AHC/WI: Broader track gauge becomes 'standard'?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Today, most railways around the world (about 60% of rail trackage worldwide) use so-called 'standard' gauge, where the tracks are separated by 1435 mm of space, including virtually all railways in the United States, most of Europe, and China. Some countries, such as Russia and India, mostly use broader gauges however, and broader gauges were often used in countries which today use standard; for example, Brunel famously used an extremely broad gauge of 2140 mm for the lines of the Great Western Railway, and many lines in the United States used a variety of broad gauges early on.

However, aside from a relative handful of countries where broad gauges stuck, most of these lines in countries that otherwise used standard were eventually converted to standard gauge. The Great Western built an increasing amount of standard gauge track and eventually abandoned broad altogether, while American lines using broad gauges were generally converted to standard in the 1870s and 1880s. How could this be changed so that a broader gauge becomes considered 'standard,' such that more than, say, 50% of world trackage is in this gauge? For the purposes of this question, any broader gauge, from Russian (1520 mm, so not that much broader than standard) all the way up to Brunel's 2140 mm gauge counts. And, supposing this is done, what would the effects be?
 
Much broader gauges could not have become standard in many countries because they necessitate larger curve radiuses which is unpractical in mountainous countries. And just a little broader, like in Russia, would make no great difference.


But what could have been established , maybe, is an additional brroad-gauge network for high-speed inter-city and long-distance connections. Broader gauge would make much more comfortable trains possible, and it could transport much more people without creating overlong trains.
 
To get a different standard gauge, you need the country that set the standard to use a different one. So, off to the UK. Then, you need to find the person that decided. Hello, Mr. Stephenson. "George, why such an odd rail gauge? Why not an even 5 feet?" That conversation is all you need for a POD.

Now, what becomes of it? Depends on the change. A gauge of 4 feet to 5.5 feet, not a whole lot. Broader gauges were usually selected for more stable running, either at higher speed (Brunel*) or for larger locomotives (Spain). Narrower gauges were adopted to lessen the cost of construction. The disadvantages were that neither variation really made all the much of an economic difference. Standard gauge trains were as heavy and ran as fast as broad gauge, while narrow gauge cost almost the same to build to carry the same volume of traffic.

A good discussion of rail gauges (with links to a couple of others) may be found in this forum:
http://cs.trains.com/trn/f/111/t/169894.aspx


*And if you're going to ask George Stephenson why he chose such an odd gauge of four feet, eight and one-half inches; you're surely going to want to ask I.K Brunel what was with seven feet and one quarter inch. What was that about?
 
Last edited:
Hello, Mr. Stephenson. "George, why such an odd rail gauge? Why not an even 5 feet?" That conversation is all you need for a POD.

*And if you're going to ask George Stephenson why he chose such an odd gauge of four feet, eight and one-half inches; you're surely going to want to ask I.K Brunel what was with seven feet and one quarter inch. What was that about?

1. Stephenson used the same gauge as was used in the mines in the NE. Presumably it was so it would fit in the mine tunnels.
2. Brunel set out to use 7ft the extra quarter inch made the trains run better. Less fouling on corners amongst other things.
 
The disadvantages were that neither variation really made all the much of an economic difference. Standard gauge trains were as heavy and ran as fast as broad gauge, while narrow gauge cost almost the same to build to carry the same volume of traffic.
Yes, but if you have to carry a smaller - or larger - volume of traffic, then the difference makes sense. For narrow gauges, it made sense economically, as such narrow gauge lines operated profitably in the mountainous countryside.
For a broad gauge to make sense economically, railroad transportation would have to remain dominant and individual transportation remain a rather marginal phenomenon, I suppose.
Today, in various metropoles, urban trains, subways etc. run at very short intervals of sometimes just 90 seconds, and they`re still overcrowded in peak times. Shortening the interval even further is often impossible or impractical, and more trains cause higher labour costs. Broader gauge and larger trains could solve the problem of great numbers of passangers, and they would only incur higher costs at construction, while bringing lower labour costs later on.
The reason why switching to narrow gauge still doesn`t make sense economically_today_is because the tracks and tunnels etc. for standard gauge are in place, and the producing industry can deliver standard cars, locomotives, parts etc. much cheaper than special orders.
 

Driftless

Donor
Isn't much of the question of gauge tied to resource? In the northern US (where I live) most of the ties/sleepers are oak, which in this era is still somewhat plentiful, but is becoming harder to come by cheaply. The ties require a really noxious process of pressure treating with creosote to make them capable of withstanding the degradations of time and weather extremes. (I can smell the creosote plant from five miles away - literally....)

What materials for ties/sleepers are used elsewhere?

*edit* Are broad gauge rails the same size as standard gauge? Basically, is the amount of steel per linear foot/meter the same?

