What if Brunel had won the gauge war?

[DownSouth]

Well if Britain had 7ft gauge, it is probable that almost everyone else would too.

Not if their railways had to go around corners.

Large portions of "everyone else" use track gauges narrower than standard gauge for very good reason.

 

[asylumxl]

Not if their railways had to go around corners.

Large portions of "everyone else" use track gauges narrower than standard gauge for very good reason.

I've never seen a train go around a corner. Must be quite an impressive sight compared to a curve. In the SE area all we have is Tattenham and the trains terminate there! :cry:

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But their mainline railways run the left like ours.

If you read my posting, I was making the point by using the word "drive" in my posting that I was making reference to road and not rail use, to show that not all things accepted in Britain were slavishly copied in Europe.

 

[edwin_m]

Nearly everywhere used to drive/ride on the left on the roads, but Napoleon converted those countries he invaded. Of the remainder, Czechoslovakia and half of Austria were converted under Nazi occupation and Sweden not until the 1960s.

French railways run on the left apparently because they followed British practice, except in Alsace and Lorraine which were converted to right hand running when under Prussian occupation. Full lists at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-_and_left-hand_traffic#Heavy_rail

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Nearly everywhere used to drive/ride on the left, but Napoleon converted those countries he invaded. Of the remainder, Czechoslovakia and half of Austria were converted under Nazi occupation and Sweden not until the 1960s.

I do like your reference to Napoleon, which covers most of the last 200 years and the litle devil certainly had a few of the European countries under his thumb..

 

[Howardh]

Drifting slightly off topic; is there anywhere in the world where you drive up to a land border and, upon crossing that border, you change your driving lane from one side to t'other?
Channel Tunnel might or might not count, deciding on which way the train's loaded!!

 

[Eagle]

Drifting slightly off topic; is there anywhere in the world where you drive up to a land border and, upon crossing that border, you change your driving lane from one side to t'other?

Loads. (None in Europe though.)

Pretty much every land border on this map is like that. Only a few of them have special junctions that allow it though (e.g. between Hong Kong and mainland China), at most you just switch sides, but then again at most you have to stop anyway for border controls.

 

[jopsuk]

Drifting slightly off topic; is there anywhere in the world where you drive up to a land border and, upon crossing that border, you change your driving lane from one side to t'other?
Channel Tunnel might or might not count, deciding on which way the train's loaded!!

Given this map, yes, there must be many border crossings where that happens!

And a little more in the article from which that map is taken

 

[Howardh]

Wow - thanks for that info!!

(Maybe I should have searched Wikipedia in the first place......)

 

[tranzitjim]

This would make Australia quite interesting, we have three gauges as it is.

Two of those are Stephenson Standard and Irish Broad.


Having wider trains for suburban and tube type services would help greatly in the capacity of the network.

 

[Ploughman]

Drifting slightly off topic; is there anywhere in the world where you drive up to a land border and, upon crossing that border, you change your driving lane from one side to t'other?
Channel Tunnel might or might not count, deciding on which way the train's loaded!!

You used to be able to do that on the Swedish border until they changed the rule of the road.

 

[orpine]

Spanish gauge is wider than ours? If so, that's what trains would look like here??

Actually as best I can tell from this article India & Argentina has the largest gauge in use across a large area. The Irish/Spanish is 3in Smaller.

None appear to be close to 7ft, though apparently there is a 9ft 10; we've had Napolean in this thread so apparently now I get to Godwin it - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitspurbahn

Specificall on-topic - there is of course a wikipedia article on the "Gauge Wars" that Brunel lost. Looks like in 1866 there was more Brunel Gauge than Standard Gauge - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Western_Railway#The_.22gauge_war.22

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Specifically on-topic - there is of course a wikipedia article on the "Gauge Wars" that Brunel lost. Looks like in 1866 there was more Brunel Gauge than Standard Gauge - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Western_Railway#The_.22gauge_war.22

But at the end of 1892, only 26 years later, Standard Gauge was pre-eminent in Britain.

 

[HSTEd]

I am not really sure that having a wide gauge is really a limitation on track curvature.

We can get sharper than curves we ever really need as it is.
Trams show how tight you push curves on standard gauge if you really need to, which is far sharper than almost any heavy rail system needs.

