Talk:Standard-gauge railway/Archive 1

Archive 1

best gauge?

I understand the whole thing about interoperability...but what if, from the very beggining, everybody had used broad gauge? Wouldn't that have been better?

break-of-gauge

Perhaps this section should be moved to break-of-gauge?? --Peter Horn 17:26, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

gauge

While it is a shock to see one's work go through the wringer, Morven has re-edited the "Idea Gauge" article nicely so as to retain all its original essential material. :-)

Um, my Dad insists that standard gauge is 4' 8 5/8" and not 4' 8 1/2". He spent all his life overseeing the laying of track, but all I see everywhere is 8 1/2. Is his memory faulty or did some people jump to the conclusion that 5/8 = 1/2? --WiseWoman 23:54, 2005 Feb 26 (UTC)

The 1435mm are 56.5" while 56 5/8" would be about 3mm (about 0.2%) more. It cannot come from the difference of the different ft units; other ft units (where 1 ft does not equal 12") are either longer or much shorter (as far as I can tell). Perhaps the difference comes from another point: the standard gauge is 56 1/2", but in practice the tracks need to be slighter further apart to compensate for tolerances. The track distance may also change with temperature. --Klaws 11:36, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

On very sharp curves of say 200 metres or less, there may be "gauge widening" of say 12mm (1/2 inch). This helps prevent the flanges of the wheels biting into the rail and causing noise and wear.

Tabletop 00:21, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

No need to widen the gauge to 4' 8 5/8" on tangent track, because the measure from flange exterior to flange exterior is 4' 7¾" and back to back of the wheels is some 4' 5⅛" (N American practice). Peter Horn 00:01, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a comment in the article that the relationship of standard gauge to the old Roman standard is legendary. However, it had been my understanding that early railway builders used rolling stock that was built similar to contemporary stage coaches and wagons. Builders used the same jigs and patterns for these early railway vehicles that they had in building the stage coaches and wagons. While these may have varied from 4'8.5", in general they used this "gauge" in order to allow the vehicles to use the ruts in roads, which were pretty consistent over the centuries from the Roman days.

Accuracy of gauge

How accurate must the gauge of the rails be laid to prevent derailment?

Well the rail head is about 50mm or 75mm wide, and the wheels are also about 50mm or 75mm wide.

Don't quote me, but I think that this means that the gauge could vary + or - 12mm and things might work OK, but don't quote me.

A gauge measured in inches seems to have a coarser tolerance than the same gauge measured in millimetres.

A separate issue is gauge widening on sharp curves. Where a curve is sharper than about 200m radius, the gauge may be widened up to about 25mm (1 inch) to allow for the fact that the wheels are not parallel to be rails but are at an angle.

Tabletop 06:35, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess that faster trains need tighter tolerances than slower ones. For example, the maximum allowed speed for the ICE depends on the "quality" of the rails it's running on. The most important "quality" factor is of course the curve diameter, but it is also known that lateral movement is a big problem at higher speeds. I guess that was also the reason for the infamous "bistro hum" of the early ICE models, which was elimininated by a new wheel design, where lateral movement would be absorbed and damped (this new design was abondoned after the biggest train desaster in german history, where such a wheel was torn apart). --Klaws 13:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Nitpick: It's not the biggest, it's #3 (or lower): 1939 two trains collided in Genthin, 278 killed. And 1967 in Langenweddingen 140 were killed when a train transporting petrol collided with an express, see List of rail accidents. - Alureiter 11:15, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There weren´t a Standard Gauge in County Durham when Stephenson started building railways. For example the railway that passed just outside the windov of the room he was born in is wider. 5'½" if i remember correctly. The first gauge that Stephenson started building locos for was 4 and 8 [4 ft 8 in (1,422 mm)]. He stuck to it for convenience as he admitted under oath.

