AH Question: Different "Standard" gauge

What would it take to have something other than the OTL 1435 mm gauge be adopted as "standard" gauge to at least the level that that gauge enjoys today (~60% of rail built to that gauge)?
 
Does the statement, "We've always done it like that" ring any bells?
The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. (1435mm)
That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used?
Because that's the way they built them in England, and English expatriates built
the US Railroads.
Why did the English build them like that?
Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.
Why did "they" use that gauge then?
Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.
Okay! Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing?
Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.

So who built those old rutted roads?
Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and England) for their legions. The roads have been used ever since.
And the ruts in the roads?
Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.
The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. And bureaucracies live forever.
So the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's ass came up with it, you may
be exactly right, because the Imperial Roman army
chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses. !
Now, the twist to the story
When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs.
The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory at Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site.
The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains.
The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel.
The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.

So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass.
- And -
You thought being a HORSE'S ASS wasn't important!
 
Ah. I love people who don't read the OP, don't know what they're talking about, and parrot old (and wrong) urban myths. Not to mention that there are weirder gauges out there, like the 1668 mm (used in Spain), or the 1372 mm gauge used for a time in parts of Scotland. 1435, by comparison, is quite rational.
 
Reasons...

If the Gauge Commission in the UK had gone with Brunel's broad gauge (just over 7 feet) instead of standard gauge, that could have had a ripple effect, adn at least made broad gauge more common. The USA might still be standard gauge, as the American railroads were already being built by the time it was settled in Britian, and few, if any, American railroads were 7' gauge.

Alternatively, if the Union Pacific and Central Pacific were built to a different gauge--there were multiple gauges in the USA at the time--then there would have been a good reason to settle on that gauge when standardization happened.

A more unusual reason requires a more efficient Russia, that is economicly or militariily dominant enough that there's incentive to build dual gauge lines, or both standard gauge ane Russian Gauge lines in Eastern Europe, and later on, these lines push west, eventually replacing European Standard Gauge.

Broad Gauges allow larger loads and higher speeds for the same quality of equipment, but cost more to build, in time, labor, and money.
 
In Australia NSW adopted standard gauge, Vic and SA adopted Irish Broad Gauge 5'3" and Qld and WA narrow gauge 3'"6. If NSW had adopted Irish Broad gauge then all of Australia would have, instead of the slow conversion to Standard gauge that is happening now.
 
In Australia NSW adopted standard gauge, Vic and SA adopted Irish Broad Gauge 5'3" and Qld and WA narrow gauge 3'"6. If NSW had adopted Irish Broad gauge then all of Australia would have, instead of the slow conversion to Standard gauge that is happening now.

I think you meant to post this in the "United Australian Gauge" thread, not this one. Bumping it now...

If the Gauge Commission in the UK had gone with Brunel's broad gauge (just over 7 feet) instead of standard gauge, that could have had a ripple effect, adn at least made broad gauge more common. The USA might still be standard gauge, as the American railroads were already being built by the time it was settled in Britian, and few, if any, American railroads were 7' gauge.

While rather plausible and interesting, I'm not quite sure this meets the OP challenge (60%+ in the 'new' standard), since as you point out Americans wouldn't be using this new gauge. OTOH, perhaps more Indian railways are built to this gauge (they already used broad gauges fairly often), and then new railway countries (France, Germany, Russia, China, etc.) choose this new broader gauge because the Brits are using it.

Alternatively, if the Union Pacific and Central Pacific were built to a different gauge--there were multiple gauges in the USA at the time--then there would have been a good reason to settle on that gauge when standardization happened.

Also a good one. Perhaps, for some reason or another, they decide on the Brunel gauge, which is also standardized in Britain? That would clear the hurdle of the previous one (getting 60%+ of rail using it) quite easily, I think.
 
Gauges...

I sincerly doubt the transcontinental railroad in the USA would use Brunel's 7' gauge; it would make going through the rockies seriuosly more costly. But, it could be a differnt gauge from the OTL standard. 3 1/2 or 4' would allow for smaller tunnels, tighter curves through mountains--perhaps even fewer tunnels. A slightly wider line, like Irish Gauge, could allow bigger trains, and since it's not a lot bigger, not slow down construction too much.

Of course, the gauge for any railroad could be a very poitical decision--if one locomotive builder is well positioned to run out as many 5'3" locomotives, for example, as anyone could desire--and an influential congresscritter has finaincial intersts, it's very likely that 5'3" it will be.
 
I meant to put my comment here, but the rationale for it appears to be invalid. I was thinking that Austalia has the 7th largest track mileage in the world, if all of that was broad gauge then that gauge, allied with others who use that gauge would be up there. But that's wrong because nobody else uses Irish broad gauge, so it wouldn't get close to even the 9% world share that 3'6" gauge has.

That said I don't think the difference between 4'8" and 5'6" is nearly as important as having high quality civil engineering standards for the rails.
 
Top