 

[DownSouth]

I am not really sure that having a wide gauge is really a limitation on track curvature.

We can get sharper than curves we ever really need as it is.
Trams show how tight you push curves on standard gauge if you really need to, which is far sharper than almost any heavy rail system needs.

The problem with that approach is that you limit speed and length of trains once you get curves that are too tight for the selected track gauge, which leads to greater wear and tear on both the infrastructure and rolling stock.

This is something with which there is ample experience in Australia, rebuilding the Adelaide-Melbourne line from Victorian/Irish Gauge (1600mm) to Standard Gauge (1435mm) has allowed for higher speeds through the sections of the Adelaide Hills with tight curves.

What matters more than track gauge in the end is loading gauge. These days there's no problem with using Standard or even Cape Gauge tracks and having the rolling stock just as wide as that which ran on Brunel's tracks. With the twisty nature of British rail lines which is a direct result of having been built in an already densely populated country (as opposed to Australian railways which include one straight section longer than the WCML) there is probably a case for Cape Gauge being a better move if the railway expansion of the 19th century was to happen all over again with today's technology available.

 

[sng7]

If you read my posting, I was making the point by using the word "drive" in my posting that I was making reference to road and not rail use, to show that not all things accepted in Britain were slavishly copied in Europe.

I was aware but you where using that to prove how there railways would not follow ours so all i stated was the their railways do follow ours by running on the left.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I was aware but you where using that to prove how there railways would not follow ours so all I stated was the their railways do follow ours by running on the left.

Point understood and accepted.

 

[edwin_m]

What matters more than track gauge in the end is loading gauge. These days there's no problem with using Standard or even Cape Gauge tracks and having the rolling stock just as wide as that which ran on Brunel's tracks. With the twisty nature of British rail lines which is a direct result of having been built in an already densely populated country (as opposed to Australian railways which include one straight section longer than the WCML) there is probably a case for Cape Gauge being a better move if the railway expansion of the 19th century was to happen all over again with today's technology available.

That's a very interesting thought and the obvious similarity is what happened in Japan. Similarly densely-populated and probably more mountainous but the Japanese adopted Cape gauge. However for the Shinkansen in the 60s they went for standard gauge, despite this making it impossible to run the new trains on the existing tracks. I think the issue of stability may become more important as speeds increase (what's the highest speed on Cape gauge?), and there is also more susceptibility to crosswinds.

 

[HSTEd]

The highest speed regular service I know of on Cape Gauge is about 100mph in Queensland (the QR Tilt Train) - the actual record for a single run is apparently 130mph or so, also on the QR Tilt Train.

 

[edwin_m]

The highest speed regular service I know of on Cape Gauge is about 100mph in Queensland (the QR Tilt Train) - the actual record for a single run is apparently 130mph or so, also on the QR Tilt Train.

Thanks.

 

[stanley T]

It's pure accident (the width between the wheels of a Northumbrian cart c 1830...) but standard gauge proved to be a good choice in hindsight, not so expensive to build but high speed trains can run on it. UK loading gauge restriction has nothing to do with track gauge, US loading gauge is huge.

Brunel is way overrated. The battle of the gauges was already decided when the GWML was built, a temporary advantage in loco performance (eroded with 20 years) but at high construction costs and lack of connectivity. Then there is the "Great Eastern" (the ship, that is) , the crap lines in Devon and Cornwall etc. The one thing he did right was to go from London to Bristol via Swindon instead of direct, with a nice flat straight route.

He has this romantic appeal which staider and greater contemporaries like Robert Stephenson did not have.

 

[HowardGWR]

It's pure accident (the width between the wheels of a Northumbrian cart c 1830...) but standard gauge proved to be a good choice in hindsight, not so expensive to build but high speed trains can run on it. UK loading gauge restriction has nothing to do with track gauge, US loading gauge is huge.

Brunel is way overrated. The battle of the gauges was already decided when the GWML was built, a temporary advantage in loco performance (eroded with 20 years) but at high construction costs and lack of connectivity. Then there is the "Great Eastern" (the ship, that is) , the crap lines in Devon and Cornwall etc. The one thing he did right was to go from London to Bristol via Swindon instead of direct, with a nice flat straight route.

