Wrong choice of gauge?

[JamesTT]

In the long run would it have been better if the act of parliament relating to rail gauges decided to adopt Brunel's wider gauge instead? Discuss

 

[najaB]

In the long run would it have been better if the act of parliament relating to rail gauges decided to adopt Brunel's wider gauge instead? Discuss

Not really. It isn't track gauge that limits our stock as much as structures gauge. Ireland has a wider track gauge but uses the same size stock.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

What would have been better would have been a large enough loading gauge to allow proper double decker trains

 

[J-2739]

What would have been better would have been a large enough loading gauge to allow proper double decker trains

If you see the thread I posted yesterday, It would explain all the ins and outs (Rant about loading gauge)

 

[theageofthetra]

I did a tour of the Crossrail works at Tottenham Court Road last Friday as part of the Institute of Engineers open house day. I asked one of the project managers why double deck trains were not considered just for the central core as the tunnels appeared to be bigger than a normal rail tunnel. I was told that the issue of increased dwell times as well as additional costs were two key factors. Its telling that Sydney which used double deck stock for many years on its heavy rail 'metro' type services is going to single deck on new lines, also none of the numerous Chinese metro projects have gone for double deck.

IMHO the only way it could work in a very high density metro environment is to have boarding on two levels like how an A380 aircraft is loaded.

 

[edwin_m]

I did a tour of the Crossrail works at Tottenham Court Road last Friday as part of the Institute of Engineers open house day. I asked one of the project managers why double deck trains were not considered just for the central core as the tunnels appeared to be bigger than a normal rail tunnel. I was told that the issue of increasedincreased dwell times as well as additional costs were two key factors. Its telling that Sydney which used double deck stock for many years on its heavy rail 'metro' type services is going to single deck on new lines, also none of the numerous Chinese metro projects have gone for double deck.

IMHO the only way it could work in a very high density metro environment is to have boarding on two levels like how an A380 aircraft is loaded.

It would also need a total rebuild of Paddington to Reading/Heathrow and Liverpool Street to Shenfield to allow the double deck trains to run there too.

On the original question, it is proven that trains can run at very high speeds and carry large capacities on the standard gauge. A wider track gauge wouldn't allow higher speeds, would probably increase the minimum curve radius and would generally increase costs. It might allow an even larger loading gauge for freight than the largest that exist today, perhaps allowing bulk traffic to travel in shorter fatter wagons (limited by axle load) but larger containers for intermodal traffic wouldn't fit on road vehicles.

So, admittedly with hindsight, I conclude that Brunel's track gauge was a technological dead end and in standardising on standard gauge the right decision was made albeit probably for the wrong reasons.

 

[175mph]

I did a tour of the Crossrail works at Tottenham Court Road last Friday as part of the Institute of Engineers open house day. I asked one of the project managers why double deck trains were not considered just for the central core as the tunnels appeared to be bigger than a normal rail tunnel. I was told that the issue of increasedincreased dwell times as well as additional costs were two key factors. Its telling that Sydney which used double deck stock for many years on its heavy rail 'metro' type services is going to single deck on new lines, also none of the numerous Chinese metro projects have gone for double deck.

IMHO the only way it could work in a very high density metro environment is to have boarding on two levels like how an A380 aircraft is loaded.

I noticed when I was in Paris last year, their underground rail was using double-decker type trains.

 

[mike57]

The Paris RER which is the longer distance 'underground' do use double deckers on some lines. However in many cases these use ex suburban lines once out of the city centre, and of course the lines that were incorporated have the larger loading gauge so the decision was made to bore the new tunnels to the same gauge.

Back to the original post and a couple of questions:

Assuming the same size rolling stock, just a wider rail gauge, would cornering ability be improved?

Given a similar quality of track, i.e. unevenness etc, would ride be better worse or the same?

 

[yorksrob]

In the long run would it have been better if the act of parliament relating to rail gauges decided to adopt Brunel's wider gauge instead? Discuss

All of the standard gauge routes would have required a lot more work to enhance their loading gauge than simply relaying the track (which was what the GW did).

It would have taken a lot of capital out of the railway at the time so perhaps some lines might not have been built.

 

[edwin_m]

Assuming the same size rolling stock, just a wider rail gauge, would cornering ability be improved?

A train would be able to go round the same curve faster without overturning. However the speed round curves is determined by passenger comfort, which becomes unacceptable at well below the overturning speed even on standard gauge. So in practice there would be no benefit.

The "self steering" effect of rail wheels that prevents flange contact except on fairly tight curves depends on the ratio between the track gauge and the curve radius. So if the track gauge was wider flange contact would occur on larger radii, causing rail squeal and increasing wheel/rail wear. The alternative would be to increase wheel conicity, but I think this would increase the risk of lateral oscillation ("hunting") at higher speeds.

