How were track gauges chosen?

[Rescars]

Apart from main line network considerations, Sir Arthur Heywood settled on 15 inches as the minimum providing the "necessary stability for practical use" and used this on his estate lines at Duffield Bank and other locations.

 

[Revaulx]

Nobody has mentioned the other 'standard ' gauge of 5ft 3in. Ireland, Iberian peninsula and Russia all use something like that. Why?

Don’t forget that the early days of the railways came less than 20 years after the final defeat of Napoleon, who had brought untold misery to much of Europe.

Spain deliberately set their gauge apart from France to reduce the risk of invasion. Portugal followed suit. I’m fairly certain the same was true of Russia.

Ireland’s first railway was built to Standard Gauge, but subsequent lines used several different wider gauges until the whole lot was standardised to 5ft 3in.

 

[mcropod]

Don’t forget that the early days of the railways came less than 20 years after the final defeat of Napoleon, who had brought untold misery to much of Europe.

Spain deliberately set their gauge apart from France to reduce the risk of invasion. Portugal followed suit. I’m fairly certain the same was true of Russia.

Ireland’s first railway was built to Standard Gauge, but subsequent lines used several different wider gauges until the whole lot was standardised to 5ft 3in.

The Australian state of Victoria still uses 'Irish gauge' across its network of intra-State and Melbourne metropolitan services. The national gauge is standard gauge and the inter-capital services Melbourne-Sydney and Melbourne-Adelaide run on standard gauge lines as does much inter-state goods traffic.

Southern Cross station in Melbourne - the interstate services station, runs dual-gauge lines for a few platforms as a result. The Sydney service is run by NSW railways, and the less frequent Adelaide service is run by a private company, subsidised by the two state governments. The Adelaide run has to take a major diversion Melbourne to Ararat to stay on standard gauge track, rather than the direct route through Ballarat on the Victorian network.

The early governments in Oz during colonial times variously ran protectionist or free trade policies and some decided to heavily-regulate inter-colonial trade, with customs/duty points at boundaries - so what better way to cause a traffic-barrier is there but to prevent trains crossing the border by gauge incompatibilities?

 

[Irascible]

India - who has a large network ( which is, as an aside, understandably a gigantic employer ) - uses 5' 6" which I always felt was a pretty good choice. I don't believe they're intending to regauge to 1435mm either, in fact I think they're trying to convert everything to 1676mm. The origins of Indian rail are very British as you might expect, so I have no idea of the process that lead to that choice - perhaps someone agreed with Brunel but not his solution...

 

[stuu]

India - who has a large network ( which is, as an aside, understandably a gigantic employer ) - uses 5' 6" which I always felt was a pretty good choice. I don't believe they're intending to regauge to 1435mm either, in fact I think they're trying to convert everything to 1676mm. The origins of Indian rail are very British as you might expect, so I have no idea of the process that lead to that choice - perhaps someone agreed with Brunel but not his solution...

I have read that a wider gauge was chosen because of the supposed greater stability in tropical storms. Whether 10" makes any material difference is another question.

The Unigauge project in India is more or less done, there is very little metre gauge left (and it's nearly all electrified)

 

[edwin_m]

India - who has a large network ( which is, as an aside, understandably a gigantic employer ) - uses 5' 6" which I always felt was a pretty good choice. I don't believe they're intending to regauge to 1435mm either, in fact I think they're trying to convert everything to 1676mm. The origins of Indian rail are very British as you might expect, so I have no idea of the process that lead to that choice - perhaps someone agreed with Brunel but not his solution...

The planners of the BART metro in San Francisco adopted the same gauge, based on some sort of blue-skies exercise of what the optimum gauge should be. Consequently they have to buy non-standard rolling stock and can't hire in maintenance plant. It was one of those projects where traditional rail experience was disparaged, and given they royally messed up their wheel profile, I don't have much confidence they got it right on the gauge.

 

[Calthrop]

Ireland’s first railway was built to Standard Gauge, but subsequent lines used several different wider gauges until the whole lot was standardised to 5ft 3in.

By my understanding, the following "tale" is true: an average was arithmetically taken, of the gauges then in use on the island -- the result was 5ft 3in., thereupon adopted. Only in Ireland ...

