Talk:Narrow gauge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Gauges between 3ft6in and standard gauge

Can somebody explain to me the following sentence from this article:

In practice, all presently existing narrow-gauge railroads have gauges of 1067 mm (3 ft 6 in) or less.

There are most definately railways with a gauge between 3ft6in and standard gauge. The Glasgow Subway with a gauge of 4ft for example. Are we saying they are not narrow gauge (in which case what are they?) or what?. -- Chris j wood 23:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More likely, the "In practice..." sentence is just an erroneous statement (The "In practice" phrase is redundant anyway, as I should have spotted earlier). Be bold! - Picapica 16:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link Germany

I think, the East Germany-Link is misdirecting. I think correctly is a link to germany or States of Germany. see also content in http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmalspurbahn ; http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Schmalspurbahnen_in_Sachsen (Sachsen). greetings from germany! --Rotkäppchen 13:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The text I assume Rotkäppchen is referring to reads:

A large network of narrow-gauge lines exists in former East Germany

which seems reasonable usage to me. If we were to just change the link to Germany then we would be saying that Germany has ceased to exist, and if were also to drop the 'former', then we are adding nothing to the heading immediately above. The only way I can see of improving it would be to replace the reference to 'former East Germany' with references to the specific Lander containing the lines. -- Chris j wood 16:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miniature Railways

There are a couple of references to miniature railways in the text, notably in the United Kingdom section. There is a significant distinction between narrow gauge and miniature railways. Also, the miniature railways link takes you to the model railways page, which is incorrect: miniatures are neither narrow gauge nor model railways. I'd propose the creation of a specific page describing miniature railways, with the specific links to the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch and others minatures moved there.

Gwernol 03:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Are you going to write it? --rbrwr ^± 06:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah well, there's the rub... I'm not an expert on minature railways, my interest is in narrow gauge. I can put together a skeleton article with the hope that someone more knowledgeable would complete it. I'll try to put something together in the next few days. Gwernol 15:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Split

Does anyone think it might be a good idea to split the country specific lists in this article into say Narrow gauge railways in Europe and Narrow gauge railroads in North America etc etc, as this article is getting rather long. G-Man 23:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that the entire section "Narrow gauge worldwide" could be turned into separate pages. This would make the main article more readable IMO. --CodeGeneratR 07:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. I like the complete coverage under 1 head here, & XT links bug me. Trekphiler 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like us to reconsider this question. The article is getting out of hand (in my opinion, obviously). We now have country articles that list detailed histories of particular lines, which is inappropriate for an overview of the ng railways in that country. The latest addition to the US section on the HE&WT is a pretty detailed history of a railway which hasn't been narrow gauge for almost 120 years. The content is great but should be in a separate HE&WT article, not here. There are plenty of other examples of this problem spread throughout the article.

I think its time for someone to be bold and start a radical pruning of the article. I am happy to do this. I won't remove any content, just move some of it to a more appropriate location, whether that's an existing article or a new one. I propose as a guiding principle that detailed line histories don't belong here, general overviews of the role of narrow gauge railways in a particular country do.

Thoughts? Gwernol 16:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Steamed

Unsoureced, but I've heard WPYR op the last domestic-use narrow-ga steam loco built (by Baldwin), now in the Baldwin museum. Trekphiler 23:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Domestic? The reference to the White Pass and Yukon helps me understand what you mean by "domestic", but keep in mind that this is a very international site. Depending on where you're from, "domestic" and "foreign" mean different things.--CodeGeneratR 00:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Maximum Speed

Contradiction here:

from the introduction:

On the other hand, standard-gauge railroads have a greater haulage capacity and allow 
greater speeds than those a narrow-gauge system can ever hope to attain.

and lower down:

There is a common myth that narrow gauge trains are not able to run at the same high speeds
as those networks with broader gauges. This has been recently disproven in Japan and
Queensland, Australia,

I'll let someone who knows the subject better than me reword it properly. --81.179.196.211 19:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is confusing as written. Here's my take. Historically this has been true: narrow gauge railways were always run with significantly lower maximum speeds than contemporaneous standard gauge lines. Using Victorian technology this was necessary. The Japanese and Australians are able to build high-speed narrow gauge because of modern laser-guided tracklaying and other technology advances. At least that's how I understand it. I'm happy to hear corrections.

