This really doesn't fit the thead on broad guage vs. standard but is an extension based on narrow guage. After reading the new TRAINS narrow guage articles and the posting here about broad guage, I think the following can be said:
If you take the automobile industry and its use of standard guage rail you can easily see that narrow guage would never have be capable of transporting cars and trucks of the size we manufacture. LIkewise, broad(er) guage would have been over kill and therefore either too expensive or othewise wasteful. (Or would we have built bigger automotive vehicles to fit the broad guage rail loadings?) At any rate, standard guage seems to have set a standard not only for railroad loadings, but other industries standards as well.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
A number of major, heavy haul narrow gauge railroad networks operate in the World today, the majority using the "Cape Gauge" of 3 feet 6 inches (so named because the railroads in Southern Africa were built to the standard). Some of these railroads can and do carry road vehicles and containers though obv. not using North American style Autoracks and Double Stacks..
"I Often Dream of Trains"-From the Album of the Same Name by Robyn Hitchcock
henry6If you take the automobile industry and its use of standard guage rail you can easily see that narrow guage would never have be capable of transporting cars and trucks of the size we manufacture.
I don't see that at all. Could you explain your conclusion on this?
Bucyrus henry6If you take the automobile industry and its use of standard guage rail you can easily see that narrow guage would never have be capable of transporting cars and trucks of the size we manufacture. I don't see that at all. Could you explain your conclusion on this?
The loading guage would not be economically or effeciently sufficient. The size trains, the load size, etc. plus the needed track specs and maintenance would not handle the loads with return on investment as does standard guage. Or would it have meant that Detroit would have built smaller cars so as to take advantage of long huals on narrow guage trains?
henry6 Bucyrus henry6If you take the automobile industry and its use of standard guage rail you can easily see that narrow guage would never have be capable of transporting cars and trucks of the size we manufacture. I don't see that at all. Could you explain your conclusion on this? The loading guage would not be economically or effeciently sufficient. The size trains, the load size, etc. plus the needed track specs and maintenance would not handle the loads with return on investment as does standard guage. Or would it have meant that Detroit would have built smaller cars so as to take advantage of long huals on narrow guage trains?
When you mention narrow gauge not having sufficient loading gauge, you must be referring to a specific minimum gauge, but you don’t specify. I am sure that 54”-gauge would not have any problems with automobile loads. I would think that such loads would be possible down to 3-foot-gauge with its loading gauge of over 8 feet. However, I think history has indeed proven that standard gauge has been the most economical for our traffic overall. But I don’t see that automobile traffic stands out as the limiting factor of narrow gauge in general. Although, there would certainly be loads of certain vehicles and other machinery that could not be handled with an 8-foot loading gauge without being disassembled.
But for tomorrow’s new generation of automobiles, 2-foot-gauge should be more than enough.
henry6 Or would it have meant that Detroit would have built smaller cars so as to take advantage of long huals on narrow guage trains?
Or would it have meant that Detroit would have built smaller cars so as to take advantage of long huals on narrow guage trains?
The development of the physical characteristics of the automobile has had NOTHING to do with railway loading gauge and EVERYTHING to do with the characteristics (lane width) of the nation's (and world's) highway systems. While it's convenient there is now an efficient means to transport autos by rail (multi-level auto racks); remember these are a comparatively recent development (1960s). Prior to that it was four cars in a double-door boxcar which was not particularly efficient.
Mike
First: I used the automobile as a defined unit which everyone could envision and understand the statement.
Second: as for Detroit building smaller cars: it is such an abstract thought in 2009 that no one can give a difinitive answer but only conjecture...like the thought.
henry6 Second: as for Detroit building smaller cars: it is such an abstract thought in 2009 that no one can give a difinitive answer but only conjecture...like the thought.
Conjecture? You don’t see the trend to smaller cars? To me, it is quite obvious.
http://www.ibtimes.com/contents/20090821/2012-chevrolets-get-smaller-greener.htm
http://www.thedailygreen.com/living-green/blogs/gas-mileage/small-cars-460506
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/08/12/tech/cnettechnews/main5237296.shtml
http://www.hybridcars.com/news/ford-retools-small-cars-drops-suvs-25779.html
http://www.edmunds.com/help/about/press/126083/article.html
No, no, no! Conjecture was that if in 1900 two or three foot guages had been the railroad standard, then for shipping considerations smaller automobiles may have been the result instead. N\othing to do with today, but yesterday.
henry6 No, no, no! Conjecture was that if in 1900 two or three foot guages had been the railroad standard, then for shipping considerations smaller automobiles may have been the result instead. N\othing to do with today, but yesterday.
I see what you mean. Smaller gauges might have restricted the size of automobiles. I would say that the degree of expansion of the loading gauge over the last century indicates that that standard gauge is probably the best minimum track gauge. The best maximum is still an open question.
It is interesting that you can get tremendous performance out of a narrow gauge, but it requires very heavy track and running gear components. Those components might end up being larger in relation to the narrow gauge than the corresponding components would be in relation to standard gauge.
I got lost in high school math when they started in with "logerythms". But I do understand that just because something can be twice the size of another it does not follow that all components are equally larger but can be taken to the "nth" power instead. Thus the concept that a truck at twice the size of a car does not cause twice as much wear or damage to a road surface but a larger proportion. As for a 2 or 3 foot guage railroad train composed of what we have today as autocarriers or jumbo hoppers or even double stack is incomprehensable to me. Rockefeller learned to shave wooden barrels to a minimum thickness (5/8ths inch I think) to keep tare weight low and, thus, transportation costs as little as possible; steel drums were a godsend to him and Standard Oil. Design products and design packaging for products aimed at cheapest transportation cost are part of the American manufacturing process. So in my mind I would easily accept the fact that a Morris Minor, a Volkswagon, and thier ilk could have been the standard sizedautomobile from 1920 instead of market anomolies from the mid 50's if they were looking at cost of delivery from Detroit to either Portland.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.