4ft 8.5in - is it derived from a Roman chariot?

[Western Sunset]

Is that why wheel-sets seem to squeal so much on some trains nowadays?

 

[Midnight Sun]

"Trains and Technology - The American Railroad in the 19th Century" by Anthony J Bianculli sayso maybe it's all his fault!

I been to Pompeii and seen the grooves in the road network. The average width between the two centres of the grooves is about 4ft 8, the grooves themselves about 5 inches wide. There are ancient cart ruts in Malta which have been worn into the limestone all over the islands of Malta and Gozo. The average width is the same,

there is of course another spoiler to the story: the Roman army didn't use chariots!
They were raced in the arena, but fighting was done by infantry and cavalry

But then, the chariot was the sports car or limo of day allowing posh people to be seen by the lower classes.

 

[DerekC]

I been to Pompeii and seen the grooves in the road network. View attachment 69635 The average width between the two centres of the grooves is about 4ft 8, the grooves themselves about 5 inches wide. There are ancient cart ruts in Malta which have been worn into the limestone all over the islands of Malta and Gozo. The average width is the same

I don't doubt this is true, but I have seen no connecting chain of evidence that links ancient wheel ruts in Italy in 79AD (or Malta in whenever) to wagonways in North-East England in the early 1800s.

 

[PeterC]

I don't doubt this is true, but I have seen no connecting chain of evidence that links ancient wheel ruts in Italy in 79AD (or Malta in whenever) to wagonways in North-East England in the early 1800s.

Especially when you remember that the extensive networks of wagonways in the Forest of Dean and connecting to the Monmouth and Brecon canals were generally around 3ft 6inches. These weren't trivial local hauls, the Hay Railway, as just one example, was 24 miles long. Or in the Celtic west can we link these to Ancient British chariots?

 

[RLBH]

Is standard gauge (1435mm) always consistent? Or does it vary by a mm or so to suit differing conditions, eg sharp curves?

In steam days in the US, the Pennsylvania Railroad used a gauge of 4 feet 9 inches on goods-only lines, despite being otherwise built to 4' 8.5" gauge. I'm not quite sure why, but I assume it was to help with very sharp curves.

Not standard gauge, but the old Russian gauge was 5 feet (1524mm). The Soviet Union metricated it to 1520mm, which is still the Russian standard; Finland, having become independent prior to the change, still uses 1524mm. The two are close enough to allow interrunning, but the line from Helsinki to St Petersburg has a compromise gauge of 1522mm and the dedicated high speed stock for this service has the wheels set to match that.

 

[edwin_m]

In steam days in the US, the Pennsylvania Railroad used a gauge of 4 feet 9 inches on goods-only lines, despite being otherwise built to 4' 8.5" gauge. I'm not quite sure why, but I assume it was to help with very sharp curves.

Not standard gauge, but the old Russian gauge was 5 feet (1524mm). The Soviet Union metricated it to 1520mm, which is still the Russian standard; Finland, having become independent prior to the change, still uses 1524mm. The two are close enough to allow interrunning, but the line from Helsinki to St Petersburg has a compromise gauge of 1522mm and the dedicated high speed stock for this service has the wheels set to match that.

4ft9in used to be quite widespread in the States even after other broad gauges were eliminated. The tolerances were such that the same stock could run on both, so there was less urgency to get rid of it.

I believe Spain and Portugal officially have slightly different gauges as well, but like Russia and Finland they are close enough that stock can run over both. I was told off by a Latvian railway official for suggesting their network was "Russian gauge", in a way which suggested to me that having a different measurement was a matter of national pride.

 

[etr221]

Something I came across in one of P M Kalla-Bishop's books on Italian railways was that - in the very early days - while railways built under British or Austrian influence were (standard) 1435 mm gauge, those under French influence were 1445mm (about 4' 8 7/8"), which became 'standard' after 1865, until after 1934, when there was a UIC decision to make 1435mm the standard, a change made over a number of years - but not all the non-state railways followed suit. An implication of this is that French railways (and others?) were 1445mm until the 1930s, but I don't have a comparable book on France. And I do (dredging memory) have a thought of reading somewhere that the LGVs had a slightly tighter gauge - perhaps 1432mm?

As someone said, a difference is only a difference if it makes a difference...

 

[Calthrop]

4ft9in used to be quite widespread in the States even after other broad gauges were eliminated. The tolerances were such that the same stock could run on both, so there was less urgency to get rid of it.

