• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

How were track gauges chosen?

Status
Not open for further replies.

devon_belle

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2022
Messages
316
Location
Surrey
I've been wondering about why standard track gauge is the width it is - 4ft 8.5in seems fairly arbitrary. Indeed, there were many other gauges during the early days of railways (and before on waggonways), and there are even more if you include 'narrow gauge' lines. I guess that 'standard gauge' isn't necessarily the best, it is just the one that stuck when the railway companies realised that having a cohesive network would be beneficial.

How did engineers originally specify the track gauge, and why would a given gauge be selected when building a railway line?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,481
Location
Up the creek
If we could give you a definite answer to that we would know one of the unsolved mysteries of railway history. Some say it goes back to the Romans…
 

Snow1964

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2019
Messages
6,302
Location
West Wiltshire
Wasn't it derived from old wagon trackways, which were laid in muddy parts of old roads, and the wagons had the wheels certain distance apart to run on these, using a guide beam on inside

Myth (don't know if true) is it is same width of Roman chariot wheels
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,948
Location
Nottingham
I expect it was the gauge on the waggonway that George Stephenson was associated with, and it just got replicated to everything else he was involved in, which was most of the early railways apart from the GWR. It proved to be a good choice, as it has worked for everything from high speed to heavy freight without apparently constraining the capability of either.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
3,047
Location
The Fens
Very early railways used horses for traction. One of the main design constraints of a horse drawn vehicle is the width of the horse.

What is now thought of as standard gauge is sometimes called Stephenson Gauge, from what Stephenson used on the Stockton and Darlington and Liverpool and Manchester railways.
 

Andy873

Member
Joined
23 Mar 2017
Messages
965
Track gauge also depended on the location of the line and its purpose. Take for instance the slate mines in Wales, the narrow gauge was sufficient enough to transport slate down from the mines to sea ports. Also, when you build with narrow gauge it simply costs less than standard. think about the narrow space on the side of a hill / mountain and also how much cheaper it was to build narrow tunnels etc.
 

Rescars

Member
Joined
25 May 2021
Messages
1,177
Location
Surrey
Brunel considered the Stephenson gauge inadequate for his vision / loads / speed for the GWR, so came up with the broad gauge of 7 feet, with an additional 1/4 inch presumably for easement.
 

mike57

Established Member
Joined
13 Mar 2015
Messages
1,692
Location
East coast of Yorkshire
Thinking about 4' 8 1/2", was the half inch again about ensuring clearances, 4' 8" is 4 and 2/3 ft The Hand which was and still is used for measuring horses is 4" so 4' 8" = 14 Hands. As the early tramways and wagonways were horse drawn use of the Hand would make sense. Was 14 Hands a convenient gauge which fitted well with existing wagons? Just a theory, nothing to back it up, but neither have any of the other theories.

Other gauges like 7ft, 3ft, 2ft, metre were convenient multiples of customary measurement units. But then you have 3' 6", 5' 6", 5' 3" for example which all seem less arbitary, but why were they chosen over more convenient multiples. It feel like the early engineers thought "What gauge does my railway need to be to work best" and chose a number without reference to other concerns. Some of these gauges then became more widely used and in turn became standards in some parts of the world. If you look at the range of gauges that have been used globally there is an even bigger range, some have prospered and grown and others have become niche or disappeared. And of course over large parts of the world metric units have prevailed so we now have gauges like 1067mm 1435mm 1676mm etc.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
2,751
Location
Somerset
Thinking about 4' 8 1/2", was the half inch again about ensuring clearances, 4' 8" is 4 and 2/3 ft The Hand which was and still is used for measuring horses is 4" so 4' 8" = 14 Hands. As the early tramways and wagonways were horse drawn use of the Hand would make sense. Was 14 Hands a convenient gauge which fitted well with existing wagons? Just a theory, nothing to back it up, but neither have any of the other theories.