India - who has a large network ( which is, as an aside, understandably a gigantic employer ) - uses 5' 6" which I always felt was a pretty good choice. I don't believe they're intending to regauge to 1435mm either, in fact I think they're trying to convert everything to 1676mm. The origins of Indian rail are very British as you might expect, so I have no idea of the process that lead to that choice - perhaps someone agreed with Brunel but not his solution...

I've seen it suggested -- this is maybe an "urban legend" -- that 5ft 6in. gauge was in Britain's earliest rail days, initially used for various lines in Scotland; a disproportionate number of those in charge of initiating railways in India, mid-19th-century, were Scots: hence the particular (broad) gauge chosen.

The early governments in Oz during colonial times variously ran protectionist or free trade policies and some decided to heavily-regulate inter-colonial trade, with customs/duty points at boundaries - so what better way to cause a traffic-barrier is there but to prevent trains crossing the border by gauge incompatibilities?

Again, I believe the following is true -- though I can't cite "chapter and verse". Australia's notorious "mess" involving 4ft 8-and-a-half in., and 5ft 3in. gauge, was not originated by deliberate Machiavellian doings (though it could have been subsequently found useful in that sphere); but came about by genuine mischance. The "first colonies", Victoria / South Australia / New South Wales, planned in the first days of railways there, to have their rail systems -- envisaged as, in time, joining up -- all on the same gauge. Initially, standard gauge was envisaged for the purpose; but NSW then appointed as chief railway engineer, an Irish gent who was rather fanatically pro-Irish gauge, and pushed very strongly for that gauge to be used. Victoria and South Australia, which had laid their very first sections to standard gauge; duly, and with considerable inconvenience, switched to Irish gauge. The NSW chief engineer didn't last long in his post; was replaced by an English guy who was an equally strong standard-gauge proponent, and insisted on changing back to s/g for NSW's incipient lines. Those in charge in Victoria and S.A., patience exhausted by this nonsense, said in effect, "Stuff this, sport -- we're sticking with 5ft 3in. now, come what may" -- and the rest is history...

 

[AndrewE]

By my understanding, the following "tale" is true: an average was arithmetically taken, of the gauges then in use on the island -- the result was 5ft 3in., thereupon adopted. Only in Ireland ...

I've seen it suggested -- this is maybe an "urban legend" -- that 5ft 6in. gauge was in Britain's earliest rail days, initially used for various lines in Scotland; a disproportionate number of those in charge of initiating railways in India, mid-19th-century, were Scots: hence the particular (broad) gauge chosen.

The early Scottish bit isn't a myth (& I saw it mentioned in a museum up there last year,) see Wikipedia

The Dundee and Arbroath Railway was an early railway in Scotland. It opened in 1838, and used the unusual track gauge of 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm). In 1848 it changed to standard gauge and connected to the emerging Scottish railway network.

and further down that page it says that it is rumoured that they did choose half way between Stephenson's and Brunel's gauges!

 

[mcropod]

By my understanding, the following "tale" is true: an average was arithmetically taken, of the gauges then in use on the island -- the result was 5ft 3in., thereupon adopted. Only in Ireland ...



I've seen it suggested -- this is maybe an "urban legend" -- that 5ft 6in. gauge was in Britain's earliest rail days, initially used for various lines in Scotland; a disproportionate number of those in charge of initiating railways in India, mid-19th-century, were Scots: hence the particular (broad) gauge chosen.



Again, I believe the following is true -- though I can't cite "chapter and verse". Australia's notorious "mess" involving 4ft 8-and-a-half in., and 5ft 3in. gauge, was not originated by deliberate Machiavellian doings (though it could have been subsequently found useful in that sphere); but came about by genuine mischance. The "first colonies", Victoria / South Australia / New South Wales, planned in the first days of railways there, to have their rail systems -- envisaged as, in time, joining up -- all on the same gauge. Initially, standard gauge was envisaged for the purpose; but NSW then appointed as chief railway engineer, an Irish gent who was rather fanatically pro-Irish gauge, and pushed very strongly for that gauge to be used. Victoria and South Australia, which had laid their very first sections to standard gauge; duly, and with considerable inconvenience, switched to Irish gauge. The NSW chief engineer didn't last long in his post; was replaced by an English guy who was an equally strong standard-gauge proponent, and insisted on changing back to s/g for NSW's incipient lines. Those in charge in Victoria and S.A., patience exhausted by this nonsense, said in effect, "Stuff this, sport -- we're sticking with 5ft 3in. now, come what may" -- and the rest is history...