Votre tres humble etc. Stefan spett

Accuracy depends on the back to back distance between the wheels and the width of the grooves at switches and crossovers. Peter Horn 02:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Ideal gauge

The big problem with 1435mm is not limited speed or limited cargo weight capacity, but passenger wagons. With the usual 2x2 seats (open interior) or 1x4 seat (2nd class cab layout), there remains very little width for center or side aisle. When the food cart is being pushed along the corridor that is really inconvenient for people. If the gauge was a bit wider, the waggons could be wider too and a lot more comfortable. Quite probably the decline of popularity in train travel over much of the world has something to do with the confined space standard gauge railway waggons offer to patrons.

This is not a problem with rail gauge because car body width is virtually independent from the rail gauge.

For instance, Soviet elektrichkas (rail gauge 1520 mm, only 89 mm wider than Stephenson's gauge) have 2x3 seat layout.--Achp ru 18:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

One of the more recent train networks is the japanese's Shinkansen. In 1960? They chose standard gauge track for their wide body width - 2x3 seating trains. This is annother example of where the loading gague:track gauge ratio is quite high, yet high speeds and reasonable stability can be acheived.

Perhapes broad gauge would be a major advantage, even necessary, for even bigger loading gauges. But such super wide trains would probably produce too much extra drag to be worth the greater capacity they would provide.

But wider cars could mean fewer cars for same number of seats, reducing drag? Tabletop (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

This is not to suggest that standard gauge is "the perfect gauge" only a specialised train engineer and economist could attempt to calculate the answer to that question, but it does prove that standard gauge is "good enough", for there is no significant need for broader gauges. Evan Roberts

This whole section seems a little pedantic to me. More importantly though, it dances around, but never makes, them most important point that everything is a trade-off. Narrow gauge has advantages (lower cost, tighter turns for low speed, lighter, lower material cost.) and disadvantages (less stable on soft ground, lower capacity, etc.) likewise with broad gauge. Regarding the size of the car, it is definitely not independent of the gauge. The cosine law's a bitch if your aspect rations stray too far from 1:1 or have significant overhang. Ask any mechanical designer (me) and he will tell you that the most efficient design (volume per pound) will require an approximately square car on a wheels spaced at least as wide as the car. Remember, weight is a very important factor in car design.

A good example of this trade off relationship is in Japan. JR and subways are narrow gauge to reduce materials, cost, allow navigating the narrow cities and mountains of japan etc. Standard gauge was chose for the shinkansen for larger cars (passenger comfort) and higher speed due to a more stable track. The cost was higher and the routes limited but even with the hit to interoperability (a very serious issue in Japan) they made this decision for a reason. So that seems to go against the article which emphases that all gauges are about as good. This needs to be fixed. jcp 04:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

...(less stable on soft ground, lower capacity, etc.) likewise with broad gauge. Oops...Broader gauges would be even more stable than standard gauge! That is apparently why 66 was choosen for the Bay Area Rapid Transit#System details. Peter Horn 00:21, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Even though I understand nothing about railway gauges it seems to me that this section needs some work. I can learn more from the discussion page than from the article itself. Currently the article mentions that broad gauge leads to more stability, but most of the section gives reasons (or indications) why gauge is not so important, and certainly less important than interoperability. I would suggest that somebody who understands this stuff

• adds some quantitive statement about stability, such as "doubling the size of the gauge would mean that trains could go 50% faster", or "a 10% smaller gauge would necessitate 20% wider curves, assuming the same speed" or whatever the correct numbers are.
• adds remarks about the inherent disadvantages of broader gauges (such as cost, or possibly the limited weight an axle can carry). Why were the first railways not built with a gauge as wide as a street?

Thank you. --The very model of a minor general 15:38, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I've been researching this, and the general principle seems to be (correct me if I'm wrong):

• Narrow Gauge: Lower speed/stability/capacity, lower cost/demands, tighter turning radius
• Broad Gauge: Higher speed/stability/capacity, higher cost/demands, wider turning radius.