Other gauges like 7ft, 3ft, 2ft, metre were convenient multiples of customary measurement units. But then you have 3' 6", 5' 6", 5' 3" for example which all seem less arbitary, but why were they chosen over more convenient multiples. It feel like the early engineers thought "What gauge does my railway need to be to work best" and chose a number without reference to other concerns. Some of these gauges then became more widely used and in turn became standards in some parts of the world. If you look at the range of gauges that have been used globally there is an even bigger range, some have prospered and grown and others have become niche or disappeared. And of course over large parts of the world metric units have prevailed so we now have gauges like 1067mm 1435mm 1676mm etc.
In lots of cases, it wouldn’t have been choosing a gauge - it would have been measuring what you’d got (axles on your carts/wagons, for example) and standardising on that. Incidentally “2 foot” gauge isn’t 24” - it’s something like 23 3/4, IIRC
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,948
Location
Nottingham
Track gauge also depended on the location of the line and its purpose. Take for instance the slate mines in Wales, the narrow gauge was sufficient enough to transport slate down from the mines to sea ports. Also, when you build with narrow gauge it simply costs less than standard. think about the narrow space on the side of a hill / mountain and also how much cheaper it was to build narrow tunnels etc.
That's more about loading and structure gauge than track gauge. A narrower track gauge does permit a narrower structure gauge but it doesn't necessarily require one - South Africa for example runs larger trains than the UK on narrower track.

Narrow track gauge does allow tighter curves, but the reduced stability of a narrower wheelbase may mean trains have to run more slowly through them.

In lots of cases, it wouldn’t have been choosing a gauge - it would have been measuring what you’d got (axles on your carts/wagons, for example) and standardising on that. Incidentally “2 foot” gauge isn’t 24” - it’s something like 23 3/4, IIRC
There's a whole load of complication about where you measure the gauge on the wheel and rail, and tolerances in dimensions may allow two gauges that are officially a few millimetres different to inter-operate.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
2,751
Location
Somerset
There's a whole load of complication about where you measure the gauge on the wheel and rail, and tolerances in dimensions may allow two gauges that are officially a few millimetres different to inter-operate.
Indeed - isn’t standard gauge now actually 4foot 8 3/8”? (1435mm)
 

mrcheek

Established Member
Joined
11 Sep 2007
Messages
1,472
I believe its generally accepted that the current gauge was based on early horse drawn railways, which were given that gauge based on the average width of a horse.

In other words, railway gauge is literally the size of a horse's arse!
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,948
Location
Nottingham
Indeed - isn’t standard gauge now actually 4foot 8 3/8”? (1435mm)

1435 mm is 4 foot 8 1/2 inch to the nearest quarter of a millimetre.
You may be thinking of a British Rail idea in the 1980s to reduce the gauge to 1432mm on new track. It was supposed to improve the ride but did the opposite, and was reversed after a while.
 

randyrippley

Established Member
Joined
21 Feb 2016
Messages
5,151
I believe its generally accepted that the current gauge was based on early horse drawn railways, which were given that gauge based on the average width of a horse.

In other words, railway gauge is literally the size of a horse's arse!
Be thankful that the Stephensons didn't come from Shetland
 

Ken H

On Moderation
Joined
11 Nov 2018
Messages
6,318
Location
N Yorks
Nobody has mentioned the other 'standard ' gauge of 5ft 3in. Ireland, Iberian peninsula and Russia all use something like that. Why?
 
Last edited by a moderator:

devon_belle

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2022
Messages
316
Location
Surrey
You may be thinking of a British Rail idea in the 1980s to reduce the gauge to 1432mm on new track. It was supposed to improve the ride but did the opposite, and was reversed after a while.
Surprised that such a small difference would even be noticeable!
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
5,105
When this last came up we learnt that there were loads - if not dozens - of different gauges, both here in the UK and especially in the USA (if it was even "U" then.)
The Wikipedia page is quite infromative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_gauge but doesn't say much about N America...
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
2,751
Location
Somerset
You may be thinking of a British Rail idea in the 1980s to reduce the gauge to 1432mm on new track. It was supposed to improve the ride but did the opposite, and was reversed after a while.
That’s exactly what I was thinking of.
 

Rescars

Member
Joined
25 May 2021
Messages
1,177
Location
Surrey
A
When this last came up we learnt that there were loads - if not dozens - of different gauges, both here in the UK and especially in the USA (if it was even "U" then.)
The Wikipedia page is quite infromative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Track_gauge but doesn't say much about N America...
And there were some which were quite extraordinary - such as the Listowel and Ballybunion :D
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,225
Time to wheel out my favourite railway stat:

To within a very small margin of error…

Standard gauge is Pi / 2 yards

Broad Gauge is Pi - 1 metres
 

Shimbleshanks

Member
Joined
2 Jan 2012
Messages
1,020
Location
Purley
Track gauge also depended on the location of the line and its purpose. Take for instance the slate mines in Wales, the narrow gauge was sufficient enough to transport slate down from the mines to sea ports. Also, when you build with narrow gauge it simply costs less than standard. think about the narrow space on the side of a hill / mountain and also how much cheaper it was to build narrow tunnels etc.
Many of the Welsh slate railways were originally designed to connect with shipping, not the main line rail system, so having a smaller track gauge than 'standard' wouldn't have been an issue when they were built.
 

