Slightly odd thoughts re the 7 ft. gauge

[Calthrop]

The matter considered here, is definitely "speculative" -- albeit a "what-if " concerning a far-past time -- mods, please move if appropriate.

Not a speculation of my own, but a thing encountered elsewhere, and being relayed here by me. It's a point made in an article, some years ago, in a British "quality" newspaper -- which one, and the author's name, long forgotten; but from what I recall, the author didn't claim particularly to be an expert on railways.

The opinion expressed, was to the effect that if Britain's "battle of the gauges" had gone the other way than it historically did; and the main-line network of, at all events, England and Wales, had come to be on Brunel's 7 ft. gauge: things going thus, would have had the -- perceived -- good result, that the network would have been and remained throughout, chiefly a main-line one. The use of this very broad gauge would have rendered impracticable, at least in areas where topography posed significant obstacles to railway construction, the making of very many of the rural branch lines, of limited usefulness, which -- as things went in actual fact -- came into existence on the four-feet-eight-and-a-half-inches gauge; and which always lost money, and were done away with long before the end of the twentieth century. Implication being, that the inauguration of many lesser branches was wasteful and largely worthless -- better that they had never existed.

This scenario strikes me as being on a faulty premise: in that humans are in real life, renownedly impulsive and not inclined to taking the long view -- given, rather, to doing things which seem a good idea at the time; if something turns out to be a mistake, that can be dealt with appropriately in the future. The phenomenon of narrow-gauge feeder lines having come into being -- over most of the world, and in great quantity in some parts -- would suggest that given the journalist's broad-gauge scenario: over and above the fact that in the actual history of the 7 ft. gauge system in Britain's west, an appreciable number of rural branch lines did come into being on the 7 ft; it would seem highly probable that local railway undertakings would have inaugurated very many rural feeder lines to the main system, on a gauge or gauges considerably less than 7 ft. Such narrow-gauge feeders to wider-gauge national systems were numerous, in various countries of the European continent: in the event of "7 ft. throughout Britain", I see no reason to imagine things going differently in this respect, here.

The promoters of such putative British narrower-gauge secondary lines would, one reckons, have considered them (as it was with rural narrow-gauge and light railways, in the historical time-line which did in fact happen) worth creating, as an improvement on the then best alternative of horse-drawn road vehicles; as was the case in real history, they owned no crystal ball via which they could foresee the future advent and rapid development of road motor transport, and its largely putting them out of business. In addition to the above-set-out envisaged fallacy, I -- with no knowledge of the civil-engineering side of things -- wonder whether the journalist's apparent idea that "7 ft. gauge is fairly inimical to branch lines in the first place; and rough terrain puts a block on 7 ft. gauge railway building unless it's of the highly serious main-line kind", holds any truth.

Would be interested in anyone's thoughts on the notions set out above, on the part of this commentator, whoever he was: I see the possibility of its being reckoned that he makes more sense, than he seems to me to make.

 

[edwin_m]

I believe 7ft stock was to a larger profile so would have needed wider formations, larger structures and greater track spacing (between centres at least), but I can't imagine that would have increased the cost so much as to have prevented construction on a large scale. Perhaps more significant is the difficulty of operating small radius curves on a broader gauge, which would have led to flange contact at a larger radius unless the wheels were also made thicker (which in turn would probably cause problems on pointwork). Avoiding this would mean building through rather than round some hills and valleys, with an increase in structures and earthworks. However I doubt the Victorian builders had much understanding of such things and they would probably have built the tight curves anyway, accepting the extra noise and wear.

Many rural branch lines were built with the aim of increasing prosperity for the area (often by a nominally indpendent company run by the the local business owners) and nobody anticipated that within a few decades motor vehicles would be eating into their revenue. So the analysis of the costs and benefits of building one would be somewhere between rudimentary and non-existent, and the understanding of shareholders persuaded to stump up the money would have been even less. I don't think a cost increase of a few tens of percent would have made a lot of difference to the decision to build or not.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Is it possible that a 7 foot mainline system would have resulted in more branches? If there were no standard gauge* mainlines, then there'd be no incentive to build standard gauge branches. Either branches would have been built to broad gauge (allows through traffic but expensive) or to a (cheaper but no through running) narrow gauge - and that narrow gauge could have been something other than today's standard gauge. So if the cheaper option was taken and mainline compatibility rejected, the branches might have been built more cheaply, on something narrower than standard gauge. And since construction would have been cheaper than was the case in the real world, more might have been built.

