If BR had been built to Continental gauge?

[citycat]

Not sure if this is the right part of the forum to post this, but as the title suggests, what would it have been like if BR had been built to continental loading gauge from the start?

Would we have had a better railway with the extra space to work with, or would it have been wrong for the class 47 or 45 and a rake of Mk1’s to have looked more buff and muscled?

Sorry that I don’t mention steam. I’m more from the diesel age.

Any thoughts?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Slightly bigger vehicles and some double deck commuter stock, maybe? But equally "not invented here" syndrome is strong, so we probably wouldn't have had sensible stuff like door handle blocking and autoclosers - we could have had those anyway!

Maybe Switzerland is a good example - despite having UIC gauge most of their hauled stock pre the 1980s (EW I/II) was almost as small as British stock.

 

[Sorcerer]

If built to continental loading gauge we would have had slightly roomier vehicles (2.8-3.1m instead of our typical 2.7-2.8m) and of course some double decker trains. Assuming we also have the more generous clearances we also wouldn't have the distinctive pear-shaped tapering and have more near-vertical sides which I think is actually a good thing. More importantly though we'd have cheaper train orders because we could simply order a product off-the-shelf instead of needing a bespoke design for every order, but consequently this means we probably wouldn't have had train families like the Electrostar and Aventra.

 

[Transilien]

Would third rail electrification gotten implemented in such a massive scale in the South? Quite a lot of the benefits of third rail are cancelled out with a larger track gauge.

 

[zwk500]

Would third rail electrification gotten implemented in such a massive scale in the South? Quite a lot of the benefits of third rail are cancelled out with a larger track gauge.

If the bridges weren't tall enough for catenary then it may still have been installed in South London. Equally we came very close to Overhead electrification in the south anyway with the LBSCR.

For me the biggest difference would probably have been on the freight side - more generous gauge would have meant less work needed to clear for containers and bigger wagons making services potentially more profitable. Also there's a version of this future where the Channel Tunnel gets built earlier and we have commuter services from northern France to London when Britain was more friendly to ideas of European integration.

 

[etr221]

As British railways came first, when they were started there was no such thing as continental loading gauge...

So, perhaps two questions:

• Whether, back in the beginning - the 1820s/1830s - the pioneering British engineers should have chosen a larger loading gauge? Ideally, probably yes... and things would have been different from the start. But they didn't - and by the time there were thoughts that they should, it was regarded as far too expensive for too little gain to be worth changing.
• Whether 'the continent' (Europe) should have gone for a different, larger loading gauge (whatever we had chosen)? And although they did, to some extent, the different countries chose different (if similar) loading gauges, before a standard was devised.

So another thought - what if the standard European loading gauge had been set based on British standards?

And perhaps, finally, as food for thought, what would be the ideal loading gauge that should have been chosen?

 

[Sorcerer]

And perhaps, finally, as food for thought, what would be the ideal loading gauge that should have been chosen?

This is something I've pondered myself. The American and Chinese loading gauge are considerably more generous than the UK and European gauges which means larger, roomier trains and double-stacking freight containers. Whether this is ideal depends on how much you'd like to pay for railway upkeep. For continental-sized nations like the US that double-stacking is probably worth the added weight and track wear because of the logistical advantages, and also because it's private companies footing the cost rather than the taxpayer (or at least it should be).

For newly built passenger railways like the Shinkansen, China Railway High Speed and Etihad Rail the default option seems to be on the side leaning towards those generous American/Chinese dimensions. While the ideal loading gauge is debateble, I think it's fair to say that it's only something that can be determined in hindsight which Britain, as pioneers of railways, didn't have, and our restrictive dimensions are very much the product of being the first ones to do it.

 

[pokemonsuper9]

Not sure if this is the right part of the forum to post this, but as the title suggests, what would it have been like if BR had been built to continental loading gauge from the start?

Would we have had a better railway with the extra space to work with, or would it have been wrong for the class 47 or 45 and a rake of Mk1’s to have looked more buff and muscled?

