Regardless, your assertion that "Narrow Gauge is half the width of Standard Gauge" is blatantly false, as it's only a fraction under 3/4 as wide, at least in Australia's case.
Good for cargo, not so much for passengers.
Sir John Valentine Carden Survives. Part 2.
- Thread starter allanpcameron
- Start date
allanpcameron
Donor
I have to confess complete ignorance about railways in general and Australia in particular. All I know is that the places mentioned were the places: Australian Ordnance Depot where the tanks were prepared was at Musswellbrook, and that the 2nd Armoured Brigade was at Puckapunyal. How they got from one place to another is a figment of my imagination and looking at maps to see where there were rail lines in Australia between those two places. Sorry if my lack of knowledge of Australian gauges has caused you any inconvenience.
Allan
Allan
Hence the use in mining / extraction railroads. Quick to build and often one main custumor. It's primary task is getting the supplies in and the product (ore, wood, food etc) out. Passengers are an secondary intrest. In austalian terms, from the interior to the dock.
There's a break-of-gauge at some point, but I'm not sure which side of the border.
Still, in the post-war period, gradually converting the broad-gauge lines in Victoria (and SA and NSW) to Standard gauge ought to help somewhat with rail travel. It was recommended OTL after all:
Last edited:
The situation in the 1940s was actually worse than that map suggests, because while most of the red "railways to be converted" in South Australia were broad-gauge, some were narrow gauge, thus adding extra gauge breaks. The key Port Pirie to Broken Hill east-west connection started off on broad gauge, then changed to narrow gauge at Terowie, before finally connecting to the privately-owned narrow-gauge tramway that filled the gap from the NSW border to Broken Hill itself (South Australian railways were not permitted to operate in NSW). The line was not converted to standard gauge until 1970.
Vague link to the actual TL - OTL, Gen MacArthur gave his "I shall return" speech to Australian journalists while delayed by break-of-gauge at Terowie.
Vague link to the actual TL - OTL, Gen MacArthur gave his "I shall return" speech to Australian journalists while delayed by break-of-gauge at Terowie.
Well, this talk of gauges is quite interesting, which make me like to ask, at this point,is Australia really had much of a difference when talking in financial terms ITTL (since troop and material wise they are in a better state), and referring to the question that expedite this talk in the first place...
Perhaps I missing something, and actually the (inter-state) rail traffic in Australia ITTL is higher than IOTL, so the break of gauge issue is more prominent ITTL, but I haven't notice any difference in terms of the potential usage (other than perhaps the increase in Australian tank production and the aforementioned update, which the impact of the latter could only be limited to NSW). So let me know if I forgotten something (again).
I think the gauge issue will be resolved quicker ITTL, but whatever it is, those will be mostly in the hands of Australia and Australians alone.
P/s: And if the influence of Britain in regard to this is actually still large at this point (in which case I think this influence will go both ways), and with the rail traffic is increasing, perhaps this could necessitate an earlier and wider adoption of SCOA-P wheels not just in Australia, but perhaps even in the other parts of the Commonwealth.
Does Britain really had a say in regard to this, especially IIRC the railways itself is unders the state's goverment jurisdiction instead of the federal goverment, which probably IMHO meant at this point in practice, the British had less of a influence in regards to Australian railways than even... the railways at the Dutch East Indies (since those are mostly compatible with the FMSR)
Perhaps I missing something, and actually the (inter-state) rail traffic in Australia ITTL is higher than IOTL, so the break of gauge issue is more prominent ITTL, but I haven't notice any difference in terms of the potential usage (other than perhaps the increase in Australian tank production and the aforementioned update, which the impact of the latter could only be limited to NSW). So let me know if I forgotten something (again).
I think the gauge issue will be resolved quicker ITTL, but whatever it is, those will be mostly in the hands of Australia and Australians alone.
P/s: And if the influence of Britain in regard to this is actually still large at this point (in which case I think this influence will go both ways), and with the rail traffic is increasing, perhaps this could necessitate an earlier and wider adoption of SCOA-P wheels not just in Australia, but perhaps even in the other parts of the Commonwealth.