And if more had been built, and they weren't compatible with the mainline, more would presumably have been closed when motor transport and Dr Beeching came along. Leading to a smaller railway system than we have today.

* Yes, I do realise that if 7 foot had been adopted as standard, that would have been known as standard gauge, and current standard gauge (1435 mm) would have been a variety of narrow gauge. But for simplicity I use real world terms for this hypothetical world...

 

[Indigo Soup]

Either branches would have been built to broad gauge (allows through traffic but expensive) or to a (cheaper but no through running) narrow gauge - and that narrow gauge could have been something other than today's standard gauge.

Indeed, I would expect that a narrow gauge of something like 3 feet or 3 feet 6 inches would be adopted - both had their advocates in the time in question, and were capable of supporting a reasonably large loading gauge. On a very rough estimate, construction on these gauges would have allowed construction at about half the cost of a 4 foot 8.5 inch gauge line.

Using the time-honoured approach of a scientific guess, a 7-foot gauge line might be twice the cost of a 3-foot gauge line. So if about one-third of the railways were built to the 7-foot gauge, the remaining two-thirds could be built to the 3-foot gauge at the same total construction cost. If the proportion built to the broad gauge were greater, then the total mileage must be reduced; if less, then more might be built or else the same network built for less cost.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed, I would expect that a narrow gauge of something like 3 feet or 3 feet 6 inches would be adopted - both had their advocates in the time in question, and were capable of supporting a reasonably large loading gauge. On a very rough estimate, construction on these gauges would have allowed construction at about half the cost of a 4 foot 8.5 inch gauge line.

Using the time-honoured approach of a scientific guess, a 7-foot gauge line might be twice the cost of a 3-foot gauge line. So if about one-third of the railways were built to the 7-foot gauge, the remaining two-thirds could be built to the 3-foot gauge at the same total construction cost. If the proportion built to the broad gauge were greater, then the total mileage must be reduced; if less, then more might be built or else the same network built for less cost.

I think you're a bit optimistic with those factors. There are plenty of things on a railway that don't scale proportionately to the track gauge.

I also think that if this sort of approach had been adopted then the network today would have been much smaller. No narrow gauge railway has survived in anything other than a tourist-orientated role. There's the penalty of freight trans-shipment, and although this isn't an issue on a passenger-only line there is still the matter of providing separate maintenance facilities on each such branch, and extra rolling stock to act as maintenance cover.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I think you're a bit optimistic with those factors. There are plenty of things on a railway that don't scale proportionately to the track gauge.

I probably am; about the only definite numbers I have to go on are claims that the Duke of Sutherland could have saved a third of the money he'd invested in railways north of Inverness had they been built to Cape Gauge, and that 2' 6" gauge to 'colonial' standards allowed four times the route mileage of a standard gauge railway for the same capital.

The general principle remains though - if you have a split gauge, then only a relatively small proportion of track can be built to the more expensive gauge.

 

[edwin_m]

I probably am; about the only definite numbers I have to go on are claims that the Duke of Sutherland could have saved a third of the money he'd invested in railways north of Inverness had they been built to Cape Gauge, and that 2' 6" gauge to 'colonial' standards allowed four times the route mileage of a standard gauge railway for the same capital.

The general principle remains though - if you have a split gauge, then only a relatively small proportion of track can be built to the more expensive gauge.

However there is very little in practice that the standard gauge can't do. The fastest trains in the world run on standard gauge, and in America and elsewhere large and heavy loads are carried without the need for a broader gauge. While narrow gauge theoretically allows tighter curves, its reduced stability makes speed around those curves very low. The cross-section of the train can also be a bit smaller, but to carry the same payload the train then has to be longer. So while Stephenson may not have foreseen these things, through happy coincidence he seems to have hit upon something that is still optimum after a couple of centuries. Not only in the UK, but in pretty much every country that built feeder lines at less than the gauge of the national network, these have closed down or operate mainly for tourists.

