|
Love the idea. NO other woman, No covid, No IED's well mostly not, No arguments unless you talk to yourself, Its our own world, that we create, no matter how far the rails are apart.
Dave
Russ Norris wrote: Why are you here? Seriously.
It's CUTE!
And "requires" an occasional trip to the San Juans
And ditto to all the other reasons given.
Someone mentioned once "married" to a line...... It reminded me.....
My wife (55 Years 6-16-66) wants to put a sign over my train room door, "The Other Woman." But she knows that when I'm in there, that there is not another woman.
🙂
Don Bergman
|
|
|
Nigle
All of your examples are also somewhat special cases.
The Great Falls and Canada was primarily the southern half of a coal carrier, connecting the then best best known regional coal district, at Lethbridge, with a large scale coal user at Great Falls, and indirectly with the booming western Montana mining districts. Yet they only lasted 13 years before gauge conversion.
The Newfoundland Railway was a government line, and for most of its lifetime a millstone around the government's neck, regardless of which party was in power and being attacked for mismanagement. Perusing the fairly extensive local histories, its construction was initially as much a public jobs program as essential transportation. Completed, it became an essential element of interior transportation, up until the completion of Hy 1 across the island. One that had to be kept running regardless of the costs. Those costs were a significant factor in several government crisis, one of which came close to ending Newfoundland's status as a self-governing colony. Which is why the Newfoundland government made the CN takeover an absolute requirement for joining the Canadian Confederation in 1949. And why CN was allowed to pull the plug, once there was a viable alternative in place.
The White Pass was not, for long, your average lightly built NG railroad. It was built to SG clearances, 16'x22', and laid out with 16 degree curves (24 degree "temporaries"), so the design was generally up to contemporary SG mountain road standards in all but gauge. While not generally known, the WP&Y was also heavily rebuilt during the first 5 years or so after it was opened. See president Graves' "On the White Pass Payroll", published circa 1907 and since reprinted. The early new built White Pass engines were large for their time, all but one of them outside framed, and WP&Y 68 & 69 rated C-30 in the D&RGW's 1923 classification scheme. The steel arch over Switchback Gulch was a major bridge by any railroad's standards. Most of the initially numerous timber trestles were solidly filled in, many behind dry rubble stone retaining walls, medium heights behind concrete walls, and 6 tall ones replaced by steel trestles. An RfP for a steel viaduct at Glacier had been prepared, but was not acted upon. This heavy investment ceased shortly after president Graves' early death, but the White Pass was able to coast on it, to a considerable degree, for the next thirty years, avoiding much of the high ongoing expenses inherent in the usual light NG construction. But between the railroad and river divisions, they also had an effective monopoly on transportation into the Yukon, which by the late 1930s was financing additional improvements. It is no accident that the railroad folded shortly after the Klondike highway opened, although the actual trigger was the closing of their major ore customer.
John
On June 17, 2021 2:30 PM Nigel Phillips <nigelp18000@...> wrote:
John,
Not so special for a one commodity carrier. The Great Falls and Canada Railway was built to transport coal from small mines in Lethbridge AB, to the Great Falls smelters in MT, in 1890. 3 foot gauge, converted to standard gauge by the Great Northern in 1903. The Canadian section around Lethbridge continued as mixed narrow gauge/standard gauge for a few years until completely taken over by CP.
Again, not so special for longevity. The Newfoundland Railway was narrow gauge from its inception in 1897 until it's closure in 1988 under CN ownership. 3.5 feet gauge. Freight and passenger for most of its life, 906 miles in total. The rot really set in when Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949.
The White Pass and Yukon was formed from 3 narrow gauge railways in 1898, 3 foot gauge. Started as a one commodity railway (gold), later freight and passenger. Still running as a scenic railway although much shorter.
The article referred to was spot on, most narrow gauge lines were quickly converted to standard gauge if successful. If not they were abandoned.
Nigel
On Thursday, June 17, 2021, John Stutz <
john.stutz@...> wrote:
Russ
EBT was clearly a special case, being from circa 1905 on ,the transportation arm of a coal company operating in a district where the rolling coal seam topography precluded any large mines. That company survived by using the EBT to combine the output of multiple small mines, and move the raw coal to a single large coal cleaning plant, located alongside the standard gauge that could take it on to actual markets.