This being the case, I'd suggest rewriting the introduction to explicitly refer to the historical situation and have the "common myth" section acknowledge that this was true for many decades but is now much less true thanks to modern technology. What do others think? Gwernol 19:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Queensland cane tramways and drawbridges

The article contains the following enigmatic statement:

To avoid speed restriction where some cane trams cross the main line, several of these crossings have been converted to drawbridges.

I think this deserves more explanation. Why exactly would a drawbridge merit a higher speed restriction than a level crossing?. Surely both entail exactly the same risks of collision etc. -- Chris j wood 20:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Here's the explanation. The drawbridges are (typically) very low-level structures that carry the 2ft gauge cane tramways across the 3ft 6in gauge Queensland Railway tracks. When the drawbridge is down it is only a foot or two above the top of the QR rail. Most of the time the drawbridge is in the up position, which allows QR trains to run straight through. In this position, the QR track is normal; if it were a level crossing the QR trains would have to slow down for each crossing as the trackwork for a level crossing (aka a diamond crossing) cannot be taken at high speed. The line with the drawbridge up can be taken at full line speed.

I don't know that this should be explained in this article since it is too long already, maybe its time to spin out separate articles on the cane tramways and QR? If so, this explanation could go into either or both. I hope this makes sense. Gwernol 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. For some reason I'd read this as meaning it was to prevent the cane trams slowing down. Now I've got the right picture in my head, it is obvious. I certainly think an article on the cane tramways would be a great idea. I've seen the tracks on a couple of visits to Northern Queensland, but never at times when they were operating. -- Chris j wood 15:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article Needs More Work

I'm very uncomfortable with several of the statements made in this article. I also don't like the tone that some of it is written in. For example;

"But most narrow-gauge lines were constructed as stand alone "feeders" entirely dependent upon transshipment to a larger main-line network." - This seems like something that would be hard to verify, and my own experience with the subject matter tells me that in fact most narrow gauge lines were NOT feeders, but in fact survived as railways independant from, and not connected to, any kind of standard gauge network. The author of this article only notes large narrow gauge networks as being those which avoid the "narrow gauge to standard gauge" problem, but in reality I've found that most of these types of narrow gauge lines are the smaller, industry serving types.

"One of the finest is the 600 mm narrow-gauge railway (Żnińska Kolej Powiatowa) running from Żnin via Wenecja (Polish Venice) and famous Biskupin to Gąsawa in the Pałuki region." - One of the FINEST? Finest by who's definition? This is definately not NPOV.

"The massive narrow-gauge (3 ft 6 in, 1067 mm) coal trains of the Queensland Railway with 100 wagons and 2 midtrain electric locomotives show what is possible with narrow gauge if you strengthen the track enough" - I don't like the tone of this statement at all. This at least needs to be reworded.

"Much work has been done to rectify the gauge chaos, but there is still much to do. By and large any uniform gauge would have done the job satisfactorily." - Again, difficult or impossible to verify, also reads with the wrong tone, sounds like POV rather than NPOV. This needs rewriting at best, perhaps simply removing the bits that cannot be verified and replacing them with facts.

Whoever wrote this needs to know that while their contribution is valuable, they've left a lot of mess for people to clean up. --Badharlick 16:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Badharlick. You raise some interesting questions. Here are my thoughts:

1. "Most narrow gauge lines are feeders" - I think you are correct that this is too strongly worded. Interestingly the "Advantages of narrow gauge" section is better, stating "In many countries, due to their lower construction costs, narrow-gauge railroads were built as "feeder" or "Branch" lines..." but even this is probaby too strong. I'd support toning down this language.

2. "One of the finest is the 600 mm narrow-gauge railway" this is indeed a POV statement, though its hardly a major crime. Perhaps reword to "The 600 mm gauge Żnińska Kolej Powiatowa railway runs from Żnin via Wenecja (Polish Venice) to Gąsawa in the Pałuki region."

3. "The massive narrow-gauge (3 ft 6 in, 1067 mm) coal trains of the Queensland Railway..." you don't say what you dislike about this sentence. Its neither great, nor terrible in my opinion. Most readers of this article would (I'm guessing) get the correct meaning. Would you care to suggest an improved alternative?

