steamybrian
Established Member
Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway - 15inches
Is that because it depended on where 2' was measured from.....rail centre vs inside edge?Yes, of course it would.
On a more reasonable tack, anyone mentioned the Lynton & Barnstaple? Originally 1 ft 11 1/4 l believe
I imagine that's because 3ft 6in saw its strongest foothold as a cheaper standard gauge for the colonies; where 4ft 8 1/2in or wider was the standard gauge 3ft 6in wasn't small enough to justify using a non-standard gauge.It has always struck me as a little surprising that the 3ft 6in gauge -- so very widely used on public railways on other continents (and to a less-than-huge extent, on the European continent) -- many of those elsewhere on the planet, in territories of the erstwhile British Empire -- got so extremely little use on public "rail-proper" lines, as opposed to on the tramway scene; in these islands.
I believe there are a few remnants of dual gauge track from the Woolwich system, deeply hidden in a plot of land near Thamesmead Morrisons, which is inaccessible and contaminated.An internal system of 18inch gauge was in use at Crewe railway works - its success brought about a very large installation to the same gauge at Woolwich Arsenal for internal transport as well as an extensive network of standard gauge lines connected to the SE Railway's line at Plumstead.
And a worryingly similar finish to my only attempt at hand-built track....Ah, a prototype for insulated frog points.![]()
Speaking of plateways, the first public railway, the Surrey Iron Railway was built to a gauge of 4ft 2in; as was its extension - the Croydon, Merstham and Godstone.Yes, indeed a very interesting walk.
The Peak Forest Tramway (and other early plateways/waggonways with 'L'-shaped rails and un-flanged wheels) are the key to understanding that the oft-repeated claim that 'standard' gauge was set by the width of a horse's posterior between the shafts is a complete load of rubbish. Although the Peak Forest Tramway was worked by gravitation and cable-hauled inclines in the loaded direction, horses still had to pull 'gangs' of wagons back up the slope. These managed perfectly fine between the gauge of the rails. In fact Benjamin Outram's first waggonway, associated with the Cromford Canal, had a gauge of only 3' 6" and still used horses.
Huddersfield also used the same gauge as Glasgow,The trams in Glasgow were slightly narrower than standard gauge, so wagons could be hauled to certain shipyards with their wheel flanges running in the grooves of the street rails.
Generally because it was 75% of Standard Gauge, and became something rolling stock suppliers were familiar with (and had test tracks for). It even facilitated the trading of secondhand rolling stock, just like standard gauge did. It was the norm across most of colonial Africa (although the East African Railways used metre gauge, just a bit narrower). The vast majority of such systems' rolling stock was, until the current generation, built in the UK. I noticed when in Hong Kong that the old tramway there, 3'6" gauge, had stamped on points covers the name of a onetime manufacturer in Sheffield!Not railways but tramways, As already mentioned 3' 6" was the accepted "narrow gauge"
Is that because it depended on where 2' was measured from.....rail centre vs inside edge?
The Surrey Iron Railway, again passed through the area I grew up in, but no obvious signs of its existance in the area. Not sure if this counts as it was technically a 'plateway', gauge is mentioned as 4ft 2in
Measuring between inside edges/centres/outside edges is the origin of one or two lines being quoted as having a funny gauge, but I don't think this is one of them.
Italian law has defined its track gauges in terms of the distance between the centres of each rail,[1] rather than the inside edges of the rails, giving some unusual measurements. According to the law of 28 July 1879, the only legal gauges in Italy were 1,500 mm (4 ft 11+1⁄16 in), 1,000 mm (3 ft 3+3⁄8 in), measured between the rail centres, which correspond to 1,445 mm (4 ft 8+7⁄8 in) and 950 mm (3 ft 1+3⁄8 in) between the rail inside edges.
I don’t think that Newnes was a great metricator. His first essay into ‘railways’ was the Matlock Cable Tramway, which was standard gauge.It was technically/theoretically 1 foot 11 and five-eighths - which is so nearly exactly 600mm that I can't help thinking that Newnes or one of his pals was an early enthusiast of metrication, or something. Unfortunately nothing I've read seems to even notice this, let alone address it.
The Furzebrook railway was always 2' 8". It was Fayle's tramway, Norden which was regauged to 2'. Previously quoted as 3'9", but may be 3'6"The clay lines in Purbeck were originally 2ft 8in, another obscure one, though the last survivor was regauged to 2ft.
The length of track in Purley Rotary Field is still there, but the rails are set to the wrong gauge! (4' 8 1/2" I believe). I'm pretty sure the length in Quality Street, Merstham has gone - I hope into a museum rather than illegal scrap merchants.There are some remnants of the route of the Croydon, Merstham and Godstone which are still traceable. At one stage there were some very short sections of track which were preserved in Purley and Merstham. Does anyone know if they are still there? The section of SIR track that was preserved next to Wallington library is long gone.
I gather that this few inches' track-gauge difference was indeed pretty well crucial, where transporter wagons were concerned. After closure of the Lynton & Barnstaple, one of its transporter wagons was acquired, experimentally, to try out on the not-far-away -- "2ft. gauge" -- Ashover Light Railway: wagon regauged accordingly. Its running on the Ashover, was adjudged to be borderline-unsafe; and the experiment reckoned abortive.I don’t think that Newnes was a great metricator. His first essay into ‘railways’ was the Matlock Cable Tramway, which was standard gauge.
His Lynton & Lynmouth funicular was 3’ 8” gauge.
I’ve heard it suggested that the Lynton & Barnstaple was based on the established Ffestiniog. There have been suggestions that after seeing the Leek & Manifold’ transporter wagons he wished that he’d gone for a slightly larger track and loading gauge.
The original Plymouth and Dartmoor Railway (pre GWR Princetown Branch) and the Lee Moor Tramway nearby used 4ft 6in though down in the West Country it was referred to as "Dartmoor Gauge"Many early Scottish railways, including the Glasgow and Garnkirk, Paisley and Renfrew and the Ardrossan and Johnsone were 4ft 6in, sometimes called 'Scotch Gauge'. A few in the Tayside area were 4ft 6-and-a-half. Some railways were originally 5ft 6in - the Dundee and Arbroath (still open) and the Arbroath and Forfar (section through Arbroath still open).
Likewise, Bournemouth (and Poole) trams used to be 3' 6", some went to the Llandudno & Colwyn Bay electric Railway, which lasted until the mid 1950s.The Northampton tram system (1881-1934) was 3' 6". The only remaining visible parts of that being two tram stops and these tracks inside the old tram shed - which became the Northampton Corporation bus garage...
2ft I believeWhat's gauge was the Post Office railway in London?
I've mentioned elsewhere on these forums that in the mid 1970s I worked on construction of a new dam for a water supply reservoir. The dam included a tunnel as part of the draw-off system, and the pipework and other equipment in the tunnel was moved into place using a narrow gauge railway operated with battery electric locos. The track was prefabricated panels known as Jubilee track, and I think was either 2' or 1' 11.5" gauge. The track panels were laid on timbers trimmed to the curvature of the tunnel invert (approximately!). The railway equipment belonged to the company and had been used on several previous dams, but that was the last time I knew of it being used.What were the commonest gauges for industrial railways?
I know the system used while building Stocks reservoir in Lancashire was 3', but does anyone know what the in-tunnel track used when the Thirlmere and Haweswater aqueducts were constructed was? Difficult to tell from photos, but it looks like 2'6" or narrower