John WR tomikawaTT"Standard gauge" became standardized by Federal fiat when the Congress decreed that the UP/CP had to build to the standards of the Baltimore and Ohio in 1862. Certainly the decision that the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific should use standard gauge is important to US railroads. What strikes me is that private railroad companies did not see this on their own but had to be bought to it by the United States Government. Still, some railroads resisted. For example, the Erie continued to use a 6 foot gauge until 1880 when the railroad finally saw the light.
tomikawaTT"Standard gauge" became standardized by Federal fiat when the Congress decreed that the UP/CP had to build to the standards of the Baltimore and Ohio in 1862.
Certainly the decision that the Union Pacific and the Central Pacific should use standard gauge is important to US railroads. What strikes me is that private railroad companies did not see this on their own but had to be bought to it by the United States Government. Still, some railroads resisted. For example, the Erie continued to use a 6 foot gauge until 1880 when the railroad finally saw the light.
John,
I still don’t see why you would expect them to have begun with an agreed upon standard gage. In the first place, when they began, interchangeability was not an objective. In the second place, nobody agreed on what the optimum gage was.
But let’s consider a hypothetical example. Say you run a country in the age before railroads, and you have just invented the railroad concept. You want to use it as a universal transportation system in your country. So right from the very start, you know you need an identical gage throughout your system. What gage would you choose?
Don't worry about the Hell Gate Bridge opening gentlemen, or getting it to open. I have it on the best authority, "Weird New Jersey" magazine no less, that the Gates of Hell are actually located in Clifton, New Jersey.
But don't go looking, the "gates" are on town property and the Clifton PD is VERY intolerant of tresspassers!
BucyrusSay you run a country in the age before railroads, and you have just invented the railroad concept. You want to use it as a universal transportation system in your country. So right from the very start, you know you need an identical gage throughout your system. What gage would you choose?
Putting myself in your hypothet, Bucyrus, it is 1828 and I have just been elected President instead of Andrew Jackson. And I have the same mind set I have now. What I would do is the same thing Robert Stevens did do. George Stephenson makes state of the art locomotives. To set up my railroad I buy a few from him and some track from Britain and I would use the Stephenson gauge. That is what I would do.
But Andrew Jackson was President, not me. He firmly opposed all internal improvements and, had he been asked, would have nothing to do with those new fangeled railroads. And most of the people with money to invest saw canals as a much better investment than railroads. In fact, our government had little interest in railroads until the Civil War. And even the U. S. Military Railroad lasted only until the war ended. The government was willing to support the transcontinental but did not want to own it. So yes, the individual companies building railroads did not have any guidance. Clearly they did what made sense to them and many of the early railroads were short. Many connected inland points with tide water. They were focused on getting a product out. I can see gauge was secondary and at that point in history trunk lines did not yet loom large.
John
Firelock76But don't go looking, the "gates" are on town property and the Clifton PD is VERY intolerant of tresspassers!
Are the gates near a large clock that goes "Tick Tock?"
John WR BucyrusSay you run a country in the age before railroads, and you have just invented the railroad concept. You want to use it as a universal transportation system in your country. So right from the very start, you know you need an identical gage throughout your system. What gage would you choose? Putting myself in your hypothet, Bucyrus, it is 1828 and I have just been elected President instead of Andrew Jackson. And I have the same mind set I have now. What I would do is the same thing Robert Stevens did do. George Stephenson makes state of the art locomotives. To set up my railroad I buy a few from him and some track from Britain and I would use the Stephenson gauge. That is what I would do. But Andrew Jackson was President, not me. He firmly opposed all internal improvements and, had he been asked, would have nothing to do with those new fangeled railroads. And most of the people with money to invest saw canals as a much better investment than railroads. In fact, our government had little interest in railroads until the Civil War. And even the U. S. Military Railroad lasted only until the war ended. The government was willing to support the transcontinental but did not want to own it. So yes, the individual companies building railroads did not have any guidance. Clearly they did what made sense to them and many of the early railroads were short. Many connected inland points with tide water. They were focused on getting a product out. I can see gauge was secondary and at that point in history trunk lines did not yet loom large. John
I understand your answer, but I meant to stipulate that you would be selecting your railroad gage at a time when no other railroad existed anywhere as a potential gage precedent. You would be the first to build a railroad and select the best gage. And you would then connect every town with that railroad.
Firelock76 Don't worry about the Hell Gate Bridge opening gentlemen, or getting it to open. I have it on the best authority, "Weird New Jersey" magazine no less, that the Gates of Hell are actually located in Clifton, New Jersey. But don't go looking, the "gates" are on town property and the Clifton PD is VERY intolerant of tresspassers!