John Stutz
Really interesting, John, that the author has absolutely nothing good to say about "the narrow gage myth". I model the East Broad Top, which ran successfully from 1875 until 1956, and for much of its lifetime showed a profit for the shareholders. I'm sure you could think of other narrow gauge railroads for which the same could be said. And this was written at a time when the country was covered with narrow gauge railroads. Amazing.
Russ Norris
I have recently been combing the technical press for articles on tunnel construction, and ran across a 1905 evaluation of the cost savings to be expected, in constructing and operating light railways on a narrow gauge.
This is by the editor of Engineering News, probably the leading engineering publication in North America at that time. It begins on the lower left of the following page:
John Stutz
--
Russ Norris, MMR
Cape Cod, Massachusetts
http://blacklogvalleyrailroad.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
John,
Great Falls. Canada.The Canadian section continued to Dumore, where it joined the CP. Like many railroads, narrow gauge or otherwise, it's existence was a good idea at the time. Built to satisfy coal movement initially, moving immigrants in and selling those land grants were just as important.
Newfieland railways were strange. Newfoundland was not part of Canada when they were built, the most heavily populated areas was furthest away from the nearest ferry to Canada, with not a lot in the middle except timber and minerals. The railway was primarily a political tool to achieve confederation with Canada. Narrow gauge because of the grades and curves. The Reads ended up owning 10% of the country through the land grants. There is not much you can do with trees except chop them down and wait 50 years. Direct instead of indirect subsidies kept the line going The change in gauge was probably one of the factors leading to CN abandoning it. It was government run from 1923 (Newfoundland until 1949 and then Canadian National, a Crown Corporation). The Canadian government taking the railway over was a part of the deal for Newfoundland to become part of Canada. I remember the furor when Canada gave the province $1 billion for transport infrastructure and they spent it on roads.
I for one do buy the arguments that only standard gauge can be used for heavy tonnage. SAR functioned quite happily on narrow gauge. The issue is when standard meets narrow.
Nigel
On Saturday, June 19, 2021, John Stutz < john.stutz@...> wrote:
Nigle
All of your examples are also somewhat special cases.
The Great Falls and Canada was primarily the southern half of a coal carrier, connecting the then best best known regional coal district, at Lethbridge, with a large scale coal user at Great Falls, and indirectly with the booming western Montana mining districts. Yet they only lasted 13 years before gauge conversion.
The Newfoundland Railway was a government line, and for most of its lifetime a millstone around the government's neck, regardless of which party was in power and being attacked for mismanagement. Perusing the fairly extensive local histories, its construction was initially as much a public jobs program as essential transportation. Completed, it became an essential element of interior transportation, up until the completion of Hy 1 across the island. One that had to be kept running regardless of the costs. Those costs were a significant factor in several government crisis, one of which came close to ending Newfoundland's status as a self-governing colony. Which is why the Newfoundland government made the CN takeover an absolute requirement for joining the Canadian Confederation in 1949. And why CN was allowed to pull the plug, once there was a viable alternative in place.
The White Pass was not, for long, your average lightly built NG railroad. It was built to SG clearances, 16'x22', and laid out with 16 degree curves (24 degree "temporaries"), so the design was generally up to contemporary SG mountain road standards in all but gauge. While not generally known, the WP&Y was also heavily rebuilt during the first 5 years or so after it was opened. See president Graves' "On the White Pass Payroll", published circa 1907 and since reprinted. The early new built White Pass engines were large for their time, all but one of them outside framed, and WP&Y 68 & 69 rated C-30 in the D&RGW's 1923 classification scheme. The steel arch over Switchback Gulch was a major bridge by any railroad's standards. Most of the initially numerous timber trestles were solidly filled in, many behind dry rubble stone retaining walls, medium heights behind concrete walls, and 6 tall ones replaced by steel trestles. An RfP for a steel viaduct at Glacier had been prepared, but was not acted upon. This heavy investment ceased shortly after president Graves' early death, but the White Pass was able to coast on it, to a considerable degree, for the next thirty years, avoiding much of the high ongoing expenses inherent in the usual light NG construction. But between the railroad and river divisions, they also had an effective monopoly on transportation into the Yukon, which by the late 1930s was financing additional improvements. It is no accident that the railroad folded shortly after the Klondike highway opened, although the actual trigger was the closing of their major ore customer.