I believe Spain and Portugal officially have slightly different gauges as well,

D.W. Winkworth's Railway Holiday in Portugal, which I've lately been re-reading, confirms that it's 1674mm in Spain and 1665mm in Portugal -- as above, difference / tolerances such that basically, no problem.

I was told off by a Latvian railway official for suggesting their network was "Russian gauge", in a way which suggested to me that having a different measurement was a matter of national pride.

Sounds mad, but national pride is not an area where sanity notably rules... one wonders -- was it perhaps the same deal 1920s-onward, as with Finland / USSR? -- USSR metricated to 1520mm, Latvia in its between-the-World-Wars independence, kept 1524mm; whatever may have happened from 1940 on, is irrelevant to the Latvians?

 

[etr221]

I was told off by a Latvian railway official for suggesting their network was "Russian gauge", in a way which suggested to me that having a different measurement was a matter of national pride.

Sounds mad, but national pride is not an area where sanity notably rules... one wonders -- was it perhaps the same deal 1920s-onward, as with Finland / USSR? -- USSR metricated to 1520mm, Latvia in its between-the-World-Wars independence, kept 1524mm; whatever may have happened from 1940 on, is irrelevant to the Latvians?

I think the point is that the gauge in Latvia is "Latvian" - even if it is the same measure that they use the other side of the border, in their country, it's theirs. (In the same manner, I think people in England would be distinctly unimpressed at being told their trains run on "French" gauge tracks.)

 

[edwin_m]

I think the point is that the gauge in Latvia is "Latvian" - even if it is the same measure that they use the other side of the border, in their country, it's theirs. (In the same manner, I think people in England would be distinctly unimpressed at being told their trains run on "French" gauge tracks.)

I should have added that the explanation included that their gauge was actually slightly different from that in Russia - I don't recall the exact figures but it's probably on the Web somewhere. Trains can and do run through including to Kaliningrad which is a Russian enclave.

 

[Calthrop]

These Earth people are silly -- whyever haven't they had the exact same one gauge, globally, since the very beginning?

 

[Calthrop]

I should have added that the explanation included that their gauge was actually slightly different from that in Russia - I don't recall the exact figures but it's probably on the Web somewhere. Trains can and do run through including to Kaliningrad which is a Russian enclave.

I think I have somewhere, issues of Today's Railways -- Europe from a few years ago, which contain detailed articles about the Baltic States' railways. Those will be sure, I should think, to go into the gauge question. I'll seek for them.

 

[edwin_m]

These Earth people are silly -- whyever haven't they had the exact same one gauge, globally, since the very beginning?

It's a good question. It's not as if railways were invented independently in different places around the same time - the original wagonways may have been but they were essentially superseded by the concept developed by the Stephensons and exported worldwide. So why did people sometimes change the track gauge but keep everything else pretty much the same?

It's possible to see reasons for a narrower gauge on lines carrying light traffic in mountainous areas, and I presume somewhere like Japan was originally seen as such but developed into one of the world's busiest networks. It's also possible to see why a people might think a much wider gauge would be more stable and permit more speed and larger loads, though I happen to think that even in Brunel's time scientific knowledge was good enough that someone could have proved that wrong before the GWR was built and saved everyone a lot of money and hassle.

But the "slightly wider" gauges in Ireland, India, Iberia, Russia etc aren't wide enough to claim that notional benefit but lose the advantages of compatibility - even if they don't encounter other networks of different gauges they have to buy non-standard equipment. The only justifications I've seen for this group of gauges are non-technical - fear of invasion in Russia, and the Irish compromise of making everybody standardize on the average of the three existing gauges which was different from all of them (and then got exported to Australia by Irish engineers).

 

[RLBH]

But the "slightly wider" gauges in Ireland, India, Iberia, Russia etc aren't wide enough to claim that notional benefit but lose the advantages of compatibility - even if they don't encounter other networks of different gauges they have to buy non-standard equipment. The only justifications I've seen for this group of gauges are non-technical - fear of invasion in Russia, and the Irish compromise of making everybody standardize on the average of the three existing gauges which was different from all of them (and then got exported to Australia by Irish engineers).

Indian broad gauge was explicitly chosen on the grounds of improved stability in bad weather, as well as offering more space for inside cylinders.

 

[Calthrop]

I think the point is that the gauge in Latvia is "Latvian" - even if it is the same measure that they use the other side of the border, in their country, it's theirs. (In the same manner, I think people in England would be distinctly unimpressed at being told their trains run on "French" gauge tracks.)

