The narrow gauge question? Best gauge?


John Peterson
 

Hi all,

Very interesting that the size of the VR rolling stock was more 2'
like. On reflection they do seem the same size as used on the NE
Dundus line in Tas. Given that the locos used could easily have been
built to 2' gauge, was there any real advantage in using 2' 6" gauge
in Victoria? It would be interesting if someone in the know could make
a comparison between the VR lines and NE Dundus.

Cheers
John


bll_hnks
 

John,



The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Railways had a tour of inspection to Tasmania to view the NE Dundas Railway when planning was well underway for the VR NG. Maybe there was an influence there. At the time a letter from the TGR advised the VR against using NG to Outrimm because of the transshipment costs that would soon erode any financial benefits from building NG. Secondhand 60lb rail from the VR BG lines was proposed to be used and indeed was for the NG lines that would have easily accommodated vehicles at least 8' wide and heavier axle loads. Even the trestles bridges were built to almost BG loading standards. The NAL cars at PB sit nicely on 2' 6". As I've mentioned before the Fox bogies are a limiting factor to carrying greater loads. PB is limited by them with their ballast wagons and they restrict the amount of rock loaded at any one time. I'd guess that the carriages and goods vehicles had already been designed by the time the decision was made to add 6" to the track and the VR had already over spent their budget.



Regards,

Bill Hanks



________________________________

From: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au] On Behalf Of crannyjohn
Sent: Tuesday, 6 February 2007 2:25 PM
To: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: [LRRSA] The narrow gauge question? Best gauge?



Hi all,

Very interesting that the size of the VR rolling stock was more 2'
like. On reflection they do seem the same size as used on the NE
Dundus line in Tas. Given that the locos used could easily have been
built to 2' gauge, was there any real advantage in using 2' 6" gauge
in Victoria? It would be interesting if someone in the know could make
a comparison between the VR lines and NE Dundus.

Cheers
John





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Michael J
 

Hi John,

As one who has made a bit of a hobby out of investigating 2’6”/750mm
gauge railways in particular, your question is of some interest to me.

First thing to say is that 2’6” was not the unusual gauge we sometimes
think it is. Worldwide there was probably more mileage of 2’6” gauge
common carriers than 2’ gauge, and certainly more than 3’ gauge. There
were a number of systems with over 1000 route km, and many more with
less, in all parts of the world. The first 2’6” gauge lines started in
the early narrow gauge days. For instance the Antofagasta (Chili) &
Bolivia Railway started construction in 1872, and had a 1500km route
that climbed from sea level to over 4500 metres, while handling goods
traffic totalling near 2 million tons per annum. I have even read that
General Palmer considered 2’6” gauge for the D&RGW, and it was also
seriously considered for South Africa, only being replaced by 3’6”. So a
well read railway engineer in 1900 would not have found the idea of a
2’6” gauge railway strange.

The second thing is at the end of the 19th C there was quite a bit of
pressure to build NG railways in this gauge throughout the British
Empire. The British military declared that all future NG lines should be
2’6” gauge. While this would not have affected self governing Victoria,
it would have been a big hint. Also at this time railway engineer E R
Calthrop was promoting the use of 2’6” gauge. He did quite a bit of work
to show that for feeder lines, this gauge offered the prospect of the
best financial return. Calthorp was behind several lines in India, most
notably the Barsi Light Railway, but also the Weshpool & Llanfair and
the Leak & Manifold in Britain. He also introduced the concept of
transporter wagons. We know that Calthrop was corresponding with VR over
the proposed NG lines. So all said the gauge is perhaps not a surprise.

The rolling stock question is also interesting. There is a “rule” that
states that rolling stock should not be more than 3 times the track
gauge. Rules are made to be broken, but I’ve seen very few items of 2’
gauge rolling stock more than 6’ or 6’2” wide. So at 6’6” wide the VR
stock would be a little too wide for 2’ gauge. By comparison the Barsi
LR wagons were 7’ wide. I’m not sure you are right about being able to
build the locos in 2’ gauge. At 8’3” the nA class are as wide as any
2’6” gauge loco. I doubt if a feasible 2’ gauge loco could have been
built to the same specifications.

As a side point it is interesting to compare the rated maximum loads of
the VR and Barsi LR open wagons. Both were 25’ long on pressed steel
underframes, with Fox bogies. The Barsi LR had 30lb rail, and allowed an
axle loading of 5 tons. Calthrop multiplied this by the 4 axles, and
deducted .the weight of the wagon to give a loading of 14.75 tons per
wagon. This compares with the VR maximum loading of 10 or 11 tons, which
by comparison looks very conservative.

Cheers,

Michael J

-----Original Message-----
From: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au] On
Behalf Of crannyjohn
Sent: 06 February 2007 14:25
To: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: [LRRSA] The narrow gauge question? Best gauge?