 

[AM9]

A train would be able to go round the same curve faster without overturning. However the speed round curves is determined by passenger comfort, which becomes unacceptable at well below the overturning speed even on standard gauge. So in practice there would be no benefit.

The "self steering" effect of rail wheels that prevents flange contact except on fairly tight curves depends on the ratio between the track gauge and the curve radius. So if the track gauge was wider flange contact would occur on larger radii, causing rail squeal and increasing wheel/rail wear. The alternative would be to increase wheel conicity, but I think this would increase the risk of lateral oscillation ("hunting") at higher speeds.

Also, the difference in distance travelled between the two wheels on fixed axles would be greater the larger the gauge. Thus rail howl would be more frequent on curved track.

 

[ian959]

Its telling that Sydney which used double deck stock for many years on its heavy rail 'metro' type services is going to single deck on new lines, also none of the numerous Chinese metro projects have gone for double deck.

I would think a more telling example would be the fact that Indian Railways have never adopted double deck stock on metro routes such as in Mumbai even though their loading gauge may well permit such stock.

 

[LLivery]

I did a tour of the Crossrail works at Tottenham Court Road last Friday as part of the Institute of Engineers open house day. I asked one of the project managers why double deck trains were not considered just for the central core as the tunnels appeared to be bigger than a normal rail tunnel. I was told that the issue of increased dwell times as well as additional costs were two key factors. Its telling that Sydney which used double deck stock for many years on its heavy rail 'metro' type services is going to single deck on new lines, also none of the numerous Chinese metro projects have gone for double deck.

IMHO the only way it could work in a very high density metro environment is to have boarding on two levels like how an A380 aircraft is loaded.

The new North West Rail Link in Sydney will be a high frequency "rapid transit" service so will not be double deck. However, Sydney are very much staying with double deck trains on its suburban network, core sections have one train every 3 minutes.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I noticed when I was in Paris last year, their underground rail was using double-decker type trains.

Indeed the RER i.e Paris Crossrail/Thameslink does use double deck on lines A, B and C. Route A is more frequent than Crossrail and Thameslink will be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In the long run would it have been better if the act of parliament relating to rail gauges decided to adopt Brunel's wider gauge instead? Discuss

I'd say no, they got it right. If we had a different gauge to the continent, HS1 wouldn't have domestic services. I do however believe that the loading gauge we've ended up with has been a total mistake. There are many lines where double deckers would have been great for.

 

[broadgage]

A wider track gauge such as the old Brunel broad gauge would be of little advantage in itself, unless the loading gauge was also increased in proportion.

The old broad gauge is about 150% of the present gauge. If both the width and the height of rolling stock were increased in like proportion, then the internal volume is more than doubled.
The wider and taller vehicles and contents would weigh appreciably more and the permissible axle load would have to be substantially increased in order to utilise all the extra space.

Passenger capacity would be greatly increased, 3+3 seating in steerage and 2+2 in first would be more spacious than the present arrangement.
Double deck trains would be viable on inter city services, though probably not on metro services for the reasons already given of dwell times.

Freight trains could not only convey greater tonnage and bulk than at present, but could also convey articles that at present are out of gauge and simply cant be conveyed by rail.

The increased space available would simplify locomotive design, especially if complications like hybrid battery/OHLE operation was desired, or battery/diesel.

The costs of larger structures and increased axle loads would be very substantial though and might not be justified by the increased freight and passenger capacity.

Too late to alter it now in any case.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Indeed the RER i.e Paris Crossrail/Thameslink does use double deck on lines A, B and C. Route A is more frequent than Crossrail and Thameslink will be.

A, C, D and E are double deck. B is single deck.

 

[Bald Rick]

It always amused me that to 2 or 3 decimal places:

Standard Gauge is pi / 2 yards

Broad Gauge is pi - 1 metres.

 

[LesS]

The so called Sydney "metro" is a huge mistake. The trains are to be 6 cars with provision to increase them to 8. Less than 1/3rd of passengers will have seats. An existing route is to be converted from the present DD operation. Projected journey time is over 40 minutes with most passengers standing the whole time. Peak hour frequencies are to be every 4 minutes or 15 trains an hour. No matter how you frame it, service frequency does not substitute for seating. The whole concept was designed around "political ideology". With the projected rolling stock the line capacity will be only a fraction of the capacity of the existing DD lines.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

The so called Sydney "metro" is a huge mistake. The trains are to be 6 cars with provision to increase them to 8. Less than 1/3rd of passengers will have seats. An existing route is to be converted from the present DD operation. Projected journey time is over 40 minutes with most passengers standing the whole time. Peak hour frequencies are to be every 4 minutes or 15 trains an hour. No matter how you frame it, service frequency does not substitute for seating. The whole concept was designed around "political ideology". With the projected rolling stock the line capacity will be only a fraction of the capacity of the existing DD lines.