South Australia also ran 3' 6" gauge for a big part of its system - indeed the original Ghan service, from Port Augusta to Alice Springs (in the Northern Territory) ran on that gauge and I was lucky enough to have had three separate runs on that multi-day ride before the service was ceased. That train was run by the national government's Commonwealth Railways when I rode it, and it carried passengers going from one remote outback settlement to another along the route as well as many end-to-enders dodging the c1000 km dirt road connection, putting their car on the train's car-carriers instead. South Australia had administrative responsibility for the NT during its formative years before the Federal Government, and then self-government took over, so managed the rail to its own standards.

The new Ghan service is privately-owned, and takes a much more western alignment to Alice Springs on its c 4000 km several-day journey between Adelaide and Darwin, on standard gauge which was Federally-funded as a national infrastructure project.

You can't ride most of Western Australia's rail infrastructure as it's privately owned and operated by the mining companies whose lengthy trains have sole use. While WA uses 3' 6" gauge for its public rail system statewide and within Perth, the miners use standard gauge, likely for ease of getting in locos and rolling stock. When Australia's *other* transcontinental train - the Indian-Pacific (standard gauge) hits Kalgoorlie in WA, it runs on dual-gauge track the last 600 kms to Perth.

 

[341o2]

Nobody has mentioned the other 'standard ' gauge of 5ft 3in. Ireland, Iberian peninsula and Russia all use something like that. Why?

Legend has it that 5'3" was the stride of Brian Boru.
Re the Stephenson gauge, I was told at school (but is this an urban myth), cartwheels measured 5' from outside to outside, so from inside to inside it is 4'8 1/2"
For Russia, there is another myth that the different gauge was in case of invasion, but if you think about it, it would be more difficult to make something wider than to simply relay one rail a few inches narrower

 

[Calthrop]

South Australia also ran 3' 6" gauge for a big part of its system - indeed the original Ghan service, from Port Augusta to Alice Springs (in the Northern Territory) ran on that gauge and I was lucky enough to have had three separate runs on that multi-day ride before the service was ceased. That train was run by the national government's Commonwealth Railways when I rode it, and it carried passengers going from one remote outback settlement to another along the route as well as many end-to-enders dodging the c1000 km dirt road connection, putting their car on the train's car-carriers instead. South Australia had administrative responsibility for the NT during its formative years before the Federal Government, and then self-government took over, so managed the rail to its own standards.

The new Ghan service is privately-owned, and takes a much more western alignment to Alice Springs on its c 4000 km several-day journey between Adelaide and Darwin, on standard gauge which was Federally-funded as a national infrastructure project.

You can't ride most of Western Australia's rail infrastructure as it's privately owned and operated by the mining companies whose lengthy trains have sole use. While WA uses 3' 6" gauge for its public rail system statewide and within Perth, the miners use standard gauge, likely for ease of getting in locos and rolling stock. When Australia's *other* transcontinental train - the Indian-Pacific (standard gauge) hits Kalgoorlie in WA, it runs on dual-gauge track the last 600 kms to Perth.

One feels that the widespread use of 3ft 6in. gauge in Australia for the continent's -- if one might say so -- "wilder and woollier" regions; while adding to the "gaiety" of the Australian gauge scene, made and makes practical sense.

