Sorry, in my rush to post the above, I omitted that the Romans' pre-fabrication would have gone hand in hand with standardisation of dimesnions, materials etc .
Hwyl,
Martin.
Something I was never taught at school in my Latin course (and only recently discovered on one of the History Channel programmes) was that the Romans were very skilled at pre-fabricating all the paraphernalia they would undoubedly need when planning an invasion such as that of Britain. I undestand they went as far as pre-fabricating the wooden walls they'd need for a quick build fort on a defensive position, and it follows that they might well bring over their own pre-fabricated wagons to carry their war materiel in the support of the campaign.
History is invariably created by the victors, so the dimensions of their standardised wagons might have been adopted by the native cartwrights and wainwrights in Britain at that time (certainly if they knew what would be best for them !! ).
In this way, a standard gauge for wagons in England, Scotland, and Wales, of around 5 feet from the outside of one wheel to the outside of the other might have come about.
Much later, plateways were constructed, whereby lengths of angle iron were laid on stone blocks, such that the horizontal section bore the weight and the vertical section kept the wagon wheels from straying from the "track" thus bringing about a gauge of around 56 inches when those wagon wheel were later built with a fange on the inner side.
Just a thought.
ah the resion that we Drive on the left apparently is because of this Jousting knights with their lances under their right arm naturally passed on each other's right, and if you passed a stranger on the road you walked on the left to ensure that your protective sword arm was between yourself and him.
much like the distance between the two side in the houses of Parliament is two swords leanths apart
Apologies in advance for any use of UK RailRoad Terms
"there is the wrong way the Right way and then there is Great western railway Way"
zardoz jeffhergert zardoz And when we figure out this issue, we can begin to discuss the origins of the C&NW's left-handed (on double track) operations. Because the current of traffic on Roman chariot roads was left handed. Jeff That was a good one - I'd never heard THAT variation!
jeffhergert zardoz And when we figure out this issue, we can begin to discuss the origins of the C&NW's left-handed (on double track) operations. Because the current of traffic on Roman chariot roads was left handed. Jeff
zardoz And when we figure out this issue, we can begin to discuss the origins of the C&NW's left-handed (on double track) operations.
And when we figure out this issue, we can begin to discuss the origins of the C&NW's left-handed (on double track) operations.
Because the current of traffic on Roman chariot roads was left handed.
Jeff
Johnny
Bucyrus When I first heard the story about standard gage originating with the Roman chariots, there was no mention of any connection with horse butts. I think that is a more recent concoction just to add a little humor and perhaps ridicule. We like to think of railroad standard gage as a vaunted achievement built on great engineering deliberation, so there is a smug sense of humorous put-down to say it was based on the width of a horse’s “A.”
When I first heard the story about standard gage originating with the Roman chariots, there was no mention of any connection with horse butts. I think that is a more recent concoction just to add a little humor and perhaps ridicule. We like to think of railroad standard gage as a vaunted achievement built on great engineering deliberation, so there is a smug sense of humorous put-down to say it was based on the width of a horse’s “A.”
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
First - to drop a couple of facts into the discussion - don't you hate it when somebody does that?
By Roman times the war chariot was as obsolete as the battlecruiser is today. Alexander the Great worked out the pike pocket maneuver, and the effectiveness of the chariot as a weapon promptly dropped to a close approximation of zero. Roman chariots were racing and sports vehicles, and probably were about as sandardized as Indy cars were just after WWI.
The colliery where Stephenson worked used a track gauge of four feet, eight inches. Stephenson retained the wheel/axle geometry, but eased the gauge by 1/2 inch since the proposed passenger and goods wagons would be longer than mine carts and he wanted to avoid flange binding.
There really were quite a few horse-drawn vehicles designed to standard gauge - but mostly because that was the gauge those city streetcar lines had already adopted.
Why did everyone except Brunel jump on the 1435mm gauge bandwagon? They all believed in that old mechanic's axiom, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
(So did the Japanese engineers who built the Shinkansen - to the same gauge.)
