International track standard gauge

[mailbyrail]

I'm just reading a book published in the 1920s - the Railways of the World - which has as its first chapter 'Across the Sea' which includes amongst other topics the then relatively new train ferry from Harwich to Zeebrugge. One paragraph says:
The exchange of wagons and vans between European countries and England is not so simple as might be supposed. Continental vehicles, in general, are constructed to greater overall dimensions than British although the gauge on which they run is only ½ inch wider than this country.
Was this difference in gauge really the case? If so, when was it adjusted?

 

[hexagon789]

I'm just reading a book published in the 1920s - the Railways of the World - which has as its first chapter 'Across the Sea' which includes amongst other topics the then relatively new train ferry from Harwich to Zeebrugge. One paragraph says:
The exchange of wagons and vans between European countries and England is not so simple as might be supposed. Continental vehicles, in general, are constructed to greater overall dimensions than British although the gauge on which they run is only ½ inch wider than this country.
Was this difference in gauge really the case? If so, when was it adjusted?

France and Austria certainly used slightly off gauges of 1440mm and 1445mm in their early years, France and Belgium even had 1500mm very early on. Germany used standard gauge from the outset and the desire to adopt through running between Germany and France in 1845 saw standard gauge adopted as "standard" in 1849 for the Paris-Berlin service.

So I don't know where the 0.5in difference comes from. Even if it was due to metric vs imperial measuring - four feet, eight and a half inches is 1435.1mm near to the metric as makes no difference and only 0.039in greater than the metric standard, so it's not thar either.

All very curious. I presume the author didn't think GB was still on Stephenson's original 4 ft 8in without his later 0.5in easement, with Europe on the full 4ft 8.5in?

 

[mailbyrail]

The sentence actually does say ½ inch wider than the British 4ft 8½in so it's not Stephenson's doing

 

[hexagon789]

The sentence actually does say ½ inch wider than the British 4ft 8½in so it's not Stephenson's doing

Apologies misread that - so we are talking 4ft 9in or 1448mm then. No idea, not aware of that being adopted in Europe, the US had some 4ft 9in -a number of the 5ft lines were converted to 4ft 9in first before standardising at 4ft 8.5.

 

[gysev]

Belgium even had 1500mm very early on.

No we didn't - it was standard gauge from the beginning.

 

[Gloster]

Could someone have got confused between half a centimetre and half an inch: 5 mm versus 12.7 mm and done a bit of unnecessary adding? (“Bally silly measurements. Why can’t these foreigners use proper Imperial measurements as God intended?”)

 

[Calthrop]

Could someone have got confused between half a centimetre and half an inch: 5 mm versus 12.7 mm and done a bit of unnecessary adding? (“Bally silly measurements. Why can’t these foreigners use proper Imperial measurements as God intended?”)

I blame that Napoleon blighter ...

 

[stuu]

Could someone have got confused between half a centimetre and half an inch: 5 mm versus 12.7 mm and done a bit of unnecessary adding? (“Bally silly measurements. Why can’t these foreigners use proper Imperial measurements as God intended?”)

Of course the Spanish had the nerve to build their railways using their own entirely made-up non-Empire approved measurement of six Castilian feet for the gauge

 

[DanielB]

France and Belgium even had 1500mm very early on.

Initial plans for the first railway in the Netherlands did intend to build a railway with 1500 mm gauge. But before construction started this was changed to 1945 mm, meaning all sleepers were too short and had to be re-ordered.

But already in 1866 that route was regauged to 1435 mm, so well before the publishing of the book mentioned by TS.

 

[hexagon789]

Initial plans for the first railway in the Netherlands did intend to build a railway with 1500 mm gauge. But before construction started this was changed to 1945 mm, meaning all sleepers were too short and had to be re-ordered.

But already in 1866 that route was regauged to 1435 mm, so well before the publishing of the book mentioned by TS.