Sorry that I don’t mention steam. I’m more from the diesel age.

Any thoughts?

I think (assuming everything else continues on the same timeline) the only major difference would be some double decker trains in suburban London.

 

[zwk500]

While the ideal loading gauge is debateble

It's pretty much the largest you can afford if building a brand new network. See HS1 and HS2, both conforming to UIC-GC structure gauge on the brand-new infrastructure.

Worth pointing out that as the BR network was built by more than 100 different companies it doesn't really have 1 loading gauge. Even when C1 and W6 were defined, there were lines that didn't meet that minimum, some (like Hastings) have since been amended to clear it, but there's still lines with extreme curves or other specific factors that mean only certain stock can operate.
It's a similar story with platform profiles. The modern standard of 915mm high is only about 20 years old.

 

[Sorcerer]

I think (assuming everything else continues on the same timeline) the only major difference would be some double decker trains in suburban London.

I could also see double decker intercity stock likely being a common sight given that tends to be a very good niche for them. I can also see them being used as an excuse to defer the building of lines like HS2 much like how bi-modes have been used as an excuse to defer electrification on the Midland Main Line.

It's pretty much the largest you can afford if building a brand new network. See HS1 and HS2, both conforming to UIC-GC structure gauge on the brand-new infrastructure.

Worth pointing out that as the BR network was built by more than 100 different companies it doesn't really have 1 loading gauge. Even when C1 and W6 were defined, there were lines that didn't meet that minimum, some (like Hastings) have since been amended to clear it, but there's still lines with extreme curves or other specific factors that mean only certain stock can operate.
It's a similar story with platform profiles. The modern standard of 915mm high is only about 20 years old.

I mean true, there is no single British loading gauge. But I would disagree about the best loading gauge being the largest you can afford. The UIC-GC gauge is still smaller than the North American loading gauge, but even if you could afford to build it to the latter standard you still have the question as to whether you need it because the ability to double-stack containers increases axle load and track wear. Arguably for the European standard UIC-GC is ideal, but on a general scale I'm not sure which could be called ideal. Might be worth it's own discussion even.

 

[Transilien]

What about platform heights? How would having a similar height to what we have in reality affect the rest of the loading gauge?

 

[Sorcerer]

What about platform heights? How would having a similar height to what we have in reality affect the rest of the loading gauge?

The platforms would probably be further back from the rails, but if they were the same distances then you'd see tapering near the bottom but otherwise more vertical sides along the bodyshell and roof.

 

[Acathater]

Presumably we would have got real V200 hydraulic locos rather than the shrunk-down Warships?
And maybe with the increased load weights available for freight Kestrel might have led to a production run of 4000hp locos

 

[pokemonsuper9]

. I can also see them being used as an excuse to defer the building of lines like HS2 much like how bi-modes have been used as an excuse to defer electrification on the Midland Main Line.

I can see the argument in my head "why do we need HS2 for extra capacity when we're still running single deck trains out of Euston?"

 

[HSTEd]

I think the Southern Railway/Southern Region would have gone for double deck multiple units if they were achievable.

 

[JKF]

I think the Southern Railway/Southern Region would have gone for double deck multiple units if they were achievable.

They did, but the long dwell times negated the benefit.

 

[Transilien]

They did, but the long dwell times negated the benefit.

Maybe on longer distance services to Brighton or Portsmouth the SR would have implemented double decker trains as dwellings times matter less on these routes compared to inner suburban London.

 

[brad465]

What benefits do 374s have over 373s related to the former's larger size? The former takes advantage of HS1 being of continental loading gauge with a larger body size than 373s, which started life navigating the classic network.

 

[HSTEd]

They did, but the long dwell times negated the benefit.

Well yes, but with a larger loading gauge they probably wouldn't. The cramped nature of the 4DDs is what did them in in terms of loading times.

Double deck trains are not inherently very slow unloading, as anyone who has been on RER A can attest!