Chuck
The photos of several teams of draft horses hitched to wagons on the webpage linked below - Eastern Connecticut Draft Horse Association's "Draft Horse Breeds" - support my contention that the width of the horses' butts had nothing to do with the gage of the wheels or runners - for any combination of horses, it could be almost any dimension other than 4 ft. 8-1/2 inches:
http://www.easternctdrafthorse.com/draftbreeds.html
Instead, the wheels were established at that gage most likely for ancient historical and precedential reasons - i.e., "That's how it's always been, so we can't change it now".
- Paul North.
Murphy Siding Was there a standard for the width of a horse's butt?
Was there a standard for the width of a horse's butt?
The next time I'm near a few congressmen I'll take some measurements
Have fun with your trains
John WR Paul of Covington This answers my last two questions, but it still doesn't explain why Stephenson or any other builders would care what the Romans did. George Stephenson was a mechanic, an unlettered man. I doubt very much he was thinking about Roman Chariots. He had worked around mines all of his life. I suspect he choose the most common and practical gauge he knew in his own experience. For many years the British had used draft animals to haul coal cars on rails from the mine to the port. However, due to poor crops oats were becoming expensive. Also, draft animals had to be fed and cared for whether they worked or not and there had to be employees to handle the draft animals. The mine owners were looking to cut costs. By 1800 steam pumping engines were well known to them but those engines were too big and heavy to use on a locomotive. Boulton and Watt produced the best steam engines of the day but those were low pressure engines. Different people began to experiment with higher pressures. I think Richard Trevethick was the first and there were others. When Stephenson won at the Rainhill Trials he became the the leading manufacturer of steam locomotives in Britain.
Paul of Covington This answers my last two questions, but it still doesn't explain why Stephenson or any other builders would care what the Romans did.
George Stephenson was a mechanic, an unlettered man. I doubt very much he was thinking about Roman Chariots. He had worked around mines all of his life. I suspect he choose the most common and practical gauge he knew in his own experience.
For many years the British had used draft animals to haul coal cars on rails from the mine to the port. However, due to poor crops oats were becoming expensive. Also, draft animals had to be fed and cared for whether they worked or not and there had to be employees to handle the draft animals. The mine owners were looking to cut costs. By 1800 steam pumping engines were well known to them but those engines were too big and heavy to use on a locomotive. Boulton and Watt produced the best steam engines of the day but those were low pressure engines. Different people began to experiment with higher pressures. I think Richard Trevethick was the first and there were others. When Stephenson won at the Rainhill Trials he became the the leading manufacturer of steam locomotives in Britain.
The story is not that Stevenson (or anyone associated with the building of what, today, we call RailRoads)picked the gauge based on Roman Chariots, but that those, like him, relied on already present trackage laid for use in mining and horse drawn carriage ways and how THOSE chose the distance between the rails. The whole idea is that it was pre-determined by the spacing necessary to get the wheels out of the way of the horses hooves and provide a stable chariot for the Romans.
But this was discussed (and cussed and diss'd) a long time ago on a forum and someone from England researched the remaining Roman roads in the area and measured the distance between the ruts and stated that they were NOT 4-ft 8.5-in. Further, people from Italy also did the same and again found that the "gauge" varied quite a bit.
Then people from Greece did the same and found ruts in an ancient Grecian Market place where the distances between the ruts WERE very close to 4-ft 8.5-in. They also reported places where there were diverging routes that included a sort of "frog" shape where the ruts crossed and the shape seemed to have been purposely carved (not just the result of many carts going that way). In the market place were areas where the single "track" (of twin ruts) had "passing sidings". It was explained that the market was for "Pedestrians ONLY" during daylight hours and the vendors were re-supplied via carts in the wee hours of the morning when there was little light and the ruts in the paving were to keep carts going where they were supposed to go, to keep them from running into stalls, and/or getting "lost" in the huge area. The "passing sidings" were to allow exiting empty cars to be parked to stay out of the way of heavy laden incoming carts of goods.