John
John,
Not so special for a one commodity carrier. The Great Falls and Canada Railway was built to transport coal from small mines in Lethbridge AB, to the Great Falls smelters in MT, in 1890. 3 foot gauge, converted to standard gauge by the Great Northern in 1903. The Canadian section around Lethbridge continued as mixed narrow gauge/standard gauge for a few years until completely taken over by CP.
Again, not so special for longevity. The Newfoundland Railway was narrow gauge from its inception in 1897 until it's closure in 1988 under CN ownership. 3.5 feet gauge. Freight and passenger for most of its life, 906 miles in total. The rot really set in when Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949.
The White Pass and Yukon was formed from 3 narrow gauge railways in 1898, 3 foot gauge. Started as a one commodity railway (gold), later freight and passenger. Still running as a scenic railway although much shorter.
The article referred to was spot on, most narrow gauge lines were quickly converted to standard gauge if successful. If not they were abandoned.
Nigel
On Thursday, June 17, 2021, John Stutz <
john.stutz@...> wrote:
Russ
EBT was clearly a special case, being from circa 1905 on ,the transportation arm of a coal company operating in a district where the rolling coal seam topography precluded any large mines. That company survived by using the EBT to combine the output of multiple small mines, and move the raw coal to a single large coal cleaning plant, located alongside the standard gauge that could take it on to actual markets.
John Stutz
Really interesting, John, that the author has absolutely nothing good to say about "the narrow gage myth". I model the East Broad Top, which ran successfully from 1875 until 1956, and for much of its lifetime showed a profit for the shareholders. I'm sure you could think of other narrow gauge railroads for which the same could be said. And this was written at a time when the country was covered with narrow gauge railroads. Amazing.
Russ Norris
I have recently been combing the technical press for articles on tunnel construction, and ran across a 1905 evaluation of the cost savings to be expected, in constructing and operating light railways on a narrow gauge.
This is by the editor of Engineering News, probably the leading engineering publication in North America at that time. It begins on the lower left of the following page:
John Stutz
--
Russ Norris, MMR
Cape Cod, Massachusetts
http://blacklogvalleyrailroad.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Sooooo your theory is the wider the gauge the more tonnage it can carry?
John,
Great Falls. Canada.The Canadian section continued to Dumore, where it joined the CP. Like many railroads, narrow gauge or otherwise, it's existence was a good idea at the time. Built to satisfy coal movement initially, moving immigrants in and selling those land grants were just as important.
Newfieland railways were strange. Newfoundland was not part of Canada when they were built, the most heavily populated areas was furthest away from the nearest ferry to Canada, with not a lot in the middle except timber and minerals. The railway was primarily a political tool to achieve confederation with Canada. Narrow gauge because of the grades and curves. The Reads ended up owning 10% of the country through the land grants. There is not much you can do with trees except chop them down and wait 50 years. Direct instead of indirect subsidies kept the line going The change in gauge was probably one of the factors leading to CN abandoning it. It was government run from 1923 (Newfoundland until 1949 and then Canadian National, a Crown Corporation). The Canadian government taking the railway over was a part of the deal for Newfoundland to become part of Canada. I remember the furor when Canada gave the province $1 billion for transport infrastructure and they spent it on roads.
I for one do buy the arguments that only standard gauge can be used for heavy tonnage. SAR functioned quite happily on narrow gauge. The issue is when standard meets narrow.
Nigel
On Saturday, June 19, 2021, John Stutz < john.stutz@...> wrote:
Nigle
All of your examples are also somewhat special cases.
The Great Falls and Canada was primarily the southern half of a coal carrier, connecting the then best best known regional coal district, at Lethbridge, with a large scale coal user at Great Falls, and indirectly with the booming western Montana mining districts. Yet they only lasted 13 years before gauge conversion.
The Newfoundland Railway was a government line, and for most of its lifetime a millstone around the government's neck, regardless of which party was in power and being attacked for mismanagement. Perusing the fairly extensive local histories, its construction was initially as much a public jobs program as essential transportation. Completed, it became an essential element of interior transportation, up until the completion of Hy 1 across the island. One that had to be kept running regardless of the costs. Those costs were a significant factor in several government crisis, one of which came close to ending Newfoundland's status as a self-governing colony. Which is why the Newfoundland government made the CN takeover an absolute requirement for joining the Canadian Confederation in 1949. And why CN was allowed to pull the plug, once there was a viable alternative in place.