I heard they're located at the 7th gate in the town of Hellam, PA.
PS. The linky thing seems to be acting wonky tonight.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
John WR Firelock76But don't go looking, the "gates" are on town property and the Clifton PD is VERY intolerant of tresspassers! Are the gates near a large clock that goes "Tick Tock?"
Hmmm, I wonder. Maybe we'll know for sure if Mr. Spyropoulos starts yelling "The Devil made me do it!"
Talk about ironys: Andrew Jackson may have been anti-railroad as President, but he rode one home to Tennessee when his second term ended in 1837.
Wayne
I'd opine that track gage in that example would be something along the lines of wagon "gage." Historically, we've always built for what exists, not what could exist. Just as people of the birth of railroads could not fathom travelling faster that 15-20 MPH, I'm sure that the idea of a 286,000 pound railroad car would be completely foreign.
Even the longest extant domestic canal, the NYS Barge Canal (Erie Canal) has limiting considerations.
Unless I had amazing foresight, I'd probably go the same route - although something wider, like Erie's 6 foot gage might well get some consideration.
That said, It might also come down to how much of what that railway was designed to carry.
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...
BucyrusI understand your answer, but I meant to stipulate that you would be selecting your railroad gage at a time when no other railroad existed anywhere as a potential gage precedent. You would be the first to build a railroad and select the best gage. And you would then connect every town with that railroad
Bucyrus,
I accept your point. If I were in charge of a country's railroads and had no precedent to guide my I don't know what gauge I would choose. But whatever gauge I did choose it would be the same for all railroads in the country.
Of course, here in the US the Federal Government ignored railroads up to the late 1880's except for the Civil War and the transcontinentals. So there was no national leadership from government. Ultimately the leadership both for a standard gauge and for time zones came from the railroads themselves.
Firelock76Talk about ironys: Andrew Jackson may have been anti-railroad as President, but he rode one home to Tennessee when his second term ended in 1837.
Wayne,
Andrew Jackson certainly was anti internal improvements and railroads were one. But I'm not sure he was all that aware of railroads as a technology except to ride them when they became available.
Of course, he also opposed the Second National Bank and replaced it with a lot of pet banks. This led to a tremendous expansion of credit which benefited the building of railroads. Ultimately he reversed that with his Specie Circulate and that led to the depression of 1837. However, by then railroads were off and running and could not be stopped.
tree68That said, It might also come down to how much of what that railway was designed to carry.
That occurred to me too. Many of the earliest railroads were intended to connect mines or factories to the nearest port. If they did that job that was all that was expected.
John WR BucyrusI understand your answer, but I meant to stipulate that you would be selecting your railroad gage at a time when no other railroad existed anywhere as a potential gage precedent. You would be the first to build a railroad and select the best gage. And you would then connect every town with that railroad Bucyrus, I accept your point. If I were in charge of a country's railroads and had no precedent to guide my I don't know what gauge I would choose. But whatever gauge I did choose it would be the same for all railroads in the country. Of course, here in the US the Federal Government ignored railroads up to the late 1880's except for the Civil War and the transcontinentals. So there was no national leadership from government. Ultimately the leadership both for a standard gauge and for time zones came from the railroads themselves. John
I think it would take government to establish a standard gage simply because only government would have the power to mandate it, and the choice of a standard gage could only come about through a mandate. If it were my country, I don’t know what gage I would choose either. Based on my best hunch, it should be something around five feet.
Hilton, in his book on narrow gage railroads, says that while the choice for standard gage was made as a practical matter, the intellectual problem of choosing the correct gage has never been resolved.
Government mandated our gage without answering the intellectual question. They just mandated what was at the time, the most popular gage. The intellectual problem of correct gage is enormously complex and also requires the factoring of accurate input from the future. It is an interesting problem because it is so important for transportation efficiency, and yet practically impossible to know for sure. Nothing like it occurs in any other transportation mode.
But once you get in the ballpark of the intellectually proper gage, the issue of gage commonality becomes more important due to the economics of interchangeability. So maybe “good enough” is good enough.
Nevertheless, you have probably heard the quote by the president of the Burlington Northern:
“If I were asked to teach a class on railway track construction and maintenance, I’d start with the first precept of the railway civil engineer—‘never forget that the tracks of American railroads are too narrow.’ They were built to a gauge of 4 feet, 8 ½ inches. But if we had it to do all over again we’d probably build them with the rails at least 6 feet apart.”