I think most of Central and Western Europe had converted any non-standard guage lines of importance well before the book was published, the half-inch thing is still intriguing though.

 

[MarcVD]

No we didn't - it was standard gauge from the beginning.

At the exception of line 59 Antwerpen - Gent that was built originally at the unusual gauge of 1151 mm and rebuilt to standard gauge in 1896.

 

[LSWR Cavalier]

I understand that the rails may be a bit further apart on curves. What is the tolerance, a couple of millimetres or more?

The main reason there has not been so much rail traffic between the UK and the 'mainland' is of course the loading gauge. Many continental rail vehicles are higher and wider than UK rail vehicles.

 

[DanielB]

The main reason there has not been so much rail traffic between the UK and the 'mainland' is of course the loading gauge. Many continental rail vehicles are higher and wider than UK rail vehicles.

That wouldn't prevent UK rail vehicles to enter the continent however.
Apparently it's not considered feasible to equip UK rolling stock with the systems required: in a lot of cases you'd require several countries' systems as for now the only link to the continent is via France.

 

[hexagon789]

I understand that the rails may be a bit further apart on curves. What is the tolerance, a couple of millimetres or more?

I think up to 1481mm, anything wider is considered "wide gauge". I can't find the standards document to check though, a lot of the previously easily accessed documents now seem to require an industry approved account to view.

 

[Gloster]

So, going back to the original point, could it be that the writer misinterpreted the (possible) existence of greater width tolerances on the continent and thought the gauge was wider? He may also have got a bit muddled with metric/Imperial conversions, or rounded badly. One online entry in Britannica, now very much an American publication, gives 4 feet 8.5 inches as 1.4 m.

 

[hexagon789]

gives 4 feet 8.5 inches as 1.4 m.

Which is 4 feet 7 and 1/10th inches! A not inconsiderable difference when you need tight tolerances.

 

[edwin_m]

BR reduced the gauge to 1432mm in the early 1980s and the Selby Diversion was laid to this gauge. This was intended to reduce "hunting" of bogies but apparently the civil engineer didn't understand vehicle dynamics and it actually made it worse. The standard was later changed back.

 

[hexagon789]

BR reduced the gauge to 1432mm in the early 1980s and the Selby Diversion was laid to this gauge. This was intended to reduce "hunting" of bogies but apparently the civil engineer didn't understand vehicle dynamics and it actually made it worse. The standard was later changed back.

It was also used with F23 sleepers from the late-1960s, some of that set-up lasted about 30 years until 1997.

 

[paul1609]

That wouldn't prevent UK rail vehicles to enter the continent however.
Apparently it's not considered feasible to equip UK rolling stock with the systems required: in a lot of cases you'd require several countries' systems as for now the only link to the continent is via France.

Southeastern's Class 395 emus are fitted with the French KVB signalling system as its used at St Pancras HS as well as TVM but the international platforms at Stratford International needed a temporary plywood modification to enable the trains to fit the platforms for the Olympics Javelin Shuttle. The 395s are prohibited from using the International platforms on HS1 in passenger use because of the gap between the platform and train and the lower platform height.

 

[Ploughman]

I think up to 1481mm, anything wider is considered "wide gauge". I can't find the standards document to check though, a lot of the previously easily accessed documents now seem to require an industry approved account to view.

In my copy of the PWI Handbook there is a table.

New track 200 - 100m radius = 6mm wide + 1435 = 1441mm
99 - 70m radius = 19mm wide + 1435 = 1454mm

Wide gauge max 1481 stop traffic immediately.
1465 mm report in writing with detail of remedial action

minimum gauge 1429mm

 

[hexagon789]

Wide gauge max 1481 stop traffic immediately.

Yeah, that's what I meant as opposed to the maximum ideal.

And thanks for putting up the other figures, an old CR document I saw was rather less specific - 1/8in under and 1/4in over. Much simpler tolerances in those days!

 

[Western Sunset]

I blame that Napoleon blighter ...

I blame the Romans...