Hi all,

Very interesting that the size of the VR rolling stock was more 2'
like. On reflection they do seem the same size as used on the NE
Dundus line in Tas. Given that the locos used could easily have been
built to 2' gauge, was there any real advantage in using 2' 6" gauge
in Victoria? It would be interesting if someone in the know could make
a comparison between the VR lines and NE Dundus.

Cheers
John



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


John Browning
 

In taking up the cudgels on behalf of the 2ft gauge, I agree with Michael's
assertions regarding the extent of 2ft 6ins gauge railways in the orbit of the
British Empire in the late 19th century.

This is not to detract from the fact that the 2ft gauge and its continental
close equivalent, 600mm gauge, represents the world's first significant
locomotive-hauled narrow gauge railway (the Festiniog) as well as becoming the
original extensively-used and extremely significant developmental narrow gauge
originating from the portable track concept. The CSR cane tramways in
Queensland at Victoria, Homebush and Goondi mills were among the first of
these.

Interestngly, can Michael explain the choice of 2ft 6ins gauge by Metropolitan
Gas in melbourne in 1886? Can anyone say if any locomotives of this gauge were
built before this date? (I can't check readily because my library is 1000km
away.)

2ft 6ins was a gauge that did make up for some of the perceived defects of 2ft
while not straying too far from its costs and versatility. Calthrop was
certainly a major influence and advocate. But given that 3ft gauge was already
well established, tried and tested, one wonders why 2ft 6ins was preferred to
it.

The paucity of 2ft 6ins gauge railways in the UK and the relatively low number
of preserved lines of this gauge worldwide reflects the fact that 2ft 6ins was
an "afterthought" in the then more developed countries and that the ubiquitous
2ft gauge never lost its popularity for industrial and temporary applications.

The British had to change their position and revert to 2ft gauge for the
narrow gauge military railways on the western front in the Great War. Their
insistence on 2ft 6ins in other theatres such as Salonika and Egypt caused
significant problems and wastage of resources.

It is hardly correct to imagine that the "rule" of three times the track
gauge was not broken often. The CSR Hudswell Clarke tender engines, introduced
in 1912, were 7ft wide and from that date I don't believe that you would find
many new locomotives as narrow as 6ft or 6ft 2ins in the Queensland sugar
industry. Of course, I realise that this was subsequent to the introduction of
the 2ft 6ins in Victoria.

In relation to the specifications of the NA class, without doubt they are
powerful locomotives, but there have been many very powerful 2ft gauge
locomotives built. I have no doubt that in 1898 Baldwin would quite happily
have built a 2ft gauge version of the NA practically identical to it in all
other respects.

The current use of 44 tonne ex standard gauge diesel locomotives with 11-tonne
capacity 4-wheel cane wagons in Queensland leaves no doubt that the 2ft gauge
can handle just about anything that has been put on 2ft 6ins gauge, even if a
wider gauge is more optimal. The real issue nowadays is not the gauge but the
weight of rail being used. Mind you, no one would suggest that 2ft gauge would
be chosen for sugar cane haulage in Queensland today if starting from scratch!
(Wouldn't that make the world a poorer place?)

Cheers

John Browning
Annerley
Queensland


Michael J
 

--- In LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au, ceo8@... wrote:


In taking up the cudgels on behalf of the 2ft gauge, I agree with
Michael's
assertions regarding the extent of 2ft 6ins gauge railways in the
orbit of the
British Empire in the late 19th century.
Well taken up. By the way ca we assume for the sake of discussion we
are talking about 2ft/600mm and 2ft6in/750/760mm.

This is not to detract from the fact that the 2ft gauge and its
continental
close equivalent, 600mm gauge, represents the world's first significant
locomotive-hauled narrow gauge railway (the Festiniog) as well as
becoming the
original extensively-used and extremely significant developmental
narrow gauge
originating from the portable track concept. The CSR cane tramways in
Queensland at Victoria, Homebush and Goondi mills were among the
first of
these.
Granted. Of course the Ffestiniog was constructed well before the
introduction of steam. And there is no denying that 2ft gauge is the
queen of industrial railway gauges, and of course the most practical
for portable track. But there were plenty of 2ft6in gauge industrial
railways, including cane trams in the Caribeen, southern USA, Taiwan,
off the top of my head.

Interestngly, can Michael explain the choice of 2ft 6ins gauge by
Metropolitan
Gas in melbourne in 1886?
No, except to say that 2ft6in was a common gauge in British gasworks.
Remember there was also the Long Tunnel mine line at Walhalla, which
dates from 1866, although I'm not sure what date locos were introduced.

Can anyone say if any locomotives of this gauge were
built before this date? (I can't check readily because my library is
1000km
away.)
Yes, plenty.