I wish that web forum was still around (and I could remember which one it was). I considered at the time saving the whole thread, but we-all didn't understand that forums were not permanent fixtures on that new-fangled technology called the Internet.
Since I was a kid I've heard about the RR guage being based on the Roman chariots, and I've always wondered why it was important to make the gauge the same as the Romans did, why the Romans thought it important to standardize the wheel spacing, and how we knew what the spacing was. In recent years, I have heard about what tatans mentioned, that they had raised walkways crossing the roads and built gaps in them for the wheels to pass. This answers my last two questions, but it still doesn't explain why Stephenson or any other builders would care what the Romans did. It's an interesting story to tell kids, though.
As far as horses' butts, I don't see why the wheel spacing matters much. As long as the harness and related gear fits the horse(s), the wheels can be any spacing as long as it's not so narrow as to be unstable or so wide that it restricts mobility. I kinda think the choice of RR gauge was pretty much arbitrary, and if it was based on mining carts, then that was pretty much arbitrary.
_____________
"A stranger's just a friend you ain't met yet." --- Dave Gardner
4' 9'' was the width of cart track ruts in Pompeii when we visited (I measured them) it was not the ruts as much as the distance between the stepping stones across the street, they must have had some standards as to wheel distance but they had to fit between the stepping stones, if anyone has ever travelled on a deep rutted dirt road, you can put one side in the rut and the other out of the rut, otherwise the ruts will get so deep you will bottom out, as long as the Romans were cruising the country they could put there wheels anywhere but to get through a town or village they MUST fit between the stepping stones. so I'm sticking with this premise. check the streets in Pompeii on google maps and it (sort of) makes sense.
Now, if this was ever the standard used to gauge railway tracks- - I'm not sure.
Murphy SidingThat's true, but the chariots would have had one thing in common- being pulled by a horse. Was there a standard for the width of a horse's butt?
First off, Murphy, this is a legend I have heard for many years. But I really cannot vouch for the accuracy of it.
However, I suspect in the Roman army there was a standard for the width of a horse's butt. When I was in the Army there were standards for height and weight of soldiers. I would think that when they used draft animals the army would have similar standards.
John
Now, I have an assignment for anyone who's so bold and intrepid as to undertake it: Go find a representative example of said horse(s) butts (the actual ones, not the political or management kinds ,etc.), and measure its/ their width(s). Try not to get kicked in the process . . . (Sadly, a pony's kick killed a kid just that way a few days ago in central Pennsylvania.)
Instinct, experience, and judgment are telling me that no single horse butt is anywhere near as wide as 4'-8-1/2", not even in the draft horse class (Clydesdales, Percherons, Belgians, Shires, etc.). But, I also anticipate it is equally unlikely that 2 horses will fit comfortably side by side into the 4'-8-1/2" space when allowing for working clearance, the harness gear, etc. Anybody know for sure ?
Bucyrus Was there a standard for the width of a horse's butt
I'll let you know as soon as she gets home from the store.....
Murphy Siding tdmidgetNo one has established that chariots were standardized so this theory is just crap. That's true, but the chariots would have had one thing in common- being pulled by a horse. Was there a standard for the width of a horse's butt?
tdmidgetNo one has established that chariots were standardized so this theory is just crap.
That's true, but the chariots would have had one thing in common- being pulled by a horse. Was there a standard for the width of a horse's butt?
I think that's getting into a gray area.
tdmidget No one has established that chariots were standardized so this theory is just crap. Chariots would have been entirely hand made over the huge range of the roman empire and there no standards of accurate measure. A society measuring with "spans" and "cubits" and such could not have been able to produce a standardized object like a chariot. So , which chariot would it be?
No one has established that chariots were standardized so this theory is just crap. Chariots would have been entirely hand made over the huge range of the roman empire and there no standards of accurate measure. A society measuring with "spans" and "cubits" and such could not have been able to produce a standardized object like a chariot. So , which chariot would it be?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
The legend I've always heard it that the Roman chariots were drawn by 2 horses and built to the dimensions of two horses standing next to each other. That is why their wheels were about 4 1/2 feet apart. Of course this does not explain small discrepancies and I suppose there is a certain arbitrariness in 4 feet 8 1/2 inches.