The White Pass was not, for long, your average lightly built NG railroad. It was built to SG clearances, 16'x22', and laid out with 16 degree curves (24 degree "temporaries"), so the design was generally up to contemporary SG mountain road standards in all but gauge. While not generally known, the WP&Y was also heavily rebuilt during the first 5 years or so after it was opened. See president Graves' "On the White Pass Payroll", published circa 1907 and since reprinted. The early new built White Pass engines were large for their time, all but one of them outside framed, and WP&Y 68 & 69 rated C-30 in the D&RGW's 1923 classification scheme. The steel arch over Switchback Gulch was a major bridge by any railroad's standards. Most of the initially numerous timber trestles were solidly filled in, many behind dry rubble stone retaining walls, medium heights behind concrete walls, and 6 tall ones replaced by steel trestles. An RfP for a steel viaduct at Glacier had been prepared, but was not acted upon. This heavy investment ceased shortly after president Graves' early death, but the White Pass was able to coast on it, to a considerable degree, for the next thirty years, avoiding much of the high ongoing expenses inherent in the usual light NG construction. But between the railroad and river divisions, they also had an effective monopoly on transportation into the Yukon, which by the late 1930s was financing additional improvements. It is no accident that the railroad folded shortly after the Klondike highway opened, although the actual trigger was the closing of their major ore customer.
John
John,
Not so special for a one commodity carrier. The Great Falls and Canada Railway was built to transport coal from small mines in Lethbridge AB, to the Great Falls smelters in MT, in 1890. 3 foot gauge, converted to standard gauge by the Great Northern in 1903. The Canadian section around Lethbridge continued as mixed narrow gauge/standard gauge for a few years until completely taken over by CP.
Again, not so special for longevity. The Newfoundland Railway was narrow gauge from its inception in 1897 until it's closure in 1988 under CN ownership. 3.5 feet gauge. Freight and passenger for most of its life, 906 miles in total. The rot really set in when Newfoundland joined Canada in 1949.
The White Pass and Yukon was formed from 3 narrow gauge railways in 1898, 3 foot gauge. Started as a one commodity railway (gold), later freight and passenger. Still running as a scenic railway although much shorter.
The article referred to was spot on, most narrow gauge lines were quickly converted to standard gauge if successful. If not they were abandoned.
Nigel
On Thursday, June 17, 2021, John Stutz <
john.stutz@...> wrote:
Russ
EBT was clearly a special case, being from circa 1905 on ,the transportation arm of a coal company operating in a district where the rolling coal seam topography precluded any large mines. That company survived by using the EBT to combine the output of multiple small mines, and move the raw coal to a single large coal cleaning plant, located alongside the standard gauge that could take it on to actual markets.
John Stutz
Really interesting, John, that the author has absolutely nothing good to say about "the narrow gage myth". I model the East Broad Top, which ran successfully from 1875 until 1956, and for much of its lifetime showed a profit for the shareholders. I'm sure you could think of other narrow gauge railroads for which the same could be said. And this was written at a time when the country was covered with narrow gauge railroads. Amazing.
Russ Norris
I have recently been combing the technical press for articles on tunnel construction, and ran across a 1905 evaluation of the cost savings to be expected, in constructing and operating light railways on a narrow gauge.
This is by the editor of Engineering News, probably the leading engineering publication in North America at that time. It begins on the lower left of the following page:
John Stutz
--
Russ Norris, MMR
Cape Cod, Massachusetts
http://blacklogvalleyrailroad.blogspot.com/
|
|
|
Nigel
I agree that South Africa is a good example of successful narrow gauge operation, but note that the 42" gauge is the regional standard gauge, and that their 24" gauge agricultural development lines are now largely (wholly?) abandoned. Additionally, SAR's lines were mostly built to contemporary mainline railroad standards, while poorly located ones have been upgraded, and that the government long discouraged competition by trucking.
Similarly, the Queensland Gvt Ry moves a large export coal traffic over upgraded 42" gauge lines to the coal terminals, while former agricultural development branches have withered.
