|WikiProject Trains / in UK||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
I have standardised the use of measurements in this article so that the Imperial/English measurements are stated first, with metric measurements in parentheses. This is because all of these gauges were originally specified in Imperial units. Metric equivalents are later conversions. It is farcical to be describing the GWR's Broad Gauge in millimeters.
I am much in favor of using metric measurements but when it comes to encyclopedic text, it seems more natural to me to be using the units in which the standards were defined as the primary ones. For one thing, many of the gauges are nearer to 'round' units in Imperial measurements (excluding Standard Gauge, which many suggest comes from a 'round' outside measurement of 5ft, standardizing on the inside track gauge having not yet happened). —Morven 23:24, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I am not sure if we should really put a note here about Russian gauge as being chosen to prevent invasion. To my knowledge the standard was adapted not for this consideration; "inability to invade" was a major argument in lobbying the standard, but not the one why it was lobbied in the first place. One of the main proponents of wider gauge was George Washington Whistler, who died in St. Petersburg while developing new standards. In fact, the first Russian railroad had a gauge of 1830 mm (6 ft). At the time of the standard adoption American railroads experimented with wider gauge, and some of the Russian engineers considered greater width to provide better stability. The whole story about wider track being chosen solely for the purpose of defence is widely regarded anecdotal. Cyberodin, 15 Jan 2006
- Moreover, Warsaw—Vienna line, Russian Empire's second railroad, and the first one to cross the imperial borders, had 4' 8 1/2" gauge. The fact makes the whole "invasion theory" senseless.--Achp ru 13:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This article smacks of a "Little Britain" attitude. We are the standard and everything else is broad or narrow with reference to this. The reference to the "Irish Broad Gauge" is factually wrong. The Standard Gauge for the the island of Ireland is set out in an 1846 UK Act of Parliament as 5'3". It is therefore not Ireland's "broad" gauge. Ewanduffy 12:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
This may be a parochial attitude, but so far as I know it is the "standard" terminology in the English speaking world. I don't think that I've ever read an Irish book on railways. If I did, would I find that it referred to the Irish gauge as standard gauge and that on the mainland as narrow gauge? I doubt it very much, (but am willing to be shown wrong). There is a big difference between the gauge that is standard for any particular part of the world, and the term "standard gauge" as it is used in railway terminology. If wikipedia were to somehow attempt to avoid this usage of standard gauge, it would not reflect common usage. AdamW 14:49, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
Finnish vs. Russian gauge
The article states: "Russia and the other former Soviet Republics use a 1,520 mm (originally 5 ft 0 in (1,524 mm)) gauge while Finland continues to use the 5 ft 0 in (1,524 mm)) gauge inherited from Imperial Russia (the two standards are close enough to allow full interoperability between Finland and Russia)." Two identical gauges are so certainly "close enough" that it seems silly to invoke interoperability. Is one of these data wrong? Eliezg 01:54, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
- The statement is absolutely true. Originally, Russian Empire's standard was 1524 mm. In 1960s, a new standard was adopted in the USSR for common railroads and metros, track gauge was reduced to 1520 mm; the new standard did not change the wheelpair geometry. Railway tracks had to be gradually rebuilt to this new gauge, according to common track maintenance schedule. While rebuilding was in progress, the same rolling stock was used on both gauges. This new standard also affected Mongolia (because most part of Mongolian railways belonged to the Ministry of Communication Routes of the USSR), but had no effect on Finland which retained the original standard. Today, Russia and Finland continue to run trains across the border with no wheelpair change.--achp 19:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Canada should convert from 1435 to 1676
Currently in Canada, trains cannot run as fast as either in India or Russia due to standard gauge and non-electrified and single-track and wind, snow and grade. Canadian National Railways, Canadian Pacific Railways, VIA Rail and BC Rail should convert from 1435 to 1676 and double-track and electrification 25kV AC 60Hz. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 10:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your edit cites no sources and is highly dubious given that the world speed record for a railed vehicle was set by a standard gauge train. Unless you provide references, please don't put the above "fact" in this or any article. Zzrbiker (talk) 11:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
- France (has fastest standard gauge trains) and Canada are not same. These difference (between France and Canada) are very great. Currently, Canadian trains cannot run as fast as either Indian trains or Russian trains. You are almost stupid.
Please stop this discussion. Changing the gauge is very expensive and must be carefully considered. I know to cases where a major change in gauge has been performed:
- Japan has 1067 mm gauge, but it has built all high speed lines with 1435 mm gauge. Not 1676. So they must have found that there is no big advantage in using 1676, because the new gauge of the high speed lines is incompatible to the rest of the railroad network anyway.
- Advantages of Japan's 1435mm High Speed gauge, is that it allows direct comparison with other 1435mm lines, and suits the export of Japanese HS equipment to such countries. Japan could have chosen say 1777mm gauge with none of those advantages.
- Spain has 1668 mm gauge, but it has built all highspeed lines with 1435 mm gauge, to be compatible with the rest of Europe.
So conversions are moving to 1435, not away from 1435 mm. This can't be so bad. But back to the issues to consider here: Wikipedia's duty is to describe what the railroads are actually using, not what they should be using. So there is no point in discussing this issue here, unless you have real evidence of projects or considerations in this area. I am quite sure that there are none.--Bk1 168 (talk) 09:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)
disappearing Iberian gauge in Spain and Portugal
5 ft 10 in gauge
proposed Swedish broad gauge (not ever built)
- English measurement: 1,778 mm (5 ft 10 in)
- Metric measurement: 1,780 mm (5 ft 101⁄12 in)
- Swedish measurement: 1,782 mm (5 ft 101⁄6 in)
- Proposed gauges and voltages (in North America):
- Bering Strait crossing: 5 ft (1,524 mm) Russian gauge and 25kV 50Hz alternating current
- Alaska: 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm) Indian broad gauge and 25kV 50Hz aternating current
- Canada and continental United States: 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm) Indian broad gauge and 25kV 60Hz alternating current
- Mexico and Central America: 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge and without overhead lines
North America got proposed by Russia.
Russia plans the TKM-World Link and proposes the railway networks in Canada and the United States to convert from standard gauge to broad gauge. In India, Pakistan and Bangladesh, a gauge of 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm) is widespread. This is also used by the Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) system of the San Francisco Bay Area. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:48, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
The GWR gauge may not have been specified in its Act of Parliament, which would have allowed Brunel to sneak in his broad gauge.