 

[Indigo Soup]

However there is very little in practice that the standard gauge can't do.

Indeed - it's a definite optimal point, or close enough to it that there's no point changing. I think that Stevenson said he'd prefer a few more inches, but only a very few, if he had to do it again.

 

[PeterC]

Indeed - it's a definite optimal point, or close enough to it that there's no point changing. I think that Stevenson said he'd prefer a few more inches, but only a very few, if he had to do it again.

So the Eastern Counties was had the right idea?

 

[Indigo Soup]

So the Eastern Counties was had the right idea?

Better is subjective - but the Eastern Counties' 5-foot gauge was also originally selected by the Union Pacific Railroad when given free reign to choose a gauge, and of course was chosen in Russia where there was no intention to connect to standard gauge lines. In the Russian case, the choice was between 5-foot and 6-foot – standard gauge didn't even get a look in.

Of course, on the British loading gauge it's all a bit academic - our stock is actually smaller than Japanese and South African 3 foot 6 inch gauge stock.

 

[Calthrop]

Thanks, everyone -- very interesting thoughts and facts. I'd wondered a bit, whether there would be any response at all to my OP; but on RailUKForums, a topic has to be very abstruse indeed for nobody to have anything to say about it .

Interesting that there would indeed have been certain practical problems concerning 7 ft. gauge lesser lines in "up-and-down" terrain -- I had wondered whether the article-writer was only a self-declared pundit "blah-ing on about matters re which he was in fact ignorant".

I think you're a bit optimistic with those factors. There are plenty of things on a railway that don't scale proportionately to the track gauge.

I also think that if this sort of approach had been adopted then the network today would have been much smaller. No narrow gauge railway has survived in anything other than a tourist-orientated role. There's the penalty of freight trans-shipment, and although this isn't an issue on a passenger-only line there is still the matter of providing separate maintenance facilities on each such branch, and extra rolling stock to act as maintenance cover.

However there is very little in practice that the standard gauge can't do. So while Stephenson may not have foreseen these things, through happy coincidence he seems to have hit upon something that is still optimum after a couple of centuries. Not only in the UK, but in pretty much every country that built feeder lines at less than the gauge of the national network, these have closed down or operate mainly for tourists.

My bolding above: there is the way around the freight trans-shipment bugbear, of using transporter trucks of one kind or another -- wagons of one gauge, mounted on transporter vehicles of the other, with the train running on the latter. Most commonly, wider-gauge wagons on narrower-gauge transporters -- this method has been widely used in some parts; if I understand rightly, it continues in daily use today to a certain extent, in a few countries of continental Europe -- where, if I may mildly take issue with you, edwin_m, some narrow-gauge feeder lines do continue in ordinary commercial service for both freight and passenger.

The "transporter" method can work the other way around too; as on the 4 ft. gauge Padarn Railway, with four "two-foot" gauge slate trucks riding two-by-two in parallel on each 4 ft. gauge transporter wagon. One figures that in a Britain with 7 ft. main-line network, and feeder lines on 3 ft. 6 in. gauge or less; this might be the most practicable way of handling the thing -- broad-gauge transporter wagons bearing two parallel sets of narrow-gauge rails, n/g wagons side by side thereon.

Better is subjective - but the Eastern Counties' 5-foot gauge was also originally selected by the Union Pacific Railroad when given free reign to choose a gauge, and of course was chosen in Russia where there was no intention to connect to standard gauge lines. In the Russian case, the choice was between 5-foot and 6-foot – standard gauge didn't even get a look in.

I do find it interesting that a truly ultra-broad gauge has never become the widespread standard in any country in the world: the broadest such, 5 ft. 6 in., and that in only a few places. I gather that in the early days of railways in the USA, before "four-eight-and-a-half" standardisation there, the 6 ft. gauge was used to some extent, in parts of the country; it is perhaps significant that as per RLBH's post above, the Union Pacific had -- by inference -- no interest in 6 ft.

There was in the Nazi era, the scheme for a system of colossal-scale three-metre-gauge main lines to link the German heartland with the ex-Soviet areas far to the east, which were seen as territory for "plantation" with German settlers; but it's universally reckoned that in many ways, "that lot were queer in the head"; and gigantomania was prominently, one of their "things".