2ft 6ins was a gauge that did make up for some of the perceived
defects of 2ft
while not straying too far from its costs and versatility. Calthrop was
certainly a major influence and advocate. But given that 3ft gauge
was already
well established, tried and tested, one wonders why 2ft 6ins was
preferred to
it.
In the early days of narrow gauge I think it was pretty well the
choice of the promoter and engineer as to choice the gauge. Later
engineers such as Calthrop tried to introduce science, looking at
things like capacity against construction costs. Calthrop was quite
dismissive of 3ft gauge, especially as it was practiced in Ireland.

The paucity of 2ft 6ins gauge railways in the UK and the relatively
low number
of preserved lines of this gauge worldwide reflects the fact that
2ft 6ins was
an "afterthought" in the then more developed countries and that the
ubiquitous
2ft gauge never lost its popularity for industrial and temporary
applications.
I'd think the Germans and Austrians prior to WW1 would have objected
to being regarded as less developed. The term might be applied to the
Russians, but all three combined built thousands of miles of 750/760mm
gauge railways, quite a number of which are preserved. As far as
Britian goes, the following is a summary of mainland public NG
railways by gauge, then number, then number preserved:

2' 8 4
2'3" 4 1
2'4.5" 1 0
2'6" 3 1
2'8.5" 1 1
3' 5 0
3'6" 5 0

There may be some errors, and of course does not include industrial
lines, or recent tourist constructions. But it does show a fair
variety of gauges used, not only 2' (and of course some of the 2'
lines are actually 1'11.5")

The British had to change their position and revert to 2ft gauge for
the
narrow gauge military railways on the western front in the Great War.
Actually no. The British as junior partners in the land war were
obliged to adopt the French 600mm (not 2ft) gauge for the trench
railways. Interestingly there was only one 750mm gauge railway in
France, there was a law against gauges other than initially metre, and
later 600mm.

Their
insistence on 2ft 6ins in other theatres such as Salonika and Egypt
caused
significant problems and wastage of resources.
I know nothing about Salonika. In Egypt there was already an extensive
(over 1000 km) 750mm gauge system, the Delta Light Railways,as well as
at least three inderpendant lines of that gauge. In Iraq things worked
just as they were meant to - the British simply picked up an entire
2ft6in gauge railway from India and laid it in the Basra region to
support their invasion.

It is hardly correct to imagine that the "rule" of three times the
track
gauge was not broken often. The CSR Hudswell Clarke tender engines,
introduced
in 1912, were 7ft wide and from that date I don't believe that you
would find
many new locomotives as narrow as 6ft or 6ft 2ins in the Queensland
sugar
industry. Of course, I realise that this was subsequent to the
introduction of
the 2ft 6ins in Victoria.
Sorry my mistake, the rule applies not to locos but rolling stock. I
think that locos being symetrical and with the weight centred, there
was less of a problem with stability. I think it also fair to say that
we are talking about public railways - what is done past the factory
gate might be a different matter.

In relation to the specifications of the NA class, without doubt
they are
powerful locomotives, but there have been many very powerful 2ft gauge
locomotives built. I have no doubt that in 1898 Baldwin would quite
happily
have built a 2ft gauge version of the NA practically identical to it
in all
other respects.
My point related to the width, and in the steam era there definately
seemed to be a maximum width - for 2ft6in gauge that was 8'3" or there
abouts. I did measure the largest 2ft gauge loco I have plans for, a
South African NG15 class, and it's width is 7'3".

The current use of 44 tonne ex standard gauge diesel locomotives
with 11-tonne
capacity 4-wheel cane wagons in Queensland leaves no doubt that the
2ft gauge
can handle just about anything that has been put on 2ft 6ins gauge,
even if a
wider gauge is more optimal. The real issue nowadays is not the
gauge but the
weight of rail being used. Mind you, no one would suggest that 2ft
gauge would
be chosen for sugar cane haulage in Queensland today if starting
from scratch!
(Wouldn't that make the world a poorer place?)
True enough. However my point was and remains that to a railway
engineer in 1900 the choice of 2ft6in as a track gauge would have
seemed entirely reasonable and logical. It just seems to me that often
we wipe it off as something odd today.

cheers,

Michael


Frank Stamford
 

--- In LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au, ceo8@... wrote:


Interestngly, can Michael explain the choice of 2ft 6ins gauge by
Metropolitan
Gas in melbourne in 1886? Can anyone say if any locomotives of this
gauge were
built before this date?
I don't know why the Metropolitan Gas Co. chose 2 ft 6 in gauge, but
75 cm gauge (2 ft 5-1/2 in) was by that time well established for
public railways.

The Royal Saxon State Railways (headquarterd at Dresden) began
building a large system of 75 cm gauge branch lines in 1881. The first
locos were 0-6-0Ts built by Sächsische Maschinenfabrik, Chemnitz. They
were the Saxon IK class, with an in-service weight of 16.8 tonnes.
About 44 locos of this class were built. As the traffic built up other
classes followed, including (amongst others) two Double-Fairlie
0-4-4-0Ts built by R. & W. Hawthorn in 1884; six 0-6-2Ts with Klose
flexible wheelbase; and the highly successful IVK class 0-4-4-0T Meyer
articulated locos, which first appeared in 1891 and of which well over
100 were built.