So what you want is lower cost, higher SSC, and tight turns, but there's a trade-off between these considerations. There are other factors too, such as the load-carrying capacity of the axles, which means that excessively broad gauges would put too much weight on axles - so even if you're not concerned with curves or economics, there are other limitations.

It follows that there is a "sweet spot" range in which all of these factors are reasonably satisfied with a balanced trade-off. I believe that while Standard Gauge is not ideal, it is at the lower end of the ideal range, while Russian Gauge is at the higher end (this is just my speculation, but it's partially based on the standard gauge inventor's admission that in retrospect, he would've added just a few more inches). If I were asked to create a world standard, I think I would choose 1,500mm (which is not used anywhere to my knowledge, the closest being 1,495 mm gauge in Toronto CA). But once we choose a standard, we're stuck with it, whether it's rail gauge, the QWERTY keyboard, or Imperial measurement.

I believe that this article should address the trade-off issue, and its section on Track gauge should be improved. I don't have the technical knowledge to provide a rule of thumb (eg adding 1 inch results in x change in stability, y change in cost, and z change in turning radius), but hopefully an expert can weigh in. Bigdan201 (talk) 01:00, 15 January 2017 (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 23:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Wylam was a 5 mile long colliery trackway running to pits near Wylam village. It opened in 1748, was rebuilt in 1808 and a tram engine used from 1812. (Baxter, 1966:P150).Pyrotec 08:09, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Metric

Why does this article claim that standard gauge is 1435 mm? It is not. It is 4 feet 8.5 inches! Converting the correct length into Metric does not give an exact value (to one decimal place is 1435.1 mm) - so the Imperial system should be used. Yes, it is only a fraction different, but a fraction different is not the same.

As well as this, in the UK and US, Imperial is used mainly anyway, so a change is necessary.

In conclusion, it should say: Standard gauge is 4 feet 8.5 inches (appox. 1435 mm) Btline (talk) 14:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually NO. You are correct that 4 feet 8.5 inches is appoximately 1435 mm and standard gauge was 4 ft 8.5 in. It appears that BR modified it to 1,432 mm. I'm not sure when this happened, but it was at least 10 years ago. The reference comes from Simmons, Jack and Biddle, Gordon (Edrs.) (1997). The Oxford Companion to British Railway History: from 1603 to the 1990s. Oxford: Oxford University Press.) ISBN 0-19-211697-5. Page 523 (under: "track gauge"). Yes I know that this is the 1st of April. It is definitely not an April Fools trick.Pyrotec (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

So you are saying that the track is now slightly narrower than 20 years ago? Hmmmmm - I can't see BR replacing all the track. It is easy to see that a lot of track has not been touched in 30 years! Also- why would an imperial using company, in an imperial using country switch? Btline (talk) 17:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Check the reference; BR is (was) not a company and the UK is a metric country and has been since the 1960s (?), appart from road lengths, speed limits, bottles of milk and beer in glasses. Have you never read about market storeholders being prosecuted for selling, e.g. bananas by the pound, rather than the kilo? Think about it, they may not necessarily change the track spacings, just make the wheels 4 mm closer together. I will try and find another reference for you.Pyrotec (talk) 17:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

BR did not exist 10 years ago. 109.156.49.202 (talk) 17:12, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

It was a major investment, but the EU demanded it. Harmonisation, you know. All the tracks were adjusted to make the gauge 3.1 mm smaller. The worst part was that the EU demanded that both tracks be moved by 1.55 mm, instead of just moving one track 3.1 mm. (Political compromise between the left-wing and right-wing factions - the left-wing faction wanted the left track moved, and - you know...) --RenniePet (talk) 17:20, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Just my feeble attempt at humor. --RenniePet (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

I should have guessed it was the EU! Btline (talk) 17:23, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that the bit about moving each track (or should that be rail) by 1.55 mm is an April Fools joke. Moving one rail by 3 mm would suffice. The April 2007 version of the Railway Safety Standards Board Group Standard for track gauge is here [1]. The limits on straight track are 1426 to 1465 mm for up to 20 mph working, down to 1430 to 1450 mm for 95 mph and above working. The average appears to be 1440 mm; but check for yourselves. It seems that standard rail gauge is the width of the wheel flanges; and that the track is slightly wider, depending on whether the track is straight, or curved,the line speed, cant, cant deficiency, etc.Pyrotec (talk) 18:38, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Look- I regard moving any rails as a definate' joke. Proof? Why can steam trains built in pre-60s still run? It seems all to be garbage, and I won't belive it until I read a source.

