What if Brunel had won the gauge war?

[Hellfire]

While trundling down the 15in Ravenglass & Eskdale railway today I started thinking about gauges. (As you do)

In what way would Britain's railways be better or worse today if Brunel had won the gauge war and 7ft had become the norm.

I'm trying to imagine how the interior and exterior of a modern train would look if the gauge was over 2ft wider than it is now. Whether passengers would get more space and what engineering issues would this raise?

 

[DarloRich]

While trundling down the 15in Ravenglass & Eskdale railway today I started thinking about gauges. (As you do)

In what way would Britain's railways be better or worse today if Brunel had won the gauge war and 7ft had become the norm.

I'm trying to imagine how the interior and exterior of a modern train would look if the gauge was over 2ft wider than it is now. Whether passengers would get more space and what engineering issues would this raise?

hang on - any fule kno that Burnel fella was mad with his crazy massive gauge and his pneumatic trains. Stephenson was right. And northern therefore better

It is an interesting idea, as i assume to would allow much bigger trains including duplex as the overall gauge envelope would be much bigger.

What would it do for cornering and stability?

 

[fowler9]

While trundling down the 15in Ravenglass & Eskdale railway today I started thinking about gauges. (As you do)

In what way would Britain's railways be better or worse today if Brunel had won the gauge war and 7ft had become the norm.

I'm trying to imagine how the interior and exterior of a modern train would look if the gauge was over 2ft wider than it is now. Whether passengers would get more space and what engineering issues would this raise?

I'm not sure about the railways but we would have a much smaller back garden.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Wider class 142 Pacers with 4+4 bus seating...

 

[Chapeltom]

Wider class 142 Pacers with 4+4 bus seating...

That sounds quite good to me

 

[jrhilton]

I'm trying to imagine how the interior and exterior of a modern train would look if the gauge was over 2ft wider than it is now.

Although the track gauge was wider, the overhang on Brunel's broad gauge was much less, so the over all carriage width was in reality similar to the widest/longest on the network today (e.g something like a Class 159 at 2.82m x 23.21m). From memory of reading about them, I think I recall the carriages were about 9 feet 7 inches wide, which is around 2.9m so not all the much different to 2.82m, certainly not enough to really notice.

There was much more standard gauge when parliament decided so I don't think there would have been much opportunity to increase the overhand on broad gauge universally across the network as the largest would have been limited by all the existing standard gauge routes anyway as things would have to be compatible.

 

[Moonshot]

If that would have meant trams to the same gauge, i kinda wonder if the new line near me would have actually got built as i reckon it would be too wide for the road.

How would Road Rail vehicles cope on narrow country lanes?

 

[jopsuk]

As said, he didn't build the rolling stock much wider. One advantage the wide gauge had was it meant the same diameter of boiler could be mounted lower with larger driving wheels.

 

[Penmorfa]

I think that because of construction costs and land take that there would have been a lot more narrow gauge built, it this context standard would count as narrow gauge. Therefore much more transhipment of goods and passengers between the gauges. Not good for a joined up network.

 

[Hellfire]

hang on - any fule kno that Burnel fella was mad with his crazy massive gauge and his pneumatic trains. Stephenson was right. And northern therefore better :wink

But Stephenson just slavishly followed the gauge used by horse drawn wagons in mines, while Brunel was a man of vision.

 

[edwin_m]

Seeing as we have trains on the standard gauge that can run at speeds limited only by aerodynamics, I don't think Stephenson got it too far wrong.

 

[w0033944]

Seeing as we have trains on the standard gauge that can run at speeds limited only by aerodynamics, I don't think Stephenson got it too far wrong.

What about on curves, is the limitation there stability or how well a bogie can negotiate the bend?

 

[HSTEd]

7ft would b able to support triple stack container transports rather than double stack (which can only be done on well wagons with standard gauge because of top heaviness issues)

 

[edwin_m]

What about on curves, is the limitation there stability or how well a bogie can negotiate the bend?

A wider gauge would be less prone to overturning but curve speeds are set by passenger comfort which becomes unacceptable long before there is any overturning risk. Even if some sort of ultra-tilting train could be devised to keep the passengers comfortable, there is a limit to superelevation and I think wear on the outer rail would still be a problem before overturning.

 

[fowler9]

I would imagine the wider the train is the harder it would be to get around corners.I think the UK would be fine if we had a continental loading gauge.

 

[Eagle]

But Stephenson just slavishly followed the gauge used by horse drawn wagons in mines, while Brunel was a man of vision.

Reminds me of that old joke that standard gauge was designed by a couple of horses' asses.

 

[fsmr]

The army would be able to transport their tanks without Bridge bashing
Would have made the Great Central a very expensive job though through the Midlands cities where it went straight through on viaducts in Leicester and Nottingham in terms of land required

 

[DownSouth]

7ft would b able to support triple stack container transports rather than double stack (which can only be done on well wagons with standard gauge because of top heaviness issues)

No. Double stacked containers are already close enough to the limit of safety with crosswinds. axle loadings on classic lines and the maximum load for European freight couplings.

And that's before you get to the issue of building all the bridges and tunnels three metres higher, and there would be more of them if you've got 7 foot tracks which can't turn corners as well.