Given the alternative-history scenario of Britain's main lines coming about on the 7 ft. gauge; I'm inclined to wonder what would happen with Scotland, with its large proportion of definitely rugged terrain, and different population-patterns from further south. One envisages England and Wales on 7 ft. gauge; but Scotland (north of Edinburgh and Glasgow, at all events) quite likely "sub-standardising" on a gauge of less width.

 

[Indigo Soup]

I do find it interesting that a truly ultra-broad gauge has never become the widespread standard in any country in the world: the broadest such, 5 ft. 6 in., and that in only a few places. I gather that in the early days of railways in the USA, before "four-eight-and-a-half" standardisation there, the 6 ft. gauge was used to some extent, in parts of the country; it is perhaps significant that as per RLBH's post above, the Union Pacific had -- by inference -- no interest in 6 ft.

In the southern United States, five feet was fairly widespread before the Civil War, whilst 5 feet 6 inches was officially adopted as the standard gauge in Canada at one point, although I don't think there was ever more of it than 4' 8.5" gauge track. It actually seems like 5 feet 6 inches was planned to be a 'colonial standard' gauge at one point, though the only place it really took off was India. There was even a small network of 5' 6" gauge railways in Scotland at one point, radiating from Dundee, though all were soon converted to 4' 8.5".

Equally, there were strong proponents for narrow gauge railways - most notably Robert Fairlie - who claimed that gauges in the 3' to 3' 6" range were more economic.

There was in the Nazi era, the scheme for a system of colossal-scale three-metre-gauge main lines to link the German heartland with the ex-Soviet areas far to the east, which were seen as territory for "plantation" with German settlers; but it's universally reckoned that in many ways, "that lot were queer in the head"; and gigantomania was prominently, one of their "things".

Even the Breitspurbahn was scaled down - the original proposal was for a gauge of four metres, with a loading gauge that would allow transporter wagons to carry two standard-gauge wagons (at full Berne gauge width). The sheer insanity of doing so was such that even Hitler had to give way to the advice of his equally gigantomaniac engineers.

 

[krus_aragon]

I don't think there could have been a nationwide 7ft gauge network, as Brunel himself didn't believe it should be used everywhere. His broad gauge was designed for high speed running (of passenger trains), which would have been irrelevant to freight lines.

As engineer of the coal-oriented Taff Vale Railway, Brunel specifically advocated the use of Stephenson's gauge. He told the company's directors in 1838:

As regards the gauge or width of the rails, I see no reason in our case for deviating materially from the ordinary width of 4' 8½". The general gradients, the inclined planes, and still more the nature and the immediate extent of the peculiar class of traffic to which the line must always be devoted, not only render high speeds unnecessary, but must almost prevent their being attempted, while the same causes operate to diminish any advantage that may be gained in reducing friction by increased diameter of carriage wheels. The curves also which the nature of the ground render unavoidable would be unfit for a wider gauge…

 

[Calthrop]

In the southern United States, five feet was fairly widespread before the Civil War, whilst 5 feet 6 inches was officially adopted as the standard gauge in Canada at one point, although I don't think there was ever more of it than 4' 8.5" gauge track. It actually seems like 5 feet 6 inches was planned to be a 'colonial standard' gauge at one point, though the only place it really took off was India. There was even a small network of 5' 6" gauge railways in Scotland at one point, radiating from Dundee, though all were soon converted to 4' 8.5".

I delight in "gauge rivalry" stuff of whatever kind: while some express surprise at the number of different gauges adopted in widespread fashion by different countries, I take the opposite view: with the great tendency of humans toward being illogical and individualistic, I'm impressed by the -- very relative -- overall standardised-ness of world gauges, in comparison with how it might have worked out. 5 ft. gauge in the USA -- indeed, that gauge predominated in what briefly became the Confederate States, though it wasn't universal there -- was a fair bit of four-feet-eight-and-a-half also; while further north it was a mish-mash of four-eight-and-a-half and various wider gauges, including some 5 ft. In the former Confederacy, the 5 ft. gauge was done away with (its incompatibility with four-eight-and-a-half further north, had become a maddening obstacle to continent-wide trade) in an impressively co-ordinated and executed burst of work over a long weekend in 1886: everything converted to four-eight-and-a-half.