The wisdom of that statement seems to be demonstrated by the fact that our railroads are maxed out in terms of car capacity, and can only resort to longer trains to increase train loads.
Although gauge standardization in Australia sounds like a self-contradiction, the trend is toward increasing usage of 4' 8.5" gauge, including within Victoria, where 5'3" has been the norm.
India has had two major gauges, 5'3" and meter, with a fair amount of overlap so interchange problems were not a major issue. Nevertheless, Indian Railways has been involved with an ongoing process of converting meter gauge lines to 5'3" gauge.
I think the problem facing an intellectual solution to track guage is that there aren't a lot of soothsayers in the business.
If Erie's six foot guage had carried the day, vs B&O's 4'8.5", might not we today be rueing that decision and wondering if 6'6" or even 7' would have been better?
Ironically, Erie's guage had little or nothing to do with load capablility, and everything to do with ensuring that the railroad could not interchange with PA and NJ railroads...
There are factors beyond track guage, as well. RR builders of the mid-1800's had no idea where metallurgy would go, both as related to the cars and the supporting infrastructure. I'm sure even the most forward thinking railroaders of the day would stand in awe as they watched a 100 car train of coal gondolas roll over a concrete bridge.
Other technologies, such as brakes and signalling factor in as well.
BucyrusGovernment mandated our gage without answering the intellectual question. They just mandated what was at the time, the most popular gage. The intellectual problem of correct gage is enormously complex and also requires the factoring of accurate input from the future.
1. As far as I know the government did mandate standard gauge for the transcontinentals but did not mandate standard gauge for any other railroads. Railroads built to other gauges continued to operate for many years and I believe that in some parts of the country narrow gauge railroads continued to be built.
2. As you point out, no doubt the issue of correct gauge is enormously complicated. And, as you also point out, in 1862 no effort was made to address that issue. I don't even know if Abe Lincoln even was aware that it was an issue. In the Illinois Legislature he wrote the enabling legislation for the Illinois Central Railroad so he certainly had some knowledge of railroad construction. And, in 1862, he knew from his Civil War experience the problems of lack of connectivity. I suspect he just wanted uniformity so everything would work together and didn't bother with the issue of correct gauge.
3. The nineteenth century was, in many ways, the age of the fruits of the enlightenment. Not only railroads but also other inventions had transformed life and made it much much easier. Things like the spinning jenny, iron stoves and oil lamps were great improvements over the old technologies. And of course the railroads were making these improvements available everywhere. So it does seem to me that had Abe Lincoln gotten a few experts together they might have suggested that a broader gauge railroad track would allow room for future improvements. What improvements might they predict? Well, Henry Bessemer was already making cheap steel in Britain. We already had a flourishing iron industry; certainly it would not take long for Bessemer converters to come to the US. A broader gauge would probably not have been a perfect decision but it would have been a lot better than doing nothing.
Bucyrus ...The intellectual problem of correct gage is enormously complex and also requires the factoring of accurate input from the future. It is an interesting problem because it is so important for transportation efficiency, and yet practically impossible to know for sure. Nothing like it occurs in any other transportation mode. ...
...The intellectual problem of correct gage is enormously complex and also requires the factoring of accurate input from the future. It is an interesting problem because it is so important for transportation efficiency, and yet practically impossible to know for sure. Nothing like it occurs in any other transportation mode.
...
While rail gage is binding once it is built, auto have no such constraint, and yet wheel base width is essentially unchanged since the first autos. Any land transportation has to fit thru the landscape, and it seems there has been no compelling reason to change auto's "gage". OTR trucks had to fit the auto's roads. Off-road mining trucks have grown to giant proportions, however, no one wants to meet one on the road. Rail car widths of 10 feet is a good match for carrying truck containers. It's a good width for passenger cars 4-across seating. Does anyone like 6-across seating as on airplanes?
MidlandMikeWhile rail gage is binding once it is built, auto have no such constraint, and yet wheel base width is essentially unchanged since the first autos.
So you think the track (which is actually what overall width at the wheels is called in automobiles) of a Model T is 'essentially' the same as the track of, say, a 1966 Pontiac?
Granted, if you compare it to Rush's 'gleaming alloy aircar ... two lanes wide' the numbers seem to be close. But anyone who has driven through that tunnel in Boston, or over the Huey P. Long bridge, knows that cars used to be MUCH narrower than they are now. But even on high-speed roads where larger cars *could* have been used -- there is still the last-mile problem with existing infrastructure, and things like driveway slopes that limit fancy width further. (See a Countach or Testarossa for just about how wide you can go and still fit places...)