Instead of "massive", I would suggest "long and very heavy". (?) Peter Horn 15:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

4. "Much work has been done to rectify the gauge chaos..." again I agree that this could be improved. Care to take a stab at it?

While I agree with much of what you write, your last sentence: "Whoever wrote this needs to know that while their contribution is valuable, they've left a lot of mess for people to clean up." is itself written in a very unfortunate tone. Please remember to remain civil. The editor(s) who wrote these sections were clearly acting in good faith and you should do the same. Why not help to improve the article instead of sniping at those who have worked on it? That would be a much more productive approach? Best, Gwernol 04:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that they were acting in good faith, and I believe I made efforts to note that fact - my intention was to encourage contributors, especially the ones working on this article, to be more careful and considerate when editing or contributing. I've encountered many people who will add unverified facts and do all sorts of other things merrily unaware that they are leaving tons of work for everyone else to pick up, either because they were not aware that they had more work to do, or because they couldn't be bothered. This article is now so unnecessarily enormous (due to indiscriminate contributing and repeated information, as well as vast blocks of incorrect/armchair expert statements) that there are mountains of contradictions, unverified facts and simple disinformation that it will take hours if not days of solid editing to clear up, and that's before anything new can be added, since I don't believe that the article is presented/laid out in a user friendly way. Since such articles tend to be repaired in a rather piecemeal fasion, I'd estimate that it will be many months before this one is improved to a point where reliable information is being added in an orderly fashion.

I should point out that I'm by no means here to snipe anyone, and I think that it is highly contradictary to make a point of mentioning the good faith rule, only to then make such an unfounded judgement. You do not know for sure my motives, so you should assume good faith - that is what that rule is there for. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't accept what I've said without accusing me of character attack, then I'd thank you to make no further mention of it, if not for my feelings then for the sake of the rules you seem so keen to encourage others to follow.

The reason why I have not contributed anything yet is because none of my ideas have been discussed yet. I don't know enough (or perhaps I'm not arrogant enough) to be absolutely 100% sure that what I want to add is correct. In short, I'd rather propose changes to the article in the talk section first, before I go ahead and contribute "willy nilly" as, in my opinion, others have been doing, giving rise to the present situation where the article is far larger than it needs to be. At the very least, people will have a chance to correct my often bad grammar before it finds it's nasty way onto the article.--Badharlick 00:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Advantages of narrow gauge

There were and are also many narrow gauge street tramways, particularly in Europe, where the need for a narrow body width meant that a track gauge of a metre was necessary (trams are usually wider than the tracks they run over) (emphasis mine: this statement is hilarious Peter Horn 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)). A notable example of this is the tramway system of Linz, Austria.

O please, please, even the narrowest tram is wider than the 1435 mm or 56.5" of standard gauge. The only consideration here would be lesser construction costs. Peter Horn 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this statement is wrong. The main reason for using metre gauge is a tighter turning circle, very useful in city streets. Most new trams are now "off the shelf" designs and the manufacturers provide both metre gauge and standard gauge models.

Why pick on Linz? All 4 tram systems in Switzerland are metre Gauge (Zürich, Basel, Bern and Geneva), not "nearly all" as it says further down under Switzerland; plus lots more in Germany, see de:Liste der Städte mit Straßenbahnen. The tighter turning circle allows balloon loops at the end of routes, which in turn allows the use of unidirectional trams with a drivers cab at one end only, and doors on one side, and more space for passengers.

According to de:Liste der Städte mit Straßenbahnen Linz is actually 900 mm Gauge! TiffaF 10:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Narrow Gauge versus Standard Gauge myths

Quite a number of statements on this article regarding the reasons for narrow gauge being chosen over standard gauge are false. Just to relieve any confusion, I'd like to take the time to note the real reasons here.

The first myth is that narrow gauge is in most cases lightly laid, and that this is due to cost saving reasons. This is not the case; generally only temporary systems, hand worked systems, and systems using only very light locomotives have lightly laid track. The latter is the only case where cost is maybe an issue, but usually any money saved is only incidental.

