Blue Streak - a few observations on your observations:
B. The technology of the day (latter 1800's) was probably more limiting with regard to possible loads than anything else. Capacity and capablility grew together at 1435mm, and would have at 6'.
E. The two track bridge at Hancock, NY on the old Erie is pretty robust. That said, I'm not sure if there are any weight restrictions on it. Starrucca Viaduct was also built for two 6' guage tracks.
F. The curve at Hancock is trying even for today's trains. The rest of the curves along the line are pretty broad, though.
G. Boring machines are relatively new in RR terms. Early tunnels could easily have been drilled to handle the wider guage without undue height, unless called for by the local geology.
H. Adding 18" to the ties probably wouldn't cause significant problems. If it would, switches would be an issue even today. (Or are they?)
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...
blue streak 1 ... 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.
...
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.
They would use standard gage to buy off-the-shelf everything, and would be able to resell everything after they were done. Investors generally are not interested in experimenting with new systems.
Not mentioned (yet) were the state legislation prior to Lincoln setting the US Standard at 4'-8 1/2". The usual explanation is that states between 1840 and 1861 set the gage to keep rolling stock from rolling too far into an adjoining state to be spending it's useful life away from home (and incidentally losing all that tax revenue in the days before when ICC levelled the playying field) - per Hilton & others.
Narrow gauge was the false idea of bringing the cost per mile down to construct railroad lines. The geometry issue cropped-up later as another cop-out. (bridges still failed and shoddy construction plagued narrow gauge lines far worse than their standard gauge counterparts.
mudchicken The usual explanation is that states between 1840 and 1861 set the gage to keep rolling stock from rolling too far into an adjoining state to be spending it's useful life away from home (and incidentally losing all that tax revenue
Did states levy taxes on rolling stock before or after Lincoln was elected? I know that Illinois levied a tax on the Illinois Central's revenues but I never heard of a tax on freight cars.
OH, IN, IL,PA all levied for car miles from the mid-1840's on. Ton miles did not come along largely until after the civil war when better scales became commonplace.
Take the railcar out of state and it might not come back.(the logic of changing the gage up to 2 inches which was all that was needed for wheels to fall-in or get caught in frogs and guardrails/climb.
blue streak 1 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.
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.
To the question of why they did not do engineering related to the choice of gage. They did profoundly explore every conceivable engineering question pertaining to the tradeoffs between the use of one gage versus another, but they disagreed on what the engineering told them. They particularly concentrated this analysis on the choice between 3-foot-gage and standard gage. It led to a national debate known as the gage wars or narrow gage fever.
One thing that not everybody understands is that narrow gage was not just confined to the recent-memory systems of the western states where it was used for mountainous terrain. That is just the left over legacy of a much wider national application which had narrow gage systems in almost every state.
The proponents of narrow gage argued that standard gage was a waste of money because it was overbuilt for the task. There were many cases where this was true, and the narrow gage would have been viable, if not optimum. But the more common choice of standard gage made interchange impossible for the narrow gages, and the probable growth of traffic made interchange more desirable. So these factors squeezed out the rationale for narrow gage.
The engineering question was never settled, and it still is not settled. But the point is now moot because changing standard gage is economically impossible.
The tradeoffs between gages are astoundingly complex. Even with a specific gage, there are many variables in the width of the rolling stock, width of trucks, center of gravity, length of rolling stock, size of rail, size of ties, spacing of ties, quality of ballast, diameter of wheels, height of rolling stock, etc. Then when you add the variable of gage, the number of variables increases further exponentially. Then add the uncertainty of predicting future growth of traffic, and making sure that whatever gage is committed to will be adequate in the future because changing the gage once committed is nearly impossible.
mudchickenTake the railcar out of state and it might not come back.(the logic of changing the gage up to 2 inches which was all that was needed for wheels to fall-in or get caught in frogs and guardrails/climb.