Were the tunnels bored big enough (the new bits) to allow double deckers to be used in the future?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Standard gauge is always the right gauge.
I'm always baffled why countries adopted something different, when they had a choice.
Why did Ireland go for 5'3?
I think Spain went for 5'6 partly for military reasons to ensure the French could not invade by train. Similar thinking in Russia (5').
The same sort of thinking that put the Channel Tunnel back 100 years!
They are still paying the penalty in higher transhipment costs (though Spain is well on the way to a standard gauge high speed system).
Spain also has some very clever automatic gauge-changing equipment, which trains can navigate on the run at 30kph.
http://www.vialibre-ffe.com/pdf/Track_gauge_changeover.pdf

There's also an interesting debate to be had on the legacy of left/right hand running, and what happens when the systems meet.

 

[LLivery]

Were the tunnels bored big enough (the new bits) to allow double deckers to be used in the future?

Yes and No. The Epping to Chatswood section is part of the current suburban double deck network, but they are purposely making the section beyond Epping a few inches too small for the double deck A, M, S etc sets to the dismay of at lot of people. Whats worse, is that the "Rapid Transit" is planned to take over the Bankstown line, instead of just using a new route south/west/east of the city, which would reduce conic traffic problems and relive the suburban network.

Its like having the Waterloo & City line taking over the Bexleyheath Line.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A, C, D and E are double deck. B is single deck.

Sorry, I should have got that right. I got on RER D last month

 

[J-2739]

Standard gauge is always the right gauge.
I'm always baffled why countries adopted something different, when they had a choice.
Why did Ireland go for 5'3?
I think Spain went for 5'6 partly for military reasons to ensure the French could not invade by train. Similar thinking in Russia (5').
The same sort of thinking that put the Channel Tunnel back 100 years!
They are still paying the penalty in higher transhipment costs (though Spain is well on the way to a standard gauge high speed system).
Spain also has some very clever automatic gauge-changing equipment, which trains can navigate on the run at 30kph.
http://www.vialibre-ffe.com/pdf/Track_gauge_changeover.pdf

There's also an interesting debate to be had on the legacy of left/right hand running, and what happens when the systems meet.

The 'right gauge', ha ha!
Some countries had different gauges for different circumstances. For example, Japan adopted narrow gauge (1067mm) because of its rugged terrain.

 

[Taunton]

The first Russian railways were designed around 1840 for them by British engineers, who proposed standard gauge. However Czar Nikolai 1, who took a very active part in developing the first railways there, said that he did not want the same gauge as the rest of Europe to the west, remembering Napoleon's invasion in 1812 from that direction when he had been a junior officer. So they went for 5'0". Notably he went for a gauge that was just sufficiently different that it was generally an impossibility to modify rolling stock by, say, putting wheels outside the frames instead of inside.

Roll on 100 years and when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union in 1942 they were pretty much defeated by exactly this decision, they had no Russian gauge stock and the Soviets had withdrawn or destroyed their own. So the Germans were back to road vehicles, on poor roads which were impassable for heavy vehicles due to snow or thawed mud for much of the year. The shortfall in supplies past the Soviet border was a key part of the eventual defeat.

So some alternative gauge choices can work out well.

 

[Calthrop]

Standard gauge is always the right gauge.
I'm always baffled why countries adopted something different, when they had a choice.
Why did Ireland go for 5'3?
I think Spain went for 5'6 partly for military reasons to ensure the French could not invade by train. Similar thinking in Russia (5').
The same sort of thinking that put the Channel Tunnel back 100 years!
They are still paying the penalty in higher transhipment costs (though Spain is well on the way to a standard gauge high speed system).
Spain also has some very clever automatic gauge-changing equipment, which trains can navigate on the run at 30kph.
http://www.vialibre-ffe.com/pdf/Track_gauge_changeover.pdf

There's also an interesting debate to be had on the legacy of left/right hand running, and what happens when the systems meet.

The 'right gauge', ha ha!
Some countries had different gauges for different circumstances. For example, Japan adopted narrow gauge (1067mm) because of its rugged terrain.

I tend to an opposite "take" from LNW-GW Joint,(see my bolding above). Humans are by nature so contrary, fractious, individualistic and generally illogical: that I'm surprised and impressed by the relatively high degree of gauge consistency that has obtained -- and increases -- worldwide; and by how large a proportion of the world's nations do use 4' 8-and-a-half" gauge.

The Irish 5'3" gauge: I gather (and I think this is true, not an urban legend) that the first few railways opened in Ireland were on several different gauges, varying between four-eight-and-a-half and six feet-something. It was officially decreed and implemented that a mathematical average of these different gauges should be taken, and used for Ireland's rail-system-to-be: the answer to the sum was 5'3".