MotCO

Established Member
Joined
25 Aug 2014
Messages
4,138
Myth (don't know if true) is it is same width of Roman chariot wheels
Is the gauge in all countries formerly within the Roman Empire 4ft 8.5 in? Where in Europe does the gauge change?
 

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
2,774
Is the gauge in all countries formerly within the Roman Empire 4ft 8.5 in? Where in Europe does the gauge change?
No, Spain and Portugal are the obvious exceptions. And most of Tunisia. Going east the gauge changes at what was the USSR/Russian Empire borders
 

DelW

Established Member
Joined
15 Jan 2015
Messages
3,897
Nobody has mentioned the other 'standard ' gauge of 5ft 3in. Ireland, Iberian peninsula and Russia all use something like that. Why?

Is the gauge in all countries formerly within the Roman Empire 4ft 8.5 in? Where in Europe does the gauge change?
Well, the Romans may not have occupied Ireland or Russia, but they certainly occupied modern Spain.

[Edit, sorry, missed stuu's prior reply]
 

eldomtom2

On Moderation
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
1,547
Doing some research it seems the general answer is that early railways generally used gauges in the four foot-five foot region because that was a suitable size to be hauled by a single horse. Stephenson's preferred option in this range was four foot and eight inches, seemingly because his early work was at a colliery that already used that gauge for reasons lost to time; during the construction of the L&M he widened this by a half-inch to reduce binding on curves. The network effect (and government legislation) did the rest.
 

Dr Hoo

Established Member
Joined
10 Nov 2015
Messages
3,981
Location
Hope Valley
I believe its generally accepted that the current gauge was based on early horse drawn railways, which were given that gauge based on the average width of a horse.

In other words, railway gauge is literally the size of a horse's arse!
I am willing to entirely refute this view. The whole 'horse's rear' myth has been around for, err, donkeys' years but has no real basis in fact.

Serious historical research will draw out two entirely separate threads:

1. In the North East of England in particular, coal was measured by volume - in 'chauldrons' - rather than weight. Obviously there weren't sophisticated weigh-bridges hundreds of years ago. The chauldron load was the basis for tolls, taxes, duties, shipping and so on. Very simply, one waggon held one chauldron, could be pulled empty uphill by one horse and be operated by one man. Most waggonways operated on a 'gravitate down/horse drawn up' basis. Clearly a vehicle to convey a chauldron could vary in width, length or height whilst still achieving the required capacity but things evidently settled down with the optimum wagon width between the wheels that implied a track gauge of around 4' 8". This was by no means exact. The Wylam Waggonway, which ran past George Stephenson's childhood cottage actually had a gauge of 5' 0.25". A horse could comfortably fit between the lowered shafts of an empty waggon.

2. The first cast iron plateways/waggonways/tramroads/etc. on any scale were developed by the Outram family in Derbyshire (who also had an iron-founding business). The first line was the Butterley Gangroad, to connect the Outrams' works to the Cromford Canal and supply limestone quarried near Crich. Thus it was an 'internal' transport proposition and not for moving coal either. The gauge was 3' 6" (42 inches seeming to be the answer to life, the universe and waggonways) and horses were used to haul short 'gangs' of waggons quite effectively. The Little Eaton Gangway followed, ushering in the age of tri-modal containers rather than bulk open waggons, still 3' 6". It was the Peak Forest Tramway that was the first really 'big' railway, carrying limestone in gangs of up to 40 waggons gravitating together with a crew of only two people. The empties were horse drawn back up in gangs of five. For an altogether bigger transport prospect the gauge was increased to 4' 2".

Many Outram lines were built in South Wales, eventually creating almost a network of over 350 miles that stretched as far as Hereford, nearly all on a gauge of 4' 2" and virtually all using horse haulage. The Trevithick Pen-y-Darren locomotive trial in 1804 was on one of these lines.

4' 8.5" =/= Width of a horse's posterior!
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top