# MISC | Railway Gauge Discussion



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

*Gauges Used Internationally*










Not all countries of the world use "standard gauge" - 1,435 mm (4 ft 8½ in) - as their standard. In fact, only 60% of the world's railways are standard gauge.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_gauge


----------



## Bitxofo (Feb 3, 2005)

In Spain we have got 1668mm and 1435mm.
:nuts:
Some lines are migrating from 1668 to 1435mm. The idea of the Government is to have only 1435mm within 20 years approx.
:yes:


----------



## kegan (Jun 14, 2007)

Bit of history:
New Zealand had at least three different gauges in the early days of railways (before choosing 3'6" (1067mm) as standard). Different provinces started building their own lines and chose their own gauge. 

Had 3'6", 4'8½" & 5'3". Crazy for such a small place. :nuts:


----------



## TWK90 (May 15, 2007)

Malaysia :

1000 mm (metre gauge), the most widely adopted gauge in Malaysia, first introduced by the British when they built the first rail line in Malaysia...

Currently, KTMB and Sabah state railway run on metre gauge...

1435 mm, introduced in Malaysia since last decade...

Used by :

- Kelana Jaya line
- Ampang line
- KLIA Ekspres and KLIA Transit (ERL)


----------



## arriaca (Feb 28, 2006)

Bitxofo said:


> In Spain we have got 1668mm and 1435mm.
> :nuts:


Don´t forget the lines with 1445mm and 1000mm




> Some lines are migrating from 1668 to 1435mm. The idea of the Government is to have only 1435mm within 20 years approx.
> :yes:


What lines are migrating?


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

In Great Britain it's pretty much entirely standard gauge, apart from a number of privately owned railways in Wales especially which are 2ft narrow gauge (600mm roughly). The Isle of Man (shown by the red dot between Britain and Ireland on the map) is narrow gauge territory. Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland have their own, broader gauge.


----------



## CharlieP (Sep 12, 2002)

What I'd really like to see is a map with the actual railways on (even if they all merge together and there's not much detail) rather than colouring in each country individually.


----------



## tuckerbox (Oct 15, 2007)

What is the widest Gauge in the World?
I saw somewhere that the Giant German Rail Gun was 7 feet Gauge.
It ran on two tracks.
What is the smallest?


----------



## Railfan (Nov 15, 2006)

Venezuela use 1435 mm guauge sin 1945


----------



## RawLee (Jul 9, 2007)

tuckerbox said:


> What is the widest Gauge in the World?
> I saw somewhere that the Giant German Rail Gun was 7 feet Gauge.
> It ran on two tracks.
> What is the smallest?


It had 2 parallel bogies,both standard gauge,and a total of 4.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

> Some lines are migrating from 1668 to 1435mm. The idea of the Government is to have only 1435mm within 20 years approx.





arriaca said:


> What lines are migrating?


All, in the long term.



tuckerbox said:


> What is the widest Gauge in the World?


~2144 mm of the GWR in the UK, converted to standard gauge by the end of XIX century, and the projected Breitspurbahn of Hitler (3 metres).

(cranes and the "krasnoyarsk ship transloader" (search with Google) have wider gauges)


----------



## Momo1435 (Oct 3, 2005)

tuckerbox said:


> What is the smallest?


Looking at the wiki I think it's 600mm, used in some European countries. Anything narrower should be qualified as miniature railroads.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Smallest gauge for a real train (two tracks used by vehicles with flanged wheels): probably the Z scale: 6,5 mm. Or even a japan model that uses 4 mm gauge tracks, but I don't have more informations.

Smallest gauge used by model trains carrying people: 5'' or 127 mm. Other gauges used for these trains are 7'' 1/4 or 184 mm and 380 mm.

Smallest gauge used on service railways for mines, dams or small hydroelectric tunnels: 500 mm.

Smallest gauge on public service railways: probably 600 mm.


----------



## Manchester Planner (Aug 19, 2005)

Momo1435 said:


> Looking at the wiki I think it's 600mm, used in some European countries. Anything narrower should be qualified as miniature railroads.


Yup - Welsh narrow gauge railways, which carry thousands of passengers every day in the summer months, are 2ft or roughly 600mm.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Another list of gauges: http://parovoz.com/spravka/gauges-en.php


----------



## Timon91 (Feb 9, 2008)

Interesting map. Nice to see


----------



## tuckerbox (Oct 15, 2007)

Coccodrillo said:


> Another list of gauges: http://parovoz.com/spravka/gauges-en.php


Very good information. I never knew there was so many different gauges.
In Western Australia we have two- Standard Guage and Narrow guage but most of Our Narrow Guage tracks are Country wheat lines in poor condition- light rails and very little ballast. max speeds on some are 30kmh.


----------



## DJZG (Aug 2, 2007)

wow... Europe seems to be easy but check South America... what a variety of gauges... 

i've read somewhere that Nauru in Pacific has narrow gauge that is used for transporting phosphates from inland to coast...
there is a map on wikipedia though...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Nauru_map_english.svg


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Let me see .. .here in Portugal we have:

600mm ... 
- "Barril" train ... a short "transfer" railway in southern portugal (it's lenght is only 1km) 
- Minas de Pejao ... a Mine railway (currently closed)
- Transpraia ... another "transfer" railway ... located in the lisboa region (south of the Tejo and some 15km long)

900mm ... 
- Lisboa CARRIS network (trams)
- braga trams (deseased network) also were of this gauge

1000mm ...
- "Sintra-Atlantico" (lisboa metro area) ... an electric tram on the countryside :cheers:
- 3 large different "narrow gauge" networks in northern portugal ... namely:
- a deceased Y in porto metro area now converted to "light metro" as Metro do Porto, with a branch to guimarães converted to broad gauge (1668mm)) 
- 4 isolated narrow gauge "feeders" to Douro line mostly closed (1 fully closed and the other 3 amputated to about 1/3rd of original lenght)
- a dying Y + L network in the Vouga river ... only the two coastal spurs are still operative while the rest was dismantled in the 90's
- there were some other 1000mm railways mainly on mines but all are nowadays dismantled (Minas do Lena , Minas de Aljustrel , Minas de São domingos , etc)

1435mm ...
- Lisboa "metropolitano"
- Metro do Porto
- STCP tram network (Porto)
- MTS (Almada , Lisboa metro area south shore tram)

1668mm ...
- the "mainline" broad gauge railways 
^^ some 30/40km were renewed with dual gauge sleepers (wich alow for 1435mm conversion in the future) 

2134mm ...
- the Ponta Delgada harbour railway ... it seems the Brunwell gauge locomotive is still over there hiding in a shelter. :cheers:

Sidenotice: "old" broad gauge in portugal was 1664/1665mm ... "old" broad gauge in spain was 1672mm ... due to different "foot" measurements ... the "new" 1668mm is the middle term ... originaly the portuguese railways were of 1435mm (changed somewere around 1860/1870 to broad gauge)


----------



## Xusein (Sep 27, 2005)

Africa is a mess! :nuts:

Dual gauges will have to be used extensively in the future.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

It depends on the level of traffic exchanged with nearby countries, and on the network itself.

There are five main gauges in Europe. Of them, russian gauge network will probably never be converted to standard gauge because it is extensive and has a lot of traffic. Instead iberian gauge network is quite short and often with very few trains (most of lines with elss than 50 trains/day) so tehre a conversion is easy and necessary.


----------



## homunwai (May 13, 2010)

TWK90 said:


> In Malaysia, the focus is to electrify and double track existing metre gauge network with new alignment, to enable 160 km/h operation just as prophecus1 said...
> 
> Example of recent electrified double tracking project in Malaysia.


Hi,
Would you have specifications of this new malaysian train? 
Eg, width, height, floor height(from top of rail), maximum speed, operational top speed, it is a tilting train, etc.


----------



## TWK90 (May 15, 2007)

homunwai said:


> Hi,
> Would you have specifications of this new malaysian train?
> Eg, width, height, floor height(from top of rail), maximum speed, operational top speed, it is a tilting train, etc.


According to last year's Chinese language newspaper...

Maximum operation speed : 140 km/h
Maximum design speed : 160 km/h
Passenger capacity : 350
Length : 138 m (6 car train)
Weight : 231.8 tons
Carriage dimensions
Length : 22.95 m
Width : 2.75 m
Height : 4 m

This is not a tilting train.


----------



## Augusto (Mar 3, 2005)

homunwai said:


> Malaysia is a case in point. Hopefully, with double tracking and electrification of the metre gauge now, railway will be able to 'reclaim' its popularity while the longer term debate of HSR is being debated. In any case, as HSR will likely require dedicated tracks serving limited destinations, future HSR may coexist with modern metre guage.
> 
> Any comments/


Modern metre gauge would certainly coexist with HSR but probably not with an extended ERL network in the south: ERL (KL Sentral-KLIA) is actually the only standard gauge line in Malaysia (outside KL and its 2 LRT) and there are projects to extend it to Seremban, Melaka or even JB. 
There is probably enough room for HSR and ERL or HSR and meter gauge but not for the three, excepted, may be, for the "Kommuter" part of the network between KL and Seremban.


----------



## prophecus1 (Jun 27, 2009)

Again the ETS of KTMB Malaysia. This train is undergoing test run. In this video, an engineer is seen announcing the speed of the train at 158, 159 and finally 160 km/h. I think this is the speed record of metre gauge in Malaysia, although far short of Australia's Queenway's rail at 210 km/h, but that train runs on cape gauge (1067 mm).

Note that there are speed limits at around 120 km/h due to the curves especially at Selangor part. At this part in this video (Sungkai - Tapah Road) the tracks are relatively straight. 






Thanks to Kalvinkhew for this amazing video!


----------



## homunwai (May 13, 2010)

TWK90 said:


> According to last year's Chinese language newspaper...
> 
> Maximum operation speed : 140 km/h
> Maximum design speed : 160 km/h
> ...


Thanks for the information. 

Also, the video on metre gauge at 160km/h is just fantastic. However, we must be cautious that speed can only be achieved in tests and not in actual operattions.

The greatest impediment to meter gauge is stability in highspeed. I am wondering, if the following design approach will help to improve stability (and comfort) for metre gauge trains at high speed: 

Width: cap at 2.75 m.

Height: Keep as long as possible to minimise G.G.. Japanese trains can be as long as 3.4m.

Floor height (from top of rail): Keep as long as possible to minimise G.G. Adopt a standard of 0.76m, which is the EU standard for platform height. Use smaller wheels, say 650mm diameter. Hang air con units under floor. 

Bogie: Use Jacobs bogie to lower risk and impact of derailment. 

Tilting: Avoid for simplicity and for the lack of under carriage space due to the low floor height mentioned above. if however tilting (eg 1 degree tilting) can be achieved within the contraints, use it.


----------



## garegnanoman (Feb 12, 2009)

Swiss metric-gauge trains:
http://www.rhb.ch/Video.1280.0.html


----------



## homunwai (May 13, 2010)

homunwai said:


> Thanks for the information.
> 
> Also, the video on metre gauge at 160km/h is just fantastic. However, we must be cautious that speed can only be achieved in tests and not in actual operattions.
> 
> ...



__
I noticed there are some typo errors in my earlier post. I have corrected them and added something below, eg, included the Talgo Technololgy: 

The greatest impediment to meter gauge is stability in highspeed. I would propose the following design approach to improve stability (and comfort) for metre gauge trains at high speed: 

Width: cap at 2.75m.

Floor height (from top of rail): Keep as low as possible to minimise G.G. Adopt a standard of 0.76m, which is the EU standard for platform height. Hang air con units under floor. Use smaller wheels, say 650mm diameter. But if the Talgo technology is used, wheel size will not be a constraint. 

Height: Keep as low as possible to minimise G.G.. Japanese trains can be as long as 3.4m. With a floor height of 0.76m, the height of train can be kept to say 3.2m, i.e. with ample headroom in the carriage compartment. 

Bogie: Use Talgo technology to allow low floor height and total flat floor. This will also improve stability, lower risk and impact of derailment. Tilting which comes with the Talgo technology will further improve stability and allow sustained high speed at banks.


----------



## Aokromes (Jan 5, 2005)

Coccodrillo said:


> With wooden sleepers the cost to reduce the gauge is not enormous (but if you have to wide the gauge, you have to change sleepers: the ones for metre gauge are too narrow for broad gauge).
> 
> Problems arise when curve radius are too small to handle wider gauge trains, and that traffic must be interrupted during the conversion, not only to change/modifiy tracks but also at the broders between gauges.
> 
> I don't have any idea of the cost, but in Europe a kilometre of new track costs around one million of EUR/USD (without guarantee, just to make an idea).


I can't say about standard speed, but each KM of Basque Y high speed line cost is from ~5 millon of EUR up to ~51 millon of EUR.

Also here 1 metre gauge lines are build on places with small or none space to be changed to UIC, also for example with only one ¿line? 


















Photos by ibon_81 at http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=332689


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

^^ fascinating pictures


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

trainrover said:


> I was talking about wilderness ("bush"), not rural areas. The flexibility you wish would be terminal, period.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


However...Suburbanist _does_ have a point that rubber-tired vehicles are more all-terrain (and thus better for more isolated wilderness areas) than meter-gauge railways. Building a meter-gauge railway is going to be more expensive than building a gravel road, because with the RR you have to lay ties and rails whereas with just the road you lay down the gravel layer and be done with it. Thus meter-gauge lines find their greatest advantages in terrain where tired vehicle access is most difficult, like mountain logging and mining operations, say.

By the way, as to the theme of this thread: I think there will be significantly fewer "gauges" a century from now than there are today. To wit: many broader-gauge networks will be converted to standard gauge as standard gauge railheads expand out of their traditional territories (read: Europe, North America, China) while the narrower gauges will slowly converge on a unified gauge based most likely in the insular gauge. This convergence will be based on a number of factors, including the desire for inter-operability (the main reason why Spain has a long-term goal of converting their Iberian gauge operations into standard gauge) as well as manufacturers' desires: it's much more expensive to maintain something like half-a-dozen molds for gauges within a few dozen millimeters of each other than it is for just one or perhaps two, and since these molds would wind up being in insular gauge, for the obvious reason that Japan and Taiwan and other insular-gauged lines would be the primary customers of narrow-gauged services as a whole this would drive a retrofit of other narrow-gauged lines around the world in order to accept equipment manufactured in these two places.