The rolling stock on the Saxon 75 cm gauge lines was quite narrow, and
could have been accommodated on 2ft/60 cm gauge.

But they carried standard-gauge wagons and vans on transporter trucks,
as was done on the Leek & Manifold in England. I do not think that was
possible on 2 ft gauge.

Regards,

Frank


bll_hnks
 

A couple of things: -

"That an NA could have easily been built to 2ft gauge" - Yes, sort of. The ration between the length of the wheelbase to the track gauge would increase. A 2ft gauge NA would most likely not be able to negotiated curves as sharp as the 2ft 6in versions. It has been stated earlier that the contractors objected to the VR specifications and refused to submit tenders. Maybe they could not supply 2ft gauge locomotives as powerful as the VR wanted, therefore the change to 2ft 6in enabled more powerful locomotives to be built with a relatively short wheelbase to negotiated the 2 chain curves.

I viewed a drawing last night for the attachment of weights to the underframes of the NU louvre vans to reduce their centre of gravity. If these weights needed to be added to vehicles that were 6ft 3in wide to stabilize them what would wider vehicles have been like?! Maybe the width of the VR NG vehicles is right, but then again the ex Mt Lyell 3ft 6in gauge cars sit reasonably well on 2ft 6in.

Bill Hanks



________________________________

From: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au] On Behalf Of Michael J
Sent: Thursday, 8 February 2007 12:04 AM
To: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: [LRRSA] Re: The narrow gauge question? Best gauge?



--- In LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au <mailto:LRRSA%40yahoogroups.com.au> , ceo8@... wrote:


In taking up the cudgels on behalf of the 2ft gauge, I agree with
Michael's
assertions regarding the extent of 2ft 6ins gauge railways in the
orbit of the
British Empire in the late 19th century.
Well taken up. By the way ca we assume for the sake of discussion we
are talking about 2ft/600mm and 2ft6in/750/760mm.

This is not to detract from the fact that the 2ft gauge and its
continental
close equivalent, 600mm gauge, represents the world's first significant
locomotive-hauled narrow gauge railway (the Festiniog) as well as
becoming the
original extensively-used and extremely significant developmental
narrow gauge
originating from the portable track concept. The CSR cane tramways in
Queensland at Victoria, Homebush and Goondi mills were among the
first of
these.
Granted. Of course the Ffestiniog was constructed well before the
introduction of steam. And there is no denying that 2ft gauge is the
queen of industrial railway gauges, and of course the most practical
for portable track. But there were plenty of 2ft6in gauge industrial
railways, including cane trams in the Caribeen, southern USA, Taiwan,
off the top of my head.

Interestngly, can Michael explain the choice of 2ft 6ins gauge by
Metropolitan
Gas in melbourne in 1886?
No, except to say that 2ft6in was a common gauge in British gasworks.
Remember there was also the Long Tunnel mine line at Walhalla, which
dates from 1866, although I'm not sure what date locos were introduced.

Can anyone say if any locomotives of this gauge were
built before this date? (I can't check readily because my library is
1000km
away.)
Yes, plenty.

2ft 6ins was a gauge that did make up for some of the perceived
defects of 2ft
while not straying too far from its costs and versatility. Calthrop was
certainly a major influence and advocate. But given that 3ft gauge
was already
well established, tried and tested, one wonders why 2ft 6ins was
preferred to
it.
In the early days of narrow gauge I think it was pretty well the
choice of the promoter and engineer as to choice the gauge. Later
engineers such as Calthrop tried to introduce science, looking at
things like capacity against construction costs. Calthrop was quite
dismissive of 3ft gauge, especially as it was practiced in Ireland.

The paucity of 2ft 6ins gauge railways in the UK and the relatively
low number
of preserved lines of this gauge worldwide reflects the fact that
2ft 6ins was
an "afterthought" in the then more developed countries and that the
ubiquitous
2ft gauge never lost its popularity for industrial and temporary
applications.
I'd think the Germans and Austrians prior to WW1 would have objected
to being regarded as less developed. The term might be applied to the
Russians, but all three combined built thousands of miles of 750/760mm
gauge railways, quite a number of which are preserved. As far as
Britian goes, the following is a summary of mainland public NG
railways by gauge, then number, then number preserved:

2' 8 4
2'3" 4 1
2'4.5" 1 0
2'6" 3 1
2'8.5" 1 1
3' 5 0
3'6" 5 0

There may be some errors, and of course does not include industrial
lines, or recent tourist constructions. But it does show a fair
variety of gauges used, not only 2' (and of course some of the 2'
lines are actually 1'11.5")

The British had to change their position and revert to 2ft gauge for
the
narrow gauge military railways on the western front in the Great War.
Actually no. The British as junior partners in the land war were
obliged to adopt the French 600mm (not 2ft) gauge for the trench
railways. Interestingly there was only one 750mm gauge railway in
France, there was a law against gauges other than initially metre, and
later 600mm.