Equally, there were strong proponents for narrow gauge railways - most notably Robert Fairlie - who claimed that gauges in the 3' to 3' 6" range were more economic.

The country of continental Europe which had a "battle of the gauges" comparable with our own -- in fact, fiercer and longer-lasting -- was Norway. The contestants there were 3 ft. 6 in., and four-eight-and-a-half. After a "false start" with a little built on the wider gauge, 3 ft. 6 in. was switched to in the early 1860s, as more suitable for the rugged terrain / fairly small and sparse population / economic limitations. As the century went on, more use was made of the wider gauge: there were ardent proponents of both gauges, and it seems that all concerned, enjoyed the scrap. With increasing economic growth, four-eight-and-a-half came into the ascendant; around end of 19th century, the State Railways decided to build all future lines on the wider gauge, and over time, to convert the existing 3 ft. 6 in. This conversion / elimination process took a remarkably long time to complete: the State Railways' very last 3 ft. 6 in. line was abandoned (never converted) in 1962 IIRC -- a short section of it, at Grovane, is now run by a preservation society.

Even the Breitspurbahn was scaled down - the original proposal was for a gauge of four metres, with a loading gauge that would allow transporter wagons to carry two standard-gauge wagons (at full Berne gauge width). The sheer insanity of doing so was such that even Hitler had to give way to the advice of his equally gigantomaniac engineers.

While that entire thing was, in every respect, a nightmare: a little bit of one harbours the feeling that the Breitspurbahn would, for sure, have been a sight to marvel at !

 

[TheSeeker]

Given that the low height of the bridges and tunnels on the Great Western Main Line is causing so many problems for electrification I always wonder why Brunel went broad but not also tall? With the increased stability of broad gauge couldn't he have had double deck rolling stock for passengers and much larger volumes for freight?

 

[krus_aragon]

Given that the low height of the bridges and tunnels on the Great Western Main Line is causing so many problems for electrification I always wonder why Brunel went broad but not also tall? With the increased stability of broad gauge couldn't he have had double deck rolling stock for passengers and much larger volumes for freight?

He was already anticipating extra passenger capacity from having broader carriages would offset the added infrastructure expenses of a broad gauge. I think that the foresight required to envisage double deck rolling stock in the 1830s would have been beyond even Brunel.

 

[PeterC]

Given that the low height of the bridges and tunnels on the Great Western Main Line is causing so many problems for electrification I always wonder why Brunel went broad but not also tall? With the increased stability of broad gauge couldn't he have had double deck rolling stock for passengers and much larger volumes for freight?

With modern mechanised materials handling systems the extra capacity for freight is a no brainer but in Brunel's time a wagon would be loaded and unloaded manually and in many locations needed to be no heavier than could be shunted using a heavy horse.

 

[Indigo Soup]

With modern mechanised materials handling systems the extra capacity for freight is a no brainer but in Brunel's time a wagon would be loaded and unloaded manually and in many locations needed to be no heavier than could be shunted using a heavy horse.

One of the chief arguments against the broad gauge was that loading and unloading was far more expensive than standard gauge wagons.

 

[krus_aragon]

One of the chief arguments against the broad gauge was that loading and unloading was far more expensive than standard gauge wagons.

Why would that be? I presume you're not referring to transhipment penalites when you move cargo from one gauge to another.

 

[Calthrop]

I don't think there could have been a nationwide 7ft gauge network, as Brunel himself didn't believe it should be used everywhere. His broad gauge was designed for high speed running (of passenger trains), which would have been irrelevant to freight lines.

As engineer of the coal-oriented Taff Vale Railway, Brunel specifically advocated the use of Stephenson's gauge. He told the company's directors in 1838:

I rather overlooked this post at the time -- this, and a recent few posts; would seem to show up as fallacious, the thesis in the newspaper article which was my starting-point for the thread: viz. "7 ft. gauge rail system for Britain would mean no piddling rural local lines, of limited usefulness, ever -- these never existing, being seen as a good thing".