"People being people", after all -- we tend to live by symbols more than by dry statistics and "bean-counting".

I should have added that the explanation included that their gauge was actually slightly different from that in Russia - I don't recall the exact figures but it's probably on the Web somewhere. Trains can and do run through including to Kaliningrad which is a Russian enclave.

(My bolding) -- the Wiki article on Latvian railways gives 1520mm. My mention above, of Today's Railways back numbers -- my personal filing "system" being beyond hopeless, they seem at present to be buried deep, beyond easy recovery.

It's a good question. It's not as if railways were invented independently in different places around the same time - the original wagonways may have been but they were essentially superseded by the concept developed by the Stephensons and exported worldwide. So why did people sometimes change the track gauge but keep everything else pretty much the same?

It's possible to see reasons for a narrower gauge on lines carrying light traffic in mountainous areas, and I presume somewhere like Japan was originally seen as such but developed into one of the world's busiest networks. It's also possible to see why a people might think a much wider gauge would be more stable and permit more speed and larger loads, though I happen to think that even in Brunel's time scientific knowledge was good enough that someone could have proved that wrong before the GWR was built and saved everyone a lot of money and hassle.

But the "slightly wider" gauges in Ireland, India, Iberia, Russia etc aren't wide enough to claim that notional benefit but lose the advantages of compatibility - even if they don't encounter other networks of different gauges they have to buy non-standard equipment. The only justifications I've seen for this group of gauges are non-technical - fear of invasion in Russia, and the Irish compromise of making everybody standardize on the average of the three existing gauges which was different from all of them (and then got exported to Australia by Irish engineers).

My remark about "Earth people" and "one unified gauge" was tongue-in-cheek: was trying to sound like Mr. Spock & co. In fact: with humans being so highly individualistic, fractious, and most of the time poorish at working together, I feel that we've done well to attain even the at best "so-so" degree of gauge standardisation, which we have.

 

[Calthrop]

Indian broad gauge was explicitly chosen on the grounds of improved stability in bad weather, as well as offering more space for inside cylinders.

I'd also suspect that at that time, considerations of geography meant that any idea of ultimate rail connection between the Indian sub-continent and the wider world, was completely discounted. One would figure that in the 1850s nobody, even in an opium dream, would have envisaged rail routes coming to run the full length of Turkey and Persia, and linking with the Indian system.

 

[Dr Hoo]

An interesting comparison is the situation with ‘inland waterways’. Britain ended up with a huge mix of locks with different widths and lengths, which meant that there was no viable ‘go anywhere’ vessel.

 

[randyrippley]

I should have added that the explanation included that their gauge was actually slightly different from that in Russia - I don't recall the exact figures but it's probably on the Web somewhere. Trains can and do run through including to Kaliningrad which is a Russian enclave.

But what gauge was Kaliningrad before WWII?
Remember it was then part of the German enclave of East Prussia

 

[edwin_m]

But what gauge was Kaliningrad before WWII?
Remember it was then part of the German enclave of East Prussia

There were various re-gaugings in the Baltics reflecting their history of successive occupation by Germany and Russia - I recall there are a lot of details on Wikipedia though I couldn't vouch for their correctness. Since WW2 lines within the Soviet Union itself, which included the Baltics and Kaliningrad, have been to the Russian gauge (give or take a few mm) as has Finland. But the satellite states further west stayed on 1435mm.

There appears to be no intention to re-gauge the existing network in the Baltics despite them now being westward-looking EU member states. As well as the cost, this would be an impediment to east-west freight between Russia and Kaliningrad or various ice-free ports. However the Rail Baltica project aims to build a standard-gauge line from Poland through Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia and ultimately to make the see crossing to Finland.

 

[Calthrop]

In the days of the Baltic States' independence between the World Wars, Estonia and Latvia essentially retained Russian gauge; on which their systems had grown up, they having been possessions of Tsarist Russia (only, about half of Estonia's railways were 750mm.) Lithuania, German-occupied for most of World War I and with its railways altered by the Germans from Russian to standard gauge, kept to standard gauge when it became independent post-WWI. Neighbouring German East Prussia, including Kaliningrad [Koenigsberg], was s/g throughout until it ceased to be German at end of WWII. As per @edwin_m, from end-WWII Russian gauge -- 1520mm version, it would seem -- became once more supreme throughout the three Baltic States and the Kaliningrad enclave.