The second myth is that narrow gauge is only chosen as an alternative to standard or broad gauge for just one single reason (cost OR size). While in a handful of cases this may be true, the reality is that there are multiple reasons which stack up to outweigh the benefits of any other gauge. These reasons are cost of construction (sleepers and rails are not as heavy, trackbeds are not so large, gradients can be steeper and curves can be tighter), cost of equipment (smaller locomotives and rolling stock mean lower initial investment and lower running costs), flexibility (extensions and pointwork can be added easily and be done by existing employees without the need for contractors or lengthy downtime) and resulting economic working compared to standard gauge branch line operation carrying the same quantity of freight.

The third myth is that narrow gauge suffers because it cannot interchange equipment with standard gauge or broad gauge networks in countries where standard or broad gauge is the norm. This is simply not the case, and it is certainly not "the most fundamental problem" as the article describes. Far from it, transfer points where freight or passengers transfer from narrow to standard gauge trains have been proven to incur only negligable costs (if any) that still do not outweigh the cost of standard gauge running. Even in the event of a situation where a standard gauge line would be more cost effective, such a line would've been chosen and built instead. Very few lines were actually built to a narrow gauge for cost saving reasons only, and such poorly thought out affairs did not last very long, nor did their accompanying industries. The ability to exchange equipment is only a convenience, rather than a necessity - having freight transferred multiple times before it reaches it's destination slows down the transport time, and eventually becomes too expensive and cumbersome.

The first mistake is to compare narrow gauge to standard gauge. Narrow gauge is not there to do the job of standard gauge, narrow gauge is there because the job is too small to merit the use of standard gauge, but still large enough to merit some form of rail borne transport. It's what goes between road transport and standard gauge railways. Generally operating a standard gauge line to do the job of a narrow gauge line is too fuel intensive for the small amounts of freight being transported. Lorries also present a similar problem, having only limited capacity and therefore having to make several trips is too fuel intensive.

While there are many contradictions, incorrect statements, and other problems with this article, I hope that I've cleared up some of the most glaring issues for future editors/contributors. --Badharlick 04:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

First Myth - narrow gauge is not generally lightly laid. This seems to vary a lot in different countries. In particular, narrow guage in the UK, the US, China and India do tend to be light railways. Many (but not all) African narrow gauge lines were built to heavier standards, as were some Australian ones. The break seems to come above 3 ft (914 mm) gauge, with 3 ft 6 in (1067 mm) and above lines generally being heavy rail, and 3 ft (914 mm) and under being light rail, though even this has plenty of exceptions. Of course, the article already mentions this in the "contradictions of gauge" section.

Second Myth - gauge only chosen for one reason. I agree, the decisions were often complex. Another reason for the choice was often the gauge already in use in the area which influenced choice. The article doesn't assert that only a single reason was used, and mentions almost all the reasons you list.

Third Myth - narrow gauge suffers because it cannot transfer equipment. You state that this is "simply not the case". In fact it was a significant problem, in particular it added significant costs to short line operations that were, as the article describes, "islands" surrounded by rail transport of other gauges - even other narrow gauges. Can you cite sources to show that "transfer points where freight or passengers transfer from narrow to standard gauge trains have been proven to incur only negligable costs (if any)"? George Hilton's exceeltn book "American Narrow Gauge Railroads" describes the transhipment costs in some detail and the impact is significant. Many British lines incurred significant costs both in resources and time, at their transhipment points which often became limiting factors in their ability to hyandle traffic, particularly as labor costs rose over time . Look at the unsuccessful lengths the Leek and Manifold went to, for example, to try to avoid these problems.