Am I correct then to assume that the states required railroads to build their tracks to a certain gauge?
They did. Ohio, IIRC was set at 4'-10". (just enough to cause truck hunting, guard-face and guard-check gage problems around the frogs)
I've heard of Ohio gauge but I didn't know it was for tax purposes. I thought it was the railroads themselves that didn't want to interchange cars for fear of losing their own rolling stock.
The mighty Pennsylvania RR system was 4'9" until march of 1893. I read somewhere that the Strasburg was still listed as that guage in the 1950's. Must have been a real pain changing it over.
mudchicken They did.
They did.
The Erie's six foot guage had a similar rationale.
tree68The Erie's six foot guage had a similar rationale.
Yes it did. But New York State did not want other roads to connect with the Eire for tax purposes. They wanted it to prevent the Erie from competing with the Erie Canal which the state owned.
tree68 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.
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.
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 was thinking of those long, skinny things that ply the European river/canal systems. Lake Erie on a windy day looks like the North Atlantic, and those Eurocanallers are NOT designed to deal with waves.
And then there are the canal boats that once plied the, 'Main line of public works' in Pennsylvania - separated into sections, loaded on flanged-wheel cradles, towed up the inclines by cable and pulled between cable heads by horses - later replaced by locomotives. I think the 'standard' canal barge made three carloads. Eventually they gave way to the greater speed of the more-or-less parallel PRR.
Chuck (ex-blue water sailor)
tomikawaTTAnd then there are the canal boats that once plied the, 'Main line of public works' in Pennsylvania - separated into sections, loaded on flanged-wheel cradles, towed up the inclines by cable and pulled between cable heads by horses - later replaced by locomotives. I think the 'standard' canal barge made three carloads. Eventually they gave way to the greater speed of the more-or-less parallel PRR.
That's because the State of Pennsylvania make the Pennsylvania Railroad buy its main line of public works. Then J. Edgar Thomson came along and built the horse shoe curve.
Actually I think incline planes were a Rube Goldberg invention if ever there was one.
John WR Actually I think incline planes were a Rube Goldberg invention if ever there was one.
Actually, I think they are the opposite of a Rube Goldberg invention. Goldberg machines use a complex method to do a simple task. The inclined planes like the Allegheny Portage RR used a simple method to do a complex task. Thing of beauty and a hallmark of American ingenuity if I ever seen one.
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
zugmannThe inclined planes like the Allegheny Portage RR used a simple method to do a complex task.
Well, Zugmann, I can't agree with your here. The task was complex alright. And I suppose that was the only way to cross the mountains in those days. But breaking a canal boat into three pieces, floating each into a cradle, and hauling it up a mountain by a series of engines and inclined planes strikes me as anything but simple. I mean before John Augustus Roebling brought wire rope to the country (about 1845) they had to use hempen hawsers. They broke. I see it as hard, complicated work.
John
John WR zugmannThe inclined planes like the Allegheny Portage RR used a simple method to do a complex task. The task was complex alright. And I suppose that was the only way to cross the mountains in those days. But breaking a canal boat into three pieces, floating each into a cradle, and hauling it up a mountain by a series of engines and inclined planes strikes me as anything but simple. I mean before Roebling brought steel cables to the country they had to use hempen hawsers. They broke. I see it as hard, complicated work.
The task was complex alright. And I suppose that was the only way to cross the mountains in those days. But breaking a canal boat into three pieces, floating each into a cradle, and hauling it up a mountain by a series of engines and inclined planes strikes me as anything but simple. I mean before Roebling brought steel cables to the country they had to use hempen hawsers. They broke. I see it as hard, complicated work.
But at the heart of the matter is the inclined plane. One of the simple machines. The steel cables broke, too, that's why they had the brake devices that were towed behind the cars.
zugmannBut at the heart of the matter is the inclined plane. One of the simple machines.