Well, surely all this boils down to is that the Metric system value is different every time you see a source. What is clear is that standard gauge is 4 feet 8.5 inches. This is what is understood in the UK, and prob much of the world! Why not just call it so! Btline (talk) 17:07, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The online PDF document linked to above does make it pretty clear for the UK the standard gauge is 1435 mm.

"2.9 Track gauge

2.9.1 Nominal track gauge

2.9.1.1 New and relaid track shall be designed to give a nominal track gauge of 1435 mm."

--RenniePet (talk) 18:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

PS. My excuse for trying to be funny was not so much the date (1 April) but the fact that I, having an engineering background, find it very funny to be arguing about differences of +/- a few millimeters in the positioning of rails approx. 1.5 meters from each other. I'm guessing that in real life a variation of up to a couple of centimeters is considered to be OK. I mean, like, +/- 3 mm: you can hardly see it with the naked eye! --RenniePet (talk) 19:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh, a millimetre is a much finer measurement than an inch. Do we have sources that say 4 feet 8.5 inches is an exact measurement? Maybe it's only norminal, maybe 1435mm is more accurate. Anyway, 3 mm is an acceptable safety factor and tolerance. --Kvasir (talk) 16:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

One eight of an inch in proper units.Pyrotec (talk) 16:18, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I was just responding to btline's statement that "1435 mm" is not a correct representation of "1435.1 mm" even though the measurement is meant to be norminal than anything. --Kvasir (talk) 16:25, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Woops. I agree entirely. Pyrotec (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, it am still not buying this. Some tracks in the UK havn't been touched for years! And I come back to the main point - steam (i.e. 100 yr old) trains can still run on the mainlines. This provs that it is still 4 ft 8½. This exact figure is different to the mm value. Has some 1st April trickery been going on here? Btline (talk) 17:02, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm beginning to wonder if your continued insistence that something is wrong is an expression of your sense of humor? :-)

In real life, the rails are never exactly the correct distance apart, no matter what "correct" is defined to be. Nor are the wheels on railway cars exactly the correct distance apart. There is a certain leeway +/- a centimeter or two which is considered acceptable, and everything works within these tolerances.

So you can proclaim that standard gauge is nominally 4' 8.5" or 1435 mm or 1432 mm, without batting an eyelid or modifying a single rail or boggie. These differences are so small (do you realize how little 3 millimeters is?) that it makes no difference in the real world. --RenniePet (talk) 19:08, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I thought that even a small 3 mm distance could be too much. Btline (talk) 19:10, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a difference between the perfect world and real life engineering, such as in civil construction. Accuracy to a centimeter is usually sufficient in areas like underground utilities and elevation in surveying. Next time you are at a rail crossing, you can see the rails have visible sag whenever the wheels run over an unsupported rail section. Built-in flexibility and tolerance are everywhere. It's not like building a watch where accuracy to a fraction of a millimeter would be required. --Kvasir (talk) 20:07, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you read the RSSB Group Standards references? Do you really know more about the subject than they do! The tolerance on rail separation depends on line speed, cant, cant deficiency, whether the track is straight or curved, curve radius, etc. You were full prepared to accept that it was an EU directive, why are you unwilling to read the Railway Safety and Standards Board Ltd group Standard? Ring them up if you can't read pdf files.Pyrotec (talk) 19:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

13 April 2010 - Joking apart, if a gauge was originally developed under the imperial measurement system, surely it is only historically accurate to put the imperial measurement first (with the rough metric equivalent in brackets)? After all, Stevenson did NOT build his railways to 1.42m or 1.435m, he built them to 4'8" and 4'8.5" (whatever BR may or may not have done afterwards!). Similarly, even if Brunnel was aware that his Broad Gauge just happened to be 2.14m, he thought of it as 7' 1/4" - and it was known thus throughout its entire life.