I'm not too sure how successful India's long-term efforts to convert everything into that broad gauge will be, though. hno: Gauge standardization has the key advantage of a reduction in travel time as you don't need to offload and and reload everything at every border, so an aberrant gauge costs time, and to a standard operator this means dollar signs for a competing service.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

hammersklavier said:


> However...Suburbanist _does_ have a point that rubber-tired vehicles are more all-terrain (and thus better for more isolated wilderness areas) than meter-gauge railways. Building a meter-gauge railway is going to be more expensive than building a gravel road, because with the RR you have to lay ties and rails whereas with just the road you lay down the gravel layer and be done with it. Thus meter-gauge lines find their greatest advantages in terrain where tired vehicle access is most difficult, like mountain logging and mining operations, say.


But the very flexibility of tired vehicles is a major item of cost. A gravel road is little use unless it is wide enough to allow for two trucks passing wherever they happen to meet. Whereas a narrow gauge railway running on schedule can be single track except for passing places - the gravel bed can be much narrower.

Plus a tired vehicle has much higher rolling friction than a steel wheel on steel rail.


----------



## Billyking (May 31, 2010)

By the way, as to the theme of this thread: I think there will be significantly fewer "gauges" a century from now than there are today. To wit: many broader-gauge networks will be converted to standard gauge as standard gauge railheads expand out of their traditional territories (read: Europe, North America, China) while the narrower gauges will slowly converge on a unified gauge based most likely in the insular gauge. This convergence will be based on a number of factors, including the desire for inter-operability (the main reason why Spain has a long-term goal of converting their Iberian gauge operations into standard gauge) as well as manufacturers' desires: it's much more expensive to maintain something like half-a-dozen molds for gauges within a few dozen millimeters of each other than it is for just one or perhaps two, and since these molds would wind up being in insular gauge, for the obvious reason that Japan and Taiwan and other insular-gauged lines would be the primary customers of narrow-gauged services as a whole this would drive a retrofit of other narrow-gauged lines around the world in order to accept equipment manufactured in these two places.

I'm not too sure how successful India's long-term efforts to convert everything into that broad gauge will be, though. hno: Gauge standardization has the key advantage of a reduction in travel time as you don't need to offload and and reload everything at every border, so an aberrant gauge costs time, and to a standard operator this means dollar signs for a competing service.[/QUOTE]

What would the gauges that will survive? 
- Standard? For sure. 
- Cape gauge (1067mm)? Large application in Japan, Taiwan, SA, NZ, Queensland. So, will survive? 
- Meter gauge????????


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Billyking said:


> What would the gauges that will survive?


1676 - 5ft6in in India (not in Spain)
1600 - 5ft3in South America (and maybe Ireland, Australia will convert its lines)
1524 - 5ft in Russia and nearby countries
1435 - 4 ft 8,5 in everywhere
1067 - 3ft6in Southern part of Africa, Japan, Taiwan
1000 - 3 ft 3+3/8 in everywhere

And non-standard gauges in metro lines (900-950-1200-1372-1495-1588-...).


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

hammersklavier said:


> By the way, as to the theme of this thread: I think there will be significantly fewer "gauges" a century from now than there are today. To wit: many broader-gauge networks will be converted to standard gauge as standard gauge railheads expand out of their traditional territories (read: Europe, North America, China)


The entire 1524 mm network is a single, continuous network of about 220 000 km (the old 1524 mm networks of southern USA and Panama have been regauged). By contrast, the 1435 mm network is split into 3 big unconnected part (Europe, North America, China+Korea) and several smaller. For a country at the border between 1520 mm and 1435 mm, is there a real incentive to take the cost of regauging just to lose the existing connections on the 1520 mm side?

Analogically the 1676 mm network of India, Bangladesh and Pakistan is almost 70 000 km. And rapidly expanding through regauging 1000 mm in India. There is only one 1435 mm railhead in Zahedan. Why would Pakistan bother regauging?




hammersklavier said:


> while the narrower gauges will slowly converge on a unified gauge based most likely in the insular gauge. This convergence will be based on a number of factors, including the desire for inter-operability (the main reason why Spain has a long-term goal of converting their Iberian gauge operations into standard gauge) as well as manufacturers' desires: it's much more expensive to maintain something like half-a-dozen molds for gauges within a few dozen millimeters of each other than it is for just one or perhaps two, and since these molds would wind up being in insular gauge, for the obvious reason that Japan and Taiwan and other insular-gauged lines would be the primary customers of narrow-gauged services as a whole this would drive a retrofit of other narrow-gauged lines around the world in order to accept equipment manufactured in these two places.


There is 112 000 km 1067 mm railways and 95 000 km 1000 mm railways. What would drive regauging?

There are several small 1000 mm networks in Africa, next to 1067 mm neighbours, so there regauging to 1067 mm makes sense. But there are also big networks of 1000 mm in Southeast Asia (no connection of 1000 mm between Myanmar and India or Bangladesh, so not affected by Unigauge). There is a neighbouring 1067 mm network in Indonesia, but at the moment no rail bridge over Malacca strait, nor indeed rail across the isle of Sumatra, so what would drive regauge to 1067 mm there? And there is also a big metre gauge network through Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Bolivia. No adjoining 1067 mm network, so nothing to drive regauge to 1067 mm.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

chornedsnorkack said:


> For a country at the border between 1520 mm and 1435 mm, is there a real incentive to take the cost of regauging just to lose the existing connections on the 1520 mm side?


The 1524 mm gauge network unfortunately lies between two standard gauge networks. If it wasn't for that, there was a signle 500.000 (or maybe more) km network hno:


----------



## homunwai (May 13, 2010)

Why did India choose regauging to 1676mm instead of standard gauge?


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

homunwai said:


> Why did India choose regauging to 1676mm instead of standard gauge?


Because India does not have 1435 mm gauge.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

hammersklavier said:


> rubber-tired vehicles are more all-terrain (and thus better for more isolated wilderness areas)


It's clear that my own "better" be too remote a concept for you too hno:


----------



## TsLeng (Dec 12, 2009)

Cool video of the ETS 

Need to have a ride on it one day.


----------



## Trainviationfanatica (May 28, 2010)

TWK90 said:


> According to last year's Chinese language newspaper...
> 
> Maximum operation speed : 140 km/h
> Maximum design speed : 160 km/h
> ...


Damn!! Bloody KTM!! They never upgrade the Singapore-Malaysia system!!!!:bash:


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

trainrover said:


> It's clear that my own "better" be too remote a concept for you too hno:


A railroad needs to go _from_ somewhere _to_ somewhere. If it's built to serve an industry, such as a mine, fine. If it's built to link some of the more important towns in the area, fine. But if what you're suggesting is that we build _railroads_ instead of _roads_ straight into the bush--why? There's no point in it! The traffic you'd be getting is not worth the expense and the upkeep needed for a railroad! There *has to be a source of traffic* of some sort to justify the expense of laying a railroad, any railroad, and if that traffic is just some dude living in a trailer 30 kilometers from the nearest major road, then your proposal is little more than a glorified PRT. The bush needs the hardiest equipment imaginable. I'm not denying that railroad equipment isn't hardy--but I fail to see the need for a railroad to service the bush, especially when the paths and tracks in such a landscape do tend to shift, sometimes without warning, and a railroad, like any form of road, depends on being a fairly permanent transitway...I'm sorry, but I just don't see how what you're suggesting is a good idea. Like I said, drive the train tracks to a fairly well-populated railhead and/or the spurs emanating from it to nearby industries, a last bastion, if you like, of civilization; you can just use a 4x4 or a dog sled or something that is hardy, easily maintainable, and doesn't have to depend on a fixed guideway from there on out. I like to take up my positions on the social economics of the matter, and there are situations where I don't see how the rail line can be economically viable.

That said, there are still plenty of places up in the American far north where a rail line *is* viable but does not exist: for instance, one from the CN railhead in upper British Columbia through Whitehorse to the ARR railhead in Fairbanks might well be viable, especially if there are industries that the railroad can serve. The same for the railhead on the south side of the Great Slave Lake. Why doesn't it go all the way to Yellowknife? If the industries up near the Mackenzie Delta need more than what the winter roads can provide for--which may well soon be the case--then a very real case can be made for driving a railroad up there, too. But when we're dealing with the edge of civilization, we're also dealing with the fringe of where railroads can be economically viable--and if the line ain't viable, there ain't no point in building it.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

^^ Roads risk bringing in business whilst tracks would better serve at keeping it out, which has been my point subsequent to (still) wishing to learn what, transport-wise, a 1-metre guage railway could not do that --say-- an 18-wheeler can.

Your proposed road network would cost far more than some adaptation of the --say-- 1-metre gauge railway.


----------



## homunwai (May 13, 2010)

nazrey said:


> *It now reaches 160 km/h!*



The above is from another taken from another thread: Malaysia Railway Development News. 
This is really good news. 
Is this a new world record for metre gauge trains? 
I thought it is. 
The other narrow gauge speed records achieved in South Africa and Queensland were cape gauge. 
So, good news not only for Malaysia, but also for the whole 95000km of metre gauge world in various countries.


----------



## Billyking (May 31, 2010)

There was a news article recently that China is going to help Thailand to build a HST from north to south. Even if this is not the 350km/h full fledge HST, will this trigger the start of the eventual conversion of the Thai metre gauge to standard gauge? Is this happen, this may trigger the rethink of the entire metre gauge network of the M'sia, Vietnam, etc.


----------



## perdurabo (May 16, 2006)

Coccodrillo said:


> 1676 - 5ft6in in India (not in Spain)
> 1600 - 5ft3in South America (and maybe Ireland, Australia will convert its lines)
> 1524 - 5ft in Russia and nearby countries
> 1435 - 4 ft 8,5 in everywhere
> ...


Count in all turist lines and factory lines, in my country (Poland) we have standard gauge network + one line of Russian broad gauge, and few dozens of narrow gauge railways that operate turist trains, few dozens of factories that have their own tracks, and few forest railways,. from 1980ties to 2000 we had lots of lines geting closed, but now those old lines are geting new life. So they won't disapear. We have 4 types of narrow gauge, 600mm, 750mm, 785mm and 1000mm +mines use underground 500mm.
Typical narrow gauge turist train:


----------



## lanolama (Sep 8, 2008)

Sorry for the size


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

A few remarks about this map coming to mind:

- France has 5 metre-gauge lines, and spanish gauge in 3 border stations ;
- Lybia has no railway at all, if I'm not mistaken
- Tunisia also has some metre-gauge lines
- Does Durango-Silverton count ? ;-)


----------



## lanolama (Sep 8, 2008)

Russian railway company RZhD is building railways in Lybia













































































































link


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

^^
Standard gauge (1435 mm) or broad gauge (1520 mm)?

Mike


----------



## hammersklavier (Jan 29, 2010)

trainrover said:


> ^^ Roads risk bringing in business whilst tracks would better serve at keeping it out, which has been my point subsequent to (still) wishing to learn what, transport-wise, a 1-metre guage railway could not do that --say-- an 18-wheeler can.
> 
> Your proposed road network would cost far more than some adaptation of the --say-- 1-metre gauge railway.


I still fail to see how. A gravel road is nothing more than a railbed without rails. Not putting the rails on the railbed results in a cheaper end-product.

How exactly does a railroad keep business out? hno: _Any_ mode of transportation is going to bring business _in_ to such a remote area.

I'm all for more railroads, but I'm sorry, this seems to be going a step too far. The expenses involved with creating an maintaining a rail line in such terrain far outweigh the economic benefits. Like I said, you need to have an economic source to make a railroad viable. Large-scale logging operations did it once; mines still do. If you want to drive a railroad through to some godforsaken hellhole in the middle of Nunavut--discover a mineral lode there!


----------



## lanolama (Sep 8, 2008)

mgk920 said:


> ^^
> Standard gauge (1435 mm) or broad gauge (1520 mm)?
> 
> Mike


1435, of cource, since everybody else around them is using it. They want to connect nothern Africas railroads together as far as I know.


----------



## Huhu (Jun 5, 2004)

From the map, why does it look like South and Central America decided to split themselves up into alternating gauges so that their networks can't link up?


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

When railway in Africa were built during colonisation each (european) country choose a different gauge, and built lines to connect inland resources with the sea, and not the various regions with each other. In Southern America railways have certainly a similar origin.


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

Coccodrillo said:


> When railway in Africa were built during colonisation each (european) country choose a different gauge, and built lines to connect inland resources with the sea, and not the various regions with each other. In Southern America railways have certainly a similar origin.


Railroads in North America were first developed in much that same way, but because they were starting to tie various areas together, about the time of the USA Civil War and within a decade or two after, they were all standardized on track gauge (1435 mm), coupling/braking standards and even timekeeping.

I'd love to see the rest of the Americas do likewise.

Mike


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

lanolama said:


> 1435, of cource, since everybody else around them is using it. They want to connect nothern Africas railroads together as far as I know.


Thanx!

Mike


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

lanolama said:


> Russian railway company RZhD is building railways in Lybia


Interesting. Any map of the routes in construction / in project ?

TIA,


----------



## lanolama (Sep 8, 2008)

MarcVD said:


> Interesting. Any map of the routes in construction / in project ?
> 
> TIA,



Just a small map I found on Rzhdinter's Lybia-project page.










But we can compair it with a map of Lybia.




















And few other small photos.






























And here what wikipedia says:

There is a plan for an 3170 km 1,435 mm (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in) (standard gauge) network.[1] A line parallel to the coast will eventually form part of a North African link between Tunisia and Egypt. The section from the border with Tunisia at Ras Ejder, then via Tripoli to Sirt is currently under construction and is planned to open in 2009. Google Earth reveals (2007-9) progress with the trackbed. China Railway Construction Corporation has contracts to start work in June 2008 on a 352 km route between Sirt and Al Khums, to be finished by 2013.[3] The east-west line will be double track. Google Earth 2009 images show renewed progress with the earthworks, including concrete bridges, that have seen no attention since 2004

A second line will run 800 km from iron ore deposits at Wadi Shati near Sebha to the steel works and port at Misurata from 2012.[3]

A third line will run 554 km from Sirt to Benghazi in the East. In October 2007, RZD submitted a feasibility study for the project, and in 2008 signed a contract to begin construction, which was planned to take 4 years to complete.[4] Work began on 30 August 2008.[5] In August 2010, RZD awarded Ansaldo STS and SELEX Communications a contract to install signalling, telecoms, power, security and ticketing systems which is expected to take three years. Ansaldo STS and SELEX Communications are also working on signalling on new lines between Surt and the Tunisian border, and the route to Sabha.[6]

A trans-Saharan line is also planned, running south to Niger.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Huhu said:


> From the map, why does it look like South and Central America decided to split themselves up into alternating gauges so that their networks can't link up?