Their
insistence on 2ft 6ins in other theatres such as Salonika and Egypt
caused
significant problems and wastage of resources.
I know nothing about Salonika. In Egypt there was already an extensive
(over 1000 km) 750mm gauge system, the Delta Light Railways,as well as
at least three inderpendant lines of that gauge. In Iraq things worked
just as they were meant to - the British simply picked up an entire
2ft6in gauge railway from India and laid it in the Basra region to
support their invasion.

It is hardly correct to imagine that the "rule" of three times the
track
gauge was not broken often. The CSR Hudswell Clarke tender engines,
introduced
in 1912, were 7ft wide and from that date I don't believe that you
would find
many new locomotives as narrow as 6ft or 6ft 2ins in the Queensland
sugar
industry. Of course, I realise that this was subsequent to the
introduction of
the 2ft 6ins in Victoria.
Sorry my mistake, the rule applies not to locos but rolling stock. I
think that locos being symetrical and with the weight centred, there
was less of a problem with stability. I think it also fair to say that
we are talking about public railways - what is done past the factory
gate might be a different matter.

In relation to the specifications of the NA class, without doubt
they are
powerful locomotives, but there have been many very powerful 2ft gauge
locomotives built. I have no doubt that in 1898 Baldwin would quite
happily
have built a 2ft gauge version of the NA practically identical to it
in all
other respects.
My point related to the width, and in the steam era there definately
seemed to be a maximum width - for 2ft6in gauge that was 8'3" or there
abouts. I did measure the largest 2ft gauge loco I have plans for, a
South African NG15 class, and it's width is 7'3".

The current use of 44 tonne ex standard gauge diesel locomotives
with 11-tonne
capacity 4-wheel cane wagons in Queensland leaves no doubt that the
2ft gauge
can handle just about anything that has been put on 2ft 6ins gauge,
even if a
wider gauge is more optimal. The real issue nowadays is not the
gauge but the
weight of rail being used. Mind you, no one would suggest that 2ft
gauge would
be chosen for sugar cane haulage in Queensland today if starting
from scratch!
(Wouldn't that make the world a poorer place?)
True enough. However my point was and remains that to a railway
engineer in 1900 the choice of 2ft6in as a track gauge would have
seemed entirely reasonable and logical. It just seems to me that often
we wipe it off as something odd today.

cheers,

Michael





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Bernie and Trish
 

……….lets not forget that idiot who was doing his best to take over the world
in WW II. His name was Adolf Hitler and this clown had visions of a ten foot
gauge. As if some of that European stuff isn’t butt ugly as it is, imagine
what the looks of something on 10’ would look like. “Oh look our station is
arriving”. Then again we could have 20 000 hp units where the likes of EMD
could just stack those 16-710 in side ways., but I’m not sure how a 14 foot
wide F7 would look at 9’ 9” high.

Bernie at the funny farm.

_____

From: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au] On Behalf
Of Michael
Sent: Tuesday, February 06, 2007 9:42 PM
To: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: RE: [LRRSA] The narrow gauge question? Best gauge?

Hi John,

As one who has made a bit of a hobby out of investigating 2’6”/750mm
gauge railways in particular, your question is of some interest to me.

First thing to say is that 2’6” was not the unusual gauge we sometimes
think it is. Worldwide there was probably more mileage of 2’6” gauge
common carriers than 2’ gauge, and certainly more than 3’ gauge. There
were a number of systems with over 1000 route km, and many more with
less, in all parts of the world. The first 2’6” gauge lines started in
the early narrow gauge days. For instance the Antofagasta (Chili) &
Bolivia Railway started construction in 1872, and had a 1500km route
that climbed from sea level to over 4500 metres, while handling goods
traffic totalling near 2 million tons per annum. I have even read that
General Palmer considered 2’6” gauge for the D&RGW, and it was also
seriously considered for South Africa, only being replaced by 3’6”. So a
well read railway engineer in 1900 would not have found the idea of a
2’6” gauge railway strange.

The second thing is at the end of the 19th C there was quite a bit of
pressure to build NG railways in this gauge throughout the British
Empire. The British military declared that all future NG lines should be
2’6” gauge. While this would not have affected self governing Victoria,
it would have been a big hint. Also at this time railway engineer E R
Calthrop was promoting the use of 2’6” gauge. He did quite a bit of work
to show that for feeder lines, this gauge offered the prospect of the
best financial return. Calthorp was behind several lines in India, most
notably the Barsi Light Railway, but also the Weshpool & Llanfair and
the Leak & Manifold in Britain. He also introduced the concept of
transporter wagons. We know that Calthrop was corresponding with VR over
the proposed NG lines. So all said the gauge is perhaps not a surprise.

