Interesting material, re both "words and pictures". I have long found Australia's "gauge weirdness": both entertaining (particularly as I've never had to suffer its consequences at first hand
), and a cause for wonderment. Confess to having posted much of what follows, previously in various places on these Forums; but if people are bored, they're free to stop reading !
Your piece tells, properly soberly and sedately, of the business in the very earliest days of rail in Australia (early 1850s); which led to the split "Colonies / States-wise", between four-eight-and-a-half (which I'll henceforth refer to as "standard"), and 5ft. 3in. From previously-read accounts of same, it has tended hitherto to strike me as having an element of low comedy: all was originally going to be standard gauge; then New South Wales got a new chief railway engineer, an Irishman and zealous proponent of 5ft. 3in; under whose persuasion, plans were changed for all to be that "Irish" gauge. Victoria and South Aus., which had already begun to "kit out" for standard gauge, obligingly changed over to doing so for 5ft. 3in. Our Irish friend, however, didn't last long in his post; and was succeeded by an Englishman -- one takes it, James Wallace as in your piece -- who was equally zealous for standard gauge, and persuaded yet another change-of-gauge policy: "standard" once again, not Irish. This was accepted in NSW; but Victoria and S.A., exasperated, took the position of "to hell with this nonsense -- we're sticking with 5ft. 3in. now, and let the chips fly where they may". Interesting to read in your piece, of the subsequent earnest moves to try to sort this stuff out rationally -- which it seems would not have been very hard in practical terms: with actual railway construction and opening in Australia, mid-19th-century, getting off to a decidedly slow start; but people are stubborn so-and-so's ... (1899 Railway Magazine article as appended by you, emphasises long-standing serious thought, to try to address this tangled issue, and further therefrom).
Then, "as per", 3ft. 6in. got into the mix also -- in one way, the last thing that was needed; but it has always seemed to me that this narrower gauge, with its lower construction costs and greater flexibility, made sense hereabouts, re the "wilder-and-woollier" regions of Australia in which it was established.
A factor in those early-ish days, told of in your piece, which surprised me: I quote, "Until the turn of the 20th century [with Federation in Australia coming about in 1901], the benefits of a uniform gauge were not immediately apparent, since passengers had to pass through customs and immigration at the intercolonial border, meaning that all goods would have to be removed for customs inspection." [Query by me] -- what about freight traffic? -- how are things thus, at borders between countries which share same gauge.. ? Does "goods" as above, mean passengers' personal gear, rather than non-human freight? At all events (not querying that it was indeed so -- just marvelling): customs-and-immigration stuff at borders between different colonies of the same "mother country", strikes me as very strange -- presumably it made sense to those involved at the time...
With ongoing plans and projects through the decades, to try to sort out the mess: I find the linked-to map pertaining to the Clapp Report -- 1945's attempt to tackle the problem -- fascinating. That same, has featured in a previous thread on the Forums: on "International Transport", approx. title "Creation of new four-eight-and-a-half-gauge railways in countries with different existing standard gauge": OP 10/3/2021. A lot different from how things have gone between then and now, "in real life"; but, interesting might-have-beens. Clapp, it would seem, looked essentially at making an end of the 5ft. 3in. gauge, with its home in Victoria and South Aus. -- all to be standard-gauged. (As things have in fact gone: 5ft. 3in. is definitely still around, although a good deal has indeed been converted to s/g.) Otherwise, 3ft. 6in. largely to be kept, in the "frontier" states where it obtained; but with interesting new projects. The north coast at Darwin to be reached: not -- as has happened "in our time-line" -- by standard-gauging the original 3ft. 6in. up from the Trans-Australian route, to Alice Springs; and new- building northward from there, (all
pace the no doubt delightful, but basically insignificant, Northern Territory 3ft. 6in. gauge line from Darwin south to Birdum), to reach Darwin. Clapp proposes a wonderful scheme of new construction, and in Queensland / Northern Territory, widening: from outback NSW, up into Queensland (involving a considerable "dog-leg" with a reversal at Hughenden), thence through Mount Isa and into the NT, meeting its existing line at Birdum and regauging same, up into Darwin. "Marvellous might-have-beens" ...
The Australian "gauge nightmare" -- hard to resist citing something which, again, I've largely quoted in posts on previous threads on these general themes. From Bill Bryson's book,
Down Under, about Australia -- a place which he loves. I'm not a huge fan of Bryson -- "when [not all that often] he's good, he's very, very good"; otherwise, to a large extent I consider him (his innumerable devotees will think otherwise) sub-optimal both as a humorist; and -- re getting information right (or, I suspect, even wanting to) -- as a non-fiction writer. At all events: Mr. B. -- essentially, one who regards rail transport as a good thing, and to be supported; but not a railway enthusiast as such, and not very clued-up on rail-related subtleties -- delivers himself in the book, of his wisdom on Australia's gauge problem: starting from 1970 inauguration of coast-to-coast standard gauge.
I quote (interpolating as appropriate) -- "Before that, for various arcane reasons mostly to do with regional distrust and envy, Australian railway lines employed different gauges. New South Wales had rails 4 feet 8-and-a-half inches apart. Victoria opted for a more commodious 5 feet 3 inches. Queensland and Western Australia economically decided on a standard of 3 feet 6 inches (a width not far off that of amusement park rides; people must have ridden with their legs out of the windows). [This is of course, complete bunkum; but Bryson -- a rail-approver but not an expert -- presumably doesn't realise that the crucial thing here isn't track gauge, but loading gauge -- and one suspects that he's never been to Colorado
. Per his book: he travelled very widely in Australia, but mostly by car -- he probably never saw a 3ft. 6in. gauge train.] South Australia, inventively, had all three. [This is, I feel, a bit "click-baity" and unfair -- S.A. , perfectly sensibly, went for 5ft. 3in. in the more "metropolitan" areas, and 3ft. 6in. in its outback. Involvement of standard gauge, comes from that gauge's being decided on, "for better or worse", for the Commonwealth Trans-Australia line between South, and Western, Australia.] Five times on any journey between the east and west coasts passengers and freight had to be offloaded from one train and redeposited on another, a mad and tedious process." [He's exaggerating-for-effect, I feel: it was that bad, "way back"; but from pre-mid-20th-century, actual gauge-transfer-points had become just three -- admittedly, overnights in State {same-gauge} capitals might have been a factor]. Ah, well -- that's Bill for you.
rogerfarnworth.com