Coccodrillo said:


> When railway in Africa were built during colonisation each (european) country choose a different gauge, and built lines to connect inland resources with the sea, and not the various regions with each other. In Southern America railways have certainly a similar origin.





mgk920 said:


> Railroads in North America were first developed in much that same way, but because they were starting to tie various areas together, about the time of the USA Civil War and within a decade or two after, they were all standardized on track gauge (1435 mm), coupling/braking standards and even timekeeping.
> 
> I'd love to see the rest of the Americas do likewise.
> 
> Mike



610mm = 2 foot railways were used wth hand pushed wagons ... small "portable" stretches of railways could be carried by the armies and deployed in the field to create suply lines ... a lot of surplus equipment wasavailable after WWI ended and a lot of industrial and farming/logging railroads used that equipment (in this category of mostly rural and industrial railways we can include every gauge from 600mm to 760mm) 

914mm = american standard 
1000mm = european metric standard
1067mm = british standard 

Indian gauge = 1676mm was first used in scotland ... then it was used in CANADA and USA (um untill 1873/1876 when those wer converted to standard) and only then used in all other british colonies to built main lines specially in india where the wider gauge could acomodate the larger fireboxes needed to pull trains up long and steep gradients so they choose the scotish broad gauge (a lot of the locomotive and rail equipment factories were located in scotland) 

Italian gauges = italian railways measured their gauge from the middle of the rails so their "standard" 1500mm 1000mm and 750mm became 1445mm , 950mm and 700mm in the more common denominations 

Irish Gauge = the railways in ireland had 3 different gauges (1880mm , 1420mm and 1575mm) and by 1846 the board of trade someone decided to set for 1600mm.

Australia = they decided to go with "standard" but isntead adopted 1600mm (with NSW going backto 1435) and Queensland wen't "el cheapo" and choose capegauge (1067mm)

Iberian Gauge = portugal used 1445mm and spain used 1672mm (6 castillian feet) ... portugal then made an half-assed conversion (removing the inner spikes/screws placing the rails outside of the old outer screw and then using the other screws to bolt the rails in the outside) and that ended up being 1664mm ... more recently both countries railways changed their patterns to a common 1668mm gauge ... also very common is the 1000mm metregauge and the 1435mm (in urban railways , metro, trams and HSL). 

Russian "standard" gauge = 1524mm (5 foot) was choosed bbecause it was widely used in SOUTHERN UNITED STATES at that time (rounded to 1520mm in the 1960's)

British gauge (also known as Stephenson/UIC/standard gauge) = the first railway locomotives that Stephenson built were for the 1435mm Liverpool-Manchester ... in that area the colieries used a 1422mm gauge and that 1435mm value it was wide enough to allow wagons to pick up speed ... as eh became famous he built a lot of other railways (mostly with gauges betweeen 1422mm and 1448mm, the wider the gauge the bigger the toleran~ce sicne all used th saime veichle weel spacing of 1435mm(only old horsedrawnmining carts used 1422mm)). :lol:
(sidenote: most common in some other mining areas in the uk were 4foot/1219mm and 5foot/1524mm so any of them could became standard, only Stephensons lead 8-1 in mileage made the choice for 1435mm so obvious to everyone , even Brunnell)


----------



## Huhu (Jun 5, 2004)

^^ Interesting. I guess that explains why Argentina and Chile use "Indian Gauge" because it was almost the same as the old Spanish gauge?

It's still curious as to why Peru and Venezuela use Standard Gauge, Ecuador uses Cape Gauge, Bolivia uses Metre Gauge, and Colombia uses Italian Gauge. These countries are all neighbours.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

mgk920 said:


> Railroads in North America were first developed in much that same way, but because they were starting to tie various areas together, about the time of the USA Civil War and within a decade or two after, they were all standardized on track gauge (1435 mm), coupling/braking standards and even timekeeping.
> 
> I'd love to see the rest of the Americas do likewise.
> 
> Mike


I hope the same for Eurasia. But that's utopic.


----------



## Gag Halfrunt (Jun 25, 2006)

Huhu said:


> ^^ Interesting. I guess that explains why Argentina and Chile use "Indian Gauge" because it was almost the same as the old Spanish gauge?


The broad gauge lines in Argentina were built by British companies, for example the Buenos Aires and Pacific Railway and the Argentine Great Western Railway. I don't suppose that standards in Spain or Portugal were at all significant to British companies operating in independent South American republics.


----------



## Aokromes (Jan 5, 2005)

Experiment to avoid track deformations un curved tracks because hot.



Photos by ibon_81 at http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=332689&page=76 more at http://img638.imageshack.us/g/img0642vi.jpg/


----------



## Alexriga (Nov 25, 2007)

lanolama;62929993 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting**************62929993******end_of_the_skype_highlighting said:


> Just a small map I found on Rzhdinter's Lybia-project page.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


that's interesting. what's aim of the line - freight or passenger traffic, also what max speed will be there?


----------



## Gadiri (Oct 30, 2009)

^^


> *BORDER LINKS FROM LIBYA​*
> Posted on *21 September 2010 *
> 
> Libyais optimistic that the new standard gauge line currently under construction from Benghazi to the country’s western border at Rass Ajder will be extended eventually to connect with Société Nationale des Chemins de Fer Tunisiens (SNCFT – the Tunisian National Railways).This would entail building some 170km of route inside Tunisia to reach the present railhead at Gabes[/B]. Unfortunately the existing 422km line from Gabes to the capital – Tunis – is metre gauge, so through services will not be possible. Some of the* 268km Tunis-Sfax section has been realigned and the 3-hour expresses are reputedly the fastest metre gauge trains in the world*.
> ...




http://www.railwaysafrica.com/blog/2010/09/border-links-from-libya/



This is a french CFD train http://www.cfd.fr/index.php?page=news




Tounsi said:


> Train Express :





Ωρτimuş;62821503 said:


> Le deuxiéme est un autorail de type AMG du constructeur *français CFD*









Max speed (seems to be) : 160 km/h 



> Caractéristiques : 4 bogies à suspension pneumatique • bogie pendulaire • 2 bogies moteurs • motorisation V8 (2 * 440kw) • 0-100km/h en 68s • redondance moteur en cas de panne • env 105 places • équipement toilettes handicapés • vision panoramique • climatisation...


----------



## Billyking (May 31, 2010)

Is this metre gauge?


----------



## sc4 (Apr 6, 2006)

Yup, looks like it, similar speeds to the one here in Malaysia


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Yes it's metre gauge.


----------



## Gadiri (Oct 30, 2009)

Billyking said:


> Is this metre gauge?


Yes it is.

*CFD is a small french trains constructor*. 

The website is not upadate. 
http://www.cfd.fr/index.php?page=news

*Same train in Corse Island.*





I only found a good video on a *film extract*.


----------



## TWK90 (May 15, 2007)

Gadiri said:


> ^^
> Max speed (seems to be) : 160 km/h


http://www.sfaxonline.com/voix-sfaxiens/310-nouvelles-rames-sfax-et-gaafour-dans-une-seconde-etape

According to this, the metre gauge DMU used in Tunisia has top speed of 130 km/h.

Tunis-Sfax is about 268 km, according to the news that you posted.

A check from SNCFT website, suggests the Autorail Express service takes about 2 hours 40 minutes.

http://www.sncft.com.tn

That means, the average speed for the journey is about 100 km/h. That's good for a metre gauge train.


----------



## Gadiri (Oct 30, 2009)

TWK90 said:


> http://www.sfaxonline.com/voix-sfaxiens/310-nouvelles-rames-sfax-et-gaafour-dans-une-seconde-etape
> 
> According to this, the metre gauge DMU used in Tunisia has top speed of 130 km/h.
> 
> ...


Train may stop in Sousse,. It's a big city, I was there. And now trains can't crosse city like by the past. So from Tunis, the train go to Sousse station, retake the same railway, and then take the railway bypass around the city. 100km/h is average speed. But max speed I don't know. I asked it on Tunisian forum. Wait 



> CAF bought 60% of CFR in 2008for 8 millions euros


http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compagnie_des_Chemins_de_Fer_Départementaux

*CFR AMG-800 for Corsica *(for Tunisia it's AMG or AMT, confusion on internet).


*Spec*


http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/AMG_800

*Max speed for Corsica is 100km/h*. Waiting for tunisian answer.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

^^ I think the last letter shows the company, except for Corsica.

AMG = Autorail Métrique Grand confort/capacité (?)
AMT = Tunisia
AMP = Provence (Nice-Digne)


----------



## Gadiri (Oct 30, 2009)

Coccodrillo said:


> ^^ I think the last letter shows the company, except for Corsica.
> 
> AMG = Autorail Métrique Grand confort/capacité (?)
> AMT = Tunisia
> AMP = Provence (Nice-Digne)


kay:

So, those are same specs. Only interior change.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Gadiri said:


> *Same train in Corse Island.*


How come the rear lights are illuminated rolling forward?







Aokromes said:


> Experiment to avoid track deformations un curved tracks because hot.


Is this experiment purpose-built test track or a line in service?


----------



## TWK90 (May 15, 2007)

Long distance metre gauge electric train in Malaysia. 

Maximum design speed of 160 km/h, maximum commercial run speed of 140 km/h.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

trainrover said:


> How come the rear lights are illuminated rolling forward?


Probably because the film was taken with the train rolling backwards, then
the footage reversed to make the train appear rolling in the other direction.
The film makers probably know zilch about trains, so did not realize - or just
plain don't care - that the train lights are wrong. This kind of mistake appears
everywhere in movies where trains are implied.


----------



## sc4 (Apr 6, 2006)

TWK90 said:


> Long distance metre gauge electric train in Malaysia.
> 
> Maximum design speed of 160 km/h, maximum commercial run speed of 140 km/h.


^^ It looks slower than I expected if it is running at 140 km/h...


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

MarcVD said:


> Probably because the film was taken with the train rolling backwards


I hadn't mentioned its headlamp also being on...


----------



## Gadiri (Oct 30, 2009)

*What about 600mm gauge. Are there trains still operated with this small gauge ?*

(India ? , Sudan ?, difficult to see with colors)

*Gauges in World *


Wikipedia

Biggest : http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/1/1f/20091001003629!Rail_gauge_world.png


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Gadiri said:


> *What about 600mm gauge. Are there trains still operated with this small gauge ?*


Yes, but this gauge is only used with Decauville railways, that is, for mines, industries, and so on. There are no interurban/long distance railways with gauge smaller than 750 mm (or, if they exist, they aren't much).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decauville


----------



## Wilhem275 (Apr 7, 2006)

Ok. Assuming this is true, those systems still don't come for free


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> Higher speeds don't reduce capacity with proper signaling (ERTMS-3). Indeed, the whole thing seems to be part of a larger plot to delay even further implementation of ERTMS in Germany.
> 
> Indeed, ERTMS is meant to avoid the effect of reduced capacity because of extremely high commercial speeds.


DB already has a "proper signalling system" that allows high capacities at high (and low) speeds: LZB. This is not a ploy to delay the implementation of ETCS. In fact. I can understand the Germans here...


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> I disagree, they are dumbing down their railways for 20 years, likely making impractical for just a few trains running at full speed where they can, and making millions of travelers lose a handful of minutes over 2 decades - at least.


The way Germany runs it railways means that average "door to door" speeds are higher in Germany than in France (or for that matter, Italy...)
Explain to me how this makes millions of travelers lose minutes...


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Wilhem275 said:


> The value of that (handful of minutes*passenger*travels) is not unlimited...


And minutes spend in a train are not the same as minutes spend in a station...

A train from A to B every hour that takes 3 hours has a higher value to passengers than a two trains a day that take 2 1/2 hours... And you need to consider the speed of the whole system, not just single lines. In France train travel often becomes rather slow and inconvenient as soon as you're not going to or from Paris. In Italy you lose a lot of time as soon as a change of trains is involved... In Spain they don't even offer you tickets for trips involving a change, which lowers the value of your system even more.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

K_ said:


> The way Germany runs it railways means that average "door to door" speeds are higher in Germany than in France (or for that matter, Italy...)
> Explain to me how this makes millions of travelers lose minutes...


It doesn't matter how the situation is in France or Italy.

It matters that travelers are being shortchanged in couple minutes for trip because they don't want to order more expensive trains! In a country whose population can afford higher fares anyway.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> It matters that travelers are being shortchanged in couple minutes for trip because they don't want to order more expensive trains! In a country whose population can afford higher fares anyway.


Those 249 kph ICx trains DB is ordering are intended for services where at the moment the maximum speed is usually 200kph... For speeds above 249 kph DB is buying Velaro sets. Buying 300 kph trainsets for these services would mean DB would have to charge more, without being able to offer faster services.

Basically what DB is doing is refusing to neglect it's conventional IC network. Something that is quite different from France or Italy...


----------



## nagara373 (Nov 9, 2010)

Sopomon said:


> Why would a broader gauge be necessary for the trains to tilt?


Longer curve radii, not tilt.



chornedsnorkack said:


> Because a narrow gauge and high centre of gravity makes the trains easier to topple.
> 
> Japan made a stupid move in picking 1435 mm for Shinkansen. They did correctly recognize that narrow 1067 mm gauge has poor stability for high speeds and wide loading gauge - see the problems of Queensland with high speed 1067 mm - but why then 1435 mm? They were settling for a network incompatible with the existing 1067 mm anyway, and they were not going to connect with existing 1435 mm (Korea) anytime soon. They should have picked something broader to begin with, like 2134 mm.


Japanese Shinkansen network should connect with China and South Korea.



Momo1435 said:


> The broader the gauge the bigger the curves. For a line that is dead straight broader is better. In the case of the Tokaido Shinkansen you still see some tight curves that would cause even more problems with a high speed then they do now if the line was super broad gauge.
> 
> You also remember that an broader and wider train is heavier, an the weight is also a limiting factor in it's performance. Back in 1964 when the Shinkansen started operations the technology wasn't as advanced as it is now. Going even broader then the 1435mm might have caused to much problems back then. Right now it could be different, the 16 car 700n series set is 270 tons lighter then an original 16 car 0 series set. But since the line is already 1435 it wouldn't make sense to widen it.
> 
> ...


Maglevs have a lot of disadvantages. Very expensive, incompatible, and small capacity.



Suburbanist said:


> Wider gauge doesn't necessarily mean wider trains.
> 
> However, it does mean large curve radii.
> 
> ...


Wider track gauge needs both larger structure gauge (e.g. larger tunnels, bridges, etc.) and longer curve radii.