 

[edwin_m]

No. Double stacked containers are already close enough to the limit of safety with crosswinds. axle loadings on classic lines and the maximum load for European freight couplings.

And that's before you get to the issue of building all the bridges and tunnels three metres higher, and there would be more of them if you've got 7 foot tracks which can't turn corners as well.

The wider gauge would increase stability against crosswinds, so some increase in height might be possible but maybe not enough for triple stacking. I agree about clearances and axleloads having to be larger to take advantage of a larger track gauge.

I wonder if the standard ISO container would also be wider/higher, since ability to travel on trains was one factor when setting the standard size. This would also mean larger trucks on the road...

 

[Cliveblackpool]

hang on - any fule kno that Burnel fella was mad with his crazy massive gauge and his pneumatic trains. Stephenson was right. And northern therefore better

It is an interesting idea, as i assume to would allow much bigger trains including duplex as the overall gauge envelope would be much bigger.

What would it do for cornering and stability?

His pneumatic trains were a brilliant idea. With only leather available for the seals which dried out, and a feast for the rat population it leaked like a basket! With today's materials it could have been feasible.
7 foot gauge - a man of vision. Sadly no one else could see it.
There are many examples of Broad gauge around today with oversize structures - Royal Albert Bridge, many tunnels etc.

 

[HSTEd]

No. Double stacked containers are already close enough to the limit of safety with crosswinds. axle loadings on classic lines and the maximum load for European freight couplings.

Traditional European freight couplings are worthless when it comes to actually moving large quantities of freight anyway.
As to crosswind safety, the increase in track gauge is from 1435mm to ~2140mm.
Similar triangles (simplistic but useful for a first approximation) would imply that a train could be 1.49x taller and have the same stability due to crosswinds (neglecting minor effects like wind speeds increasing with altitude which are insignificant over 30 feet).
That implies that instead of the 20'3" practical (and in operation) at standard gauge you would be able to manage 30'2", which is certainly more than 9'6" greater than 20'3".
That implies you would be able to have three stacked hi-cube containers on a well wagon.

And double stack containers would probably still have a lower than the 30t axle load which is increasingly common in the United States.
And freight railways in the US tend to bend rather less than they do here so again the 'cornering' issues are not really a massive one.

And that's before you get to the issue of building all the bridges and tunnels three metres higher, and there would be more of them if you've got 7 foot tracks which can't turn corners as well.

Tunnels and bridges do not seem to have been a problem with the US railroads which do not have the same aversion to level crossings as is found in Britain, and tunnel upgrades have been completed all over the US network to increase top coverage.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If Britain had a 7 foot gauge, there would have been no use in having fast services to France via the Channel Tunnel.

 

[HSTEd]

Well if Britain had 7ft gauge, it is probable that almost everyone else would too.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Well if Britain had 7ft gauge, it is probable that almost everyone else would too.

....just like they all drive on the left-hand side...I think NOT...:roll:

 

[sng7]

....just like they all drive on the left-hand side...I think NOT...:roll:

But their mainline railways run the left like ours.

 

[HSTEd]

....just like they all drive on the left-hand side...I think NOT...:roll:

SNCF does

 

[LWB]

....just like they all drive on the left-hand side...I think NOT...:roll:

Does it not occur to you that they did adopt our standard gauge ? :roll::roll:

 

[edwin_m]

His pneumatic trains were a brilliant idea. With only leather available for the seals which dried out, and a feast for the rat population it leaked like a basket! With today's materials it could have been feasible.

The fundamental limitation of the atmospheric railway is that the tractive effort to haul one train is limited to one atmosphere multiplied by the cross-section of the pipe, which according to the link below was about 1700lb.

https://sites.google.com/site/diskandcrossbarpages/home/techn/the-atmospheric-railway

A quick Google search shows that this was less than twice the tractive effort of Stephenson's Rocket, so I would have though that even in Brunel's time it was obvious that the steam loco would soon overtake the atmospheric railway in tractive effort. Locomotives were increasing rapidly in cylinder size and boiler pressure, and there was always the option of double-heading a heavy train.

Atmospheric might have worked at sea level but even if the rats etc had been overcome it's difficult to see how anything other than very short trains could have been worked over the Devon banks. Increasing train frequency to counter this would have been very costly as there would need to be a pumping station in each interval between trains.

 

[Howardh]

Spanish gauge is wider than ours? If so, that's what trains would look like here??

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Does it not occur to you that they did adopt our standard gauge ? :roll::roll:

I was making reference to the fact that British car drivers drive on the left hand side of the road and this was in response to a comment made which stated that Europe would follow the British way of things, which in that case is patently not the case.

The thread is about how the 7 foot railway gauge was an attempt by Brunel to put his own mark on the railways of Britain and this was not seen as the correct gauge by the other railway engineers who all adopted the gauge that Britain finally adopted. I think that the French railway system began in 1832 and I cannot trace any Brunel wide-gauge movement being seriously considered in France.

So in answer to your query raised as to whether it occurred to me that the gauge used in France is the same standard gauge as used in Britain, that was not at all the matter under consideration but the case that I sought to make was the France railway engineers most certainly were not of a mind-set to follow the 7 foot gauge proposed by Brunel.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Spanish gauge is wider than ours? If so, that's what trains would look like here??

The gauge in Ireland is also wider than the British rail gauge