In Brazil the meter gauge (39.37") mainline of the Estrada de Ferro Victoria a Minas started as a light development railroad, has been twice extensively rebuilt, and has for the last half century carried an immense iron ore traffic down to Victoria. In fact, much of South America's railways remain meter gauge, and will likely continue so indefinably, particularly where they are the regional standard gauge.
Japanese railways originally standardized on the 42" gauge, and by far the larger part remains on this gauge, but the primary passenger lines are wholly new built over the last 50 years, on the 56.5" gauge, to far higher standard than any US lines. Being purely passenger lines, the break of gauge problem is minimized.
John Stutz
|
|
|
I have the prefect reason that narrow gauge existed and was used for so long. They used less wood. Wood ties that is. The ties were shorter and smaller! Think of the money they saved.
Dave
Nigel
I agree that South Africa is a good example of successful narrow gauge operation, but note that the 42" gauge is the regional standard gauge, and that their 24" gauge agricultural development lines are now largely (wholly?) abandoned. Additionally, SAR's lines were mostly built to contemporary mainline railroad standards, while poorly located ones have been upgraded, and that the government long discouraged competition by trucking.
Similarly, the Queensland Gvt Ry moves a large export coal traffic over upgraded 42" gauge lines to the coal terminals, while former agricultural development branches have withered.
In Brazil the meter gauge (39.37") mainline of the Estrada de Ferro Victoria a Minas started as a light development railroad, has been twice extensively rebuilt, and has for the last half century carried an immense iron ore traffic down to Victoria. In fact, much of South America's railways remain meter gauge, and will likely continue so indefinably, particularly where they are the regional standard gauge.
Japanese railways originally standardized on the 42" gauge, and by far the larger part remains on this gauge, but the primary passenger lines are wholly new built over the last 50 years, on the 56.5" gauge, to far higher standard than any US lines. Being purely passenger lines, the break of gauge problem is minimized.
John Stutz
|
|
|
Dave,
Wood was cheap or free, rails were not. That was where the savings were made. Plus tunnels were smaller, bridges lighter, curves tighter, grades steeper.
Nigel
On Sunday, June 20, 2021, < Climax@...> wrote: I have the prefect reason that narrow gauge existed and was used for so long. They used less wood. Wood ties that is. The ties were shorter and smaller! Think of the money they saved.
Dave
Nigel
I agree that South Africa is a good example of successful narrow gauge operation, but note that the 42" gauge is the regional standard gauge, and that their 24" gauge agricultural development lines are now largely (wholly?) abandoned. Additionally, SAR's lines were mostly built to contemporary mainline railroad standards, while poorly located ones have been upgraded, and that the government long discouraged competition by trucking.
Similarly, the Queensland Gvt Ry moves a large export coal traffic over upgraded 42" gauge lines to the coal terminals, while former agricultural development branches have withered.
In Brazil the meter gauge (39.37") mainline of the Estrada de Ferro Victoria a Minas started as a light development railroad, has been twice extensively rebuilt, and has for the last half century carried an immense iron ore traffic down to Victoria. In fact, much of South America's railways remain meter gauge, and will likely continue so indefinably, particularly where they are the regional standard gauge.
Japanese railways originally standardized on the 42" gauge, and by far the larger part remains on this gauge, but the primary passenger lines are wholly new built over the last 50 years, on the 56.5" gauge, to far higher standard than any US lines. Being purely passenger lines, the break of gauge problem is minimized.
John Stutz
|
|
|
All true, it adds up in the big picture.
Dave,
Wood was cheap or free, rails were not. That was where the savings were made. Plus tunnels were smaller, bridges lighter, curves tighter, grades steeper.
Nigel
On Sunday, June 20, 2021, < Climax@...> wrote: I have the prefect reason that narrow gauge existed and was used for so long. They used less wood. Wood ties that is. The ties were shorter and smaller! Think of the money they saved.
Dave
Nigel
I agree that South Africa is a good example of successful narrow gauge operation, but note that the 42" gauge is the regional standard gauge, and that their 24" gauge agricultural development lines are now largely (wholly?) abandoned. Additionally, SAR's lines were mostly built to contemporary mainline railroad standards, while poorly located ones have been upgraded, and that the government long discouraged competition by trucking.