K_ said:


> The current high speed lines already allow for speeds a lot higher than 300 kph, as the French have repeatedly demonstrated. You can run at 500 kph and above on standard gauge without much problems.
> And using tilting trains to increase speed doesn't require broader gauge. A broader gauge would have had quite a few disadvantages. For example, curve radii would have to be even wider, and it would have been incompatible with the rest of the network. (But the way you think you'd probably consider that a plus...)
> 
> The main issue with speeds above 300kph is that aerodynamic drag starts to climb to the point that your train consumes so much energy that it isn't economical.


Maglevs also have incompatible with the rest of the network. If the train speeds are low, curve radii depend on track gauges. If the train speeds are high, curve radii depend on train speeds.


----------



## nagara373 (Nov 9, 2010)

K_ said:


> Why is this "necessary"? This is a crazy idea.
> 
> 
> 
> It's not the gauge that determines success. There are quite a few very successful narrow gauge network. Have a look in Japan...


Most of the narrow gauge rail networks are eventually killed by cars (road traffic), but suburban narrow gauge networks are successful.



Suburbanist said:


> I don't see a point of converting freight railways in US to broad gauge.
> 
> However, I wish they had built the European high-speed network in a special gauge (like 2000mm) so that, in the future, high-performing tilting trains could be used to surpass the speed limits constrained by curve radii.
> 
> It would be cool to have a train zipping from Paris to Berlin at 420km/h, for instance.


Rail networks in USA and Canada should be converted from 1435mm to 1676mm and enlarging loading gauge and stretching some routes.



Think said:


> Spain has made the opposite than you proposed, conventional rail has 1.668 mm and high speed rail has 1.435 mm. This is due to conect high speed rail with french network.
> 
> I'm not sure that a really big gauge is a real adventage. We should look for any study or something who talk about that. From metric gauge to ~1.5 meters gauge the difference is there, but I have my doubts in higher gauges. The lateral aceleration over the flange reduces in a geometric progresion, and you're getting maximum speeds that are limited by other systems and no by the wheel-rail interaction.
> 
> Also, the train's gravity center could be situated still nearer the track and active suspension isn't used in high speed yet to reach speeds that we still don't know in high speed current gauges.


Most of the high-speed trainsets have smaller (narrower and lower) loading gauges.



stingstingsting said:


> 2134mm sounds preposterous.
> 
> And anyhow, the Tokaido Shinkansen is in itself quite circuitous for a high speed rail line. Imagine how much more right-of-way would need to be purchased just for your suggestion? Correct me if I am wrong but standard gauge was chosen so that they could fit the 2by3 seating arrangement that would quite greatly increase the capacity of train sets.
> 
> ...


French TGVs have less seat pitches than Shinkansen.

Proposal for USA and Canada:
*Track gauge: 1676mm (5ft6in)
*Electrification: 25kV 60Hz AC overhead lines (25kV 50Hz AC overhead lines for west of Fairbanks)
*Loading gauge: 3660mm wide and 6150mm high (5300mm high for passenger)
*Platform height: 200mm above rail
*Sleeper type: Concrete
*Minimum platform length: 914m
*Optimum platform length: 1067m or longer

Proposal for Spain:
*Track gauge: 1435mm (4ft8.5in)
*Platform height: 760mm or higher
*Sleeper type: Concrete


----------



## loefet (Dec 30, 2008)

nagara373 said:


> Maclevs have a lot of disadvantages. Very ezpensive, incompatible, and small capacity.


Incompatible to standard rail is true, but somehow it would still work, look at Japan. Standard rail network and Shinkansen Network don't match, they are completely separated. 

Expensive, yes, but not more than any other high speed line. Maglev also have a less financial risk of going over budget due to you have a better system that could allow you to go around/over problems instead of through them. And with the benefit of lower maintenance costs of the system compared to normal rail then you it will only save you money in the long run.

Small capacity?? Don't think so, among us who are pro Maglev here in Sweden are sure that a single track line with meeting stations between Stockholm and Gothenburg easily can replace the Intercity, Air and some of the car/bus passengers with it's capacity.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Must the following be the gauge of maglev you have in mind? 





mute! :wallbash:


----------



## nagara373 (Nov 9, 2010)

trainrover said:


> Must the following be the gauge of maglev you have in mind?


Track system
Track gauge (conventional rail)
Loading gauge
Structure gauge
Curve radii


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

loefet said:


> Incompatible to standard rail is true, but somehow it would still work, look at Japan. Standard rail network and Shinkansen Network don't match, they are completely separated.


Sure, but in the case of Japan they didn't have a choice. If the conventional railway network would have used a gauge that would allow high speed operations the Shinkansen would have been built to that gauge also. 

And you are forgetting one thing: You can mix different railway gauges in the same right of way. You will see examples of that everywhere that several railway gauges co-exist.
But you can't mix maglev and conventional rail in the same right of way.

In Japan there are several "mini Shinkansen" routes, where existing narrow gauge routes were either converted to standard or mixed gauge to allow through running from the Shinkansen network.


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

K_ said:


> And you are forgetting one thing: You can mix different railway gauges in the same right of way. You will see examples of that everywhere that several railway gauges co-exist.
> But you can't mix maglev and conventional rail in the same right of way.


It might be dangerous to do so in high-speed tracks, especially concerning switches if no speed reduction happens. 

You can have 200 km/h switches, but never on a dual-gauge railway.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Suburbanist said:


> It might be dangerous to do so in high-speed tracks, especially concerning switches if no speed reduction happens.
> 
> You can have 200 km/h switches, but never on a dual-gauge railway.


AFAIK Japan doesn't have dual-gauge high speed railways. For mini-shinkansen operation they will usually just regauge a line, bu use it at more or less conventional speeds. Dual guage is only build where conventional locals need to share the same right of way, it is not widespread. 
The purpose is only to offer a single seat ride.


----------



## Think (Dec 30, 2007)

Suburbanist said:


> It might be dangerous to do so in high-speed tracks, especially concerning switches if no speed reduction happens.
> 
> You can have 200 km/h switches, but never on a dual-gauge railway.


Current switches for dual-gauge lines in Spain have the same requeriments than the normal ones. They only serve one gauge so the're the same than any other high speed switch. You could see here that the switch only affects one gauge (in this case, broad gauge, and note that this is not a high speed one):









Wikipedia

The problem is that the swith have to be to the left for one gauge and to the rigth for the other gauge in all the line. In the case of the photo above all the switches for the narrower should be to the right.

It exists a system to change the side of the rails to permit that one gauge could have switches to both sides, it's this system who requires speed limitations. But if you build the lines with all the switches to the same side this problem does not exist and the're not special speed limitations. If you use the system the speed limitations only affects one of the two gauges.

They exist a lot of other problems with dual-gauge explotation. Also they could be the trains who are dual-gauge instead of the tracks.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

,(stemming from this video)


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Think said:


> The problem is that the swith have to be to the left for one gauge and to the rigth for the other gauge in all the line. In the case of the photo above all the switches for the narrower should be to the right.


You can have switches to both sides without a problem. See this example:










However, such complicated point work would be unacceptable in high speed lines.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

K_ said:


> You can have switches to both sides without a problem. See this example:


It depends on the gauges. You can do that if the difference between them is enough (like 1435 - 1000 = 435 mm like in this example), but it's impossible if the difference is thinner (1668 - 1435 = 229 mm).


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Coccodrillo said:


> It depends on the gauges. You can do that if the difference between them is enough (like 1435 - 1000 = 435 mm like in this example), but it's impossible if the difference is thinner (1668 - 1435 = 229 mm).


But you can have the smaller gauge "change sides". At least that's what I've seen in Australia, where they also have a lot of experience with multiple gauge issues. (But for some reason never got the idea to buy Talgos...)


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

And then if you have such an insidiously small difference between gauges such as with 1435 mm in central and western Europe, China and North America v. 1520 mm in the former Soviet Union (85 mm difference), the 'three rail' dual gauge track itself (as shown in above posts) is impossible, making things much more expensive and problematic. Short of regauging one or the other, you'll need either four-rail track or two separate grades.

Mike


----------



## nagara373 (Nov 9, 2010)

mgk920 said:


> And then if you have such an insidiously small difference between gauges such as with 1435 mm in central and western Europe, China and North America v. 1520 mm in the former Soviet Union (85 mm difference), the 'three rail' dual gauge track itself (as shown in above posts) is impossible, making things much more expensive and problematic. Short of regauging one or the other, you'll need either four-rail track or two separate grades.
> 
> Mike


For North America, USA and Canada should be converted from 1435mm to 1676mm, and Mexico should retain 1435mm.

Proposed break of gauge 1520mm/1676mm (toward North America):
*Norilsk (Russia)
*Yakutsk (Russia)
*Okhotsk (Russia)
Proposed break of gauge 1676mm/1435mm (in North America):
*USA/Mexico border

Impossible 3-rail dual gauge:
*between 1435mm and 1520mm (85mm difference)
*between 1520mm and 1676mm (156mm difference)


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

nagara373 said:


> For North America, USA and Canada should be converted from 1435mm to 1676mm, and Mexico should retain 1435mm.


Why? Apart from making a few construction companies rich what would this bring?


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

mgk920 said:


> And then if you have such an insidiously small difference between gauges such as with 1435 mm in central and western Europe, China and North America v. 1520 mm in the former Soviet Union (85 mm difference), the 'three rail' dual gauge track itself (as shown in above posts) is impossible, making things much more expensive and problematic. Short of regauging one or the other, you'll need either four-rail track or two separate grades.


That is true. Which means that regauging Russia to standard gauge is never going to happen, as unlike with Spain it's not possible to have mixed lines during the transition.
Interestingly there are plans to build a Russian gauge line all the way to Bratislava (to connect with the Danube). However, I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to just fit lots of railcars with variable axle gauges. A version that can be retrofitted to existing stock exists.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Some interesting news from Switzerland:
From 2016 onwards trains will run through from Montreux to Interlaken Ost. To be able to do this they will need to change from metre gauge to standard gauge. For this a variable gauge bogie has been developed, which will be retrofitted to existing MOB stock.

More info, including video simulations on how this is going to work are here:
http://www.goldenpass.ch/transgoldenpass_projet_en


----------



## XAN_ (Jan 13, 2011)

K_ said:


> That is true. Which means that regauging Russia to standard gauge is never going to happen, as unlike with Spain it's not possible to have mixed lines during the transition.
> Interestingly there are plans to build a Russian gauge line all the way to Bratislava (to connect with the Danube). However, I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to just fit lots of railcars with variable axle gauges. A version that can be retrofitted to existing stock exists.


Variable gauge a too costly for freight service.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

XAN_ said:


> Variable gauge a too costly for freight service.


Some railway operators seem to disagree with you...


----------



## XAN_ (Jan 13, 2011)

K_ said:


> Some railway operators seem to disagree with you...


Link?


----------



## Think (Dec 30, 2007)

Renfe operates dual-gauge freight services between Barcelonas's port and the Frech border.

For the operator it doesn't exit more cost in a dual-gauge operation, all the extra-costs are for the infraestructure owner.

For the owner the cost are so high, yes, but sometimes (only sometimes) it works if it is the only way to acces another railway network.


----------



## XAN_ (Jan 13, 2011)

Think said:


> Renfe operates dual-gauge freight services between Barcelonas's port and the Frech border.
> 
> For the operator it doesn't exit more cost in a dual-gauge operation, all the extra-costs are for the infraestructure owner.
> 
> For the owner the cost are so high, yes, but sometimes (only sometimes) it works if it is the only way to acces another railway network.


But do they do it with transshipment from one railway car to another, or with variable-gauge bogies? Because I discussed the second option with K_, he stated that variable gauge bogies is "easier" than classic transshipment. I doubted that - variable gauge bogies are costly (both in terms of manufacturing and maintenance) even for passenger traffic (but not tragicaly), but for freight service the price is next to unbearable.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

There are three types of services:
1) standard gauge trains from Barcelona to the European 1435 mm network (partly on a dual gauge line, partly on a new standard gauge line)
2) boogie or axle change like between 1435 and 1520
3) transshipment

See also (from north-west to south-east, the second line has lost its freight services some time ago):

http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/stations_hendaye-irun.php
http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/stations_latour-de-carol.php
http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/stations_cerbere.php

The hope is to convert all 1668 mm gauge lines to standard gauge. Most of Spanish (and Portuguese) broad gauge lines have a very low traffic (less than ~20 trains a day, a few more on double track lines) so it should not be a problem.


----------



## elianzoom (Aug 24, 2011)

In the long term the solution in Spain will be the chage to Standard gauge, I really doubt it for Russia, India or South-East Asia, Spain has a mixed Standard ( High Speed- Mixed ) gauge and the iberian gauge, so the change is plausible, the solutión for these countries is a new cheap design of avariable gauge 1520-1435 mm bogie, that could be fitted in the most part of vagons existing today. There is an example,the cargo link between, Spain and Europe is carried out in a big part by Tranfesa, they work for the bigest car makers in Spain, Ford, Renault, GM Opel and Citröen, and a lot of chemical and minning firms. Here is the link: http://www.transfesa.es/en_tranporteFerroviario.htm


----------



## Think (Dec 30, 2007)

XAN_ said:


> But do they do it with transshipment from one railway car to another, or with variable-gauge bogies? Because I discussed the second option with K_, he stated that variable gauge bogies is "easier" than classic transshipment. I doubted that - variable gauge bogies are costly (both in terms of manufacturing and maintenance) even for passenger traffic (but not tragicaly), but for freight service the price is next to unbearable.


Sorry, they operate freight trains of both gauge in the same line but with a three rail track. That's why I said that the cost for the operator aren't higher.

Freight variable bogies has been tested by Renfe but not comercially used.

Also (and it's widely used) it exits the axels changing, that is a half-way solution.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

elianzoom said:


> ... the solutión for these countries is a new cheap design of avariable gauge 1520-1435 mm bogie, that could be fitted in the most part of vagons existing today.


Such a bogie exists with the SUW-2000 system, and the compatible DB Rafil system. PKP did some tests with the SUW-2000 system and according to this document:
http://www.sirts.pl/images/pliki/08_UIC_Kanclerz.pdf
The costs of operating guage changing freight trains would be lower than with transhipments.

So the railway operators do seem to be interested in going this route.


----------



## elianzoom (Aug 24, 2011)

Yes but I´m referring to a more standar and cheaper one, develope and produce in mass scale by many countries, a single SUW 2000 bogie cost 115,000 Lt ($42,000), so this must be reduced. In pasanger traffics,Talgo has signed an agreement to develope a train to link Moscow with Berlin- Paris cutting down the duration of the trip significantly. There are technology for this in passangers traffic, but for the break of gauge in China-Kazhagistan line , or China-Russia line, there must be something as I said produced in mass scale and quite cheap to be plausible.


