Talk:Project Unigauge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject India / Railways (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Railways in India workgroup (marked as Low-importance).
 
WikiProject Trains (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon
P train.svg
Trains Portal
DYK November 26, 2009
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Note icon
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
 

Why 1,676 mm (5ft. 6in.) ?[edit]

Just seems like a strange number to me. Maybe they thought 1524 wasn't enough of an improvement over the standard 4 feet, 8.5 inches. Fair enough. But then why not a nice round figure like six feet or two meters? (Too big? I dunno...I'd say that up to a point, bigger is better. Better stability, more freight and passenger carrying capacity.) But I'm just a layperson; what do I know? (It may be of interest to note that BART — the (San Francisco) Bay Area Rapid Transit system — also uses this 5 foot, 6 inch gauge.) Captain Quirk (talk) 02:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

1676 allows 9 inches more space between the wheels for inside cylinders and the larger firebox needed for poor quality Indian coal. 1524 is too small a difference to be worth changing. Also 1676 had already been used in Spain and briefly in Scotland, and perhaps the Indian Governor-General was Scottish? Choosing 1676 made some equipment off the shelf, though India eventually made all its own. Tabletop (talk) 05:56, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Captain Quirk (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
BTW, odd gauges like 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in) imply precision such as +/- 0.25" leading to safety, where as round gauges imply precision of +/- 6" leading to derailments. Tabletop (talk) 06:01, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
Heh heh! <grin> That's an interesting theory, and I see your point (and it reminds me of my high school chemistry class 24 years ago where my teacher discussed the topic of precision and the concept of +/- half the unit of measurement), but in this context, I don't buy it. Any engineer designing railways and rolling stock would know that precision is of vital importance, regardless of the actual gauge. But thanks for replying to my question. Captain Quirk (talk) 12:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
One Swedish railway measured their gauge wrong when they built their tracks and had to order engines and wagons to a special gauge to suit. Italy measured its gauge(s) from the middle of the rail head leading to odd gauges such as 950mm instead of 1000mm. People don't always understand gauges. Tabletop (talk) 00:09, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
BTW, railway workman do not measure gauges with a tape measure, they measure it with a special caliper-like stick (gauge) preset at the correct value.
If you trawl though old newspapers, you sometimes come across articles with wrong gauges in them, say 5' 6" for South Australia when in fact it is 5' 3". Metre gauge 1000 is sometimes referred to as 3' 3". Tabletop (talk) 10:33, 25 June 2012 (UTC)
While some people are 4' 8½" tall, this length is normally only used for rail gauges. Tabletop (talk) 01:45, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
Tabletop said: "...1676 allows 9 inches more space between the wheels for inside cylinders and the larger firebox needed for poor quality coal...". Am I missing something or are they really building 1000's of km's of heritage railroad? If they'd use it for commercial traffic why not to use the std 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in) which would allow run-thru's to other countries too (except places like Russia and Africa)...?!
Also, as long as someone uses other than metric, I would not say the word "precision" out loud.
dj (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
The wider gauge is also said to be more stable in high winds and earthquakes (see BART ) However toppled over trains are rare. Tabletop (talk) 10:41, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

James Broun-Ramsay, 1st Marquess of Dalhousie[edit]

The Governor-General of India under whom the railways started was born in Scotland, where there had been some early short railways of 1676.

Dalhousie was G-G between 1848 and 1856.

Indian railways choose its gauge in ????

Indian railways opened for traffic in 1853.

See Scotch gauge.

Tabletop (talk) 06:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Unigauge progress[edit]

Route kilometres [1]

Year 1676 1000 762 610
1992 40,000 27,342 3,555 2,222
2000 42,000 15,555 3,000 1,111
2005 44,000 12,999 2,555 1,050
2008 49,819 10,621 2,885 0,000

Unigauge progress 2[edit]

Route kilometres [2] [3]

Year 1676 1000 762 610
1960 40,000 24,630 2,700 1,000
1992 40,819 10,621 2,700 1,000
2000 42,000 17,000 2,700 1,000
2009 44,000 12,999 2,700 1,000
2010 49,819 10,621 2,200 0,500
2014 55,555 05,000 1,200 0,500
  • Does not include small lengths of Mixed Gauge.
  • Probably does not include metro lines, some of which are 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 12 in).

References[edit]

Map[edit]

The above undated map shows only some metre and narrow gauge line being converted to broad gauge.

Perhaps when this work is done a new map will be issued for the next stage.

A few lines such as those to Ooty and Shima and Darjeeling will never be converted.

Tabletop (talk) 05:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

100 meters long railroads!?[edit]

I think someone has something messed up. If you look the Alipurduar track length for instance, it says 93 m, which is not even 100 meters!! Is it just that someone forgot to use km's or are there something else wrong with those numbers too? dj (talk) 21:44, 22 November 2009 (UTC)