Similarly, the Queensland Gvt Ry moves a large export coal traffic over upgraded 42" gauge lines to the coal terminals, while former agricultural development branches have withered.
In Brazil the meter gauge (39.37") mainline of the Estrada de Ferro Victoria a Minas started as a light development railroad, has been twice extensively rebuilt, and has for the last half century carried an immense iron ore traffic down to Victoria. In fact, much of South America's railways remain meter gauge, and will likely continue so indefinably, particularly where they are the regional standard gauge.
Japanese railways originally standardized on the 42" gauge, and by far the larger part remains on this gauge, but the primary passenger lines are wholly new built over the last 50 years, on the 56.5" gauge, to far higher standard than any US lines. Being purely passenger lines, the break of gauge problem is minimized.
John Stutz
|
|
|
1905 was a time of relative prosperity. With wood and paint cheap and available and lots of construction was going on. Good era to model if your weathering skills aren't that great. Depression era piles of junk were much less common. Urban scenes are harder to model accurately with all the electric wires overhead and mining operations we all love had grown substantially in physical size. Oil refineries had no modern cracking towers, but other industrial operations saw structures growing into huge sizes. Paved roads were almost non-existent outside cities. Multi-story building construction was done with a small forest of timber tripod derricks on top. Horse drawn vehicles were far more common than automobiles. And of course there was an abundance of cute electric trolleys in sight even out into the growing suburbs. A n interesting era to model in narrow gauge if you want to follow obscure and forgotten eastern railroads.
|
|
|
Nolan Hinshaw
On Jun 21, 2021, at 08:11, Ed Weldon <23.weldon@...> wrote:
1905 was a time of relative prosperity. With wood and paint cheap and available and lots of construction was going on. Good era to model if your weathering skills aren't that great. Depression era piles of junk were much less common. Urban scenes are harder to model accurately with all the electric wires overhead and mining operations we all love had grown substantially in physical size. Oil refineries had no modern cracking towers, but other industrial operations saw structures growing into huge sizes. Paved roads were almost non-existent outside cities. Multi-story building construction was done with a small forest of timber tripod derricks on top. Horse drawn vehicles were far more common than automobiles. And of course there was an abundance of cute electric trolleys in sight even out into the growing suburbs. A n interesting era to model in narrow gauge if you want to follow obscure and forgotten eastern railroads.
Let us not chop the liver of the South Pacific Coast, running commuters between Santa Cruz and San Francisco (with a ferry fleet containing the SS Newark!) along the Alameda County shore of San Francisco Bay. It seems that it was due to domestic issues and health rather than economics that induced Jim Fair to sell out to the local Big Four, who only later standard-gauged the line. This was big-time main line railroading. -- Artie the Hinged Jaw Retired AFU Game Warden
|
|
|
On June 20, 2021 6:28 PM climax@... wrote:
I have the prefect reason that narrow gauge existed and was used for so long. They used less wood. Wood ties that is. The ties were shorter and smaller! Think of the money they saved.
Dave
Dave
That was Matthias N. Forney's conclusion, in a mid 1890's editorial review of the construction cost savings directly attributable to the choice of 3' gauge over 4' 8.5",
all other factors being equal: That the biggest difference would be the cost of ties, for an overall savings of about 1%.
But the principle point made in that editorial was that a standard gauge road could be built and operated on any alignment over which a 3' gauge road had been built. As was being demonstrated by widespread recent and ongoing gauge conversions.
Unfortunately I did not record a reference to that editorial, so cannot give the source. But Hilton's "American Narrow Gauge" has an entire chapter on the gauge question, and probably does reference this.
My own take on the gauge question is: Good transportation facilities are key to the prosperity of any community, and in the U.S. prior to the flowering of the Good Roads movement in the 1920's, railroads were the only means for reliable all-weather overland transport. Add in the universal experience that smaller is (usually) cheaper, and I think it obvious why rail-less communities, faced with the overwhelming costs of existing railroad's construction, could convince themselves that a smaller railroad
must be a cheaper one. The supporting semi-technical arguments were primarily rationalizations, devised to justify the wished for conclusion. And proved to be no more effective than most such rationalizations.
But as several others have said better than I can, the result made for some very attractive modeling prototypes.
John Stutz
|
|
|