----------



## sotavento (May 12, 2005)

Coccodrillo said:


> There are three types of services:
> 1) standard gauge trains from Barcelona to the European 1435 mm network (partly on a dual gauge line, partly on a new standard gauge line)
> 2) boogie or axle change like between 1435 and 1520
> 3) transshipment
> ...


:nuts:


Most of the OPEN portuguese lines have way over 20 tpd. :dunno:

In fact they are some of the most heavilly used single track routes in europe.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

I didn't know about Portugal, but for example the Madrid-Avila-Burgos-France line usually has less than 80 tpd, which could be handled even with one track converted to standard gauge.

I think that converting all railways to standard gauge (maybe except Cercanías/suburban railways) should be the first priority for Spanish and Portuguese railways.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Why? Do you think the Japanese lines ought to be converted too?


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Japan is an island, while Spain and Portugal are linked with the rest of Europe by land. In addition a lot of Spanish railways are quite empty, so closing them to allow regauging would not cause problems to passenger and freight traffic (as there isn't that much).


----------



## thun (Aug 8, 2007)

True, but I guess there isn't that much rail freight traffic between Spain, Portugal and the rest of Europe to justify full conversion. Probably it would be enought to build mixed gauge rails in Catalonia and the Basque Country to cover a very large share of the interregional rail cargo.


----------



## Think (Dec 30, 2007)

^^But the problem is: There isn't enough traffic to justify full converstion, or there isn't enough because 'cause it doesn't exist full conversion?

Also the international gauge network is so extensive in Spain and in the more frecuented lines, so the problem nowadays with the gauge is less for the border crossing than for the spanish internal routes.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

I thought I'd watched an example (as opposed to a prototype) filmed some months ago :dunno: :-


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

hammersklavier said:


> How exactly does a railroad keep business out? hno: _Any_ mode of transportation is going to bring business _in_ to such a remote area.


How? It's easy to buy yourself a vehicle whereas buying a train isn't ... Manitoba's floodplain wilderness risks being swamped by people were its highway network expanded a lot.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)




----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)




----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Anyhow, I thought I'd watched east Asian examples, not Iberian ones :dunno:


----------



## Alseimik (Aug 30, 2010)

Holy crap that's awsome. The fact that it probably is so safe that passengers can be inside and this is a fairly simple process, which doesn't even require the train to stop, certainly speaks for this technology potential! Never thought of that.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

The technology is ok, but still expensive. I have read that a couple of variable gauge bogies (the SUW2000 for 1435-1520 mm networks) alone costs like a wagon with fixed gauge bogies. Regauging Spanish and Portugal remains the best option.


----------



## NiGhtPiSH (May 14, 2009)

In Bulgaria we have a break-of-gauge facility in Varna-Feribotna (Varna Ferryboat Station) which serves two lines across the Black Sea between Varna and Odessa (Ukraine) and Varna - Sochi (Russia). Last year alone the Varna-Sochi line transported more than 50 000 tonnes of goods in both directions and is by far the best economic connection between the two countries. 

The facility was also used (and will be) for the delivery of the 81.741 Metrovagonmash trains used in the Sofia Metro, which receive their 1435 mm bogies in this faicilty.


----------



## MarcVD (Dec 1, 2008)

Alseimik said:


> Holy crap that's awsome. The fact that it probably is so safe that passengers can be inside and this is a fairly simple process, which doesn't even require the train to stop, certainly speaks for this technology potential! Never thought of that.


The first guauge change installations like that existed for many years already
at the french-spanish border (Irun and Port-Bou). Now there are much more
scattered all over Spain, where normal and borad gauge meet. However, you
must realize that during this process, the whole wheight of the rail vehicle
rests on friction shoes, not on the wheels anymore. So :

- most videos shown above present the transition in a quite accelerated
way. It's much slower than that in reality. Friction moves would never allow
such a speed...

- Friction is OK with super-light vehicles like those shown on the pictures.
But I doubt very much the feasability with freight vehicles, fully loaded,
not tightly coupled together. What would be the added maintenance
cost of this ?

But indeed, yes, all over Spain, this takes place several times per day,
and the passengers always remain in the train.


----------



## Vaud (Sep 16, 2011)

^^ well, locomotives too change their gauge so weight is definitely not a problem. As for the videos, they do really move at that speed, they're not accelerated in any sort of way, maybe from the point of view of a passanger it might seem slower.


----------



## Think (Dec 30, 2007)

Spanish gauge changing systems can be passed without stopping at maximun 15 km/h (9 mph), what is not a low speed at all for a maneuver like that.

They usually do it slowly because they have more time scheduled to pass to avoid any retard in case of a problem (i. e. ice on the wheels). If they pass it at 15 km/h they will reach the next station before the scheduled hour.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

MarcVD said:


> most videos shown above present the transition in a quite accelerated
> way. It's much slower than that in reality. Friction moves would never allow
> such a speed...


I disagree, none of the videos is sped up ... maybe some lubricant's infused into that lubricating water ... besides, Talgos are lightweight. I suspect the different train speeds in that Sistema Brava one reflect that developer's own enhancements devised into the technology.


----------



## Think (Dec 30, 2007)

It's only water, but the liftting rail is made of teflon.

I think both Brava and Talgo systems have the same maximum speed.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Isn't teflon softer than metal, such that it'd be pounded out of shape by metal?


----------



## Think (Dec 30, 2007)

I made a search and I found some things but they're only rumors:

- "People" says that the BRAVA system permits really higher speeds than the Talgo system. I don't know, but they are scheduled the same passing time and the speed limitation at a changing facility is 15 km/h for both. Some sources says that the operation speed limit for the BRAVA system could reach 30 km/h (18 mph).

- I read somewhere than the teflon rail has to be substituted so frecuently when heavy cars are used (as locomotives).

Anyway BRAVA and Talgo systems are made for passenger trains, they exits other systems than have been specifically designed for freight trains.


----------



## jovibo (Jul 18, 2008)

You can see a map of Spain showing the gauge changers which are in use (yellow dots). They serve to join standard-gauge high speed lines with iberian-gauge lines.

For example, the time of going from Alicante to Madrid has been reduced approximately half an hour by using the high speed line between Albacete-Madrid and the normal iberian one between Alicante and Albacete.










(High speed lines without variable gauge services are not displayed). Made by/Credits to: HrAd.


A pdf file (in Spanish) with exhaustive information about gauge changers in Spain (http://www.vialibre-ffe.com/pdf/Cambio_ancho_de_vía.pdf).


----------



## FMTuc (Jun 5, 2010)

Hi! Maybe you can help me guys. I need drawings and tables of different clearances and loading gauges in use now all around the world. In particular for 1000, 1435 and 1676 mm gauges. If anyone have this info post it here or send me a private message...
Sorry for my english, I don't use it often. Thanks!


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

Need?


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

This gives some European loading gauges: http://www.railway-technical.com/berne.shtml (for standard gauge lines)

Railways of narrow or broad gauge in Europe usually have custom loading gauges, so it's difficult to have informations.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

1'40": 2nd train featured is indeed mixed guage ​


----------



## mgk920 (Apr 21, 2007)

trainrover said:


> 1'40": 2nd train featured is indeed mixed guage ​


What percentage of Australia's railroad network, would you say, is still not 'standard' (1435 mm) gauge?

Mike


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

I've no idea ... if putting your question out on the Australia thread, I suggest trying to remind forummers there that Queesland supposedly has (quote) "extensive sugar cane tramways of 2ft (610mm) guage"


----------



## Dakkus (May 12, 2005)

Coccodrillo said:


> The technology is ok, but still expensive. I have read that a couple of variable gauge bogies (the SUW2000 for 1435-1520 mm networks) alone costs like a wagon with fixed gauge bogies. Regauging Spanish and Portugal remains the best option.


A single-gauge bogie costs 10000 to 15000 € (I spent half a day googling for prices of Russian cargo wagon bogies in order to find a realistic figure), whereas a SUW2000 bogie costs around 30000 €. There being two bogies per wagon, the extra cost is some 30000-40000 € per wagon. According to some quick googling, a wagon seems to cost between 1 and 2 million €. If we take the highest extra cost for using SUW2000 bogies (40000 €) and compare it with the price of the cheaper end of the railway wagons (1000000 €), we come to the conclusion that using SUW2000 bogies instead of traditional bogies increases the price of a wagon by 4%. Because I used the least favourable prices, the real price increase is probably slightly lower.
(If we assume the "nicer" ends of the price ranges, we come up with a price increase of 1.5%)

I'd say increasing the costs of each wagon by 4% is very likely to make more sense than constructing large batches of dual-gauge railway.
The price range of SUW2000 gauge changing facilities are in tens of thousands of euros, that is, less than 100 000 € / less than one tenth of the price of a single wagon. Therefore, the price of a couple of such facilities here and there shouldn't be a problem either.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

A freight wagon certainly doesn't cost 1 to 2 millions. It should be in the range of 50.000 to 200.000 maximum.


----------



## Vaud (Sep 16, 2011)

I've also heard variable gauge freight wagons are heavier, therefore they're not just more expensive, but you can make less money from them. I'd need to find the data though.


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

Dakkus said:


> According to some quick googling, a wagon seems to cost between 1 and 2 million €. If we take the highest extra cost for using SUW2000 bogies (40000 €) and compare it with the price of the cheaper end of the railway wagons (1000000 €), we come to the conclusion that using SUW2000 bogies instead of traditional bogies increases the price of a wagon by 4%. Because I used the least favourable prices, the real price increase is probably slightly lower.
> (If we assume the "nicer" ends of the price ranges, we come up with a price increase of 1.5%)


1-2 million Euros is what you will pay for a passenger car. Freight cars are a lot cheaper. 
What I've found out is that basically using SUW2000 on freight cars is viable, but it depends on the freight volume...


----------



## Hybrid 87 (Aug 3, 2004)

Don't know if it was already posted (too lazy to read every single post ), but here is a legend (or a joke) about why russians used 1520mm from the begining:



> In the early years of railways an russian czar advisor comes to the czar.
> - The western nations have developed a new means of transport - Railways. Do you think we should also use this technology?
> - Yes, of course. We are as good as any nation, and even better. - Replied the czar.
> - But since we are better maybe we should make some modification to it, for example different gauge?
> ...


----------



## K_ (Jan 5, 2010)

trainrover said:


> 1'40": 2nd train featured is indeed mixed guage ​


Were gauge changing trains ever considered in Australia? I would have thought that for the few Sydney - Melbourne trains a variable gauge train would have been more economical than building a second standard gauge track next to the existing broad gauge line...


----------



## Suburbanist (Dec 25, 2009)

K_ said:


> Were gauge changing trains ever considered in Australia? I would have thought that for the few Sydney - Melbourne trains a variable gauge train would have been more economical than building a second standard gauge track next to the existing broad gauge line...


On the long-term, it makes all sense to have unified gauge in an ISLAND.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

I'm still under the impression that that video I shared represents an (Australian) instance of migrating over to standard guage ... again, how about lobbing such a query on the Australia Railways thread, which would otherwise risk becoming dormant a full five months two days from now?


----------



## horlick97 (Oct 7, 2010)

Even though the world is gravitating towards the standard gauge, some developments in the metre gauge sector is worth noticing, namely at the Malaysian metre railway where they have achieve 160km/hr (ETS) and 140km/hr (Zuzhou). 

Though compared with HSR, these speeds are nothing. But, for a lot of countries, including a lot of standard gauge routes even in developed countries, these speeds are all that is needed.

This is especially so for freight traffic. 

The point here is: 

For many smaller countries especially those that are based on metre or cape gauge, they may not feel compelled to do a massive conversion to standard guage. They can still evaluate and develop HSR for specific high value/volume passenger corridors only. 

But, within metre gauge, the improvement they should do is double tracking, and using more modern trainsets that will allow them to reach 140km/hr to 160km/hr. 

I can see the approach used in Japan and Taiwan is reflective of this strategy. Similarly, South East Asia comprising M'sia, Thailand, Laos, Cambodia, Vietnam and Myanmar which are largely metre gauge based should also adopt similar strategy. 

Furthermore, metre/cape gauge will have their strength for metros and LRT. They will be better with tighter turning radius. Their lower speed (generally < 80km/hr) is also well within the comfort and safety range for metre gauge, without requiring standard gauge.


----------



## Wilhem275 (Apr 7, 2006)

horlick97 said:


> Though compared with HSR, these speeds are nothing. But, for a lot of countries, including a lot of standard gauge routes even in developed countries, these speeds are all that is needed.
> 
> This is especially so for freight traffic.


I completely agree. The introduction of HSR in Western European countries has led many people to believe that anything under 250 km/h is a mule drawn carriage... while what is mostly needed is more capacity and not more speed. Not to mention the huge cost difference between building a 300 vs. a 160/200 km/h railway.


----------



## makita09 (Sep 8, 2009)

The cost difference is not nearly as huge as most people imagine. The expensive bits are the bridges, and the amount of roads, railways, rivers, canals and other obstacles that need to be bridged are pretty much the same whatever the design speed of the railway. Using slightly more ballast, slightly heavier rails, etc etc for high speed are marginal costs (though not insignificant) compared to the basics of land, construction and obstacles.


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

makita09 said:


> The cost difference is not nearly as huge as most people imagine. The expensive bits are the bridges, and the amount of roads, railways, rivers, canals and other obstacles that need to be bridged are pretty much the same whatever the design speed of the railway. Using slightly more ballast, slightly heavier rails, etc etc for high speed are marginal costs (though not insignificant) compared to the basics of land, construction and obstacles.


Speed does matter. A lot. Lower the speed, and you lower the curve radii.

Which means that you can get around obstacles like hills, valleys, houses etc. You can avoid a lot of tunnels, cuttings and bridges, and in case of small rivers and canals make do with small bridges just above water, not long viaducts high above valley. 

And at lower speeds, you can avoid bridges over roads by accepting level crossing. And omitting fences.

All of which cause large savings.


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

​


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)




----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

15-incher :naughty:​


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

15-incher takes on the military plus Laurel and Hardy​


----------



## Geography (May 17, 2010)

What are the advantages and disadvantages of broad gauge? On vehicles, wider is better in terms of stability. It lowers the center of gravity and allows tighter turns without tipping over. Is the same true with trains?


----------



## XAN_ (Jan 13, 2011)

Geography said:


> What are the advantages and disadvantages of broad gauge? On vehicles, wider is better in terms of stability. It lowers the center of gravity and allows tighter turns without tipping over. Is the same true with trains?


Yes, broader gauge usualy results in higher speeds and greater loads, but the cost of construction grows too.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Speed and loads are not directly related to gauge: American trains on 1435 mm are much more heavier than 1668 mm Spanish trains.