Most of the 'standardized width' is fixed by expedient road construction. Just as with railroad gauge, a state or other body building a road, or an access ramp, or a parking garage, uses some standard for 'common' track, wheelbase and overhang for ground clearance, height to overhead, etc. Vehicles then evolve to fit the built environment.
This works backward, too: many parking spaces are narrower, and garages shorter, than they were in my youth when cars were generally Bigger Than They Are Now. The size thing appears to run in cycles: wider in the late '40s, and the mid-to-late '50s, and the early 1990s, for example.
An amusing place to see the 'standard track widths' you mention -- in a fairly good analogue of what happened with increasing size on railroads -- is on some of the lower-priced RVs built on what are essentially one-ton chassis. The bodies are so wide that the wheels seem shrunk in underneath. Interesting here too is how very constrained truck body clearances become when they get above about 96" -- this is a wider 'limit' than track, and again imposed by 'a preponderance of the evidence' when you try to drive somewhere on roads built to a common size.
I think we are forgetting that much of the world is now standard guage or trending toward it ( Spain ) with the exception of The old Russian states & India. It would be possible in the future that much of the world will be rail connected by standard guage. What would that entail? Tunnels. A North American connection thru Canada. Alaska, and Berring Strait.. Russia standardizing the trans siberian route which would give them connections to China as well. China is also building standard guage connections to adjaecent countries as well.. I would also expect a tunnel Japan - Russia in the future. Spain will probably be all standard in 30 years ?r that leaves India which who knows??. Standard guage from Europe - Africa is another if. Maybe at Spain -- Africa or thru middle east ?
blue streak 1I think we are forgetting that much of the world is now standard guage or trending toward it...
Why do you conclude that you think we are forgetting that fact?
Overmod MidlandMikeWhile rail gage is binding once it is built, auto have no such constraint, and yet wheel base width is essentially unchanged since the first autos. So you think the track (which is actually what overall width at the wheels is called in automobiles) of a Model T is 'essentially' the same as the track of, say, a 1966 Pontiac? ...
I went out and measured my Pontiac G6, and it was roughly 4'6" (it might have been closer to 4"8" but for the wide tires,). And yes I remember the era of "wide track" Pontiacs, before all the GMs went to common platforms. It seems some early cars used the 4'8" that was common to horse wagons,as did Stephenson with his early railroad work, with an extra 1/2 inch for curves. On a Model T, standard tread width was 56" (sound familiar?) I will admit that comparing car-centric highways with freight heavy railroads is a stretch, but it is uncanny that the two share a similar "gage".
What was the "standard" width of a canal towpath?
MidlandMikebut it is uncanny that the two share a similar "gage".
You jogged my memory.
Friend of mine had, if I remember this right, a 1974 Nova. Track on that car, with whatever wheels he had on it, put the centers of the tires' tread directly over the centerlines of standard gauge track. The weight of the car deflected and centered the tires, similar to how the early-'30s Michelin railcars were supposed to work. He had all sorts of fun driving abandoned branches -- said he once had it up to 50mph (with hands, of course, not doing any direct 'steering') and it was perfectly stable. Made me want one...
zugmannWhat was the "standard" width of a canal towpath?
I think you're on to something Zugman. We should re-establish canal passenger boats between Albany and Buffalo and at Buffalo they could continue on the Great Lakes to Chicago. I bet a lot of people would choose them instead of flying.
zugmann What was the "standard" width of a canal towpath?
You're wandering into the realm of the chariots (oft cited as the reason for RR guage) with that question. Most hitches I've seen were two animals (probably mules), so that would be a consideration.
The boats themselves were the "Panamax" of their day, built to fit the locks then in use (about 90'x15', draft 4').
I regularly see remnants of the Black River Canal on my travels to the railroad.
John WR zugmannWhat was the "standard" width of a canal towpath? I think you're on to something Zugman. We should re-establish canal passenger boats between Albany and Buffalo and at Buffalo they could continue on the Great Lakes to Chicago. I bet a lot of people would choose them instead of flying.
If somebody takes a passenger craft that can pass through the NY State Barge Canal and attempts to sail it on the Great Lakes, you'll see it on the Five O"Clock News - shots from the WWW-TV newscopter recording it sinking after getting swamped.
Remember, some really big things have been loaded onto, and moved aboard, railroad cars. The five tunnels between the fabricating shops at Boulder City and what is now Hoover Dam are HUGE - because they had to pass segments which would be fabricated into 56 foot diameter pipes.