I've no objection at all to using both metric and imperial, in fact, although born in England in the 50s, I am now married to a Hungarian and measure entirely in metric myself, but I feel that history MUST be presented in context. And context in Stevenson's and Brunnel's day was imperial. I don't suppose anyone would accept Swiss metre gauge being described as 3' 3 1/3" (1m) gauge, after all.

Paul Haynes

Some of the comments in here do display a wonderful ignorance of railways!

Standard guage was historically 4' 8.5" - no question about that. However for new build work, in which I have experience as an engineer, the gauge used is 1435mm, not 1435,1 mm but 1435mm. As with all engineering there are tolerances but the use of mass produced, high quality concrete sleeps has meant that it is much easier to achieve consistency.

BR did adopt 1432mm at one point - I was told by a senior engineer this was an attempt to reduce hunting of vehicles at higher speeds. I believe it was at a similar time to many mainlines having curves eased for higher speeds too so average speeds on some routes would be higher. As it tightened up tolerances between wheels and rails all exisitng stock could run on 1432mm gauge. Hence a question like "Why can steam trains built in pre-60s still run?" can easily be answered - remember also that flanges very rarely are in contact with the railhead. You can hear when the are! So there was room for this change.

"It seems all to be garbage, and I won't belive it until I read a source." It's not all garbage - if you wish to see a source I'm pretty sure the gauge issue is covered in the PWI textbooks. Zozzie 9t9 (talk) 10:11, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Standard Gauge Piffle

A quick quote from the uncited blurb in the middle of the article "It is possible to build a light standard gauge line about as cheaply as a narrow gauge line." Absolute nonsense. Unless there is a new definition of 'about' that now includes 'vastly more'. The cost of a line is mainly in the engineering (cuttings, tunnels, embankments etc) than solely the rails. In a perfect world in which the sole cost is in materials of the rails and sleepers themselves maybe, but last I checked this isn't a perfect world. VonBlade (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

First, could I ask that when you leave comments on a talk page like this one, you take care not to erase other editors' comments at the same time? Thanks. Second, while it is true that the civil engineering involved in railway construction is a significant portion of the costs, not all railways require heavy engineering to build. Many light railways were indeed built to low costs, comparable with similar narrow gauge railways across similar terrain. You are, of course, right that this part of the article is uncited. I will try to dig up appropriate sources for it. Gwernol 23:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I always do. My humblest apologies, I've no idea how that happened. VonBlade (talk) 09:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Rail gauge templates

Do we really need navigation templates at top and bottom of the article?
Would it be possible to merge the remaining items from the top template to the bottom template? EdJogg (talk) 22:00, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Not really, but they do serve slightly different purposes. The top template, for example, could be replaced by: e.g.

Main articles: Broad gauge, Standard gauge, Narrow gauge railway, Minimum gauge railway, List of rail gauges, Break-of-gauge, Dual gauge, Gauge conversion, Rail tracks, and Tramway track

. Pyrotec (talk) 22:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

"Dominant Rail Gauge" Diagram

Just bumped into the {{legend}} template, which might be of use with the "Dominant Rail Gauges" diagram (see template doc for reasons).
EdJogg (talk) 07:46, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Swedish narrow gauge 891mm not represented on the puicture

There is still a line of 891mm electric railroad Roslagsbanan outside the Swedish capital Stockholm it's only about 65km though, but it's classified as a railroad and operate as one, same signaling system as the normal gauge lines etc. Darkwand (talk) 11:47, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

891mm - Swedish 3ft gauge Dave Rave (talk) 00:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Roman chariots excavated

A while back, an archeological dig dug up an ancient chariot. Does anyone know what the gauge of its wheels was? Tabletop (talk) 12:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Pioneer Lines

I don't really see the relevance of the pioneer lines section to this article. I suggest that it probably should be deleted. Jameswilmot2000 (talk) 23:16, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Keep - Pioneer lines were an attempt to make standard gauge lines cheaper and beat off attempts to introduce supposedly cheaper narrow gauge lines with their break of gauge.