He has this romantic appeal which staider and greater contemporaries like Robert Stephenson did not have.

Just going back to the tunnel height where I stated the apex was 28 ft high and an OP said it was just the entrance, in fact all the tunnels with which I am familiar, between Bath and Bristol, are indeed that high, all the way through.

 

[edwin_m]

Just going back to the tunnel height where I stated the apex was 28 ft high and an OP said it was just the entrance, in fact all the tunnels with which I am familiar, between Bath and Bristol, are indeed that high, all the way through.

I think that was me, I was referring in particular to Box Tunnel which I agree isn't between Bath and Bristol. This photo confirms that it is lower inside.

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/325048

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I think that was me, I was referring in particular to Box Tunnel which I agree isn't between Bath and Bristol.

More like between Bath and Chippenham.

 

[HowardGWR]

More like between Bath and Chippenham.

That's why I only quoted Bath to Bristol.

I am not 100% sure about Box (only 99% ) which is why I only expressed knowledge about those along by the Avon. I think Middle Hill tunnel just west of Box is high all through but I will look into it, as you have encouraged me to do so.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think that was me, I was referring in particular to Box Tunnel which I agree isn't between Bath and Bristol. This photo confirms that it is lower inside.

http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/325048

I believe this lower lining was constructed later but I will check.

 

[Tiny Tim]

Using the wonderful gift of hindsight it's easy to say that Brunel's decision to use the broad gauge was wrong. Even if standard gauge was not already predominant, the advantages of the 7 foot gauge aren't that great, especially as the loading gauge wasn't any better. Having said that, some of the problems associated with broad gauge aren't real; The amount of land required was only fractionally wider, probably not enough to affect the price paid; The cost of construction was also not much higher, as Brunel's original design was longitudinally sleepered, with iron tie rods to hold the gauge. The amount of timber required wasn't much greater than standard gauge if this system was used. Stephenson's standard gauge wasn't the result of any thought, simply the continued use of the gauge used by the colliery tramways in the North East, this being dictated by the width of mine galleries, not by the size of a horse's arse. If the broad gauge had become the 'standard' in Britain, the rest of the world would probably followed in the same way as with the present standard gauge. The advantages would have been much greater on lines using a larger loading gauge, giving our continental neighbours a much superior railway system to this day. It's strange that Brunel, having fought hard to get the broad gauge accepted, didn't pursue the benefits it offered, and allowed the GWR to be built with such a restricted loading gauge.

 

[Trog]

The cost of construction was also not much higher, as Brunel's original design was longitudinally sleepered, with iron tie rods to hold the gauge. The amount of timber required wasn't much greater than standard gauge if this system was used.

Except the Brunel track system did not work very well, for example all the supporting piles had to be disconnected from the baulks and transoms. If the system offered any great advantage it would probably also have been used on the standard gauge. Even if on a lesser scale than normal transverse sleepers, reflecting the reduction in benefit due to the lesser saving in timber due to the shorter length of the replaced transverse sleepers.

Brunel was brilliant but flawed, always reaching just a bit too far, and re-inventing the wheel several times.

 

[simple simon]

The first part of the Metropolitan Railway which opened in 1863 and the route to Hammersmith (via Shepherds Bush) were both built for broad gauge track, and at first such trains operated over these routes as well!

The now late, lamented A stock on the Metropolitan Line was 9ft 8in wide. The newer S (standee) stock also has to travel over other subsurface routes and is 9ft 7in wide.

I always thought that if the entire subsurface section of the London Underground had been broad gauge then the trains could have been much wider, but now I've seen comments in this thread I realise that this would not have been so.

Simon

 

[fowler9]

The first part of the Metropolitan Railway which opened in 1863 and the route to Hammersmith (via Shepherds Bush) were both built for broad gauge track, and at first such trains operated over these routes as well!

The now late, lamented A stock on the Metropolitan Line was 9ft 8in wide. The newer S (standee) stock also has to travel over other subsurface routes and is 9ft 7in wide.

I always thought that if the entire subsurface section of the London Underground had been broad gauge then the trains could have been much wider, but now I've seen comments in this thread I realise that this would not have been so.

Simon

If they'd built all the underground lines at broad gauge London would have collapsed in to the Thames estuary so it would have been a good thing. Better luck next time Brunel.