On Australian rail matters, I tend to quote the book on Australia by Bill Bryson -- an author with whom I have rather a love / hate relationship: some of the time, he is indeed very funny, and perceptive. For my money, though, he can also often be very annoying; he's a lot less of a polymath than he fancies himself to be; and he can (consciously, I suspect) depart far from the truth, in the interests of being supposedly humorous. He is, basically, a friend of railways and rail travel -- however... early in his Australia book, he tells of Australia's notorious gauge chaos (spawned by, as he puts it, "various arcane reasons"): lists the different gauges, and mentions: "South Australia, inventively, had all three". Pithy but, I feel, a bit unfair: the 4ft 8-and-a-half in.'s presence in SA has been due, I think, purely to the Commonwealth Railways' role (particularly re the transcontinental line SA -- Kalgoorlie) in that state -- SAR pure-and-simple, used to be just "broad, and three-six". Bryson remarks in the same paragraph, that a gauge of 3ft 6in. makes him think, "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, baloney -- but I suppose Bill can be forgiven, as a pro-rail person but no railway scholar: thus unaware that the crucial thing on this scene is loading gauge, not distance between the rails. Per the book, he travelled widely in Australia, but mostly by road -- it seems likely that he never actually saw a 3ft 6in. gauge train.

 

[oldman]

In Russia the committee planning the Petersburg-Moscow railway was divided between 6' (in use on the Pavlovsk railway) and 5', recommended by their American consultant Whistler - 5' was common in the US. The Tsar chose 5' in February 1843.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Nobody has mentioned the other 'standard ' gauge of 5ft 3in. Ireland, Iberian peninsula and Russia all use something like that. Why?

The main reason was the military - they didn't want neighbouring states to have an easy border crossing for their armies (works both ways of course).
Russian* gauge is 5ft and Iberian** 5ft6. Dual gauge is difficult to apply to Russian gauge with the difference only 3.5 inches (85mm).
Our equivalent was military opposition to early proposals for a channel tunnel.
Early Alpine tunnels had arrangements for rapid portal destruction should the enemy arrive at the gates.

Ireland did start with "standard" gauge on Dublin-Kingstown (Dun Laoghaire) in 1834, but it was converted to Irish gauge later.
The 1846 Railway Act required 4ft8.5 in GB and 5ft3 in Ireland (where it was adopted in 1843).
Irish gauge was exported to Australia (Victoria and South Australia) by Irish engineers.

* But Russia allowed the Warsaw-Vienna railway (actually just to the border with Austria near Katowice) to be built at standard gauge in the 1840s.
The Vistula effectively became the dividing line between the two gauges when the St Petersburg-Warsaw railway was built in broad gauge around 1860.

** Spain has of course built its high-speed network largely to standard gauge, and as a result is now the world leader in gauge-changing technology.

 

[Irascible]

The planners of the BART metro in San Francisco adopted the same gauge, based on some sort of blue-skies exercise of what the optimum gauge should be. Consequently they have to buy non-standard rolling stock and can't hire in maintenance plant. It was one of those projects where traditional rail experience was disparaged, and given they royally messed up their wheel profile, I don't have much confidence they got it right on the gauge.

It doesn't really make much sense in a country where everyhting else is a different gauge, unless there were other restrictions like geography ( and there patently weren't, in this case ). Given it was apparently specced without referring to existing collective wisdom, I wonder if it's more that everything is non standard rather than just the gauge. India seems to manage fine - I guess we'll see one day when they lay in HSR if the gauge brings anything. Their freight loading gauge doesn't seem particularily generous, 100mm wider than most UIC & 4140mm high is less than all UIC. There does appear to be work ongoing to widen everything significantly.

5' 6" does sound something like the average height of a man in times past ( I've no idea what mid-19th C physiology was like! ).

 

[eldomtom2]

India - who has a large network ( which is, as an aside, understandably a gigantic employer ) - uses 5' 6" which I always felt was a pretty good choice. I don't believe they're intending to regauge to 1435mm either, in fact I think they're trying to convert everything to 1676mm. The origins of Indian rail are very British as you might expect, so I have no idea of the process that lead to that choice - perhaps someone agreed with Brunel but not his solution...

IIRC it was a case of quite a few engineers feeling a wider gauge than standard was superior (even Stephenson said if he was to start again he might add a few inches), and since they were introducing railways to a country that previously lacked them interoperability was not a concern and they could choose whatever gauge they wanted.