So the broad gauge networks in Eurasia might have some theoretical advantage, but not having a standard is a great problem along the gauge border. I wish 1524 mm lines were built standard gauge, back in the XIX century...

(or the other way round, 1435 mm gauge lines built as broad gauge)


----------



## chornedsnorkack (Mar 13, 2009)

Coccodrillo said:


> Speed and loads are not directly related to gauge: American trains on 1435 mm are much more heavier than 1668 mm Spanish trains.
> 
> So the broad gauge networks in Eurasia might have some theoretical advantage, but not having a standard is a great problem along the gauge border. I wish 1524 mm lines were built standard gauge, back in the XIX century...
> 
> (or the other way round, 1435 mm gauge lines built as broad gauge)


Back in 1840-s, it was widely agreed that 1435 mm was too narrow and Great Britain stuck to it in 1846 only because there was too much of it completed to undertake regauging.

What was not agreed, though, was how wide was wide enough. Dixieland and Russia picked 1524 mm. Ireland 1600 mm. Canada, Spain and India 1676 mm.


----------



## Frank IBC (Jan 14, 2008)

chornedsnorkack said:


> Canada, Spain and India 1676 mm.


Close but not exactly the same. Iberian gauge is 1,668 mm. Spanish gauge was originally 1,672 mm, equal to 6 Castillian feet. Portuguese gauge was 1,664 mm, equal to 5 Portuguese feet. The Iberian gauge was adopted in 1955, splitting the difference between the two.

/pedant


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)




----------



## johanrocky (Sep 25, 2012)

how to create railway track and train cabin....:bash:


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

Frank IBC said:


> Close but not exactly the same. Iberian gauge is 1,668 mm. *Spanish gauge was originally 1,672 mm, equal to 6 Castillian feet.* Portuguese gauge was 1,664 mm, equal to 5 Portuguese feet. The Iberian gauge was adopted in 1955, splitting the difference between the two.
> 
> /pedant


Only on paper, in realty the railways were built by engineers from Great Britain and they didn't use spanish units of measure, instead they used the closest possible imperial units of meassure so the railways were built to 1674 mm (five feet 6 inches). Barcelona metro line 1 (originally a railway line) still has this gauge.


----------



## Frank IBC (Jan 14, 2008)

The Barcelona Metro Line 1 was built at 1,672 mm, though now is officially 1,668 mm.

There is no mention of Spain's or Portuguese earliest rail lines being built at 1,674 mm gauge or of British involvement in setting the gauges. The Spanish government decided on their broad gauge as a means to hinder a potential invasion from France (the Napoleonic Wars were only four decades in the past).

A Spanish _pie_ (foot) was 278.6 mm.


----------



## Frank IBC (Jan 14, 2008)

OK, a day later I feel rather silly about arguing over a 4 mm difference in gauge nomenclature.


----------



## gincan (Feb 1, 2006)

Frank IBC said:


> The Barcelona Metro Line 1 was built at 1,672 mm, though now is officially 1,668 mm.
> 
> There is no mention of Spain's or Portuguese earliest rail lines being built at 1,674 mm gauge or of British involvement in setting the gauges. The Spanish government decided on their broad gauge as a means to hinder a potential invasion from France (the Napoleonic Wars were only four decades in the past).
> 
> A Spanish _pie_ (foot) was 278.6 mm.


You got it all wrong, the reason they built the gauge wider than in France was because the technical knowledge at the time was limited. On the assumtion that a wider boiler would generate more power for the trains to negotiate steeper grades, they choosed a wider gauge. The reality though is that the length of the boiler is the determing factor, something they at that moment didn't know. This is all supported by historical documents which also mention the reason why they used 1674 rather than 1672.

You can read all this in a book called *El ancho de la vía en los ferrocarriles españoles* by Jesús Moreno Fernández where he explains in detail the things I've mentioned above.

The French invasion hyptesis is not supported by any historical documents, in fact it's most likely a factoid. And yes, the gauge in Barcelona metro line 1 is still 1674 mm.

If you do read spanish you can also check out this document from 1844 where the government appointed commision of engineers argue about railway gauges for Spain.

http://www.grijalvo.com/Subercase/Informe_Subercase_modernizado.htm


----------



## FMTuc (Jun 5, 2010)

Structure gauge in Argentinean railways:

*1000 mm Gauge:*









*1435 mm Gauge:*









*1676 mm Gauge:*


----------



## trainrover (May 6, 2006)

trainrover said:


>


----------



## tjejojyj (Aug 1, 2014)

Svartmetall said:


> Australia isn't necessarily standard gauge either.
> 
> Queensland and Western Australia and Tasmania - Narrow gauge (1067mm) for the most part (with interstate services being standard gauge and duel gauge tracks).
> 
> ...


If you want an explanation of the history of the Australian gauge muddle both of these are excellent (the first is basically a shorter version of the latter)

John Ayres Mills (2010): Australia's mixed gauge railway system: a reassessment of its origins.
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Austr...m:+a+reassessment+of+its+origins.-a0228508618

John Ayres Mills (2006): The Myth of the Standard Gauge: Rail Gauge Choice in Australia, 1850-1901
http://www4.gu.edu.au:8080/adt-root/public/adt-QGU20070725.094633/index.html

One interesting aspect of the thesis is that track gauge was, in the 19th century, taken as an oversimplified and false proxy for railway construction and operation costs. Also that the problem of forthcoming break of gauge was well understood by some when the crucial decisions were being made in 1853, especially following the British Gauge Act of 1846 which prescribed 4'8&1/2" for new railways in England, Scotland and Wales AND 5'3" for railways in Ireland.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

*Spanish gauges*

An exhaustive list, in that I was exhausted, but incomplete of gauges in the world:

2.134 mm The world's largest wide so had the British company Great Western (1836/1892).
1.676 mm Argentina (parcial), Bangladesh, India (red principal), Pakistán y *TMB (línea 1: 1.674)*.
1.668 mm *Renfe *(antes 1.674 mm), Chile y Portugal (antes 1.665 mm, red principal).
1.600 mm Australia (Victoria y Meridional), Brasil e Irlanda.
1.520 mm Finlandia, Panamá, Polonia (Este) y la antigua URSS (antes 1.524).
1.445 mm *Metro de Madrid*.
1.435 mm *AVE*, *FGC (línea Cataluña)*, *TMB Metro de Barcelona* *(resto de líneas)*, Alemania, Austria, Australia (Nueva Gales del Sur y ANR), Canadá, China, Dinamarca, EE UU, Francia, Italia, Japón (Alta Velocidad), Méjico, Noruega, Polonia (principal), Reino Unido y Suecia.
1.214 mm *FC de Tharsis al Puerto de Huelva*.
1.067 mm *FC* *de Río Tinto*, Australia (Queensland y Occidental), Ecuador, Filipinas, Indonesia, Japón (convencional), Nueva Zelanda, Suráfrica (casi todo el África Subsahariana), Tasmania.
1.000 mm *Metro de Bilbao*, *FGC (línea Catalans)*, *EuskoTren*,* Cercedilla-Los Cotos*, *SF Mallorca*, *FEVE*, *Ponferrada-Villablino*, *FGV Valencia**,* África Oriental, Argentina, Brasil, Chile, India (red secundaria), Polonia (red secundaria), Portugal (red secundaria) y sudeste asiático.
914 mm *FC de Port Aventura,* *FS* *Mallorca-Sóller**,* Canadá (Yukon) y EE UU (red secundaria).
891 mm Suecia (Roslagsbanan).
750 mm *FC del Museo del Ferrocarril de Asturias (Gijón)*.
650 mm *HUNOSA*.
600 mm *Tren minero de Artikutza *(cerrado), *FC del Museu de les Mines de Cercs (Barcelona), *y *FC del Museo del Ferrocarril de Asturias (Gijón)*.

Of the one million one hundred thousand kilometers that make up the global network, 59% has a width of 1,435 mm, 21.2% is higher and 19.8% less.

....................................

The Castilian foot equivalent to 0.278635 m according to the Spanish Centre of Metrology, then 6 feet is 1.67181 m. Historians have always talked about 1.671 mm (or 1.67 m) because we must remember that in 1844 was not measured in millimeters but in feet, so measurements are approximate.
However, when the first railroad was built peninsula (not from Spain, who was the Garcín-Bejucal (Cuba), on 11/19/1837), the Barcelona-Mataró, the English builders adecuaron width to their units as for English-five feet six inch, resulting 1.674 mm, as it spread to other lines also built by British, staying as true width, which unofficial -since remained the 6ft Castilians in Spain.
In March 1955 the "Reducing game via" report, Department of Studies and Reconstruction of Renfe, where the need to reduce slack or "play via" between the flanges of the wheels and rails to be explained is published improve the rolling conditions. According to the report, in 1926 the Office of Rail Material Unification decided calar car wheels and automotive to 1,596 mm, and then the Directorate of Material Renfe set at 1,588 mm distance between arches locomotives; it was a play on the tab for cars 13 mm and 21 mm for locomotives. The editor considers excessive these games therefore proposes to unify a 7 mm for all vehicles, resulting superior to 1 mm to recently approved by the SNCF for the renovation of roads with concrete sleepers.
After that, you come to the conclusion that adopting the 1,668 mm gauge only exist a difference of 3 mm with Portuguese width (1,665 mm) and this measure would reduce the game via a 7 mm. This width is adopted in all renewals of track since concrete sleepers (first diblock and then monobloc) apply. However, the lines that has not been renewed since 1955 the track width remains of 1,674 mm; for other reasons, that remains the width of line 1 of the Barcelona Metro (TMB).

The 17/09/1853 Portugal had already begun construction of its first line, in the East: Lisbon-Carregado, which was inaugurated on 10/28/1856 width of 1,435 mm at the behest of the British builders. But the dealership went bankrupt, was awarded the line Marqués de Salamanca (yes, the Madrid neighborhood of the same name and founder of MZA), which created the Real Companhia dos Caminhos de Ferro Portugueses and did change the width to 5 Portuguese feet (1.665 mm) to join the Badajoz-Madrid route. As in the case of Spain, from 1955 was transformed by renovations to the current Iberian gauge of 1,668 mm.
....................................
An index of my comments on the widths and their changes, mainly in Spain, but also in Portugal, UK and USA (in Spanish).


----------



## prophecus1 (Jun 27, 2009)

The new chinese made ETS has reached a maximum speed of 176 km/h. This breaks previous record on Malaysian metre gauge train back in 2010 with speed of 160 km/h.



TWK90 said:


> *Metre-gauge intercity EMU reached 176 km/h on test run*
> 
> *China Radio International (CRI) news*
> 
> ...


My post in this thread:



prophecus1 said:


> Again the ETS of KTMB Malaysia. This train is undergoing test run. In this video, an engineer is seen announcing the speed of the train at 158, 159 and finally 160 km/h. I think this is the speed record of metre gauge in Malaysia, although far short of Australia's Queenway's rail at 210 km/h, but that train runs on cape gauge (1067 mm).
> 
> Note that there are speed limits at around 120 km/h due to the curves especially at Selangor part. At this part in this video (Sungkai - Tapah Road) the tracks are relatively straight.
> 
> ...


----------



## susanli (Sep 19, 2015)

What is the widest Gauge in the World?


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

The widest gauge is 9000 mm, used on the Krasnoyarsk ship transloader: http://www.e-river.ru/gallery/shipelevator/gal-01/

Excluding this and other special vehicles (like cranes), the widest gauge used on a conventional railway was 2140 mm on the GWR, but all lines have been converted to 1435 mm ebfore 1900: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Western_Railway

The widest gauge used today is 1676 mm used in the Indian subcontinent, on some lines in South America and in the Iberian peninsula (in this latter case it is slightly narrower, at 1668 mm).

List of gauges: http://www.parovoz.com/spravka/gauges-en.php


----------



## twentyfivetacos (Jun 11, 2011)

http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/image/2004 ARA MapPC.jpg

Map showing the different gauges used in Australia


----------



## twentyfivetacos (Jun 11, 2011)

Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch Railway*










*


----------



## Bulbous (Jun 27, 2008)

twentyfivetacos said:


> http://www.ara.net.au/UserFiles/image/2004 ARA MapPC.jpg
> 
> Map showing the different gauges used in Australia


Considering this comes from the ARA, I would have expected a better researched map. Just in Western Australia there are the following lines out of service:
- All lines south of Bunbury
- York to Bruce Rock
- Narrogin to Merredin (both lines)
- Merredin to Wyalkatchem
- Collie to the south, and also east of the Premier mine (which is east of town)
- Dongara to Eneabba
- Tambellup to Gnowangerup
- Katanning to Nyabing
- Mundijong to Jarradale

The following errors are also there:
- Line from Northam (through Toodyay) to Perth is dual gauge on the same (northern) alignment, not differing alignments as shown on the map
- New line from Morawa (Tilley) out to Karara not shown, built with dual gauge sleepers for future regauging
- Line from Geraldton to Morawa rebuilt with dual gauge sleepers for future regauging
- Both FMG and Roy Hill lines are missing in the north-west of the state

This is just the one state, never mind the rest of them.


----------



## Zaz965 (Jan 24, 2015)

this machine changes automatically the gauge repositioning the wheels


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

There are no China-Europe passenger trains, only one model and one render.

I do not think they put systems like the Spanish, the logical thing is to put a standard gauge track to Turkey, for example, for freight trains and perhaps some passengers trains.


----------



## Aokromes (Jan 5, 2005)

Gusiluz said:


> There are no China-Europe passenger trains, only one model and one render.
> 
> I do not think they put systems like the Spanish, the logical thing is to put a standard gauge track to Turkey, for example, for freight trains and perhaps some passengers trains.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Eastern_Railway


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Gusiluz said:


> ^^ The *OGI system for freight* only has a test gauge changer in La Gineta (Albacete), although it is planned to install a commercial one in Pajares (Asturias) in 2021.
> 
> The *CAF system* is only in Spain: 16 gauge changers (12 of them for commercial service).
> 
> ...


A system is also being developed for Montreux-Zweisimmen-Interlaken trains in Switzerland, I don't know if it is derived from one of the systems above, but I suppose it is new as it has to work on narrow gauge (1000 mm and 1435 mm) and as while changing gauge coaches are lifted up to match different platform heights. It is only for hauled passenger coaches, not locomotives nor freights.


----------



## Kpc21 (Oct 3, 2008)

Gusiluz said:


> There are no China-Europe passenger trains, only one model and one render.


But there are ones from China to Russia.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

^^ The one that takes 146 hours from Beijing to Moscow?
Well, if it still circulates and it's the same train from origin to destination, sure, it sure changes boogies.

