Stretches of line in GB with accidentally good loading gauges?

[tasky]

The loading gauge on GB railways is obviously more restrictive than the one used on the continent, with the exception of HS1 that was built to a higher spec.

But are there any examples of lines or extended stretches of lines in GB that, because or a lack of tunnels or other features, would just happen to be able to take continental-sized trains? There must be some?

 

[Lucan]

The Great Central, at least the "branch" to London, was built to continental gauge I believe. This was because it was to be part of a grander, international, scheme including a Channel tunnel and northern French railways, in which the financier, Edward Watkin, also had interests. It was also because it was one of the later main lines built, by which time the restrictiveness of the earlier loading gauges was being felt. That is/was part of the rationale for trying to re-open the GC as a freight line.

The GWR was also generous in clearances when built with broad gauge track. Of course, many subsequent lineside structures will have infringed those larger gauges by now.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Great Central, at least the "branch" to London, was built to continental gauge I believe. This was because it was to be part of a grander, international, scheme including a Channel tunnel and northern French railways, in which the financier, Edward Watkin, also had interests. It was also because it was one of the later main lines built, by which time the restrictiveness of the earlier loading gauges was being felt. That is/was part of the rationale for trying to re-open the GC as a freight line.

The GWR was also generous in clearances when built with broad gauge track. Of course, many subsequent lineside structures will have infringed those larger gauges by now.

Railway myth I’m afraid. Doesn’t stand up to analysis at all. Was covered in a recent thread, I’ll try and find it later on. Here we are:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/gcr-loading-gauge.167557/#post-3563557

 

[matabiau]

The Great Western may be wider than average due to the old broad guage but the clearances are certainly not high enough to meet international standards, as we are clearly seeing in the electrification of the Great Western Main Line. The lines were also built with a shallow layer of ballast due to the lower running speeds of the time. High speed running now requires a deeper ayer of ballast thus raiing the rail height and further reducing the clearence under bridges and tunnels.

 

[brad465]

The SWML from Waterloo to Basingstoke must be close to such clearances, given double decker trains had been proposed in the recent past, if some bridge clearances were made, with no tunnels present. Not that I ever expect double decker trains to appear there

 

[Jonny]

It would not be totally unprecedented, however. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SR_Class_4DD
However, modern designs could use the area under the solebar effectively.

Although diversions might be somewhat awkward, given that they are probably not gauge-cleared and would be difficult to do so.

 

[swt_passenger]

The SWML from Waterloo to Basingstoke must be close to such clearances, given double decker trains had been proposed in the recent past, if some bridge clearances were made, with no tunnels present. Not that I ever expect double decker trains to appear there

The proposal in question (in the Wessex route study 2015) highlights that the proposed vehicles would still have to fit in a normal British gauge. It is certainly not reliant on Waterloo to Basingstoke being a different gauge to everywhere else, there’s absolutely nothing “continental” about it.

All the lower structure gauge and normal bridge limitations are still present on the route, even if there are no obvious tunnels. There is still one significant obstacle though, the Basingstoke Canal aqueduct.

 

[talltim]

No-where with platforms will accept European standard loading gauge stock, even if there are no bridges etc

 

[GreatAuk]

In terms of cost per km to convert though (considering platforms, the odd small bridge and signal to close to the tracks etc) I reckon the Far North Line might be a good contender!

Just think, we could run high capacity double deck trains from Inverness to wick

 

[HSTEd]

Far North line wouldn't even need to worry about platforms because the lack of tunnels and bridges would enable us to use a bespoke loading gauge that was tall enough to have double decks over the platform height.

 

[lewisf]

The Nene Valley Railway appreantly only needed one bridge modifying to be able to take the continental stock they use

 

[Spamcan81]

The Nene Valley Railway appreantly only needed one bridge modifying to be able to take the continental stock they use

Modifying? It was demolished. Elsewhere on the line the track was slewed at Mill Lane bridge so trains pass under the middle of the arch, thus gaining a few extra inches for the continental stock. When the new platform at Wansford was installed to replace the one removed prior to closure by BR, it was done with continental stock in mind. If the line reverted to how it was in BR days, the continental stuff wouldn't be able to run.

 

[Lucan]

There is still one significant obstacle though, the Basingstoke Canal aqueduct.

That one :-
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.3...pBOJRzowltuhpL8VVT-A!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?hl=en

 

[Esker-pades]

In terms of cost per km to convert though (considering platforms, the odd small bridge and signal to close to the tracks etc) I reckon the Far North Line might be a good contender!

Just think, we could run high capacity double deck trains from Inverness to wick

Far North line wouldn't even need to worry about platforms because the lack of tunnels and bridges would enable us to use a bespoke loading gauge that was tall enough to have double decks over the platform height.

