Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="carnej1"] [quote user="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. [/quote] 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...  [/quote] 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.  <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p> 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.   <o:p></o:p> If I were to take a wild guess as to what the optimum gauge for today is, I would say 64-inches.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag