Talk:Track gauge

Advantages of Various Gauges

This article never clearly says the advantages or disadvantages of having a wide or narrow gauge. Perhaps it should.

Also, this article says that many high speed lines use standard gauge, even in places where standard gauge is not standard. It would be nice to know why.

I'd add this material, but I don't know these answers myself. Kitplane01 07:49, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I have added an explanation near the beginning of the article. Biscuittin (talk) 17:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Moving Gauge List

This page is really long with the list of gauges. I think we should move the list to its own page, List of Rail Gauges. Also, the Grand Funk Railroad external link is broken. I removed it until someone finds a better link. --- AeroIllini (talk) | 17:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Overview

I heard the reason why Britain adopted the 4 feet 8½ in standard was because it was based on the system of Roman roads, which had used the same width. The 4 feet 8½ in standard is the same width of two horses used to pull a chariot. Should this be mentioned in the article? Iam 07:20, Apr 22, 2004 (UTC)

This is an urban legend / half-truth. Chariots and horse-drawn carriages/wagons had varying axle lengths, but they tended towards a natural average based on equine and human proportions. Early railways tended to pick a size for wagons that was about the size of a horse-drawn road wagon (sensibly, since they were still horse-drawn) and they had gauges of all dimensions from 3 feet to 6 feet, but a gauges somewhere between 4 and 5 feet were most common. The gauge of 4 feet 8 inches (the half inch was later added to give some room for play) just happened to have been that used on the colliery railways that George Stephenson gained his early experience on, and given his and his son's pivotal influence on the Liverpool & Manchester Railway and other early British railways, this gauge became the standard. —Morven 07:37, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Half-truth? Is that the same as being half pregnant? :) Iam 00:37, Apr 23, 2004 (UTC)

I believe this 'two horses patoots' story may have been propagated into popular culture by James Burke's Connections (TV series). I remember him telling the tail ;) Rdhamouris 16:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

George Stephenson had helped engineer quite a number of tram lines before being appointed to engineer the first proper railway, the Liverpool and Manchester. He had also built about 50 engines before even the Rocket. All these engines and lines would have been built to a common satisfactory gauge. By the time the L&M was opened several interconnecting railways were being developed, and these had to be the same gauge. Even planned railways that were temporarily isolated from the L&M system were often engineered by Stephenson or by people trained by Stephenson. Stephenson also trained many of the people who went on to build many of the other early railways in other countries, and they adopted the Stephenson gauge as well, particularly as these lines interconnected with the L&M, or would do so soon after.

The pressure to conform to the standard gauge was very, very strong.

Brunel who introduced the disasterous Broad gauge, followed his own and his father's independent thinking. Brunel wasted the broad gauge by not building say wider carriages.

In 2004, 60% of the world's railways are standard gauge, which demonstrates the value of a uniform gauge, and also demonstrates that the original choice of 4 foot 8.5 inches has been a lucky one, not too narrow and not too wide. In about 2005, Panama converted to Standard gauge as part of upgrade work. In 2006, Peru and Nigeria intend to convert to standard gauge as part of rehabilitation, and in the case of Peru, with the impetus of a possible very expensive tunnel.

Railways can be light duty or heavy duty depending on the weight of the rails and strength of the sleepers and formation. This is largely independent of gauge. It is possible to have very light and cheap standard gauge lines, and on the other hand to have very expensive heavy duty narrow gauge lines such as in South Africa and Queensland. If railways were started again, there would be only two main gauges: 4' 8.5" (1435mm) light and heavy duty, and say 2' 0" (610mm)for cane trams, mountain trains, temporary, military, construction work, and other very light uses.

I know that it is often stated that 4´8" was standard BUT I have seen it claimed that the first edition of Encyclopedica Britannica stated that 4´6" was standard. I know for a fact that many early quarry railways was 4´6" or 7´. (4´8.5" was an adaption used to give some nessecary play between flange and rail.) Seniorsag 17:43, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Loading gauges

Is it worth mentioning wagon widths in the article? For example I understand that a French carriage would hit the platforms in England despite being the same gauge, so Eurostar needs special variable steps. --Henrygb 00:22, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You need to look up Jane's World Railways ([1]) for information about the width of carriages and the height of platforms, etc. British carriages are considerably smaller than French ones, at least 300mm narrower.

Loading gauge is a more complicated subject even than that. Prior to mergers/nationalisation, different British railways had different loading gauges, which leads to problems operating preserved steam locomotives even today: e.g. the GWR locomotive used for the Harry Potter movies had problems with the platforms on the line in Scotland used for filming.

These days, I believe, there is a common British standard and a common European standard, and likewise for most other interlinked rail networks. However, there are still individual lines that differ, especially those which do not interchange with other networks. It's also not unheard of for locomotives or stock that do not interchange to exceed interchange standards for loading gauge - good example are Channel Tunnel shuttle trains. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:18, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

The article needs early on to mention running- and loading-gauges and the difference between them. Indeed, there is an argument for a disambiguation-page to distinguish these two types of gauge, and for a renaming of this page as rail(way) running gauge.

The above mentioned discussion really belongs to the Loading gauge article and there is where these issues should be mentioned and discussed. Peter Horn 14:09, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Standards other than track gauge

Henrygb might like to note the following:

To run a unified system, the following are important.

• Loading gauge (width and height of carriages)
• Platform gauge, part of stucture gauge.
• Structure gauge.
• Couplings between carriages (buffer and hook couplings are quite compatible).
  • See Coupling (railway).
• Wheel flange profiles
  • Oh please, a Swedish standard gauge train rides quite nicely on Canadian standard gage track, see Hull-Chelsea-Wakefield Railway([2]) any difference in wheel & flange profile is a non problem. The only time that the flange profile becomes an issue is the moment that mainline equipment enters tramway track and the rail grooves are too narrow. This issue is quite nicely discussed in nl:Verschil tussen trein- en tramspoor Peter Horn 16:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes they can ride on different profiles BUT not well. (BTW, I think that Canadian and European mainline wheel profiles are the same.) Between some profiles the only problem is increased wear. In Stockholm they tried running with underground profile on a suburban railway but the flange wear was so excessive that after a few years the flanges started splitting the points. There is also the point that if flanges are to narrow there is a fair chance that the checkrail will not steer the flange right in the frog, danger maybe overblown but noted. Tred-with also makes for problems in selfguarded frogs. Flange-depth is a problem at flangerolling frogs. Wrong conicity makes unsteady running at speeed (maximum stable speed drops quite a bit), which have caused problems with overheating when transfeering underground vagons with underground profiles on mainline tracks. (London underground uses mainline profiles.) In short, small deviations are generally acceptable for slow freight and short distances but for good running rail and wheel profiles should be matched. Seniorsag 13:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Braking systems.
  • See Air brake (rail) & Vacuum brake.
• Electrification systems.
  • See Overhead lines & Third rail.
• Signalling.
  • See Railway signal.
• Communications Equipment.
• Rules and regulations.
• Language for control and safety functions.

Syd1435 10:34, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

See below. Peter Horn 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

• Couplings between carriages, Height, buffer width (Buffer and hook is easy to make compatible while central couplings are VERY picky. Central couplings to hook and buffer sometimes works fine (Finland to former USSR!)). Also for passenger carriages: gangway (height, whith, type).
• Wheel AND flange profiles. Wrong detail can damage both wheels and track and can cause derailment. In Stockholm one engeneer was proud since he managed to define a wheelprofile that worked on all the standard gauge tracks in Stockholm (Underground, tram, surburban and mainline including harbour).
• Electrification systems. Not only Volt and DC/AC-frequency but also type of overhead (or third(and fourth) rail) wire. That can be quite a problem. Different wirehanging means different pantographs. Some trains running under the same voltage and frequency still needs two different pantographs but can link home on the other if one breaks.
• Platforms gauge. Passanger and freight, two different.

Seniorsag 17:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"Different wirehanging means different pantographs." ??? Not really! Also, I have added links to Syd1435 10:34, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC) comments above. Peter Horn 14:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yes it does. You can run with the wrong pantograph but it can cause excessive wear. Swiss railways used another wirehanging system than Germany and through tranins had doubble pantographs. There is also some problems with mixing different running surfaces on the pantographs but you usually wear out the old ones when changing but untill all are changed you do not get the full advantage of the new surface. Seniorsag 13:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Excuse, I forgot uptrust from pantograph. Too low and you get bad contact with bounces and arching, too high and you lift the contact line too high. On the inaguration train on Ofoten line they had both pantographs ut since the king was aboard and lifted the catenary to the tunnelroof. Train stopped for quite a while. Seniorsag 15:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Map?

It would be great if this article had a map. It could show the gauge of various regions as well as national borders where rail networks are disconnected, such as Iran-Pakistan. Any creative, time-rich people out there? Seabhcán 09:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I've started work on this by collecting information on international rail connections: User:Seabhcan/RailMap. Please help out. Seabhcán 09:51, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The articles such as Transport in Iran generally list border connections and their gauges. Links allow you to jump across the border easily. Tabletop 05:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Britain

Must say I object to the inclusion of Ireland underneath the header 'Britain' User:fiachs

How would you feel about 'British Isles' instead of 'Britain'? Murray Langton 21:38, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like the best solution to me, personally. Matthew Brown (Morven) (T:C) 23:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

1600mm

Isn't 1600mm rail also used in parts of Australia and Brazil as well as the island of Ireland? --Kiand 23:22, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

1600mm is known as "Irish gauge". Used in Brazil, Australia (Victoria, South Australia, Tasmania for a while), Germany (Badische Staatsbahn), all of Ireland (except for 3' 0" lines), New Zealand (now uses 3' 6"), UK (Northern Ireland), USA (Altoona).

A problem with 5' 6" is that it is too similar to 4' 8.5" to allow decent and safe third rail dual gauge, which would have helped solve the break of gauge problem. The debate about this lasted four decades before it collapsed in a heap of rancour. 5' 6" or 6' 0" would have been better choices. Tabletop (talk) 05:31, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

1500 mm

Break-of-gauge indicates that Russia and former Soviet Union countries use a 1500 mm gauge; I think this is correct, but have not been able to find a definitive source (especially one that would list in details which former Soviet republics use this gauge). Does anyone has more information ? Schutz 22:00, 10 October 2005 (UTC) JANE'S WORLD RAILWAYS (hard copy) is always a good source. --Peter Horn 03:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

All former Soviet republics, Finland and Mongolia use the 1520/1524 mm gauge (the difference of 4 mm is insignificant). — Monedula 06:06, 11 October 2005 (UTC). 1524mm is the exact conversion of 5 feet 0 inches.

I think it should be noted, that originally the Russian gauge was just 5 feet. At some point the Soviet standard was changed to 1520mm, but in practice many lines still have 1524mm gauge. In Finland the original standard is still in force. The break of gauge between the two countries is thus purely formal. - Beil 22:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

The difference 1524/1520 mm is the same as 1432/1435 mm, ie less play needed with better control of tolerances. Some of the difference casn also be different conversion between metric and imperial messaures.Seniorsag 13:09, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

1520mm is 1524mm rou rounded to the nearest 10mm. Both ammount to 5' 0". Tabletop (talk) 04:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

1432 mm/1435 mm

(Hong Kong) If the difference between 1520/1524 mm does not pose a problem to thru running, what "problem" needs to be "solved" between 1432/1435 mm? Why would the 3 mm between 1432/1435 be any more "significant" than the 4 mm between 1520/1524 --Peter Horn 03:03, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

If two gauges are within 1/4 inch, about 6mm, then they are effectively the same.

It looks like no one has fixed this problem...now the Hong Kong section contradicts itself. At first it says "there's a problem; Hong Kong trains have to run slower on standard gauge tracks" but a sentence or two later it says "there's no problem at all" (I'm paraphrasing, that's what the meaning seems to be to me). Someone want to clear that up? Foxmulder 16:10, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

If you allow for some wear and tear on the wheels and rails, a 6mm or 1/4 inch difference is immaterial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabletop (talk • contribs)

Rail gauge#Iberian peninsula

Not even 8 mm or 5/16" seems to have made any difference. Time to "clean up" Rail gauge#Hong Kong.

Peter Horn 16:50, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

No!, this is the first time that I have seen mentioned why through trains had to slow down on the other network. The difference is big enough to make for troubble since it is different aimpoints. It is one thing to tighten tolerances but another thing to change aimpoint.Seniorsag 13:20, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

There is something missing from the article. Spain (in the Iberian Peninsula) uses broad gauge (most common) and standard gauge (for high-speed trains), but ALSO narrow gauge in certain train lines in north Spain (Galicia, Asturias, Cantabria, Basque Country, and north Castile-Leon) and some in the south (Murcia). There is even a wikipedia article about it: FEVE 62.172.234.2 11:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Alf

Model Railroads

Does anyone know the gauges for Model Railroads, and how they are determined? Also, is it possible to upload a chart displaying the tracks that each gauge of model train uses? trekker767

See Model railroading#Scales and gauges and Category:Model railroad scales

Kaliningrad has 1524 ?

Why is it written that Kaliningrad has 1524 mm and rest of Russia 1520 ? I think it is very logic that they have same as rest of Russia, since the network in the Kaliningrad are was rebuilt from 1435 mm (German standard). It was heavily destroyed in the war anyway. Why should they rebuild with anything else than Russian standard ? The source stated is not perfect, it states that "All of those ports, including Kaliningrad and Baltisk, are served by the Russian 1,524 mm gauge railway system.". But Russia has 1520 mm, hasn't they ? /BIL 10:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

1524mm is the exact conversion of 5 feet +/- quarter of an inch. 1520mm is within that quarter of an inch tolerance. When quoted in mm, gauges seem to be more precise than when quoted in mm. Remember than on sharp curves less than say 200m radius, gauge can be widened by 25mm. The moral is not to fuss about the nearest millimetre. Tabletop 11:29, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The author of the document stated as source most likely do not know the difference between 1520mm and 1524mm. If I recall correctly 1524mm is the old Russian Empire gauge. After the revolution the railway gauge was changed to 1520mm. Finland has 1524mm because it was part of Russia when the railways were built there but not after Russia/USSR changed gauge. As stated, they are compatible. /Samuel

Origin of miniature gauges

If standard gauge is derived from Roman chariots hauled by two horses, could miniature gauges such as 2' 0" be derived from vehicles hauled by a single horse, or by men in a mine?

Tabletop 02:51, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Basically yes, although you are really referring to the origins of narrow gauge railways. Miniature railways are a different thing altogether. The first recorded railways were mine railways in Germany and Eastern Europe, dating back as far as 1556. The De re metallica of that year shows a hand-powered mine railway of about 24 gauge in what is now the Czech Republic. This is, as far as I know, the earliest known railway. Gwernol 02:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

But the article says that standard gauge is not derived from the roman chariots, so what point does the question have? Philip J. Rayment 10:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

There is some debate about the whole "Roman Chariots" theory. I consider it an urban myth. There are some Roman chariotways with ruts around 5ft apart, but there are others with ruts less than 3 ft apart. The rail gauge of 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) or 56 is coincidental since like Roman chariots the early wagonways were horse drawn. I think the point of the question is there are two "natural" sizes for non-locomotive powered railways, somewhere between 4 ft and 5 ft for horse-drawn wagons and around 2 ft for hand-powered wagons. This is pretty much true. Gwernol 14:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Small gauge differences.

The disccussion about 1520/1524 and 1432/1435 is sometimes missing that originally railgauge was the same as distance between flanges (4´8´´) but with better crossties the rails stayed where put so they had to add half an inch for play. Later with better control of wheels and rail and reliasitation of widening out on curves they shrank the nominal gauge a few mm. If you take it easy you can have quite a difference in gauge, some US trains ran through from 5´ to 4´8.5´´ but they had trouble with some derailments when takilg points at speed.

Quite often 2´ and 600mm works together (but not always).

Seniorsag 17:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

What is your source for saying that trains ran thru between 1435 mm and 1524 mm? This would have meant unusually wide grooves at switches and crossovers. If what you say is really true then running thru between 1435 mm & 1495 mm (Toronto track gauge) would also be possible. In either case it woud be the standard gauge train that would run thru.

Peter Horn 13:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

My source is a book about railway accidents and it mentions the fact as a cause for the frequent derailments in that area. I will see if I can find the book again.

Seniorsag 16:40, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Immage

thumb|320px|Spurweite bei Eisenbahnschienen Can someone incorporate this immage from the German Wiki & at the same time translate the text within the immage? Peter Horn 13:43, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistent heading "Commonwealth of Nations (Former British Empire)"

This heading is inconsistently used, the African Commonwealth countries are listed separately, though their rail networks were British-built. Also, if the aim is to group countries inheriting British-built networks, most of north-east Africa (Egypt and Sudan) are not 'Commonwealth of Nations' but are 'Former British Empire'. I suggest doing away with it and grouping all countries by continent, noting under each country if it inherited a British-built system.Rexparry sydney 23:39, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Missing half an inch?

Why does the article say standard gauge is 4 ft 8 in (1422 mm) whereas elsewhere it says 4 ft 8½in (1435 mm)? Doesn't half an inch matter? Rexparry sydney 05:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Look at "Small gauge differences".Seniorsag 13:14, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Rail gauge#Narrow gauge (Canada)

Did they change the wheelsets or the complete trucks? See also Talk:Newfoundland Railway Peter Horn 01:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Future and high-speed use of wide gauge

It would be interesting to see the implementation of wide or extra wide 2m + gauge. Wider gauge could take advantage of exponential economies of scale. A double sized gauge, for example, could bear a load up to four times bigger because the greates stability of a wider track also allows a train to be built higher. Greater stability from increased width would allow for much faster rail transport greatly reducing the cost of high speed rail.

One would have to rebuilt a lot of existing tracks to make this idea worthwhile. Intoducing yet another gauge is not clever. Shipping containers are never going to be wider than 8', though there may be advantages in increasing the places where double stacking works. Passenger cars are a tight fit when 10 feet wide (leaving 2 feet or so for a corridor). A slight extra width would be nice. Tabletop 05:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

American "domestic" containers are already 8.5 feet wide. APL is now using this width on their ships; and there is a European proposal to widen their containers too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.53.195.38 (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

North America and Afghanistan

Future, High-speed and gauge convertion proposal

• Alaska should convert from 1435 to 1524 and double-track and electrification 25 kV 50 Hz alternating current
• Canada and United States (except Alaska) should convert 1435 to 1676 and and double-track and electrification 25 kV 60 Hz alternating current.
• Russia and neighbouring states (Russia, Central Asia and Baltic States) not North America uses very heavy and strong rails compared to other parts of the world, which makes it unnecessary to change the gauge.
• Russia - Alaska - Canada rail link should be built
• SUW 2000 (Variable Gauge Axle) should use between 1524 and 1676 at Alaska / Canada border and in Central Asia / Afghanistan area
• Standard gauge is too narrow for Canada and United States.
• Trains in United States and Canada cannot run as fast as either in Russia or India.
• Mexico should remain standard gauge
• Guatemala should convert to standard gauge

121.102.47.215 (talk) 01:38, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

597/600 (Decauville)

I think that the railgauge of 597 is an error due to dubble conversion from metric to imperial to metric. I will check and where I am sure I will change to 600(Decauville).Seniorsag 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Standard Gauge (Rail gauge#Britain)

Hi Peter,

It is beginning to look like the statements that 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) was a de facto standard prior to the Liverpool and Manchester Railway are unsupported statements. Baxter (1966: P 56) states that there was no standard gauge for horse railways, but there were rough groupings. In the north of England none were less than 4ft. Wylam, built before 1763, was 5ft 0in; as was John Blenkinsop's Middleton Railway - the wikipedia article says 4ft 1in, and Baxter (1966: P 56) says the old 4ft plateway was relaid to 5ft so that Blenkinsop's engine could be used.

Baxter (1966: P 56): Others were 4ft 4in Beamish or 4ft 7.5in (Bigges Main and Kenton and Coxlodge). Stephenson favoured 4ft 8in for waggonways in Northumberland and Durham and used it on his Killingworth line. The Hetton and Springwell waggonways also used the gauge. Stephenson's Stockton and Darlington railway was built to 4ft 8in and used it for fifteen years before being changed to 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm).

Whishaw (1842): The Chester and Birkenhead railway, authorised on 12 July 1837, was 4ft 9in (page 54); The Eastern Counties Railway, authorised on 4 July 1836, was 5ft 0in (page 91); London and Blackwall Railway, authorised on 28 July 1836, was 5ft 0in (page 260); The London and Brighton Railway, authorised on 15 July 1837, was 4ft 9in (page 273); The Manchester and Birmingham Railway, authorised on 30 June 1837, was 4ft 9in (page 303); The Manchester and Leeds Railway, authorised on 4 July 1836, was 4ft 9in (page 319); the Northern and Eastern Railway,authorised on 4 July 1836, was 5ft 0in (page 363). The 4ft 9in railways were intended to take 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) gauge vehicles and allow a running tolerance. The rest of the railways in England, excluding the Great Western Railway were 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) gauge. I've not included Scotland, Wales or Ireland.

From this the so called standard gauge could be regarded as 4ft 8in to 5ft 0ft.

• Baxter, Bertam (1966). (The Industrial Archaeology of the British Isles. Stone Blocks and Iron Rails (Tramroads) Newton Abbott: David & Charles.

• Whishaw, Francis (1842). The Railways of Great Britain and Ireland: Practically Described and Illustrated. Newton Abbott: David & Charles Reprints. (published 1969) ISBN 0-7153-4786-1.

Pyrotec 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste from User talk:Peter Horn Peter Horn 23:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Given that 4' 8.5" and 4' 9" vary by only half an inch, which is much less than the width of the tyre of the wheel, these gauges are surely the same for practical purposes. Today, gauges are widened by 1 inch on curves sharper than 10 chains (200m). As traffic and speeds increase, tighter tolerances may have been introduce, as experience accumulated. Tabletop 05:36, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

In the U.S., when the Southern railroads converted from 5' broad gauge after the Civil War, they converted to the Pennsylvania Railroad gauge of 4' 9" rather than the 4' 8.5" used by most Northern railroads. (They converted the whole South in 2 days by just moving one rail on every track over by 3"!) However, it was close enough that they could interchange freight cars freely with the Northern railroads, which was the point of the whole exercise. Later on, they gradually reduced their tracks to 4' 8.5" in piecemeal fashion during the course of normal maintenance, because it did make a bit of difference and resulted in fewer derailments. RockyMtnGuy 14:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, there has been some good research here that shows that there were similiar but not identical gauges to 4' 8.5". However, Stephenson and his flock of disciples managed to give 4' 8.5" such a headstart compared to other gauge that it became the defacto standard. Tabletop (talk) 00:06, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

In the British Isles, it became the legal standard - read the article: "In 1845 a United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland Royal Commission recommended adoption of 56.5 as standard gauge in Great Britain, 63 in Ireland. The following year the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed the Gauge Act, which required that new railways use the standard gauge. Except for the Great Western Railway's broad gauge, few main-line railways in Great Britain used a different gauge. The last Great Western line was converted to standard gauge in 1892". Pyrotec (talk) 08:47, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Useful short cuts

The following nifty short cuts print the gauge in metric and its imperial conversion, and visa versa. (Note that imperial measurements are inputted in inches but outputted in feet and inches.)

example

• {{RailGauge|1.6}} gauge and in reverse {{RailGauge|66}}

broad gauge

• 1.676 gauge and in reverse 66
• 1.6 gauge and in reverse 63
• 1524 gauge and in reverse 60
• 1.520 gauge and in reverse 60

narrow gauge

• 1 gauge and in reverse 39.375
• 1000 gauge and in reverse 39.375
• 1067 gauge and in reverse 42
• 914 gauge and in reverse 36
• 762 gauge and in reverse 30
• 610 gauge and in reverse 24
• 0.600 gauge and in reverse 23.5

standard gauge

• 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) gauge
• 1435 gauge and in reverse 56.5

Incomplete lookup table

• 1.524 gauge and in reverse 60
• 1.067 gauge and in reverse 42
• 0.914 gauge and in reverse 36
• 0.762 gauge and in reverse 30

• See Transport in Brazil
• See Template:Railgauge

Tabletop (talk) 08:29, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Tabletop (talk) 04:23, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Gauge mistakes

The following gauges are incorrect.

• Broad 1520mm in China used by Russian shortcut railway across Manchuria - [3]

• In Sweden and only on the Köping-Riddarhyttan railway, the gauge was measured incorrectly when ordering locomotives and cars. The railway track was then rebuilt from 1067 to 1093 mm. See User talk:BIL#Gauge mistakes

• In Italy the standard gauges were defined from top of trail to top of other rail, leading to odd gauges such 950mm instead of 1000mm.

• In 1830, on the first proper railway, the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, the engineer George Stephenson added some extra slack to the gauge, increasing it from 4' 8" to 4' 8½".

• On standard gauge railways such as in New South Wales, the gauge on curves sharper than say 200m, the gauge is widened by up to 25mm.

• In 200x, somewhere, a standard gauge railway on concrete sleepers had wheels squealing on sharp curves, so they filed a bit off the rails to make the gauge larger.

• 5' implies a tolerance of +/- 6" (then +6"/-4") which would be a disaster.
• 5' 6" implies a tolerance of perhaps +/- 3" or 1", the former being a disaster, and the latter perhaps tolerable.
• 4' 8½" implies a tolerance of +/- ¼" which is about right and safe.
• While 4' 8½" looks strange it encourages greater care with the gauge.

Tabletop (talk) 05:01, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Tabletop (talk) 03:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC) Tabletop (talk) 04:26, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Have you made the last part of this up? It appears to be mostly nonsense. If "4' 8½" implies a tolerance of +/- ¼" which is about right and safe" is accepted as a resonably-valid statement (I think we both agree that it appears to be so) then "5' 6" implies a tolerance of perhaps +/- 3" or 1", the former being a disaster, and the latter perhaps tolerable" is nonsense: it is only some 10" wider (approx 20% wider) than standard guage so a tolerance of +/- ¼" (perhaps 20% more) is also implied for this gauge; however, it could also be argued that since the standard gauge is defined to a ½" the implied tolerance is +/- ¼" and 5' 6" is specified to the whole inch so the implied tolerance is +/- ½". The statement "5' implies a tolerance of +/- 6" which would be a disaster" is a mere play on words: the gauge is 5' 0". This is sufficiently close to standard gauge to have a similar implied tolerance of +/- ¼" (or +/- ½"). Furthermore, I very much doubt whether any railway works on implied tolerances. Tolerances of gauge will be covered by standards. You can look up the standards for the UK, they are publically available. The nominal tolerance for newly laid and relaid straight track is not symmetrical: the tolerance on over-gauge is wider than the tolerance on under-guage; and it is dependant on the maximum line speed. It's also (now) metric:- 1435 mm. Pyrotec (talk) 10:11, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

There is a difference in implied precision between writing (A) 5' and (B) 5'. 0". (A) implies less precision than (B). Tabletop (talk) 13:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any real railway system that works on implied gauge, or has implied precision in their track gauge. Pyrotec (talk) 14:14, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Metric measurement is safer than English measurement. 121.102.47.215 (talk) 01:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Not necessarily.

• 1668mm in Spain may imply precision of +/- 1mm. (which maybe too precise).
• 1435mm may imply precision of +/1 2.5mm
• 1600mm in Ireland may imply precision of +/- 50mm. (could be 1.6m not 1.600m)
• It all depends on how the numbers look to be rounded to. This is basic Mathematics.

• Of course rail gauges aren't measured with a tape measure. A set of caliper-like rods (aka "gauge") are used, so that mistakes are avoided. This avoids measuring from rail centre to rail centre which is wrong except in Italy and ensures that you measure from inside face of rail to inside face which is correct. Tabletop (talk) 14:03, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

• Rail gauge and rail gauge tolerance are specified and verified by the use of a gauge, and are never "implied". Pyrotec (talk) 14:22, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Possible error on the map

This article uses the map: Rail gauge world.png It says on the map that Sakhalin (part of Russia) uses the Russian rail gauge. But the article about Sakhalin states:

The railways are only now being converted from the Japanese 1067-millimeter (3'-6") gauge to the Russian 1520-millimeter (5') gauge. All mainland rolling stock is regauged at Holmsk.

This suggests that a significant amount of the rails on the island use the Japanese gauge. If there are any rails on Chishima, the same gauge might be used there too. Compare with Formosa (another island formerly part of Japan), which, according to the map, also has Japanese gauge.

Rolling stock in Sakhalin mainland (using 1067mm) isn't regauged. All Sakhalin mainland rolling stock will be replaced by Japanese Shinkansen rolling stock (except series 400, E3 and E5 "mini") which is regauged (from 1435 to 1520) at Holmsk and in Japan, and new rolling stocks. 121.102.47.215 (talk) 02:15, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there an error with the map? Or is the error in the Sakhalin article? (Stefan2 (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2009 (UTC))

Countries are not sub-divided to show minor gauges in particular regions. For example Australia is shown as standard gauge although say the state of Queensland is mostly narrow gauge. Sakhalin is similarly a subdivision of the Russian Federation. Tabletop (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Sakhalin was 1067 to begin with. Cannot comment about any regauging.

Taiwan was 1067 on the west coast, and 610 on the east coast but isolated, now all converted to 1067 and connected together.

Highspeed lines in Taiwan are 1435. Tabletop (talk) 07:25, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Future gauge in the Rail Baltic -project: Standard or Russian gauge?

I've been trying to reference the "EU funds have been dedicated to convert key railway lines in the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia from 1520 mm gauge to standard gauge" in the Rail_gauge#Future -section, but I'm unable to find facts to prove it right or wrong. There's been lot of studies and projections whether the gauge should be standardized at the same time when making such huge rail investment, but someone with access to the facts and conclusions should reference it to the article.

One of the closest ones I can find is "The extension of the European standard gauge along the rest of the route to Tallinn remains an option for the future. This idea will in any case be developed and investigated by the Baltic States in the three study projects that have been accepted under the 2007-2013 call for proposals to be part-financed under the TEN-T." which can be found from the Annual Activity Report (July 2007 – July 2008, Pavel Telika), but that basically says it will be developed and investigated in three study projects, not that it was decided.

More to follow...

Baldwin040 (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2009 (UTC)Baldwin040

Baltic States should remain Russian gauge not install standard gauge reason:

• Russia and neighbouring states (Russia, Central Asia and Baltic States) not North America uses very heavy and strong rails compared to other parts of the world, which makes it unnecessary to change the gauge.
• Baltic States is too near Russian border. If Baltic States install standard gauge, Russia will war again.

121.102.47.215 (talk) 01:37, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Compromise?

The statement "Standard gauge is a compromise between the narrow and broad gauges" may be misleading.

Generally speaking, standard gauge came first, then broader gauges became popular for a while, and then narrower gauges became popular, supposedly on cost ground.

The flawed statement above may imply that broad and narrow gauges came first, and then standard guage was developed as a compromise.

Tabletop (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

I think what's meant is that standard gauge has become/remained standard in part because it is a compromise between the advantages of broader and narrower gauges. Does this sound like a reasonable point to make, and thus change said statement to say? --NE2 07:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Tolerances

Standard gauge trains in North America (except Mexico) has smaller tolerances than any other standard gauge trains. 121.102.47.215 (talk) 06:10, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

The figures you quoted were incorrect, so I have reverted them and added the reference. David Biddulph (talk) 17:12, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Untrue statement in the article!

> Whatever the origin of the standard gauge, it seemed to be a satisfactory choice, not too narrow and not too wide.