There are a reasonable number of road bridges over the railway, especially on the southern section of the line:
Clachnaharry, Beauly, Muir of Ord Industrial Estate, Muir of Ord Station, Bishop Kinkell, South of Conon Bridge, Maryburgh, Dingwall, Drummond, Evanton x2, Novar x2, Teaninich, Alness Footbridge, North of Alness x3, Invergordon x3, Kildary, Fearn, near Loch Eye x2, Tain Golf Course, Tain Station x2, A9 South of the Dornoch Firth Bridge, Edderton, Ardgay x2, North of Gledfield, Culrain, North of Invershin, North of Torroble x2, The Mound, Golspie, Carn Liath, Dalchalm, Helmsdale x2, Scotscalder, Georgemas Junction, Thurso, Clayock, Netherside.

Plus a few weak bridges with reduced speeds.

 

[bramling]

The loading gauge on GB railways is obviously more restrictive than the one used on the continent, with the exception of HS1 that was built to a higher spec.

But are there any examples of lines or extended stretches of lines in GB that, because or a lack of tunnels or other features, would just happen to be able to take continental-sized trains? There must be some?

Metropolitan Railway from Paddington to Farringdon was built to, and indeed laid with, broad gauge.

 

[Dr_Paul]

Metropolitan Railway from Paddington to Farringdon was built to, and indeed laid with, broad gauge.

I have a feeling that the Metropolitan line to Hammersmith was built to broad-gauge dimensions, although I don't know if it ever had broad-gauge track. The six-foot is somewhat wider than is usually the case.

 

[Bald Rick]

To answer this question, you need a single line, with no junctions, bridges, tunnels or platforms.

 

[306024]

To answer this question, you need a single line, with no junctions, bridges, tunnels or platforms.

So just outside Upminster after Wingletye Lane bridge to nearly Emerson Park Halt then

 

[Dr Hoo]

Some GB industrial systems (which by and large don’t tend to have passenger platforms or many bridges) have relatively unrestricted loading gauges that have allowed the use of foreign standard gauge locomotives or specialist equipment such as cranes or hot metal transporters.

 

[Journeyman]

The Great Central, at least the "branch" to London, was built to continental gauge I believe. This was because it was to be part of a grander, international, scheme including a Channel tunnel and northern French railways, in which the financier, Edward Watkin, also had interests. It was also because it was one of the later main lines built, by which time the restrictiveness of the earlier loading gauges was being felt. That is/was part of the rationale for trying to re-open the GC as a freight line.

As already stated, this has been comprehensively debunked, and I've no idea where the idea came from in the first place. There was actually a location on the line where a bridge was low enough to cause problems with well-loaded steam loco tenders. It all seems to get wheeled out as part of the "let's reopen the GC instead of building HS2" wibble that often gets written here.

What we now understand as the UIC/Berne gauge wasn't even devised until 1915, 16 years after the London extension opened, and before that there were plenty of lines in mainland Europe with more restrictive loading gauges.

 

[Journeyman]

Metropolitan Railway from Paddington to Farringdon was built to, and indeed laid with, broad gauge.

The whole of the Met is relatively generous in terms of loading gauge, the A Stock was the widest train in the UK in recent years.

 

[mallard]

Was any extra clearance needed on the SR for the use of international stock on the Night Ferry service? I understand the passenger coaches were a bespoke batch, but the luggage vans may have been a standard SNCF design?

 

[Journeyman]

Was any extra clearance needed on the SR for the use of international stock on the Night Ferry service? I understand the passenger coaches were a bespoke batch, but the luggage vans may have been a standard SNCF design?

No, there were no extra clearances needed - in actual fact, the loading gauge on a lot of routes in Kent is quite restrictive, as they were built by a notorious bunch of cheapskates!

Yes, the luggage vans were SNCF standard vehicles, but they're quite narrow (even by UK standards) and no taller than the passenger stock, so they fitted with no problems. They were clearly built as a go-anywhere vehicle, as France did have some minor railways with tight loading gauges. Similar to the UK Covered Carriage Trucks, I guess, which were flat-sided and able to run through the tunnels on the Hastings Line.

 

[Lucan]

As already stated, this has been comprehensively debunked, and I've no idea where the idea came from in the first place.

It has clearly been debunked, I see that now. I got the idea from a railway book that I read some time ago, I forget the title.

What we now understand as the UIC/Berne gauge wasn't even devised until 1915, 16 years after the London extension opened

I referred to "continental gauge", although I expect there is/was more than one (as there are in the UK). And I expect that the principal ones before 1915 was larger than the UK gauge(s). Correct me if I am wrong.

 

[Journeyman]

It has clearly been debunked, I see that now. I got the idea from a railway book that I read some time ago, I forget the title.

I referred to "continental gauge", although I expect there is/was more than one (as there are in the UK). And I expect that the principal ones before 1915 was larger than the UK gauge(s). Correct me if I am wrong.

I expect it may have been built to something resembling a Continental loading gauge, but certainly not anything we now understand to be the Continental loading gauge. In reality, it just happened to be the UK standards current at the time the line was built, which were more generous than most earlier lines.

Whichever book it was in was clearly highly influential, as it has created a completely false impression on what you could run along the GC. Even if it was built to Berne/UIC/Continental gauge, none of the lines connected to it were!

 

[adamedwards]

Ashford to Rye was intended as the 1979s Chunnel test track for BR because the absence of bridges helped with clearances for the planned car carriers. But then the project was cancelled.