I've seen it suggested -- this is maybe an "urban legend" -- that 5ft 6in. gauge was in Britain's earliest rail days, initially used for various lines in Scotland; a disproportionate number of those in charge of initiating railways in India, mid-19th-century, were Scots: hence the particular (broad) gauge chosen.

"Scotch gauge" was 4ft 6in, not 5ft 6in - it nowadays only survives in, of all places, commuter rail lines in Tokyo. There were a couple of 5ft 6in gauge railways in Scotland but they were by far outnumbered by other gauges.

 

[MotCO]

"Scotch gauge" was 4ft 6in, not 5ft 6in - it nowadays only survives in, of all places, commuter rail lines in Tokyo.

Does that imply that the bullet trains are a different gauge?

From a non-scientific perspective, I've always though that axles being only half the width of the carriages or wagons would be less stable than axles which are more or less the same as their width. Cars have a wheel in each corner, I assume, for stability - why not trains?

 

[Irascible]

Trains are not generally expected to put up with the lateral forces cars are. You're right in principle though, although having a low CoG makes up for a lot too.

 

[eldomtom2]

Does that imply that the bullet trains are a different gauge?

Yes. The bullet trains are standard gauge, the regular network is 3ft 6in gauge. In addition there are various conventional standard gauge lines, the 4ft 6in lines previously mentioned, and there are also a couple of 2ft 6in gauge lines struggling on.

 

[edwin_m]

India seems to manage fine - I guess we'll see one day when they lay in HSR if the gauge brings anything. Their freight loading gauge doesn't seem particularily generous, 100mm wider than most UIC & 4140mm high is less than all UIC. There does appear to be work ongoing to widen everything significantly.

On at least one route in India, they can run double stack containers without having to use well wagons, which I think is a taller loading gauge than almost anywhere else (Channel Tunnel perhaps excepted?). The pantogaphs on the locomotives look exceedingly strange.

 

[341o2]

Yes. The bullet trains are standard gauge, the regular network is 3ft 6in gauge. In addition there are various conventional standard gauge lines, the 4ft 6in lines previously mentioned, and there are also a couple of 2ft 6in gauge lines struggling on.

Would those be the last remnants of the Forest Railways I mentioned in the Railway General Knowledge quiz thread?
E R Calthrop of the Barsi Light Railway stated that you only needed two narrow gauges, 2' and 2'6". The Leek and Manifold was engineered by him, and one of the transporter wagons was regauged to 2' for the Ashover Light Railway, but one trial trip was more than enough, the loco crew were more than relieved to complete the journey with it still on the rails

 

[stuu]

Would those be the last remnants of the Forest Railways I mentioned in the Railway General Knowledge quiz thread?
E R Calthrop of the Barsi Light Railway stated that you only needed two narrow gauges, 2' and 2'6". The Leek and Manifold was engineered by him, and one of the transporter wagons was regauged to 2' for the Ashover Light Railway, but one trial trip was more than enough, the loco crew were more than relieved to complete the journey with it still on the rails

There are a couple of suburban electrified lines which are 2'6", fairly astonishingly. They were parts of wider networks which were mostly regauged to 3'6".
(Photo shows 2'6" EMU)

 

[Irascible]

On at least one route in India, they can run double stack containers without having to use well wagons, which I think is a taller loading gauge than almost anywhere else (Channel Tunnel perhaps excepted?). The pantogaphs on the locomotives look exceedingly strange.

Not slow either! the double-stack operation seems to have predated the electrification, the whole thing is impressive either way. I think in this case the gauge really did help.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Not slow either! the double-stack operation seems to have predated the electrification, the whole thing is impressive either way. I think in this case the gauge really did help.

Certainly impressive but double stack on standard gauge is completely OK (with adequate clearances, obviously).

 

[Taunton]

Nobody has mentioned the other 'standard ' gauge of 5ft 3in. Ireland, Iberian peninsula and Russia all use something like that. Why?

Russia uses 5'0". This includes Finland, which was Russian when railways were developed.

When railways were first developed there, the Czar, Nikolai I (1796-1855) took a keen interest and lead, and among other things funded a study tour by the first engineers to the London & Southampton Railway, then under construction. They returned around 1842 with details of this 'Standard Gauge' developing across Europe, which would allow these new trains to run from Paris to Moscow ...