The rolling stock question is also interesting. There is a “rule” that
states that rolling stock should not be more than 3 times the track
gauge. Rules are made to be broken, but I’ve seen very few items of 2’
gauge rolling stock more than 6’ or 6’2” wide. So at 6’6” wide the VR
stock would be a little too wide for 2’ gauge. By comparison the Barsi
LR wagons were 7’ wide. I’m not sure you are right about being able to
build the locos in 2’ gauge. At 8’3” the nA class are as wide as any
2’6” gauge loco. I doubt if a feasible 2’ gauge loco could have been
built to the same specifications.

As a side point it is interesting to compare the rated maximum loads of
the VR and Barsi LR open wagons. Both were 25’ long on pressed steel
underframes, with Fox bogies. The Barsi LR had 30lb rail, and allowed an
axle loading of 5 tons. Calthrop multiplied this by the 4 axles, and
deducted .the weight of the wagon to give a loading of 14.75 tons per
wagon. This compares with the VR maximum loading of 10 or 11 tons, which
by comparison looks very conservative.

Cheers,

Michael J

-----Original Message-----
From: LRRSA@yahoogroups. <mailto:LRRSA%40yahoogroups.com.au> com.au
[mailto:LRRSA@yahoogroups. <mailto:LRRSA%40yahoogroups.com.au> com.au] On
Behalf Of crannyjohn
Sent: 06 February 2007 14:25
To: LRRSA@yahoogroups. <mailto:LRRSA%40yahoogroups.com.au> com.au
Subject: [LRRSA] The narrow gauge question? Best gauge?

Hi all,

Very interesting that the size of the VR rolling stock was more 2'
like. On reflection they do seem the same size as used on the NE
Dundus line in Tas. Given that the locos used could easily have been
built to 2' gauge, was there any real advantage in using 2' 6" gauge
in Victoria? It would be interesting if someone in the know could make
a comparison between the VR lines and NE Dundus.

Cheers
John


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Steamfreak <steamfreak@...>
 

I viewed a drawing last night for the attachment of weights
to the underframes of the NU louvre vans to reduce their
centre of gravity. If these weights needed to be added to
vehicles that were 6ft 3in wide to stabilize them what would
wider vehicles have been like?! Maybe the width of the VR NG
vehicles is right, but then again the ex Mt Lyell 3ft 6in
gauge cars sit reasonably well on 2ft 6in.
By contrast, how wide is the NGG16 at Puffing Billy compared to an NA?

Trevor.


The Bickfords <womloc4@...>
 

Trevor,

I have here a detailed scale plan from athe Octber 1997 issue of Continental Modeller magazine.
It shows the front tank at 6'7" wide, the cab at 7'0" wide over the handrail knobs and the rear tank/bunker at 6'6" wide.

cheers,
Mike Bickford
Berowra & Nalya Tramway
Sydney, Australia
www.ritginc.org

----- Original Message -----
From: "Steamfreak" <steamfreak@bluedigital.com.au>
To: <LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au>
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 6:50 PM
Subject: RE: [LRRSA] Re: The narrow gauge question? Best gauge?


I viewed a drawing last night for the attachment of weights
to the underframes of the NU louvre vans to reduce their
centre of gravity. If these weights needed to be added to
vehicles that were 6ft 3in wide to stabilize them what would
wider vehicles have been like?! Maybe the width of the VR NG
vehicles is right, but then again the ex Mt Lyell 3ft 6in
gauge cars sit reasonably well on 2ft 6in.
By contrast, how wide is the NGG16 at Puffing Billy compared to an NA?

Trevor.


Frank Savery
 

Hi all,
If I remember my UK railway history correctly after closure one or more of the Leek & Manifold transporter wagons went to the Ashover Light Railway and was converted to 2' gauge. But it very quickly went out of use when it was found to be too unstable on 2' gauge.
cheers,
Frank Savery,
Ulverstone,
Tasmania

----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Stamford
To: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 8:08 AM
Subject: [LRRSA] Re: The narrow gauge question? Best gauge?


--- In LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au, ceo8@... wrote:

> Interestngly, can Michael explain the choice of 2ft 6ins gauge by
Metropolitan
> Gas in melbourne in 1886? Can anyone say if any locomotives of this
gauge were
> built before this date?

I don't know why the Metropolitan Gas Co. chose 2 ft 6 in gauge, but
75 cm gauge (2 ft 5-1/2 in) was by that time well established for
public railways.