But I thought we were talking about something more of the 21st century, or less of the XX 
When I was thinking of Europe, I thought of standard gauge, not Moscow.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

^^ The change of boogies is well known, it is done in a specific facility.


And if you prefer simpler, and manual, and much less known, there is this one from the Czech Republic :cheers:


And this one still more curious:


The history of Auto-Express in Spain is as old as that of the railway itself. The first line of carriage transport on trains was Madrid-Zaragoza. On June 3, 1859, when the first of its stretches was put into service from Madrid until Guadalajara, the galleys and errands began to be transported in the same passenger trains. Once the trains arrived to Guadalajara, the passenger continued to travel to Zaragoza in those same vehicles to which the caballerias were hooked there.


----------



## Zaz965 (Jan 24, 2015)

i found out this map :banana:








https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2016/06/china-developing-faster-high-speed.html


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

^^ Yes thanks.
There is, comparatively speaking, too much distance between China and Iran where there is no standard gauge. The problem is that it is a very conflictive area.
This is intended to solve the Chinese project One belt, one road.


----------



## The Polwoman (Feb 21, 2016)

Afghanistan is the biggest struggle. If that land would be safe there would be a great opportunity to connect Europe and China via that way without gauge change. However, there are multiple things at the moment:

- Afghanistan is a total warzone and if a part isn't then it is still very unsafe
- Afghanistan is totally impoverished
- Again that country, it is likely too mountainous for any investor with the exception of China
- Women's freedom in two of the passing countries is too limited to make the connection attractive for foreigners. And other human issues will have to be solved and I'm not even considering China.
- If China does not prohibit you to take a certain book with you, then Iran will, or Turkey, or Afghanistan, or even intercept documents on your phone. No paranoia intended.

- Goods transport may also be subject to heavy restrictions because of some countries, take alcohol for example but it doesn't end with that. And transporters may be afraid to take any goods with them of which can be made military equipment or substances which can build up to a nuclear warhead or even power plant because of Iran. Nonetheless goods transport seems to have the best chances initially.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

*OGI gauge changer for freight wagons*

Gauge-changing freight axles under test. Railway Gazette. 


> SPAIN: The OGI gauge-changing axle for freight wagons, designed to operate on both 1 435 mm and 1 668 mm gauge, has completed Phase 1 of its testing programme, it was announced on November 7. Developed and manufactured by Azvi, Tria and OGI, the axle has now operated for 50 000 km on 1 668 mm gauge, with testing conducted on the Aranjuez — Cuenca and Alcázar de San Juan — La Encina sections of the ADIF network. Traction has been provided by Azvi subsidiary Tracción Rail.
> ...
> According to Azvi, OGI has also successfully completed over 800 gauge-changing cycles on an installation built by Azvi and Tria within the ADIF tracklaying base at La Gineta.
> 
> ...


Video and more info in this post.


----------



## Myrtonos (Jun 4, 2012)

And just how complicated can regauging a large network, tramway, light rail or heavy rail?

All track replacement on such networks is only done a little at a time. There are contingencies that must be made during works. For example, they may need to be equimpent (such as buses) to provide replacement service.

In order for regauging a large rail (or tram) network to be worth it, there needs to be a way of doing it a little at a time.

And this means dual gauge track. Even if the conversion is done line-by-line, there still needs to be dual gauge track just to store and maintain rolling stock and take things in and out of service.

But dual gauge track isn't always possible, especially between gauges differing by less than the width of the railhead. So converting to standard from a gauge differing that little is simply more complicated than it's worth.

Here in the Australian state of Victoria, we use the Irish railway gauge which is wider than standard by more that the rail width but still less than the width of the rail foot. Although three-rail dual gauge track is possible, two of the rails need to be narrow footed and broad gauge stock needs to be limited to a speed of 60km/h.


----------



## Kpc21 (Oct 3, 2008)

During the World War 1 some tracks in the current Polish lands were regauged very quickly, sometimes even multiple times.


----------



## Myrtonos (Jun 4, 2012)

How was it done in Poland at that time?


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

Change of gauge ALBACETE-ALMANSA, in Spain:

http://vimeo.com/60237799


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Toronto decided to build a new light rail line with 1435 mm, but all other urban lines (except a short metro line) are built with 1495 mm gauge. While vehicles for the new light rail will be cheaper, in the long term this is not a wise decision at all, 1495 mm would have been better.


----------



## WotaN (Jun 15, 2004)

Myrtonos said:


> How was it done in Poland at that time?


As far as I know, most of the work was intended to be temporary. Working on wooden sleepers and shifting one of the rails by some 9cm can be done quite easily, assuming enough workforce. Yet in most cases the speed of trains was limited to 40 or even 20 km/h. The true masterpiece was done in the same area right after WWI, where a national, consistent network was created within few years, starting from two different gauges and three different signalling systems (German, Austrian, Russian) with speeds up to 120 km/h.


----------



## Myrtonos (Jun 4, 2012)

Coccodrillo said:


> Toronto decided to build a new light rail line with 1435 mm, but all other urban lines (except a short metro line) are built with 1495 mm gauge. While vehicles for the new light rail will be cheaper, in the long term this is not a wise decision at all, 1495 mm would have been better.


Building that light rail standard gauge means conformity with a number of newer systems in Ontario, one of which includes track sharing with standard gauge trains.

The Toronto gauge differs from standard by about the width of the railhead and network with that gauge is large and interconnected, preculding any regauging project. See here.



WotaN said:


> As far as I know, most of the work was intended to be temporary. Working on wooden sleepers and shifting one of the rails by some 9cm can be done quite easily, assuming enough workforce. Yet in most cases the speed of trains was limited to 40 or even 20 km/h. The true masterpiece was done in the same area right after WWI, where a national, consistent network was created within few years, starting from two different gauges and three different signalling systems (German, Austrian, Russian) with speeds up to 120 km/h.


In that case the network would have had to be shut down while it was done.

Some European tramways networks have been converted to standard gauge from something narrower than standard by more than the width of the rail head.
For example, this was done in Suttgart and Chemitz. The way it was done in Stuttgart was with three-rail dual gauge track. The conversion was done line-by-line, each line having dual gauge track while the old trams and new light rail vehicles shared track.

This apparently doesn't work for converting between gauges differing by less than the width of the railheads. Does it work when converting between gauges differing by more than the width of the railheads but less than the rail foot?


----------



## Wilhem275 (Apr 7, 2006)

In Stuttgart you can even still see the metric rail in many places, even thought there are no more metric vehicles:

https://www.google.it/maps/@48.7736...CBRtz78KhRJuxocgNvWQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656?dcr=0

I guess it will stay there until they need to redo the trackbed.


----------



## Coccodrillo (Sep 30, 2005)

Part of the double track gauge, mostly along the southern section of line U15, will remain in place to allow running of museum tramways. Line U15, formerly known simply as 15, was the last metre gauge line in Stuttgart to be converted not only to standard gauge, but also to high floor vehicles with high platforms at every stop.



Myrtonos said:


> Building that light rail standard gauge means conformity with a number of newer systems in Ontario, one of which includes track sharing with standard gauge trains.


Where? The new LRT is more likely to get in touch with the streetcar lines (which might be upgraded to some LRT standards in the future) than with heavy rail (as tram-trains), IMHO.


----------



## Myrtonos (Jun 4, 2012)

Coccodrillo said:


> Part of the double track gauge, mostly along the southern section of line U15, will remain in place to allow running of museum tramways. Line U15, formerly known simply as 15, was the last metre gauge line in Stuttgart to be converted not only to standard gauge, but also to high floor vehicles with high platforms at every stop.


The metre gauge trams were or are also high floor. Stuttgart did not covert to high floor, only high platform loading.
I wonder how the locals feel about high platforms in their streets.

Stuttgart started the conversion before disability discrimination legislation.



Coccodrillo said:


> Where? The new LRT is more likely to get in touch with the streetcar lines (which might be upgraded to some LRT standards in the future) than with heavy rail (as tram-trains), IMHO.


One in Ontario (outside Toronto) includes a section shared by freight trains, with time separation.


----------



## Wilhem275 (Apr 7, 2006)

Myrtonos said:


> I wonder how the locals feel about high platforms in their streets.


I don't know how locals feel, but I think it's a great solution. Much better than the dumb trams we get with the low floor obsession.
The ride comfort is better due to proper bogies, there's lots of room on board instead of the awkward designs of low floor trams, and they're probably cheaper to build and maintain.
It also makes you feel much better protected from surrounding traffic, both on board and on the platforms.

The platforms are generally well integrated into their surroundings, the slope don't require a great deal of space:










I noticed that in some places they lowered the tracks instead of fully raising the platforms.


----------



## Kpc21 (Oct 3, 2008)

It's a good solution and also friendly to the people on wheelchairs. The only problem are the stops without platforms. They are not accessible for the disabled, and they make it necessary to have automatic stairs on the trams.


----------



## Myrtonos (Jun 4, 2012)

Kpc21 said:


> It's a good solution and also friendly to the people on wheelchairs. The only problem are the stops without platforms. They are not accessible for the disabled, and they make it necessary to have automatic stairs on the trams.


This is why low floor trams and buses were developed, to get level boarding in such locations.


----------



## Wilhem275 (Apr 7, 2006)

For a bus it makes sense*, but a tram implies an infrastructure gets built on purpose. A tram stop won't pop up on a random street side without large scale works taking place before.
The only downside of high floor trams is that stops will require a little bit more space on the ground, but it's something you have to do once in a lifetime. Done that, all the rest is everyday advantage under any aspect.

Even for existing networks, it's just more functional to raise the platforms than lower the vehicles. It's what several cities in North Rhine-Westphalen did, and with good success.


*although, for accessibility there's no need to have a fully low floor bus, 2/3 is enough. It just creates horrible powertrain and suspension architectures and steals A LOT of passenger space.


----------



## Kpc21 (Oct 3, 2008)

Wilhem275 said:


> For a bus it makes sense*, but a tram implies an infrastructure gets built on purpose. A tram stop won't pop up on a random street side without large scale works taking place before.


But still, the tram stops are more or less often, depending on the city, located like bus stops, on the sidewalk where there is some distance between the edge of the sidewalk and the tram. Reconstructing (or, practically, building from scratch) all the stops to get them adjusted to high-entrance trams would also be costly. And there would be a problem with the all trams still being in service, where on such stops the passengers would have to jump over the hole with the stairs.

In Karlsruhe, so not far away from Stuttgart, they have normal trams, which are low-floor, and tram-trains, which are, I would say, mid-floor. And to solve the problem of adjusting all those stuff to the passengers on wheelchairs, what they did is they built some stops in such a way that they consist of a low and a high part, one after another. The trams stop at the part with low platforms, the tram-trains at the part with high platforms. However, it's annoying for the normal passengers because it makes the whole stop quite long and it is a lot of walking for them.

And they also have stops on which you board the tram (or even the tram-train) directly from the sidewalk. Karlsruhe has no Street View because Germans are privacy freaks, but I can show an example from Łódź:










And then imagine you have more than 100 tram stops in the city. Some of them have such a form, which would also demand shifting the stop and rebuilding the roadway (it must be narrowed down - and you have the lobby of car drivers which are already angry about narrowing down the streets so that it's impossible to overtake a tram at the stop), some of them are at a track separated from the roadway (on one side of the street or between the roadways) - regardless of that, adjusting them is needed. In a short period. And existing trams will have big problems at them. Elongating the stops and dividing them into a part for old trams and for new high-entrance trams is often impossible due to lack of space. So what you would also have to do is installing folding stairs in the existing trams, which is also costly.

The folding stairs:






Here you can see a situation with a little bit of absurdity - folding stairs in a city which has no high platforms  Because those trams were bought second-hand from Bielefeld where they have high platforms (and low platforms in such a form as the one from the photo above too, so folding stairs are a must).


----------



## WotaN (Jun 15, 2004)

Kpc21 said:


> Reconstructing (or, practically, building from scratch) all the stops to get them adjusted to high-entrance trams would also be costly. And there would be a problem with the all trams still being in service, where on such stops the passengers would have to jump over the hole with the stairs.





Wilhelm275 said:


> Even for existing networks, it's just more functional to raise the platforms than lower the vehicles. It's what several cities in North Rhine-Westphalen did, and with good success.


I'm afraid you're both missing one important feature. Some streets, regardless if with existing or planned tram, are simply too narrow to introduce high platforms. In such case, platform must be integrated with sidewalk, taking in many cases its entire width. It is almost always possible to raise the sidewalk by some 10-20cm and create safe platform for low-floors, but raising it by 70 or 80cm simply cannot be done, because you are limited by the entrances to houses... I agree with most arguments for high floor vehicles, but they are simply not feasible in most cases.


----------



## Myrtonos (Jun 4, 2012)

You point out exactly why low floor vehicles were developed for street transit.


----------



## Wilhem275 (Apr 7, 2006)

That is true to some degree, there are places where fitting the platform would be a serious problem.
But today in Europe, and especially for new networks, designers don't think even for a minute if high floor is feasible or not.

Low floor was born as a sub-optimal compromise, a necessity in some cases. I don't blame those cases, but I just don't like that is has become the standard.
I don't like that a solution that is still superior under many relevant aspects is regarded as obsolete. It means it's a matter of fashion and not of engineering.

Most of the recent networks I've seen would have had no problems in fitting high platforms. And there's still the Stuttgart solution of lowering tracks, if the situation is really costrained.


----------



## Myrtonos (Jun 4, 2012)

Wilhem275 said:


> That is true to some degree, there are places where fitting the platform would be a serious problem.
> But today in Europe, and especially for new networks, designers don't think even for a minute if high floor is feasible or not.


If you look at any legacy system of considerable extent, there will always be places where fitting a platform higher than, say, 400mm will be a problem.
This is also the case on many new build street based systems. Designers also don't think about whether unidirectional running or an non-standard track gauge is feasible.



Wilhem275 said:


> Low floor was born as a sub-optimal compromise, a necessity in some cases. I don't blame those cases, but I just don't like that is has become the standard.
> I don't like that a solution that is still superior under many relevant aspects is regarded as obsolete. It means it's a matter of fashion and not of engineering.


Low floor is a necessity in most cases, especially with buses that stop right next to the kerb, and also with trams that stop in the middle of four lane roads.
Level boarding was common on off-street rail of many kinds even before commitment to the disabled and before the low floor revolution. That solution is not considered obsolete, for example, on heavy rail, only on light rail. I don't like it that much either.
It is definitely not a matter of engineering, it may be a market thing, like standard gauge.



Wilhem275 said:


> Most of the recent networks I've seen would have had no problems in fitting high platforms. And there's still the Stuttgart solution of lowering tracks, if the situation is really costrained.