This was the last thing Nikolai wanted. A junior army officer in 1812 when Napoleon invaded Russia, the prospect of the invaders arriving easily by rail was to be avoided. So it was chosen deliberately different, so the invaders would not have rolling stock usable beyond the border. It could potentially be adapted, so engineering thinking showed that just 4 inches wider, rather than more, made conversion pretty impossible with outside bearing wheels. The first significant line, Moscow to St Petersburg, was built like this, and the rest followed.

100 years on, long after this, the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, and use of rail was thwarted by exactly this. Russian roads were snowbound in winter and quagmires in the spring thaw, and the transport situation was a key part of lack of progress, just as for Napoleon. Of course, Stalin failed to say 'well done Nikolai'.

A large number of German wartime-built 'Kriegsloks' were left behind in the Soviet Union after 1945, now running on the 5'0" tracks. I have had my head up inside the wheels of the one in the St Petersburg railway museum trying to see how they did it.

 

[181]

A large number of German wartime-built 'Kriegsloks' were left behind in the Soviet Union after 1945, now running on the 5'0" tracks. I have had my head up inside the wheels of the one in the St Petersburg railway museum trying to see how they did it.

German Wikipedia says:

Die Umspurung auf russische Breitspur von 1520 Millimetern, also nur 85 mm Unterschied, erfolgte mit relativ einfachen Mitteln: auf die Naben der Radsterne wurden innen Bunde aufgeschweißt, danach wurden sie mit dem neuen Spurmaß auf die ursprünglichen Achswellen aufgepresst. Teilweise und verschleißabhängig wurden auch neue, längere Achswellen eingebaut.


Die Zylinder wurden mit Zwischenlagen weiter nach außen gesetzt.


Which Google translates as:


The gauge change to the Russian broad gauge of 1520 millimeters, i.e. only 85 mm difference, was carried out with relatively simple means: collars were welded onto the hubs of the wheel spiders, then they were pressed onto the original axle shafts with the new gauge. In some cases and depending on wear, new, longer axle shafts were also installed.


The cylinders were placed further outwards with spacers.


Although that text is in a section with a Wikipedia warning that it doesn't cite any sources.

 

[Irascible]

Certainly impressive but double stack on standard gauge is completely OK (with adequate clearances, obviously).

Does anywhere else do it with flats? any dynamic limits?

 

[Shaw S Hunter]

When railways were first developed there, the Czar, Nikolai I (1796-1855) took a keen interest and lead, and among other things funded a study tour by the first engineers to the London & Southampton Railway, then under construction. They returned around 1842 with details of this 'Standard Gauge' developing across Europe, which would allow these new trains to run from Paris to Moscow ...

This was the last thing Nikolai wanted. A junior army officer in 1812 when Napoleon invaded Russia, the prospect of the invaders arriving easily by rail was to be avoided. So it was chosen deliberately different, so the invaders would not have rolling stock usable beyond the border. It could potentially be adapted, so engineering thinking showed that just 4 inches wider, rather than more, made conversion pretty impossible with outside bearing wheels. The first significant line, Moscow to St Petersburg, was built like this, and the rest followed.

100 years on, long after this, the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, and use of rail was thwarted by exactly this. Russian roads were snowbound in winter and quagmires in the spring thaw, and the transport situation was a key part of lack of progress, just as for Napoleon. Of course, Stalin failed to say 'well done Nikolai'.

A lot of myth around this. In fact by 1841 the Russian military was already advising that the best way to stop any enemy use of the railways would be by destroying bridges and tunnels, track gauge was irrelevant. And choosing a wider gauge was the wrong decision: given the use of wooden sleepers regauging by moving one rail inwards was relatively easy and could certainly be achieved by keen engineers before any invading rail movements could actually be arranged. And anyone who has seen WW2 documentaries will have seen how Soviet scorched earth policy in the face of the overwhelming blitzkrieg was applied to the railways by the simple method of a loco pulling a demolition wagon ie a weighted vehicle with a large hook hung from the rear between the sleepers tearing them in half as the loco moved forwards.

