
aegrotatio
For example, the "fingers" of a tamper would have to be respaced to be inside and outside of the rail. Switch tampers have hydraulic cylinders that extend to move the tines out so they can work on the ends of the ties. Those would have to be changed, also.
Wasn't the quest for a wider loading gage the genesis of placing two "standard gage" tracks on 25 foot centers and then designing cars with span bolsters riding on a truck on each track? This would save a fair portion of the cost of converting by using existing trucks and wheelsets.
aegrotatio How custom-designed does the MOW equipment need to be for BART except for just wider trucks? Surely I'm missing something exotic and bizarre besides wider trucks.
Very. Most MOW equipment doesn't have trucks - they're only 4-wheel vehicles, so the axles are pretty much rigidly mounted in the frame. So either the whole frame has to be spread or widened to accomodate the new wheel locations, or some other adaption made.
rrnut touched on some of the points with a tamper. But those also have rail clamps for use as 'track jacks' in the raising process, so those would have to be respaced, as well as the light buggy out front, the spacer buggies, and the rollers under the 'shadowboard'. Ballast regulators are similar - the frame would have to be altered// split and widened so that the wings are farther out, as well as the front plow. All hi-rail equipment would need wider wheels, and that means thicker axles, for more special items. That's OK for pick-up trucks, but significant for bigger equipment such as Pettibone Speed Swings, cranes, dump trucks, Gradalls, etc.
Back when I was preparing bids for work on SEPTA's 'Pennsylvania gage' trolley lines, the rail equipment manufacturers told me that to retrofit the wheels of the equipment to go the 6 inches wider would not be a big problem, so maybe going to 10 inches would not be that bad. But the track equipment is far more complicated and sophisticated today than it was then, 20 - 25 years ago.
rrnut282 aegrotatio For example, the "fingers" of a tamper would have to be respaced to be inside and outside of the rail. Switch tampers have hydraulic cylinders that extend to move the tines out so they can work on the ends of the ties. Those would have to be changed, also. Wasn't the quest for a wider loading gage the genesis of placing two "standard gage" tracks on 25 foot centers and then designing cars with span bolsters riding on a truck on each track? This would save a fair portion of the cost of converting by using existing trucks and wheelsets.
The "double wide" train you are thinking about has been proposed at least a couple of times; Back in the 1960's GATX (the railcar lessors) proposed an "autotrain"system called RRollway which, if built would have had cars more than 17 feet wide allowing automobiles to be driven on crosswise and parked side -by- side in the dual level cars..
There also was an article by James W. Kennedy published in the March, 1976 edition of TRAINS called "The Double Track Train" where the other proposed 24 foot wide rolling stock operating on parallel standard guage tracks. The article was complete with diagrams and photographs of HO scale models the author had built to demonstrate the concept.
It is a cool concept but again, I don't see what a double track train would do (other than the parallel parking trick) that improving clearances, trackage, and increasing capapcity on a standard gauge network wouldn't do more ecomonically..
JonathanS Broad gauge died quicker because most of the railroads involved, ie Erie and its connections and the pre Civil War southern roads among others, were involved in significant interchange of loads and needed to be compatible with their neighbors. Additionally, the government got into the mix and as part of the legislation enabling the construction of the transcontinenal railroad determined that the gauge of railroads who would participate in interstate commerce would be 56 1/2 inches. Lincoln stated that he thought that it was an odd gauge and would prefer 5 foot but enacted the law as Congress wrote it. The narrow gauge lines for the most part had much less interchange, or the nature of the interchange did not interfere with the difference in gauge. The EBT is the best example, narrow gauge raw coal to the cleaner, then standard gauge cars to the PRR. Many others brought agriculture products to an interchange where brokers would combine individual farm lots into car loads. It is also much easier to adapt the larger clearances, bridges and tunnels of broad gauge to standard than it is to widen cuts, replace bridges, and enlarge tunnels of narrow gauges to permit standard gauge operations.
Congress did NOT decree that "railroads who would participate in interstate commerce would be 56 1/2 inches". They only decreed that the UP-CP transcontinental railroad would be constructed to this gauge. It may well be that this led to a standardization of gauges at 56 1/2 inches for commercial reasons (a development whic was already well under way) but it wasn't mandated by the government. The subsequent development of narrow gauge railroads in the 1870's and 80's shows that there was no such government edict. While much of the narow gaugage network was short lived (at least as narrow gauge), there were many narrow gauge lines which were interstate or which participated in interstate traffic. Had there been a government edict that lines participating in interastate commerce be built to 56 1/2 inches, these lines could never have been built as narrow gauge.
To my knowledge, this is not true - Congress never mandated 56.5 inches as the gauge for U.S. railroads, whether they interchanged traffic or not. They only mandated this gauge for the UP-CP transcontinental railroad. As I mentioned in an earlier post, the development of narrow guage railroads in the 1870s and 1880's (some of which were interstate or participated in interstate traffic) shows that there was no such fiat. The accident you mention was probably the 1867 "Angola Horror" in New York, which was caused by a car equipped with "compromise wheels" intended to allow it to be used on lines with different guages. It's certainly possible that Congress banned the use of "compromise wheels" after this accident, but they did not mandate a uniform gauge for US railroads.
New Orleans' streetcars run on broad-gauge track. IIRC, it's maybe 5'2"?
dredmann New Orleans' streetcars run on broad-gauge track. IIRC, it's maybe 5'2"?
There were quite a few streetcar lines (particularly in the east) built to wide gauge. In general, ithis was done because municipalities demanded wide gauge as a condition to their franchises. The reason they demanded this has nothing to do with any intrinsic advantages of wide guage. Rather, they did it to make sure that the street railway couldn't move freight cars through the streets. I don't know enough about New Orleans to know if this was the reason for wide gauge there. I believe that much of the St. Charles line (at least) was originally bult as a wide gauge steam or horse line (many sourthern railways were originally built to wide guage although characteristically, not to the same gauge)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.