Gwernol 09:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is always an interesting question. Transfer costs are a cost but are only significant to the extent that they affect the ability to retain business. That is so long as the customer is prepared to accept the cost of transfer the cost is not significant. Let me give a modern example. Nearby here (Hastings, Vic, Australia) is a steel mill that takes slab steel and turns it into sheet products. The slab steel comes from another mill about 800km to the north. It arrives in Melbourne on a standard gauge train then is craned across to a broad gauge train for the final 50km of its journey. Likewise sheet steel product goes the opposite direction. The transfer is a cost, and of course all concerned would like to avoid that cost. However the options, which are either to convert Melbourne's suburban rail system to standard gauge, or to move the mill are just not feasable. So the cost is simply a cost of doing business, in this case an acceptable cost. The problem for narrow gauge lines is that the cost became unacceptable. For instance when the Leek & Manifold was built, the cost of transhipment might have been acceptable to move goods another 8 miles towards their destination. The killer for the narrow gauge worldwide was the arrival of reliable automobile, and in particular truck tranport. Time and time again looking at lines it is the mid 1920's that strike as the turning point between a viable operation and declining traffic. Of course the longer the narrow gauge line the less important transhipment as a cost, and therefore the more viable the line. It is also well worth remembering that at one time transhipment was commonly practiced - even between railways of the same gauge. This was the practice in the US in the mid 19thC - freight was transfered between carriers so cars didn't go off onto other companies rails. Some railways adopted different gauges to ensure that didn't happen. And of course the cost of transhipment varied according to the labour cost, which varies according both to the era, and to the country. And then there were many narrow gauge lines around the world that were actually the "standard" gauge in the areas they served, so of course transfer costs did not affect them at all. --Michael Johnson 05:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

PS cross platform transfer of passengers has never been a cost, and where passenger traffic is important, but freight traffic negligable, two or more gauges have been able to co-exist quite comfortably. See for instance Japan and Switzerland, or indeed transfer between Melbournes train and tram systems, which are on different gauges. --Michael Johnson 06:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what gauge railways use, as long as they use the same gauge. Standard gauge, or Stephenson gauge, is as good as any and better than most. In North America, Canada originally standardized on 5'6" broad gauge, but once the first Canadian railway converted to the Northern U.S. standard of 4'8.5", that railway got all the business from the U.S. and all the other railways had to convert to compete. Similarly, the Southern states originally standardized on 5' gauge, but after the first railway from the North to the Gulf of Mexico converted to the Northern standard, it got all the Northern business, and the Southern railways had to convert to compete. In the Rocky Mountains, thousands of miles of narrow (3') gauge railways were built, but they quickly discovered that the practical advantages of standardization outweighed the theoretical advantages of narrow gauge in mountain terrain, and by 1900 almost all of the lines had converted or gone out of business.

It's important to realize that North America is a very competitive railway environment in which any company that had to endure the cost of a break-of-gauge would very quickly go broke. North America has a lot of railways and no railway in the United States runs all the way from coast to coast. Canadian National Railway is the only railway that runs from the Atlantic to the Pacific (and south to the Gulf of Mexico) and it uses standard gauge. A company that wants to run a box car from New York to Los Angeles has a choice of different railways to use, and has to use a minimum of two to go the full distance, so all the railways have been forced to use the same gauge. The only place a mixed gauge railway system can survive is a place where there is little competition between railways. RockyMtnGuy 08:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that a route involving a gauge transfer will always loose out to a route that doesn't. Which is the reason almost all "narrower" gauge railways are either feeder lines or regional networks. I think the point of the discussion is that the "myth" is the transfer costs by itself made narrow gauge unviable. In fact the transfer cost only made narrow gauge unviable where a more economical alternative was available. In 19thC America that was standard gauge through routes, later for surviving feeder routes that was usually road transport. --Michael Johnson 00:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Narrow Gauge in the Canadian Rockies???

The article says, "Non-industrial narrow gauge mountain railways are or were common in the Rocky Mountains of Canada..." No they weren't. There were no narrow gauge railways built in the Canadian Rockies. There were narrow gauge railways built in the Columbia Mountains to the west, and the Foothills to the east, and the American Rockies to the south, but I don't know of any built in the Canadian Rocky Mountains proper. Railroading in the Canadian Rockies was a serious engineering exercise not suitable for undercapitalized companies, and all the companies who did build railways there (Canadian Pacific, Canadian Northern, Grand Trunk Pacific, and Pacific Great Eastern) built standard gauge. RockyMtnGuy 02:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1009 mm in Bulgaria

In Sofia, Bulgaria tram lines from 1 to 19 are on narrow gauge (1009 mm). 20 and 22 are normal gauge (1435 mm). 1009 mm trams run faster than 1435 mm ones and are more popular with people. 213.240.234.212 19:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Size of article

This article is getting very large. Authors should consider daughter articles for detailed infomation on various systems and countries. --Michael Johnson 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../n/a/r/Talk%7ENarrow_gauge_6d8c.html"

Categories: B-Class rail transport articles | High-importance rail transport articles