You don't give up easy, Zugmann. Yeah, I suppose an inclined plane is a simple machine that can help you move heavy loads with must less effort. After all, the pyramids were built using inclined planes. But I just don't see that installing and operating an inclined plane over a mountain was really all that simple. Conceptually simple, but the actual process seems more complex, at least to me.
True, it was a complex system of the use of simple machines. But it was far from a Rube Goldberg contraption...
To be a Rube Goldberg type of process it would have included: bowling balls that roll down pairs of rods to knock over a stack of dominoes to scare a bird into flying into a net that is attached to an electrical switch that will then turn on a fan to blow bubbles that a cat will swat at and in the process swish its tail to knock over a burning candle that will set fire to a fuse that will set off a firecracker that will scare a monkey into running up a ladder that will tip over when he gets to the top and release a bunch of marbles that will roll down the mountain to fill a bucket attached to a rope that will then, using a pulley, lift the barge up a short section of track.
A Rube Goldberg will use totally useless and unrelated processes to link one action to produce the desired result in a complex; And any of these processes could easily replaced with other totally useless, unrelated processes to get the same result.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
John WR zugmannBut at the heart of the matter is the inclined plane. One of the simple machines. You don't give up easy, Zugmann. Yeah, I suppose an inclined plane is a simple machine that can help you move heavy loads with must less effort. After all, the pyramids were built using inclined planes. But I just don't see that installing and operating an inclined plane over a mountain was really all that simple. Conceptually simple, but the actual process seems more complex, at least to me. John
You guys are arguing about the wrong thing, in increasingly irritating language.
The issue with planes is not whether they are more or less 'simple' or involved in construction vs. locks. It has much more to do with where the lock filling water will come from, there being relatively few high-volume springs or rivers in, say, the Northeast Pennsylvania Alleghenies.
Where grades exceeded practical adhesion working, planes survived very late indeed -- probably as late as there was an effective market for what the mines were providing.
Or look at the date on this project.
And if you want to avoid cables, it's not that darn difficult, is it? If the whole idea of canal transport hadn't been rendered more or less moot (compared to railroads) in most places in the States by the time practical rack systems with redundant brakes were being developed... or if Roebling hadn't made wire rope cost-effective in the timeframe he did... you'd have seen more of that approach, as there is no limit on the length of plane, or on the effective grade rise, that would have been used... or necessary! -- to get the job done.
And yes, there is far less involved in building an inclined plane to get a one-time elevation raise than digging locks and ditches to accomplish the same thing. Especially since careful line and surface on the 'plane' tracks were not as essential as for adhesion railroading...
American ingenuity would make breaking a typical canal boat into sections remarkably simple, and re-assembling it equally direct, particularly if the bulkheads between 'sections' were themselves caulked to be watertight. I would dearly like to see the actual methods and techniques used -- IIRC the Newcomen Society had an article on this, years ago -- but if I can think of ways to do it, I'd expect many others, motivated in part by the colossal economic advantage of canal-based transport prior to practical steam railroading, to have worked it out to their satisfaction. (There is always the fact that a shipowner's definition of 'economic' or 'practical' -- or 'to be expected of employees' -- is often different from the employees' definition. But in this case I'd expect 'ease of use' to render very real rewards with a remarkably short ROI...)
OvermodYou guys are arguing about the wrong thing, in increasingly irritating language.
Please accept my apology for "irritating language" I inadvertently used in my conversation with Zugmann.
John WR OvermodYou guys are arguing about the wrong thing, in increasingly irritating language. Please accept my apology for "irritating language" I inadvertently used in my conversation with Zugmann.
Huh? I'm not irritated. I don't think it's an argument, just a difference of opinion. And no. I don't give up easy.
as far as the inclined plane, it may have been a little complex, but Rule Goldbergs' machines were to do a real simple task in a really outlandish way. Moving freight across the mountains was not real simple, and the inclined planes cut the travel time (and trouble) considerably. In a few years, the engineering, construction and technology to cut RR grades through the mountains made the inclined planes unnecessary, but at the time, it was the best solution. That was my disagreement with the Goldberg characteristic.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inclined_plane 'Looks pretty simple to me.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
zugmannHuh? I'm not irritated.