Semper Vaporo I have seen this argument for years and years. I have some books published in the 1880' and 1890's that tell essentially the same story about Roman chariots, so it has been around a LONG time. Personally, I contend the "odd" dimension is the result of a redefinition of how to measure gauge. I think that the original gauge was exactly 5 feet. But that was measured from center of rail to center of rail (just like how studs in a wall are measured, or balusters on a railing, or any other sets of parallel thicknesses). If you take that 5 feet and subtract one half of the width of each rail (or the width of 1 rail) you will find that the answer is pretty close to the "standard" of 4' 8.5", depending on what width rail MIGHT have been in use when someone realize that the only important measurement is the distance between the rails, not the center to center measurement. If you use the inner edge to inner edge measurement then you can make the actual rail any width you need (for weight support, strength, etc.) and still maintain compatibility with any other track used by the same axle/wheel set.
I have seen this argument for years and years. I have some books published in the 1880' and 1890's that tell essentially the same story about Roman chariots, so it has been around a LONG time.
Personally, I contend the "odd" dimension is the result of a redefinition of how to measure gauge. I think that the original gauge was exactly 5 feet. But that was measured from center of rail to center of rail (just like how studs in a wall are measured, or balusters on a railing, or any other sets of parallel thicknesses).
If you take that 5 feet and subtract one half of the width of each rail (or the width of 1 rail) you will find that the answer is pretty close to the "standard" of 4' 8.5", depending on what width rail MIGHT have been in use when someone realize that the only important measurement is the distance between the rails, not the center to center measurement. If you use the inner edge to inner edge measurement then you can make the actual rail any width you need (for weight support, strength, etc.) and still maintain compatibility with any other track used by the same axle/wheel set.
That's the most plausable explanation I've yet heard, and it makes sense. 4'8" between railheads just made it easier to measure and eventually become known as.
Norm
Standard gauge exists out of chance more than anything
OK the most basic origin to standard gauge is this, George Stephenson first successful locomotive for the Stockton and Darlington was built to match the EXISTING coal mine tramway gauge that the sponsers of the competition owned, and that was in all probability built to match the existing flanged cart wheels that the horse team would pull. That distance was at the whim of who ever the original cart builder for the line was and what standards he employed, but for the most part it had more to do with building to the accepted customs of a road carriage or wagon wide of the time, being enough to comfortably sit 2 side by side, but narrow enough not to be bother on the narrow roads of the time. It could very easily have been anything from 4'6" to 5'. Stephenson simply didn't want to bother with recreating something that for him worked well with his successful design, so any new orders he received he simply copied the S&D chassis, wheel gauge included and the buyers would be responsible for adjusting their track gauge to match, but given that the majority of his work was building the from-scratch Liverpool & Manchester and other new lines, the builders agreed to accept the product Stephenson was providing. Other later manufacturers simply matched the gauge as that was what already being built and they wanted to get into the game. It wasn't until Isambard Kingdom Brunel said "wider is better and built the broad gauge Great Western RR did anyone seriously challenge the acceptance of standard gauge.
I agree that they would not have begun with standardized the gage of non-track wheeled wagons or chariots. However, if they ran on roads surfaced with laid stone; and if they eventually cut ruts in the stone; then you would have what amounts to a railroad. At that point the rut spacing would amount to a gage. And from then on, you would have to build wagons to match that gage.
Of course, the ruts would have developed according to a variety of wheel spacing, but as time when by, a natural consensus would have developed as to what spacing was the most common. And then the ruts would have tighted up their variation.
And measuring units would not have been a problem because all they had to do is match the ruts. That was the measuring unit.
Only the chicken that crossed the road knew for sure and he didn't fare well on the return trip. This chicken doesn't know, but was also told the story about the wheel flange was originally on the other side of the rail with 5'-0" being the outside dimension.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.