 

[thenorthern]

Regarding the gauge choice we are lucky with standard gauge as we exported it to the French who then exported it around the world with high speed rail along with left hand traffic, also with the 25 kV AC electrification.

 

[edwin_m]

I've also heard the story about the Irish gauge being the average. It was subsequently exported to parts of Australia so contributed to the mix of gauges that still exists there, although most major centres are now connected by standard gauge.

The surprising one to me was India - when the British built the railways why wasn't the standard gauge adopted along with pretty much every other British railway practice?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The 'right gauge', ha ha!
Some countries had different gauges for different circumstances. For example, Japan adopted narrow gauge (1067mm) because of its rugged terrain.

And when the Shinkansen was developed in the 1960s they obviously decided that the high speeds they wanted were not possible without a broader track gauge. Starting a brand new high-speed network with no possibility of connecting to any existing railway, they could choose any gauge they wanted, but went for standard gauge. I think this is quite good evidence that a wider gauge than standard doesn't offer much benefit.

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

I've also heard the story about the Irish gauge being the average. It was subsequently exported to parts of Australia so contributed to the mix of gauges that still exists there, although most major centres are now connected by standard gauge.

A little Wiki reading is useful. For the UK Parliament passed the Regulating the Gauge of Railways Act in 1846 which banned the construction of any further broad gauge lines (in Britain) not connecting to the existing broad gauge network, and also set 5ft 3in as the Irish standard gauge, that size being, as rightly mentioned upthread, a compromise of the multiple gauges then extant in Ireland. Parliament, in the laissez-faire manner so characteristic of the Victorian era, took no further action regarding gauges and it took nearly 50 years before the last remnants of broad gauge were converted.

The surprising one to me was India - when the British built the railways why wasn't the standard gauge adopted along with pretty much every other British railway practice?

This was due to the Governor General of 1848-1856, Lord Dalhousie. Although somewhat lacking in political skill he was a fine administrator with a particular interest in communications. Evidently, as a Scot, he had been aware of the use by certain Scottish railways of 5ft 6in gauge, ie the Dundee and Arbroath Railway and the Arbroath and Forfar Railway, and this was set as the Indian standard. It was also used for the cross border route to Burma and is intended to be used for a connection to Bhutan as well as for any new construction in India itself. However some Indian metros use standard 4ft 8.5in gauge.

Worth adding that 5ft 6in is also the gauge of the BART (Bay Area Rapid Transit) aka San Francisco Metro.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Also, the difference in distance travelled between the two wheels on fixed axles would be greater the larger the gauge. Thus rail howl would be more frequent on curved track.

This consequence could be compensated for, without producing more 'howl' - by, either, a larger diameter wheel, or greater cant, or a greater conicity of the wheel profile, or combinations of these.

 

[XDM]

I would think a more telling example would be the fact that Indian Railways have never adopted double deck stock on metro routes such as in Mumbai even though their loading gauge may well permit such stock.

Why bother with the cost of a second deck when people enjoy sitting on the roof.

 

[J-2739]

Why bother with the cost of a second deck when people enjoy sitting on the roof.

So they can sit higher up

 

[Calthrop]

I've also heard the story about the Irish gauge being the average. It was subsequently exported to parts of Australia so contributed to the mix of gauges that still exists there, although most major centres are now connected by standard gauge.

And Irish 5'3" gauge was also used -- and still obtains -- for the rail system of the most-developed-and populated areas of Brazil (elsewhere in that country, the metre gauge predominates). Without researching, one can only hypothesise -- expatriate Irish engineers, certain that 5'3" was the only right and proper gauge?

The surprising one to me was India - when the British built the railways why wasn't the standard gauge adopted along with pretty much every other British railway practice?

This was due to the Governor General of 1848-1856, Lord Dalhousie. Although somewhat lacking in political skill he was a fine administrator with a particular interest in communications. Evidently, as a Scot, he had been aware of the use by certain Scottish railways of 5ft 6in gauge, ie the Dundee and Arbroath Railway and the Arbroath and Forfar Railway, and this was set as the Indian standard. It was also used for the cross border route to Burma and is intended to be used for a connection to Bhutan as well as for any new construction in India itself.

As well as the Scots Governor General's loyalty to the 5'6" gauge -- could it be that 150-plus years ago, no-one administering India saw it (with geographical and political factors being as they were) as conceivable that a rail system for the Indian sub-continent would ever link up with rail systems anywhere else in Eurasia -- so it really didn't matter what gauge might be hit upon for the Indian system? Truly, not such a very foolish thing to think: it's only in very recent times that Turkey has been rail-linked with Iran (both countries standardised on 4-8-and-a-half), and Iran's nationwide system extended to Zahedan: very close to the border with Pakistan, and a 4-8-and-a-half / 5'6" break-of-gauge point.