Zugmann,
Even though you think I'm wrong I know perfectly well you are not irritated with me. I think you think that inclined planes were really an elegant solution to a task that had been at best very expensive and almost impossible to accomplish with draft animals. I'm looking at breaking those canal boats apart and getting them secured in there cradles and then winching them up part of the mountain to set them on a flat rain for the next winch. It all seems difficult and even dangerous to me.
I got my Rube Goldberg idea from Albro Martin in Railroads Triumphant.
But of course in the early 19th century it was at least reasonably possible to do that and connect Pittsburgh with Philadelphia and that was pretty important to to Philadelphia merchants.
And when you think about it the Horseshoe Curve is another example of an inclined plane negotiated with moving steam engines rather than stationary ones.
John WR zugmannHuh? I'm not irritated. Zugmann, Even though you think I'm wrong I know perfectly well you are not irritated with me. I think you think that inclined planes were really an elegant solution to a task that had been at best very expensive and almost impossible to accomplish with draft animals. I'm looking at breaking those canal boats apart and getting them secured in there cradles and then winching them up part of the mountain to set them on a flat rain for the next winch. It all seems difficult and even dangerous to me. I got my Rube Goldberg idea from Albro Martin in Railroads Triumphant. But of course in the early 19th century it was at least reasonably possible to do that and connect Pittsburgh with Philadelphia and that was pretty important to to Philadelphia merchants. And when you think about it the Horseshoe Curve is another example of an inclined plane negotiated with moving steam engines rather than stationary ones. John
Don't forget - the sectional boats also allowed them to be transported on the rails from Philly to Columbia before being dumped into the canal. Difficult and dangerous? Perhaps. But to drag wagons up and over the mountains before the Portage RR was also very difficult and dangerous (and pretty much impossible during certain times of the year).
I hope you had the opportunity to visit the Allegheny Portage RR historic site. If you never did, it's worth the visit. NPS did a great job there.
Difficult and dangerous? Heck, everything was dangerous.
Difficult? Yeah, but boats built to be taken apart wouldn't be a major problem. Time wasn't really an issue (what's a day if the whole trip will be measured in weeks?), and manpower wasn't a problem either, even if they were only getting pennies a day.
They built what they knew how to build.
Modern Incline plane/railroad for carrying barges:
http://englishrussia.com/2011/08/09/the-job-of-vessel-carrying/#more-63002
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.
As impressive as the incline carriage was, I was blown away by the incline plane turntable.
Just an aside here: The Jersey Central operated the Ashley Planes in Pennsylvania until the late '40s hauling coal hopper cars "up-up-up from the Valley of Anthracite" as shown in the the promotional film "Big Little Railroad".
Not having purchased any new locomotives since 1930 the Jersey Central was considering buying "Challenger" type steam locomotives in the immediate post-war years. They went with EMD F-3's instead. The pulling power of the F-3's are what finally caused the closure of the Planes.
zugmannI hope you had the opportunity to visit the Allegheny Portage RR historic site. If you never did, it's worth the visit. NPS did a great job there.
No, I never have vistited the Alegheny Portage Railroad historic site. But I will keep your suggestion in mind.
As I look back to reading Albro Martin's book I think he may have been referring to building a railroad and two canals rather than just the railroad. When the Broad Way of Public Works or Main Line of Public Works (I've seen both names for it) was built railroads were clearly possible and adequate to the task because the Philadelphia and Columbia Railroad was actually used. So perhaps Martin refers to using a railroad and two canals rather than the Allegheny Portage Railroad.
One thing is very clear: A lock canal over the Alleghenies was not considered.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.