Another thing about, "What railroad gauge would I have mandated?" At the time when that could have been done Brunel pioneered 7 foot gauge, but was 'outvoted' by the fact that there was ten times as much standard gauge in the United Kingdom when the decision was made to go to a single gauge. Then, too, look how much bigger everything has become. Modern ships carry lifeboats bigger than a lot of the cargo craft that were sailing the Atlantic in the 1840s. A large percentage of the increase has happened since 1950, in the air, on rails, roads and water. I can't think of a thing that has gotten smaller (except feminine swimwear...)
Chuck
tomikawaTT If somebody takes a passenger craft that can pass through the NY State Barge Canal and attempts to sail it on the Great Lakes, you'll see it on the Five O"Clock News - shots from the WWW-TV newscopter recording it sinking after getting swamped.
Actually not true. The Barge Canal is a regular route for pleasure boats moving from the Great Lakes down the coast (often via the Intra-Coastal Waterway). Such pleasure boats regularly traverse the lakes.
I have friends who have crossed the lake in ~24' boats through some pretty significant seas.
While I've seen some pretty significant wave action on Lake Ontario, I've also been out on the lake when you could have waterskied from the US to Canada without encountering so much as a ripple.
I've always thought that the track gauge of 4ft 81/2 inches was the best average size. Why do you think that it's too narrow? Besides the train them selves are wider than the track. One railcar in density are larger that some rooms, yet alone several cars in a train.
alloboard I've always thought that the track gauge of 4ft 81/2 inches was the best average size. Why do you think that it's too narrow? Besides the train them selves are wider than the track. One railcar in density are larger that some rooms, yet alone several cars in a train.
I think it is close to optimum, but the true optimum has never been determined because it is almost beyond calculation due to all the variables. What happened instead was that a simple consensus emerged. Everyone simply agreed on a number because more important that optimum gage is a commonality of gage. And once the number was chosen, there was no going back.
If we were starting over, there is no way in the world that somebody would suggest 4 feet, 8-1/2 inches with everybody agreeing on that odd number. People would want to round it off to 5 feet or 4-1/2 feet. Or maybe they would insist on it being metric, so an even number of millimeters would be chosen.
This hint that current standard gage is too small is in the fact that railroad equipment has evolved ever larger over the years, and now it has reached its size limit for standard gage. So there is an ongoing trend for expansion of rolling stock that has reached its limit due to the constraint of gage. Thus it seems reasonable to conclude that the trend for expansion still has reason to continue.
The only outlet for that trap is to increase train length. However, train length too has practical limits because there is only so much disruption allowed with tying up grade crossings. Recently U.P. ran some super long test trains to explore where the train length limit really is. They were immediately pounced on by authorities challenging their right to run super long trains.
Of course, it is too late to change gage because there is so much that would have to change. The cost would be a complete showstopper. Nevertheless, the question of optimum gage is still on the table as an academic matter.
Why has there not been a consideeration of the engineering factors with any guage ?
1. Starting with the "narrow guage" RRs they are easy to build in mountains Able to go around curves much sharper than standard guage. Look at how the D&RGW was able to serve the many mining camps west of Denver. The narrow rails allowed for much shorter cross ties ( sleepers ). But their carrying capacity & capacity ratio to tare on each rail car was much lower than our present standard guage cars. That did allow for lighter rail. Bridges could be built to lighter carrying capacity and tunnels smaller.
2. On the other hand if a much broader guage causes many problems.
a. first a wider guage allows for a wider car esp freight.
b. Wider cars call for heavier total loads.
c. A heavier load would call for either larger wheels as the present 286k cars need 36" wheels. or could then go to 6 axel cars. Operational problems usually restrict heavier cars to slower speeds down hill due to operative brake restrictions.
d. Heavier cars would require more subgrade work much like the subgrade work for heavier trucks require.
e. Bridges would need to be built much more robust both wider and to carry the heavier loads. I cannot think of any bridge except the bridge near Pittsburgh that could now carry much heavier loads. Cannot imagine the additional costs for heavier loads.
f. wider guage needs gentler curves and the problems for industrial & warehouse access would be multiplied.
g. Bigger tunnels and since tunnel boring machines are circular a lot more waste from boring tunnels.
h. Longer crossties with possibility of wooded ties more likely to warp.
i. Mudchicken can provide many more items.
3. If a different guage would be better why have the Australian heavy haul carriers that have just been built go standard guage? They are thousand miles + from any other rail line.
There is a town in Australia where railroads of 3 different gauges meet. Back then they transferred cars from one set of trucks to others. I was on an Outback bus tour and met my first girlfriend on it. I was up late every night and I think I slept on the bus as we went through the town.
Modeling the "Fargo Area Rapid Transit" in O scale 3 rail.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.