German Wikipedia says:

Die Umspurung auf russische Breitspur von 1520 Millimetern, also nur 85 mm Unterschied, erfolgte mit relativ einfachen Mitteln: auf die Naben der Radsterne wurden innen Bunde aufgeschweißt, danach wurden sie mit dem neuen Spurmaß auf die ursprünglichen Achswellen aufgepresst. Teilweise und verschleißabhängig wurden auch neue, längere Achswellen eingebaut.


Die Zylinder wurden mit Zwischenlagen weiter nach außen gesetzt.


Which Google translates as:


The gauge change to the Russian broad gauge of 1520 millimeters, i.e. only 85 mm difference, was carried out with relatively simple means: collars were welded onto the hubs of the wheel spiders, then they were pressed onto the original axle shafts with the new gauge. In some cases and depending on wear, new, longer axle shafts were also installed.


The cylinders were placed further outwards with spacers.


Although that text is in a section with a Wikipedia warning that it doesn't cite any sources.

Just as well. The original gauge was in fact 1524mm, the change to 1520mm was only standardised in 1970.

 

[Rescars]

There are a couple of suburban electrified lines which are 2'6", fairly astonishingly. They were parts of wider networks which were mostly regauged to 3'6".
(Photo shows 2'6" EMU)
View attachment 139778

2' 6" is not so different from the 80cm much used in the Swiss alps, except where 100cm is used instead.

 

[oldman]

When railways were first developed there, the Czar, Nikolai I (1796-1855) took a keen interest and lead, and among other things funded a study tour by the first engineers to the London & Southampton Railway, then under construction. They returned around 1842 with details of this 'Standard Gauge' developing across Europe, which would allow these new trains to run from Paris to Moscow ...

Russian railway engineers did not suddenly learn about standard gauge in 1842. The railway from Vienna to Russian-occupied Warsaw was already under construction and they were well in touch with international railway development with the Austrian Gerstner responsible for the first passenger railway. Gerstner also visited the US and American influence on Russian railway development was considerable.

This is what a Russian wikipedia article says.

At the meetings of the railway committee responsible for the design and construction of the line, most of its participants initially advocated th a gauge width of 6 feet (1829 mm) — the same as the Tsarskoye Selo Railway. American engineer G. Whistler, who was invited as a consultant, on the other hand, insisted on a of 5 feet (1524 mm). Despite the fact that the track width of 5 feet differed from the tracks of both the Tsarskoye Selo and Warsaw-Vienna railways, Wistler was able to convince some members of the committee and the General Director of transport routes of the usefulness of the five-foot track. As a result, only the chief of staff of the Corps of Mining Engineers K. В. Chevkin continued to advocate for a 6-foot gauge, the rest supported Whistler's option, and on February 14, 1843, Emperor Nikolai I approved the construction of a 5-foot gauge railway (1524 mm)

Source: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/русская_колея via Google Translate, edited

I wonder if your source is also responsible for the myth that the word vokzal entered Russian railway vocabulary after this 1842 visit to the LSWR.

 

[eldomtom2]

German Wikipedia says:

Die Umspurung auf russische Breitspur von 1520 Millimetern, also nur 85 mm Unterschied, erfolgte mit relativ einfachen Mitteln: auf die Naben der Radsterne wurden innen Bunde aufgeschweißt, danach wurden sie mit dem neuen Spurmaß auf die ursprünglichen Achswellen aufgepresst. Teilweise und verschleißabhängig wurden auch neue, längere Achswellen eingebaut.


Die Zylinder wurden mit Zwischenlagen weiter nach außen gesetzt.


Which Google translates as:


The gauge change to the Russian broad gauge of 1520 millimeters, i.e. only 85 mm difference, was carried out with relatively simple means: collars were welded onto the hubs of the wheel spiders, then they were pressed onto the original axle shafts with the new gauge. In some cases and depending on wear, new, longer axle shafts were also installed.


The cylinders were placed further outwards with spacers.


Although that text is in a section with a Wikipedia warning that it doesn't cite any sources.

The reverse happened with the "Russian Decapods" - American-built locomotives for export to Russia that were stranded in the US after the Russian Revolution.