The Royal Saxon State Railways (headquarterd at Dresden) began
building a large system of 75 cm gauge branch lines in 1881. The first
locos were 0-6-0Ts built by Sächsische Maschinenfabrik, Chemnitz. They
were the Saxon IK class, with an in-service weight of 16.8 tonnes.
About 44 locos of this class were built. As the traffic built up other
classes followed, including (amongst others) two Double-Fairlie
0-4-4-0Ts built by R. & W. Hawthorn in 1884; six 0-6-2Ts with Klose
flexible wheelbase; and the highly successful IVK class 0-4-4-0T Meyer
articulated locos, which first appeared in 1891 and of which well over
100 were built.

The rolling stock on the Saxon 75 cm gauge lines was quite narrow, and
could have been accommodated on 2ft/60 cm gauge.

But they carried standard-gauge wagons and vans on transporter trucks,
as was done on the Leek & Manifold in England. I do not think that was
possible on 2 ft gauge.

Regards,

Frank






------------------------------------------------------------------------------


No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.30/674 - Release Date: 7/02/2007 3:33 PM


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


B.Rumary
 

Michael J wrote:

I know nothing about Salonika. In Egypt there was already an extensive
(over 1000 km) 750mm gauge system, the Delta Light Railways,as well as
at least three inderpendant lines of that gauge. In Iraq things worked
just as they were meant to - the British simply picked up an entire
2ft6in gauge railway from India and laid it in the Basra region to
support their invasion.
I think the Allies mostly used 600mm around Salonika. As for the
"Egyptian" campaign, the forces advancing into Turkish territory
(Palestine, Syria, etc.) mostly used 600mm.

Brian Rumary, England

www.rumary.co.uk


B.Rumary
 

Frank Stamford wrote:

But they carried standard-gauge wagons and vans on transporter trucks,
as was done on the Leek & Manifold in England. I do not think that was
possible on 2 ft gauge.
After the L&M closed the transporter wagons were sold to a 2ft gauge
line and regauged. However they were found to be too unstable on such a
narrow gauge and soon taken out of service.

Brian Rumary, England

www.rumary.co.uk


Michael J
 

--- In LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au, "Frank Savery" <franksavery@...> wrote:

Hi all,
If I remember my UK railway history correctly after closure one or
more of the Leek & Manifold transporter wagons went to the Ashover
Light Railway and was converted to 2' gauge. But it very quickly went
out of use when it was found to be too unstable on 2' gauge.
If I remember right, there was another "rule" that the track gauge had
to be more than half the standard gauge track. Which implies that the
VR narrow gauge would not have been suitable for transhiper wagons
with broad gauge wagons.

Michael


bll_hnks
 

The 'Rollbokkers' (the bogies placed under the axles of 4 wheel standard gauge wagons), used on part of the Harz (East Germany) would have followed that rule. They appear to be quite stable.



Regards,

Bill Hanks



________________________________

From: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au] On Behalf Of Michael J
Sent: Friday, 9 February 2007 10:44 AM
To: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: [LRRSA] Re: The narrow gauge question? Best gauge?



--- In LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au <mailto:LRRSA%40yahoogroups.com.au> , "Frank Savery" <franksavery@...> wrote:

Hi all,
If I remember my UK railway history correctly after closure one or
more of the Leek & Manifold transporter wagons went to the Ashover
Light Railway and was converted to 2' gauge. But it very quickly went
out of use when it was found to be too unstable on 2' gauge.
If I remember right, there was another "rule" that the track gauge had
to be more than half the standard gauge track. Which implies that the
VR narrow gauge would not have been suitable for transhiper wagons
with broad gauge wagons.

Michael





[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Ron & Hilary Martin <ronhil@...>
 

Those on the Saxon 750mm gauge lines were equally effective.

Ron M.

-------Original Message-------

From: Bill Hanks
Date: 9/02/2007 12:19:21 PM
To: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: RE: [LRRSA] Re: The narrow gauge question? Best gauge?

The 'Rollbokkers' (the bogies placed under the axles of 4 wheel standard
gauge wagons), used on part of the Harz (East Germany) would have followed
that rule. They appear to be quite stable.



Regards,

Bill Hanks


Frank Stamford
 

Actually the Saxon 75cm gauge lines used Rollwagen rather than Rollböcke.

Rollwagen were transporter trucks on which the standard gauge wagons could
be rolled and clamped into position. There were eight-wheel and
twelve-wheel versions. I do not think they dated from the construction of
the first Saxon 75 cm gauge lines in 1881, but they were in use by early in
the twentieth century.

Rollböcke were individual four-wheel bogies which were clamped under the
axles of standard gauge wagons. 75 cm gauge Rollböcke were used in the
German state of Wuerttemburg, but I think they might be a relatively modern
development.

The type of transfer facilities for Rollböcke were more complex than for
Rollwagen. Rollböcke required a long deep pit under the standard-gauge
vehicles, Rollwagen just needed a simple ramp.