If you opt for a wider gauge, the consumption of those resources increases proportionately.
 
Last edited:
Isn't much of the question of gauge tied to resource? In the northern US (where I live) most of the ties/sleepers are oak, which in this era is still somewhat plentiful, but is becoming harder to come by cheaply. The ties require a really noxious process of pressure treating with creosote to make them capable of withstanding the degradations of time and weather extremes. (I can smell the creosote plant from five miles away - literally....)

What materials for ties/sleepers are used elsewhere?

*edit* Are broad gauge rails the same size as standard gauge? Basically, is the amount of steel per linear foot/meter the same?

If you opt for a wider gauge, the consumption of those resources increases proportionately.

Here in the UK concerete sleepers/ties are used to replace wooden ones.
 
Larger gauges mean larger, heavier carriages; wouldn't that have an impact on locomotive engines, coal and water consumption, and the associated infrastructure thereof?
 
Cost-benefit ratio in favour of broad gauge?

Larger gauges mean larger, heavier carriages; wouldn't that have an impact on locomotive engines, coal and water consumption, and the associated infrastructure thereof?
Yes. But it should also mean greater payloads. Useful for long distance freight and modern commuter traffic. Given manning costs would be lower (still only one driver, plus a guard on freight), and effective "line capacity" increased, it could still be beneficial for a railway to be broad gauge.
:)
 
Larger gauges mean larger, heavier carriages; wouldn't that have an impact on locomotive engines, coal and water consumption, and the associated infrastructure thereof?

It was precisely for this reason why a wide track gauge was suggested for Maine (due to better survival of winter conditions) and was actually implemented throughout South Asia (mainly to withstand monsoon conditions).
 
Larger gauges mean larger, heavier carriages; wouldn't that have an impact on locomotive engines, coal and water consumption, and the associated infrastructure thereof?

Larger gauge allow larger car/carriages but don't automatically bring them about. For example, the locomotives and equipment of Irish railways (5' 3" gauge) is smaller than the North American standard (4' 8.5").

To the extent that larger equipment is used and heavier loads carried, wider gauge/larger capacity cars do require heavier works and strictures. But this is much more a function of traffic than gauge. For example the 3' 6" lines of Australia vs. the heavy duty 3' 6" ore carrying lines in South Africa.

The nub of it is, if you set a standard gauge for railways based on the size of economic units in the beginning of the 19th century, you will find yourself constrained by the end of the 20th. If you try and ASB a 21st century ideal back to the early 19th century, you will cripple, if not kill, the idea of railways. I would be as if Brunel's Great Eastern were to become the "standard" size of oceangoing vessels. 90% of maritime trade would disappear for 90 years, just to be ready for OTL developments 40 years ahead of time.

Personally, I would like to have seen a 5' 0" standard gauge just because it is round and simple in both US/UK and metric measure (at least until the fine tolerances needed for modern HSR).
 
Larger gauge doesn't have to be built to handle heavier loads right away; it can be built with the same axle load as standard gauge tracks. Additionally, the space (and thus land) required for railways is largely determined by the width of cars and the amount they overhang the sides of the track. If the gauge is wider, they would overhang less, so the space required by the rail line wouldn't really change. The big extra costs involved in wider gauges would be longer ties and the wider track ballast and foundation that would be required. The advantages of broad gauge, on the other hand, are twofold. First, assuming similar tracks, technology, and capacity (basically the only difference is the gauge), a broad gauge train will have a higher top speed and a smoother ride than a narrow gauge one. Second, rail lines will be able to be built (or rebuilt) to handle much heavier axle loads and much wider trains than a narrow gauge railway (the broader a gauge, the more ballasted area to spread the weight of a train over, and the more overhang the train can have without becoming unstable).

Of course, the deciding factor would be (as it was OTL) which gauge is the most common, and thus the most familiar, which standard gauge won in both categories. It should also be noted that in 1846 when the decision was made to use a single gauge, that railroads had only be in use for 16 years, and no one could have thought that standard gauge would still be in use at least 200 years later, carrying trains several times faster and heavier than anything that existed then. Accordingly, they likely didn't put as much value into long-term development potential as they probably should have, and instead gave priority to more short-term concerns like which was more common at the time, and thus which would cost less to implement nationwide.

However, given hindsight, it probably would have been better to use Brunel's gauge or something like it. Modern high-speed trains would be a bit faster than they are today with the extra smoothness and stability afforded by a larger gauge, and we would have triple-decker passenger cars and triple-stack container cars. That, or the container itself would evolve as a somewhat larger unit to begin with, probably something around 3 meters wide by 3 meters tall, in various lengths (that's probably about the biggest size container that could be carried by semi-trailers on highways).
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top