Last edited:
I'm not saying Britain will have control or anything, but they might have the funds to loan to Australia should they wish to standardise things. In the same manner, Auckland might get a harbour bridge with 5-6 lanes and footpaths instead of the OTL 4 lanes only, due to Britain being better off financially. Heck, there might even be enough in the kitty to see Britain getting colour TV in the late 40s.
Last edited:
Australian states used to be, before federation in 1901, separate, individual colonies. As a consequence they were reliant on London for loans to develop railways. Most started, as already stated with standard or broad gauge railways and when economic times became tougher, they moved to narrow gauge. Narrow gauge was cheaper and easier to build than either standard or broad gauge. London still held the purse strings after federation, more or less. They determined Government and they controlled finances.
It’s more appropriate to say Singapore forced the country independents to support a Labor government that acceded to Westminster—and which stopped clinging to Mummy’s purse strings because Uncle would front. Capital ownership tended to be City of London rather than New York for years though. But nobody can fix the railways (it proved more in capitals interests to build new roads on loan).
The Statute of Westminster was not passed until January 1942 in Australia. It was not fully implemented until 1986. We had the dismissal of Jack Lang as the Premier of NSW in 1932 by the Governor over the proposal to non-pay loans. In 1975, we had the dismissal of the Prime Minister, Gough Whitlam by the Governor-General in 1975 over an impasse in the Senate engineered by Malcolm Fraser the leader of the Opposition. London still held the strings.
Last edited:
That's not really true, if you look at the 1975 dismissal especially London by which I presume you mean the British government and Buckingham Palace were desperate to not get involved. The Governor-General Sir John Kerr was an Australian barrister appointed to the office by Whitlam and while he consulted a senior British official, Charteris, he was asking what the law was, not what he should do.
As I understand it, NSW used standard because they looked to what seemed to be the norm at the time in the UK and went with that. Victoria's first chief railways commissioner however apparently had a thing for broad gauge so that was what was rolled out. SA, WA & QLD went for narrow gauge because it's cheaper, especially on hill sections. SA had a bet each way because it made sense for railways to/from Victoria to use the same gauge and the trans-continental railway (coming from NSW) used standard gauge.
Well it could be worse, you could have been the Provincial Government of Southland who ended up attempting to build a railway with wooden rails and of course things didn't end well.
Kerr consulted Fraser and Sir Garfield Barwick, illegally. Kerr was a mistake to be appointed. He chose to ignore the principle that the
government always commanded the House, not the Senate. Whitlam always commanded the House with the greatest number of seats. Kerr did not explore all the possible solutions to the locking of the Senate.
Supporters of Kerr have their arguments as well but he was an Australian appointed by Whitlam, this one can't be blamed on London.
It was Whitlam's biggest mistake appointing Kerr. It was London's fault that he had the powers he had.
Wikipedia (usual disclaimers apply) states that when the Sydney Railway Company was building the first line in Australia, they hired an Irish engineer who persuaded them to switch to the Irish broad gauge. The companies that were building the first lines in Victoria and South Australia went along with the change for consistency. Then the Irish engineer resigned, and his replacement persuaded NSW to switch back to standard gauge. But the Victoria and South Australia railways had already ordered rolling stock...
The Germans only had a relative handful of 88s it was mostly 5 cm PAKs that did the work
The main reason was not horsey types commanding British tanks but the Germans being better at Combined arms during this period and their divisions fighting as an all arms division while initially the British and commonwealth formations where like trade unions with branches not talking to each other etc
It got better but even as late as Gazalla British and Commonwealth Divisions fought as independent Brigades
And it was not just the British who were capable of such feats of stupidity - Outpost Snipe saw over 50 Axis tanks destroyed by 19 dug in 6 pounders of the 2nd Rifle Regiment (13) and a single RA AT battery (6) effectively defeating Rommels largest counter attack at El Alemain.
Tim Fischer's 'Steam Australia' basically agrees with you, although it says that Victoria choose to go ahead with the order for broad gauge engines despite knowing about NSW's reversion to standard gauge. To bring this vageuly back on-topic it also quotes Kitchener: "Australian railways were better designed to help enemy invasion than to shore up Australia's defence."