It was possible to carry bogie standard-gauge vehicles on Rollwagen, with
one Rollwagen under each standard gauge bogie, and a long reach-bar linking
the two Rollwagens.

The transporter trucks used on the Leek & Manifold Railway in England used
the same principle as the Rollwagen.

The Harz Mountain Railway was metre-gauge, so they certainly would have
been more stable than the 75 cm gauge Rollböcke and Rollwagen.


Frank

At 01:59 PM 9/02/2007, you wrote:

Those on the Saxon 750mm gauge lines were equally effective.

Ron M.

-------Original Message-------

From: Bill Hanks
Date: 9/02/2007 12:19:21 PM
To: <mailto:LRRSA%40yahoogroups.com.au>LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: RE: [LRRSA] Re: The narrow gauge question? Best gauge?

The 'Rollbokkers' (the bogies placed under the axles of 4 wheel standard
gauge wagons), used on part of the Harz (East Germany) would have followed
that rule. They appear to be quite stable.



Regards,

Bill Hanks





Ron & Hilary Martin <ronhil@...>
 

Frank

I think on this occasion we both score half a point <grin>

According to "Schmalspur zwischen Ostsee und Erzgebirge", Rollboecke were
used in Saxony at Reichenbach and just over the border
on the Forster Stadtbahn (beautiful little Chiemseebahn style steam tram
locos). Both of these were metre gauge rather than 750mm. This rather
endorses the discusiion that has been going on regarding stability and gauge
Obviously Rollboecke were less stable than Rollwagen, and therefore not
suitable for the narrower gauge. That also endorses the fact that the L&M
carriers were not suitable for the narrower Ashover. Both bogie fouling and
a tendency to tip over on curves must have made evn the 1934 test seem quite
hazardous.

Ron M.

-------Original Message-------

From: Frank Stamford
Date: 9/02/2007 9:23:18 PM
To: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: RE: [LRRSA] Re: The narrow gauge question? Best gauge?

Actually the Saxon 75cm gauge lines used Rollwagen rather than Rollböcke.

Rollwagen were transporter trucks on which the standard gauge wagons could
be rolled and clamped into position. There were eight-wheel and
twelve-wheel versions. I do not think they dated from the construction of
the first Saxon 75 cm gauge lines in 1881, but they were in use by early in
The twentieth century.


Frank Stamford
 

Ron,

Yes well I said the Saxon 75 cm gauge lines used Rollwagen not Rollböcke,
and I think that statement is correct, I was not speaking of Saxon metre
gauge lines.

It would be reasonable to assume that Rollwagen would be more stable on 75
cm gauge than Rollböcke. But 75 cm gauge Rollböcke were used in
Wuerttemburg on at least three lines, one was the Oechslebahn, another was
the Federseebahn, and the third the Bottwartalbahn.
I have a video of Wuerttemburg narrow-gauge lines and the standard-gauge
vans on the 75 cm gauge Rollböcke look very precarious to me!

Regards,

Frank

At 04:55 PM 10/02/2007, you wrote:

Frank

I think on this occasion we both score half a point <grin>

According to "Schmalspur zwischen Ostsee und Erzgebirge", Rollboecke were
used in Saxony at Reichenbach and just over the border
on the Forster Stadtbahn (beautiful little Chiemseebahn style steam tram
locos). Both of these were metre gauge rather than 750mm. This rather
endorses the discusiion that has been going on regarding stability and gauge
Obviously Rollboecke were less stable than Rollwagen, and therefore not
suitable for the narrower gauge. That also endorses the fact that the L&M
carriers were not suitable for the narrower Ashover. Both bogie fouling and
a tendency to tip over on curves must have made evn the 1934 test seem quite
hazardous.

Ron M.
-------Original Message-------

From: Frank Stamford
Date: 9/02/2007 9:23:18 PM
To: <mailto:LRRSA%40yahoogroups.com.au>LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: RE: [LRRSA] Re: The narrow gauge question? Best gauge?

Actually the Saxon 75cm gauge lines used Rollwagen rather than Rollböcke.

Rollwagen were transporter trucks on which the standard gauge wagons could
be rolled and clamped into position. There were eight-wheel and
twelve-wheel versions. I do not think they dated from the construction of
the first Saxon 75 cm gauge lines in 1881, but they were in use by early in
The twentieth century.


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


Michael J
 

What was used in Poland? My memory was Rollbocke type equipment, but I’m
not sure.

Cheers,

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au [mailto:LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au] On
Behalf Of Frank Stamford
Sent: 10 February 2007 21:07
To: LRRSA@yahoogroups.com.au
Subject: RE: [LRRSA] Re: The narrow gauge question? Best gauge?


Ron,

Yes well I said the Saxon 75 cm gauge lines used Rollwagen not
Rollböcke,
and I think that statement is correct, I was not speaking of Saxon metre

gauge lines.