To the contrary, the 1435mm gives very little space. With 3-abreast or 4-abreast (1st/2nd/3rd class seating) the remaining corridor is so narrow, no one can keep standing when the saleslady arrives with the snacks cart. If you use 2-abreast with individual cocoon seats, the "meat density" per square meter measures so low the 1435mm train service becomes uneconomical or tickets become to pricy for the average people. Japan's shinkansen prices are shamelfully outrageous, even though asians are petite people compared to the world average and more of them can fit per area!

The tiny nature of 1435mm has also been a huge factor with USA's massive loss of passenger railway travel, because the yankee are very tall,beefy people and quite obese nowadays and they simply find 1435mm waggons too cramped for comfort, compared to their beloved V8 limousines.

In fact Obama has been given a proposal to install a separate right of way, brand new, hispanic gauge 1668mm track super-express network between NY, Chicago and LA. This would provide airline-equivalent, executive-class sleeping seats with economically high people-carrying capacity in 400 meter long train powersets. This simply cannot be done over 1435mm track in obese America, where people are used to limousines!

Also, Siemens-Velaro says they can provide 415km/h average speed over long non-stop distances in 1668mm size, because the wide wheel-set gives better ride stability and allows for bigger electric motors. Also, wider track allows much wider superstructure, so lots of acousting dampening can be applied and triple windows glazing, so very high speed comfort inside the cab shall be excellent. 1435mm will always be to noisy over 320km/h, which is too slow for a sensible transcontinental US trip.

The article should say clearly that the 1435mm track is too narrow for needs of the modern industrialized society, where people grow an average 1.5 heads taller than their great-grandfathers and obesity is rampant! Train travel lost to petrol cars and jetplanes due to the silly choice of undersized 1435mm track width! 91.82.32.254 (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

You're confusing track gauge with loading gauge. Using standard railroad technology, the loading gauge can easily be at least twice the track gauge. A 1435 mm track gauge easily allows vehicles which are over 2.8 metres wide. Comparing it to airline standards, using a 600 mm aisle down the middle allows 2.2 metres for four-abreast seating, which means each seat can be 55 cm wide. By comparison, a standard first-class airline seat is 53 cm wide, so standard-gauge railroad cars allow seats wider than first-class airline seats. Most American railroads use an extremely wide 3.3 metre (10' 6" ??) loading gauge, which would allow 6-abreast seating with economy-class airline seats, so seat width was definitely not the reason for loss of passengers - it was cheap gasoline, high costs, and poor service that caused their decline. European and Japanese railroads often use loading gauges and seat widths that are smaller than desirable, but that has little to do with track gauge and more to do with the limited width rights-of-way they have to use. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 20:31, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

The widest high speed trains anywhere are probably the piggyback trains on the Channel tunnel which carry cars, trucks and buses. These trains are however too wide to fit through platforms elsewhere on the route between Paris and London. The Eurotunnel Shuttle article unhelpfully does not say what this width is.

Tabletop (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Australia

The article says that "In the 19th century Australia's three mainland states adopted standard gauge...".

Australia has **five** mainland states, plus the extensive Northern Territory (and the small Australian Capital Territory, which is served by a spur line of the New South Wale railways).

These states did not exist as states until 1 January 1901, so they can't have done anything in the 19th Century. Before that they were colonies. But there were five of them, not three.

Agemegos (talk) 00:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

When railways started around 1854-55, Queensland had not yet split off NSW as a separate colony. Also, Western Australia (which was separated from the eastern colonies by 2000km of desert) didn't start their railways until about 1880. Northern Territory was part of South Australia (Until 1910), and the ACT didn't exist. So in 1854-5 there were only "three" mainline colonies with railways. The colonies become states in 1901. Tabletop (talk) 05:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

One could of course say "In the 19th century Australia's THEN three mainland colonies (now states) adopted standard gauge...". Tabletop (talk) 09:28, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Requested move

Rail gauge → Track gauge — The current title of this article does not appear to be used by authoritative sources. The Oxford Dictionary of English (which is international) and Jackson's Railway Dictionary just use Gauge. Ellis' British Railway Engineering Encyclopaedia and, significantly, the International Union of Railways use Track gauge. Bermicourt (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• I'd probably Support this. I suspect the current title was selected because what you'd want is Railway gauge or Railroad gauge but those would be deemed to be having a {Rest of world,US} bias and thus it ending up as Rail gauge. —Sladen (talk) 13:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support this. Track gauge would be more meaningful than rail gauge since it does distinguish it from loading gauge. Rail gauge implies it indicates the width of a rail rather than the distance between them. RockyMtnGuy (talk) 19:01, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support. Same reasons as already given above. --DAJF (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

• Support because Track gauge already has a good number of incoming links of long standing. I would say this is an uncontroversial page move request, no need to wait a week for further input. 69.3.72.9 (talk) 03:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)