See Standard gauge#Pioneer lines.

Most UK rails are laid to a gauge of 4' 8 5/8"

In the past I spent some time working at British Rail in the Signalling and Telecommunications Department. It was the department's responsibility to maintain parts of the pointwork, adjusting the gaps in switchblades. Every member of staff was issued with a small official handbook, setting out technical standards. I was very surprised to read that the standard gauge, for continuously welded rail was 4' 8 5/8" and not 4' 8 1/2", as I had always thought. This must represent the majority of modern railway lines in the UK. The distance of 4' 8 1/2" was only used over pointwork, and on older sections of track, still laid on wood sleepers. I remember that I found this information very surprising, but, unfortunately, don't have a copy of the handbook. I see that this issue has been mentioned before by wisewomen, presumably in relation to German railway practice. It is of course possible that thermal expansion will cause variation, and that allowances could be made for wheel binding on curves, but these variations must be deviations measured against a specified standard. I can't remember the exact title of the handbook, but someone might have a copy. One source might be the archives at the Nation Rail Museum in York. Can anyone help?

--Waugh Bacon (talk) 13:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

The UK railway standards are available for download (see rssb). If you can remember or half remember the number it speeds up the search. Could it be this one: GCRT5021 (page 16 onwards)? Pyrotec (talk) 22:49, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Iceland

Currently, 1435mm rail network is proposed for Iceland. 121.102.122.122 (talk) 08:09, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Would this be in the guise of a passenger only light rail system?

See Rail transport in Iceland Tabletop (talk) 08:20, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Brazil

In Brazil, all 1600mm networks got proposed to convert to 1435mm. 121.102.122.122 (talk) 08:27, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Compromise Gauge

For a while in the US a number of railroads used 4' 8.5" wheels on 4' 10" track, the width of the wheel tread absorbing the difference. How long did this last? Tabletop (talk) 01:47, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Whilst standard gauge plain track can have an actual track gauge of 1,450 mm (4 ft 9.09 in) or more, it's a bigger problem at switches and crossings where the flange needs to be kept away from the check rails or frogs. This means the tolerances need to be tighter (max 1,441 mm (4 ft 8.73 in)), or speeds lower or both (GCRT5021). The Angola Horror on December 18, 1867, where a late-running train derailed on such pointwork, appears to mark the beginning of the end. Tim PF (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

French gauge

1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) is also called as French gauge. 180.198.28.237 (talk) 08:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Citation? Andy Dingley (talk) 09:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

One Carthorse or Two?

5 feet (1,500 mm) apart probably derives from the width needed to fit a carthorse between the wheels.

5 feet is surely room enough for two horses? Tabletop (talk) 02:58, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Sidebars

User:DePiep - Regarding revert [2] 'we have sidebars and infoboxes everywhere, this width' - Please provide one other example. - Crosbie 09:32, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Ah - I think I see the problem. It renders much wider in Chrome than in IE. - Crosbie 09:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

In Firefox, for example, it renders at 320px. In Chrome it renders at 508 px. - Crosbie 09:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Strange. I've added a width. -DePiep (talk) 09:41, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Other meanings of standard gauge

• Disputes ... on ... the size of standard track gauge [3]
• Japans standard track gauge of 1067 mm [4]

HSRtrack (talk) 15:58, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Dublin and Kingston railway

The Dublin and Kingstown railway in Dublin, Ireland used the standard gauge from 1834 to 1857.

Please add that to the Dublin and Kingstown page. Especially when you have a surce. -DePiep (talk) 23:33, 20 July 2013 (UTC)

Archive 1