There are a large number of legacy systems, especially in Europe and Commonwealth of Independent states. Most of these would have problems fitting high platforms. So this has lead to a large market for standardised low floor light rail rolling stock, it's similar with buses.
High platform light rail systems are less common, and so there is no longer much of a market for standardised high floor light rail rolling stock.
And I've seen a number of recent systems which do have street stops in quite narrow streets.

This may well encourage the use of low floor rolling stock even on systems where there are no such space constraints wherever there is a stop. They can share joint venture orders with systems that could not do high floor and borrow vehicles from or lease them to such systems.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

*Spanish OGI system for freight wagons*

Translation own from the text of specialized journal Vía Libre:


> The differentiating key of this gauge change is that the wheels slide on the axle and in each gauge the position is secured by a locking system. The solidary rotation of wheels and axle is achieved through a series of jointed bars between wheels and axle. During the change of gauge, central plates located in track interact with a pusher disc that activates the system of unlocked / uncorked, allowing the wheel can move on the axis itself to enter the claws in the grooves of the new gauge that is intended circular, remaining locked again with the cession of actuator pressure when leaving the gauge-changer.
> Regarding the gauge-changer (in La Gineta, Albacete), it is still a section of transition gauge track with rail and checkrail that, varying its gauge continuously, connects the two tracks of different gauge. It is characterized because it has no mechanical components of any kind, and is composed only of structural elements.
> In this way, the rail serves for the axes to circulate along the gauge-changer, the central plates move 40 millimeters the locking sleeve to unlock the claw sleeve and finally the counter-rails guide the wheels to execute the change of gauge.
> This changer differs from the existing ones, in that the wagon makes the change in gauge without the wheels leaving the contact with the rail and, therefore, the load of the wheels during the change is not released.
> As it does not contain any mechanism and is an extremely simple assembly, the OGI gauge-changer does not need any kind of manipulation for its operation, it does not require greasing and its maintenance consists only of periodic inspection with tools to check the position and wear levels.


The standard for Technical Specifications Approval establishes three phases of tests to prove the behavior of the axis, a first one of 50,000 kilometers in gauge of 1,668 millimeters, without steps per gauge-changer (from 08/10/2017 to 10/26/2017); another second of the same kilometers in gauge of 1,435 and 1,668 mm, at least 20% in one of them and with fifty steps in the gauge-changer (from 08/11/2017 to December 2017); and a third phase of 150,000 km in commercial service in the two gauge from 25 to 50 percent at least in one of them and with 150 steps through the gauge-changer (until spring 2018).
The Provisional Circulation Authorization will be reviewed at 250,000 kilometers and if the results are satisfactory, the revised authorization will reflect the nature, periodicity and scope of the verifications to be carried out during the following period, previously agreed between the certifying regulation organism, the infrastructure manager and the State Railway Safety Agency.
At 400,000 kilometers or at four years, if with the verifications established in the current Circulation Authorization, no relevant safety-related incident has occurred, the Definitive Authorization for Circulation of the vehicle will be issued.


Imagine cables are to take data, because the article explains that the gauge-changer only consists of structural elements: steel and concrete.



Video with many details:





I put the original text so that another can translate it better.


> La clave diferenciadora de este cambio de ancho es que las ruedas deslizan en el eje y en cada ancho se asegura la posición mediante un sistema de bloqueo. La rotación solidaria de ruedas y eje se consigue mediante una serie de compases articulados entre ruedas y eje. Durante el cambio de ancho, unas pletinas centrales situadas en vía interaccionan con un disco empujador que activa el sistema de descerrojado, permitiendo que la rueda se pueda desplazar en el propio eje hasta entrar las garras en las ranuras del nuevo ancho de vía que se pretende circular, quedando de nuevo encerrojado con la cesión de la presión del actuador al salir del cambiador.
> Respecto al cambiador de ancho, no deja de ser un tramo de vía de transición con carril y contracarril que, variando su ancho de forma continua, conecta las dos vías de distinta anchura. Se caracteriza porque no tiene componentes mecánicos de ningún tipo y está compuesto únicamente por elementos estructurales.
> De esta forma, el carril sirve para que los ejes circulen a lo largo del cambiador, las pletinas centrales desplazan 40 milímetros el manguito de encerrojamiento para que desbloquee el manguito de garras y finalmente los contracarriles guían a las ruedas para que se ejecute el cambio de ancho.
> Este cambiador se diferencia de los existentes, en que el vagón hace el cambio de ancho sin que las ruedas abandonen el contacto con el carril y, por tanto, no queda liberada la carga de las ruedas durante el cambio.
> Al no contener ningún mecanismo y ser un conjunto extremadamente simple, el cambiador OGI no necesita ningún tipo de manipulación para su funcionamiento, no requiere engrases y su mantenimiento consiste únicamente en una inspección periódica con unos útiles para comprobar las cotas de posición y desgaste.


La norma ETH establece tres fases de pruebas para probar el comportamiento del eje, una primera de 50.000 kilómetros en ancho de 1.668 milímetros, sin pasos por cambiador (del 10/08/2017 al 26/10/2017); otra segunda de los mismos kilómetros en anchos de 1.435 y 1.668 mm, un 20% al menos en uno de ellos y con cincuenta pasos por el cambiador (del 08/11/2017 hasta diciembre de 2017); y una tercera fase de 150.000 km en servicio comercial en los dos anchos de un 25 a un 50 por ciento como mínimo en uno de ellos y con 150 pasos por el cambiador (hasta primavera de 2018).
La Autorización Provisional de Circulación será revisada a los 250.000 kilómetros y si los resultados son satisfactorios, la autorización revisada recogerá la naturaleza, periodicidad y alcance de las verificaciones a efectuar durante el siguiente período, previamente acordados entre el Organismo Certificador, el administrador de la infraestructura y la Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Ferroviaria. 
A los 400.000 kilómetros o a los cuatro años, si con las verificaciones establecidas en la autorización de circulación vigente en ese momento, no se ha producido ningún incidente relevante relacionado con la seguridad, se emitirá la Autorización de Circulación definitiva del vehículo.


----------



## Nirav Gala (Aug 30, 2017)

*Trailer: Matheran Toy train is back!!! Full video coming up next!!!*
https://youtu.be/4tOb4oFa3FU

After a long 18 months of grounding this train for safety concerns, finally, this train is now back in service after upgrading the train and route with all the possible safety measures.

The entire 21km Neral-Matheran 2 feet narrow gauge route was re-opened from 26th January 2018. Enjoy the beautiful visuals as our toy train descends through the ghat.

This is just a short trailer video of the entire joy ride. Full joy ride video to come up soon.


----------



## Nirav Gala (Aug 30, 2017)

*Part 1: Matheran Toy train is back: Breathtaking views of Matheran-Water Pipe stretch!
*
https://youtu.be/ZhBC3I3gniM

In this part 1 video, we will cover Matheran-Aman lodge-Water pipe stretch. Enjoy the breathtaking views of Western ghat as we negotiate through various tight curves & steep gradients.

Part-2 video featuring Water Pipe-Jummapatti-Neral stretch is coming up shortly.






Here is the timeline of the video. Click on the below particular time to (Youtube site) navigate through this video.

00:00 - Satellite view of Toy Train route.
01:20 - Views of Matheran and Railway station
01:53 - Interior view of FIRST CLASS coach
02:18 - Interior view of SECOND CLASS coach
02:36 - Departs from Matheran with some jerks & travel to Aman Lodge
07:26 - Arrival and Departure from Aman Lodge
09:29 - Brake porter now as Safety staff
09:41 - Big Lord Ganesh statue seen from Toy train. Brake porter rings the bell.
10:10 - Train guard finds me leaning from train 
11:00 - Negotiating a sharp 90° curve.
12:50 - A look at the gabion walls and crash barriers installed as a safety measure.
14:40 - Level Crossing
15:36 - Arriving at Water Pipe halt


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

*Lines suitable for standard-gauge trains in Spain*

Currently, these are the lines suitable for standard-gauge trains (Ave and Avant).
Only the blue and green lines, the small stretch of mixed gauge between Hortaleza and T4 terminal of the Barajas airport has no connection, although soon it will be presented. The black lines have polyvalent sleepers, they are now in Iberian gauge but will change to the standard gauge when they have connection.


And these are the Alvia and IC services (in red color), which use both the HSR and the conventional network through the 13 gauge changers (two of them are double and all but five are dual: suitable for CAF and Talgo trains). In addition, there are six other operational, that are not used, and eight in workshops:


This involves a park of 101 HST of variable gauge (56 trains manufactured by CAF and 45 by Talgo), although some of them are used in routes without gauge changers, only the power supply changes (3 / 25 kV). There are also 6 hauled trains by Talgo that are used daily (Barcelona-Vigo / Coruña, and Madrid-Algeciras), although the park of towed material of variable gauge is also composed of another 23 hauled trains by Talgo that are used in services without gauge changer.

Here we can see the number of trains passing through a gauge changer in Spain (33,731 in 2012, although in 2012 they reached 39,410), since each every use it cost € 112.64 (in the first half of 2017 according to 2015 prices) or 134,82 € (in the second half of 2017) paid by Renfe to Adif AV:

Until a few months, the North / South trains change twice as gauge in Madrid (Chamartín and Atocha).

According to the Ministry of Development plans (although I personally believe that they will not do everything they promise and that, in any case, will not be in 2023), these will be the lines suitable for standard-gauge trains (Ave and Avant) in 2023:


And these would be (according to my criterion, there is nothing official and some journeys could be made with transfer) the necessary gauge changer and Alvia and IC services (in red color):


The Ministry of Development assumes that the network in 2023 will allow freight traffic in wagons of standard gauge, although the HSR has been designed so far for exclusive passenger traffic, except Barcelona-French Border.

I think it will be time to propose a total change in gauge.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

*Russian-standard gauge changer*

Video made in the Talgo gauge-changer of Brest (Belarus) for Talgo Strizh trains of RZD for Moscow-Berlin. The water is to improve the sliding and avoid friction between the supports of the coach cars on the rail.
In this case the locomotives do not change gauge, as it does in Spain.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

*Annual costs for changing the gauge in Spain*

Annual cost in fees paid to the Infrastructure Administrator (ADIF) for the passage through the gauge changers. The passage of each train costs € 135.

34,000 annual train steps through the 14 gauge changers.
Almost € 5 million a year only in fees; apart is the biggest expense in each train and its maintenance.



I count the changers with passenger service (doubles count as one); not for workshops or operational gauge changers without trains.
There are other 4 gauge changers that are operative, but no train circulates for them, and another 8 for access to workshops.


----------



## mingrady (May 3, 2007)

5 million euro a year, 135 euro per gauge change. it's not that bad, isn't it? I am surprised to learn it's the biggest expense in train maintenance cost.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

*Prose System*

GoldenPass variable-gauge system successfully tested. IRJ


















> The system has been designed to allow operation on both Montreux Oberland Bernois Railway’s (MOB) metre-gauge line and BLS standard-gauge infrastructure.
> 
> In March 2018, MOB awarded Stadler a contract to supply 20 variable-gauge coaches for GoldenPass Express services from Montreux to Zweisimmen and Interlaken East, which it will operate jointly with BLS.
> 
> ...


MOB’s gauge-changing bogies pass test. Railway Gazette










> Montreux-Oberland Bahn is on course to launch its long-planned through-service between Montreux and Interlaken on December 13 2020, following the completion of tests with specially-developed dual-gauge bogies and a gauge-changing facility at the break of gauge in Zweisimmen.
> 
> Announcing the success of the trials during a demonstration of the equipment on May 1, MOB said that it was ‘happy and proud of this result’, noting that changing gauge from 1 000 mm to 1 435 mm or vice versa ‘in just a few seconds had not been possible until now’. The tests had surpassed expectations, the company noted, although some minor changes had proved necessary.
> 
> ...






The system developed by Prose was designed to allow the operation of both standard-gauge vehicles and metre-gauge vehicles, as well as the gauge-changing vehicles. I mean: the arrival locomotive passes through the gauge changer without changing gauge, and the departure locomotive is coupled to the train with its new width before the cars vary in gauge and height.


----------



## Gusiluz (Apr 4, 2013)

*OGI system for freight wagons*

La Agencia Estatal de Seguridad Ferroviaria homologa el sistema de eje de ancho variable para mercancías. 


> Spain State Railway Safety Agency approves variable gauge axle system for freight jointly developed by Adif, Azvi and Tria.
> 
> AESF's authorisation allows container wagons and wagons to carry vehicles equipped with the system to circulate in commercial service - The implementation of the moveable axle is a major world milestone in railway innovation, as it allows freight trains to circulate across borders with different track widths for the first time, with wagon axles changing width automatically when passing through a shifter.


The test gauge changer is located in La Gineta (Albacete) since 2016.


Gusiluz said:


> Gauge-changing freight axles under test. Railway Gazette.
> 
> 
> > SPAIN: The OGI gauge-changing axle for freight wagons, designed to operate on both 1 435 mm and 1 668 mm gauge, has completed Phase 1 of its testing programme, it was announced on November 7. Developed and manufactured by Azvi, Tria and OGI, the axle has now operated for 50 000 km on 1 668 mm gauge, with testing conducted on the Aranjuez — Cuenca and Alcázar de San Juan — La Encina sections of the ADIF network. Traction has been provided by Azvi subsidiary Tracción Rail.
> ...


----------



## Standardgaugerlmao (May 29, 2020)

nagara373 said:


> *Suggestions of broad gauge rail networks*
> 
> US and Canada should be converted from 4 ft 8 1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge to 5 ft 6 in (1,676 mm) Indian broad gauge and 25kV AC electrification before they have their high-speed trains, necessary.
> 
> ...


Bruh how would you think that the bering strait tunnel would be indian gauge? India won't have the speed for the locomotive to do so, russian gauge and standard gauge together would be good with a break-of-gauge point at the Alaskan coast and a dual gauge track that extends into China, speed wold be at the very least be 160 KM/H(100 MPH)


----------



## Standardgaugerlmao (May 29, 2020)

stingstingsting said:


> 2134mm sounds preposterous.
> 
> And anyhow, the Tokaido Shinkansen is in itself quite circuitous for a high speed rail line. Imagine how much more right-of-way would need to be purchased just for your suggestion? Correct me if I am wrong but standard gauge was chosen so that they could fit the 2by3 seating arrangement that would quite greatly increase the capacity of train sets.
> 
> ...


LMAO there is a critical point where there that you need more power to power the locomotive/multiple unit
and for that narrow gauge part, the british only had that option because of the terrain


----------

