Trains.com

Why are those tracks 5 ft 6 inches wide?

1725 views
12 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • 6,434 posts
Why are those tracks 5 ft 6 inches wide?
Posted by FJ and G on Thursday, July 1, 2004 10:27 AM
BART

Dave Vergun
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southern Region now, UK
  • 820 posts
Posted by Hugh Jampton on Thursday, July 1, 2004 10:56 AM
Didn't the original plans call for the construction of a lower deck on the bay bridge for the trains to run on? If this is so then the wider gauge would be helpfull in preventing the trains from blowing over. This is just a guess though.
Generally a lurker by nature

Be Alert
The world needs more lerts.

It's the 3rd rail that makes the difference.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 1, 2004 11:48 AM
Wider gauge means wider cars witch also means more stability.....


I am not going to pretend to know anything about BART though, are the cars wider than usual?

5'6" actually also used to be standard gauge in Canada before we switched over to 4'8.5" so it would be easier to connect with the US....

Could you imagine if Canada was still 5'6".......what a mess that would be.
  • Member since
    March 2016
  • From: Burbank IL (near Clearing)
  • 13,540 posts
Posted by CSSHEGEWISCH on Thursday, July 1, 2004 12:35 PM
In regards to the mess if Canada still had 5'6" gauge, our Australian colleagues know all about the folly of different gauges, three different gauges to be sure.

I don't think that BART ever planned to run on the Bay Bridge, even though Key System interurbans did so prior to World War II.
The daily commute is part of everyday life but I get two rides a day out of it. Paul
  • Member since
    November 2003
  • From: West Coast
  • 4,122 posts
Posted by espeefoamer on Thursday, July 1, 2004 12:52 PM
I herd a rumor that the Southern Pacific forced the wide gauge, because it was afraid that a standard gauge system would use SP tracks and get in the way of its freight trains.
This rumor was floating around in the early days of BART.
Ride Amtrak. Cats Rule, Dogs Drool.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, July 1, 2004 2:36 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH

In regards to the mess if Canada still had 5'6" gauge, our Australian colleagues know all about the folly of different gauges, three different gauges to be sure.



Yeah, same thing in Europe.

It was done to prevent invasions by rail, but now they have to live with the inconvenience.


  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: Southern Region now, UK
  • 820 posts
Posted by Hugh Jampton on Thursday, July 1, 2004 5:26 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

Wider gauge means wider cars witch also means more stability.....


I am not going to pretend to know anything about BART though, are the cars wider than usual?



I thought that, but according to the BART website (http://www.bart.gov/) the cars are only 10 and a half feet wide. Although they only weigh 31.5 tons
Generally a lurker by nature

Be Alert
The world needs more lerts.

It's the 3rd rail that makes the difference.
  • Member since
    January 2002
  • From: Canada, eh!
  • 737 posts
Posted by Isambard on Friday, July 2, 2004 10:59 AM
QUOTE: Originally posted by macguy

Wider gauge means wider cars witch also means more stability.....


I am not going to pretend to know anything about BART though, are the cars wider than usual?

5'6" actually also used to be standard gauge in Canada before we switched over to 4'8.5" so it would be easier to connect with the US....

Could you imagine if Canada was still 5'6".......what a mess that would be.


What year did that switch over occur? I assume it was prior to the CPR's last spike be driven in 1885.

Isambard

Grizzly Northern history, Tales from the Grizzly and news on line at  isambard5935.blogspot.com 

  • Member since
    March 2002
  • From: England
  • 2 posts
Posted by bwatt on Friday, July 2, 2004 11:33 AM
The answer IIRC was that the designers of BART started with a completely clean sheet, and built their system data from first principles, ie:-
"How many people will there be on a fully loaded train ?"
"How much room will those people need to be comfortable ?"
"How big must a car be to give people that much room ?"
and so on, until they had a pretty good idea of the size, weight etc. of a train.
Then, and only then, did they ask the question:-
"Given the highest likely wind speed in the Bay Area, what track gauge do we need to ensure the stability of a train on above-ground track in the worst conditions ?".
And the answer was 5ft 6in.
I don't think linking to other RRs was seen as a likely event.
  • Member since
    September 2004
  • From: Boston Area
  • 294 posts
Posted by stmtrolleyguy on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:15 PM
LIghter cars might actually be less stable. A lot of weight is in the trucks, and when you have a lighter car going around a curve, it could be more prone to derailment. In other words, a heavier car has more keeping it down on the tracks, or more weight lower down. A lighter car lacks that downward or railward force.
StmTrolleyguy
  • Member since
    September 2003
  • From: California - moved to North Carolina 2018
  • 4,422 posts
Posted by DSchmitt on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 8:23 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Hugh Jampton

Didn't the original plans call for the construction of a lower deck on the bay bridge for the trains to run on? If this is so then the wider gauge would be helpfull in preventing the trains from blowing over. This is just a guess though.



Do you mean the Golden Gate Bridge. The Bay Bridge has two decks and standard gauge trains ran on the lower deck into the mid 1950's.

I tried to sell my two cents worth, but no one would give me a plug nickel for it.

I don't have a leg to stand on.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Tuesday, June 28, 2005 9:02 PM
There were several plans to put tracks or a fixed guideway on the Golden Gate bridge, including BART. All of them involved lots of $$. If I recall corrrectly, Marin County opted out of BART, which rendered the matter moot.
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, June 29, 2005 7:37 PM
I know! I know! That's to prevent an invasion from the west. No, wait a minute-that was that thread about guage in Russia.[:)]

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

Search the Community

Newsletter Sign-Up

By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our privacy policy