Would trains be better today if they had kept the broad gauge?

Question

Would trains be better today if they had kept the broad gauge?

Answer 1

Almost certainly as the existing track bed would have had to have been laid much straighter. The implication of straight lines on a modern railway is speed.

Wider track = less carriage body roll = more comfortable

More passengers could be accommodated in comfort,so a better idea all round.

Come back IKB,all is forgiven.

Answer 2

Absolutely and apart from carrying capacity and comfort which would have been even better than is available today, speeds could have been much higher.

Answer 3

Yes, but it's not practical at this point.  And there were more important steps to be taken anyway.

The so-called Standard Gauge became standard in part because railways that used that gauge lobbied Parliament in Britain to do it, rather than adapt the clearly superior broad gauge of the Great Western Railway of Brunel -- which had tracks 7 feet 1/4 inches wide.

Do the math, it's more than 2 feet 3 inches wider. It allows for great freight loads, more stability and ultimately higher speeds. But modern development has taken away most of the speed advantages, especially on passenger lines.  There is somewhat less concern about top heaviness in wide gauge, but that currently is not a major concern.

The costs are considerably higher, i.e. roadbeds need to be  wider and of the some level of work if the benefits are to be achieved. Cuts and tunnels must be wider.

There are some rail systems that mix wider gauges with narrower gauges, but it's somewhat difficult, especially when passenger trains and multiple trackways are involved. In the late 1880s, the United States converted all of its major railways, about 30,000 miles, in a single day to standard guage.

The French considered a wider gauge for the TGV lines, but it would have entailed too great an expense for what are essentially lightweight (only in some ways) trains. They took the steps of using a standard gauge with wider separation  between each set of tracks (to reduce wind buffting, etc) and less sharp curves etc.

Because they are standard gauge, however, they can be run into areas with high speed rail tracks, i.e. LGV are TGV tracks, but they run at lower speeds. This allowed expansion of the network much faster. It may no longer be true, but the Paris-Dijon line was an example. Some TGVS ran high speed to a junction off to Dijon and then ran at slower speeds. The mainline continued on at full speed to Lyons and beyond. The trains are designed to run on multiple voltages as ell, although the 130k voltes overhead is preferred.

The caution here is that a bad wide gauge line is not as good as a well maintained standard gauage. And a couple of inches won't make much difference. The Spanish still run wide guage, but most of their new high speed lines are standard gauge which allows them to run on the same tracks as the rest of the European network. The Russian guage was wide gauge in part to slow invasions. Narrower than standard gauge was used both to reflect projected loads and to lower construction coasts.

The primary older Japanese system was narrower than standard guage, but the bullet trains are regular width.

Converting now would require substantial expense just to get where we are and wide rails would not connect to existing tracks. Modern standard gauge rail has been vastly improved in technology which has caused most redeveloped lines to be put into that gauge.

The biggest improvements in railroads vary according to whether they are freight or rail. Freight lines in the U.S. need to be modified so that they can carry double stack container trains and the heaviest loads. Bottlenecks would need to be removed that force many miles of detours, tunnels widened and made higher. The problem is especially acute in the Northeast and in some older cities where rail dates to the 1800s in basic routing or structure. Trackbed improvements can only go so far. It ramins the most cost effective means of moving heavy freight, but lacks some of the flexibility of other methods -- for now.

In passenger traffic, almost everything in the United States is underfunded and too old. Trackage needs to be straightened and sometimes routes changed to make them somewhat more direct. Passenger only lines need roadbed improvement and in a sense, rail can't improve until there is more of it.

In areas where there is considerable rail service, e.g. the NYC area, more lines need to be electrified and (with the exception of subway service) should be given modernized catenary overhead.

At this point, our rail system is so deficient that wide gauge just isn't an issue and likely never will be. Had w started that way and kept it, it would be the only thing that made sense.

Hitler at one time fantanszied about building a superwide guage railroad from the German ports to the interior to supplement regular rail. But it was never really planned.

There may be conditions under which it would make sense to build wide gauge to perform specific heavy load functions in the same way we building supersized trucks for pit mining. But these would be point to point lines over routes that have exceeded their tonnage limits and that would meet specific condition.

Answer 4

The broad gauge was superior in terms of running quality and stability. Broad gauge trains were for a time the fastest in the world and the GWR's safety record was second to none, because in the event of a derailment their trains were more likely to stay upright as their centre of gravity was much lower.

However, in 1850 the Gauge Commission ruled that all future lines should be standard gauge and all existing broad gauge lines should be dual gauge.

This made the cost of maintaining the broad gauge system extremely high and this, coupled with the inconvenience of passengers, luggage and goods having to change at places like Gloucester where the gauges met, sounded the death knell for the 7' 0.25" system and by 1892 it had all been regauged to standard.

You can get a good impression of what the broad gauge was like by visiting the Great Western Society Museum at Didcot, where there is a section of reconstructed broad gauge line and a working replica broad gauge loco which is occasionally steamed.

Answer 5

Yes, from the point of view that they could accommodate more passengers (and freight) per unit length.

Answer 6

Undoubtedly, as more passengers could get on trains, they would be 'wide bodied', in modern parlance.

Sadly, it was easier to narrow railways rather than widen them.  IKB was that little bit too late to bring along the wide gauge.

Answer 7

i don't know but if used in heavy haul freight service (intermodal) as in the US, i believe there may be axle length/flex problems.  corresponding car body dimensions would of course need to be larger and there you get into more weight issues with the corresponding lower limit allowed for freight on board.

as mentioned above there also will be right of way /clearance issues to be dealt with also. i may have been feasible at one time but at this time i don't believe that it is

Answer 8

For carrying of Passengers and goods yes, for maintenance, ease of passage and comfort No. The problems of Broad Gauge are the same as any large or wide wheel based transport. Basically all the permanent way would have to cover a wider area, most of the tight curves eliminated, stations raised, tunnels, bridges, cuttings all altered, plus because of the larger wheels the suspension on the trains would have to be a lot larger and the boogies more supported, or extra placed in to cope with the etra weight carried.

Answer 9

The strict answer to your question is NO.

Whist the engineering of the broad guage would allow wider trains which would be more stable at speed (the original idea) and easier carriage of whole lorries; you can bet that successive incompetent governments since 1948 followed by greedy private companies would ensure that train operators like FGW would still run a lousy service and that fares would still be too high and that most freight still went by road.

At least with the broad guage there would be no need for tilting trains for high speeds. We'd have nice stable HSTs instead. But they'd still muck it up trying to run them.

Answer 10

Yes.

Firstly, the carraiges would be wider, thereby carrying more passengers per carraige length (potential for cheaper fares).

Secondly, freight wagons would be wider, so that the same tonnage could be carried in shorter trains, which would reduce delays to other trains.

Thirdly, broader gauge allows faster speeds to be achieved.

Brunel knew what he was doing when he used the seven foot gauge on the Great Western Railway