Wrong choice of gauge?

[najaB]

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?

True. Though, on the other hand, had the gauge been the same it would have made designs (and stock for that matter) instantly exportable from Britain to India.

 

[Taunton]

A poor choice in the USA was the BART outer suburban system in San Francisco, built in the 1970s, where just about every traditional rail approach was challenged by the (non-rail background) designers, and they went for a 5'6" gauge. Among other issues it means they are now unable to hire any on-track maintenance plant from the mainstream US rail industry suppliers. They also went for non-standard power supply (1,000 V DC) that no manufacturer does off the shelf either, and non-standard just about everything else.

Britain can't laugh. Remember the days when all rolling stock could couple to everything else?

 

[Retorus]

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

Standard Gauge is pi / 2 yards

Broad Gauge is pi - 1 metres.

You've got a cracking sense of humour.

 

[LesS]

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

LeeLivery has this correct. The "political ideology" decreed that the decision on tunnel width be determined first and the construction contracts let. ONLY THEN were tenders called for the provision of rolling stock. The theory being that cheap "off the shelf" equipment could be acquired from Europe. Of course it can't. The subsequent contract has the carsets being constructed In India.

In Melbourne some years ago they purchased some "off the shelf" carsets from Siemens. There were technical problems, the most serious being that the brakes did not work. They then had issues with station dwell times. Melbourne cars have 3 doors per side on each car. The Siemens cars have only 2. Hence longer dwell times are needed for loading and unloading.

 

[Wolfie]

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.

With the "Great Game" (the competition in 9th Century between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for advantage in territories situated between each empire's colonial possessions, primarily centred around Afghanistan and its surrounding regions) well and truly underway choice of such a gauge may well have also had the same strategic benefits with respect to invasion of India as Russia itself choosing a different gauge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game

 

[Calthrop]

With the "Great Game" (the competition in 9th Century between the British Empire and the Russian Empire for advantage in territories situated between each empire's colonial possessions, primarily centred around Afghanistan and its surrounding regions) well and truly underway choice of such a gauge may well have also had the same strategic benefits with respect to invasion of India as Russia itself choosing a different gauge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_Game

With all respect: good luck with building a railway across the Hindu Kush / Pamirs / Karakoram / Himalayas, even today -- let alone 150 years ago.

 

[Wolfie]

With all respect: good luck with building a railway across the Hindu Kush / Pamirs / Karakoram / Himalayas, even today -- let alone 150 years ago.

Damned cunning these Tsarists, don't ya know old boy.....

 

[Calthrop]

Damned cunning these Tsarists, don't ya know old boy.....

Thoughts kindled of The Peshawar Lancers -- IMO splendid alternative-history yarn by S.M. Stirling, which has the basic "Great Game" scenario still happening in the early 21st century -- the Tsarists still there, and very cunning and very not-nice. This novel also has technology roughly a century behind that of our "real world": motor transport relatively in its infancy, and British India's railways still relying on steam power.

 

[SpacePhoenix]

Had the UK loading gauge been larger, which routes (if any) would have benefited from the the ability to run double deckers?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Had the UK loading gauge been larger, which routes (if any) would have benefited from the the ability to run double deckers?

Wrong thread - this is a track gauge thread, the double decker thread is in the Infrastructure section.

 

[J-2739]

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.

They probably wouldn't have gone for a wider gauge anyway because of the costs associated with it.

 

[tsangpogorge]

Regarding the choice of 5ft6in broad gauge on the Indian Rail network I heard from various BBC documentaries that it was done to provide greater stability in the high winds of the monsoons, allow for larger fire boxes and probably most importantly to transport freight, troops plus armaments in greater bulk more efficiently. Lest we forget, the main reasons why the railways were built at such great expense by the colonial authorities was to:

-transport raw materials like cotton for example from the interior of the country to the port cities where they were then loaded on to ships bound for Britain

-quickly and efficiently move troops and ammunition to trouble spots

Anyway back on topic, at the time of independence in 1947 only the trunk routes which make up just under half the total route length ran on broad gauge while the rest of the network was mostly metre gauge plus the odd narrow gauge route here and there. It's only in the last 20 years or so that most routes have been converted and now over 90% of the network runs on broad gauge.

 

[Calthrop]

Anyway back on topic, at the time of independence in 1947 only the trunk routes which make up just under half the total route length ran on broad gauge while the rest of the network was mostly metre gauge plus the odd narrow gauge route here and there. It's only in the last 20 years or so that most routes have been converted and now over 90% of the network runs on broad gauge.

It could be thought a little odd that India's British administrators chose for, as it were, the "secondary main line" network -- the metre gauge ! 3'6", widely used elsewhere in the British Empire, is little different from the despised "Continental" measure of length; and is a nice round figure in Imperial measures.

I have seen this explained by there having been at the relevant stage of the 19th century, a quite keen campaign by influential figures in Britain, for the country and its overseas possessions to adopt the metric system; use of the metre gauge for India was intended as something of a sop to the "metricisers". A rather half-hearted one: all measurements re engineering and construction of locos and stock for the Indian metre gauge, were "Imperial"; only the track width was "metric". Can anyone confirm this explanation -- or is it perhaps a 19th-century UL?

 

[AlterEgo]

They probably wouldn't have gone for a wider gauge anyway because of the costs associated with it.

What makes you think that?

[/deadpan]

(just teasing )

 

[FormerBritInMe]

A poor choice in the USA was the BART outer suburban system in San Francisco, built in the 1970s, where just about every traditional rail approach was challenged by the (non-rail background) designers, and they went for a 5'6" gauge. Among other issues it means they are now unable to hire any on-track maintenance plant from the mainstream US rail industry suppliers. They also went for non-standard power supply (1,000 V DC) that no manufacturer does off the shelf either, and non-standard just about everything else.

Yes, at the dawn of the rail renaissance in the US we went through a silly season where planners thought they could overcome a 20 year lag behind the rest of the world by throwing technology at it. Thus the abominations such as the Boeing Vertol trams, etc.

Back on the topic of rail gauge, in the US there was (and still is) an anomaly in the building of trolley (tram systems) where different gauges were mandated mostly to prevent the nascent systems from carrying freight and thereby competing with the politically powerful steam railroads. In Pennsylvania they used "PA trolley gauge" of 5 ft 2 1/2 in.

The SEPTA system in Philadelphia still suffers from this, where the trams and the Market Frankford line use the PA trolley gauge, but the Broad St. line and all of the suburban commuter lines use standard gauge.

 

[J-2739]

What makes you think that?

[/deadpan]

(just teasing )

Aw, come on now . There has to be a limit somewhere. Even loading gauges...

Anyway, we've come to the conclusion that there is little point in increasing the track gauge. Standardising is always good and a wider gauge is more suited to straight lines of track, and straight is not something you apply to British rails! Meanwhile the costs are higher and you can still achieve 300km/h on 1435mm.

 

[jayiscupid]

There were plans in 1930 for a 3 metre gauge 250km/h railway across Europe. The museum in Nurnberg has some fascinating info and scale models. I've attached some photos I took in 2009.

Though tunneling for this line may have proved a challenge!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitspurbahn

 

[QueensCurve]

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

Yes, but I understand the Brexit lobby is now proposing that "HS2" be built to classic British loading guage now that they they will be freed from the shackles of the UIC.

 

[J-2739]

Yes, but I understand the Brexit lobby is now proposing that "HS2" be built to classic British loading guage now that they they will be freed from the shackles of the UIC.

Nah, a new standard should be erected in the name of Brexit; Height-7m, Width-6m to allow jumbo jet sized trains so then J.C is then guaranteed a seat!!