Yes, there were a few Garratts in Britain, many in Australia, some in India, Spain, Algeria and Brazil, and one or two in Russia.
So what is "narrow?"
- Thread starter BrownMouse
- Start date
Hum, not to be a brat, but I've always heard 4' 8 1/2" referred to at "American Standard Gauge" or "English Standard Gauge".
Jbaakko, that depends entirely where you are from/are/when.
Such an opinion (I'm saying that it's yours, but undoubtly some people hold to it) is reasonable.
As a general rule of thumb, the #1 reason do have standards is for uniformity. PCs have to have uniform standards or else Dell can purchase DVD roms from Toshiba, etc... Macs avoid this uniformity which limits the efficiency of 3rd party hardware, but allows them not to be limited by them. I have 2 dell laptops, but my wife's is a mac. Neither way is better.
How does this relate to railroads? If I operate a railroad from Chicago to Cincinnati on 3' gauge and I have a competitor whom uses 56.5" game...they don't necessarily have an advantage on me in shipping a boxcar full of sprockets to Chicago. But! If its going to Milwaukee over a 56.5" gauge railroad, they're going to be able to do it faster and cheaper than me, as I have to transfer the load. Hence a major reason why many railroads switched gauges...creating the unofficial standard gauge.
Since steam railways were invented in England, it makes sense that most other nations would start by copying the English practices...commonly purchasing British engines (like the John Bull). When the British railways largely became standardized...this standardized, to a degree...the theories of track gauge that foreign engineers learned in Britain.
Hence, the British standards were adopted by the continent and elsewhere.
If you were in a country like Japan that already had 42" gauge as common, you would have a good reason to build 42" gauge...interchange business.
I suspect that a major reason that Japan switched to 56.5" for their high speed service is that there was ample european information available for 56.5" higher speed trains and possibly some limitations from their existing network.
Since everyone learned from the British...we copied their standards too more than we developed our own...and hence we ended up adopting their standards as they were already the widest spread ideas even before they became standard.
Note that many of the coupler and brake rules in the US actually only applied for interchange usage.
Interestingly, a standard British double track railway practice was to run trains on the left track...while in America, it was on the right track. This specifically affected the signal set up as the engineer needs to see the signals. But, the Chicago and Northwestern was financed by British investors, so it operated on the left hand side like a British railway! It did so into the UP ownership.
Such an opinion (I'm saying that it's yours, but undoubtly some people hold to it) is reasonable.
As a general rule of thumb, the #1 reason do have standards is for uniformity. PCs have to have uniform standards or else Dell can purchase DVD roms from Toshiba, etc... Macs avoid this uniformity which limits the efficiency of 3rd party hardware, but allows them not to be limited by them. I have 2 dell laptops, but my wife's is a mac. Neither way is better.
How does this relate to railroads? If I operate a railroad from Chicago to Cincinnati on 3' gauge and I have a competitor whom uses 56.5" game...they don't necessarily have an advantage on me in shipping a boxcar full of sprockets to Chicago. But! If its going to Milwaukee over a 56.5" gauge railroad, they're going to be able to do it faster and cheaper than me, as I have to transfer the load. Hence a major reason why many railroads switched gauges...creating the unofficial standard gauge.
Since steam railways were invented in England, it makes sense that most other nations would start by copying the English practices...commonly purchasing British engines (like the John Bull). When the British railways largely became standardized...this standardized, to a degree...the theories of track gauge that foreign engineers learned in Britain.
Hence, the British standards were adopted by the continent and elsewhere.
If you were in a country like Japan that already had 42" gauge as common, you would have a good reason to build 42" gauge...interchange business.
I suspect that a major reason that Japan switched to 56.5" for their high speed service is that there was ample european information available for 56.5" higher speed trains and possibly some limitations from their existing network.
Since everyone learned from the British...we copied their standards too more than we developed our own...and hence we ended up adopting their standards as they were already the widest spread ideas even before they became standard.
Note that many of the coupler and brake rules in the US actually only applied for interchange usage.
Interestingly, a standard British double track railway practice was to run trains on the left track...while in America, it was on the right track. This specifically affected the signal set up as the engineer needs to see the signals. But, the Chicago and Northwestern was financed by British investors, so it operated on the left hand side like a British railway! It did so into the UP ownership.
Oh yes I do understand. As I said, thats what I've heard it referred to as. I bet you if you ask someone in a country where it is not prevalent, what standard gauge is, they won't say 56.5"!
Anyways... General rule of thumb seems to be < 56.5" = Narrow Gauge, 56.5" = Standard Gauge, and > 56.5 = Wide Gauge.
Anyways... General rule of thumb seems to be < 56.5" = Narrow Gauge, 56.5" = Standard Gauge, and > 56.5 = Wide Gauge.
Oooh, I typed "(I'm saying that it's yours" when I meant it type "(I'm NOT saying that it's yours" . I presumed you to be playing the devil's advocate...and I definitely agree that there are local, national, and international standards...commonly which are unofficial...but defacto standards.
I wish 3' steam was still the standard in Colorado! :mrgreen:
At least we still have the Georgetown Loop, Silverton Branch, and 64 miles of the Narrow Gauge circle...if only Bill Gates wanted to reopen the Alpine tunnel district and build a replica mason bogie...sign1
Oh, and here's too the odd gauge locomotives running in the US!
I know of the Russian decapod (with extra wide tires) at Union, IL...the Panama 2-6-0 (same deal...5" gauge design with extra wide tires) in Arkansas, and the odd gauge mason bogie at Greenfield Village.
This one is always mentioned, while the DM&IR which was also left-hand is often forgotten.
Fascinating! I wasn't aware of that!
I love the ex-DM&IR 0-10-2 in Greenville, PA! Someday I hope to get up to see all of their wonderful preserved engines in Minnesota....or at least a 2-8-8-4!
But when you think about it, that practice keeps the market and industry for rolling stock within the country, and effectively blocks outside manufacturers. 
But when you think about it, that practice keeps the market and industry for rolling stock within the country, and effectively blocks outside manufacturers.
Actually, it never really helped all that much. Manufacturers will gladly fill an order for any gauge of track.
But it did help slow down invasions!
Irish gauge
Interestingly - although just across the Irish Sea from Britain - Ireland's standard gauge is 5'3". Some narrow gauge lines did exist (some preserved), mostly 3 foot gauge.
Wikipedia has an intersting article on the early gauges (inc. 6'2", 5'2", & 4'8.5"), and why this gauge was chosen. (History of rail transport in Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Any stock transferred between Britain and Ireland had to be re-gauged of course. For many years the railways of both the republic and Northern Ireland have been independent of British railways, but in the early part of the 20th century many of the Irish companies were subsidiaries of British ones, so such re-gauging did sometimes take place.:thumb:
Interestingly - although just across the Irish Sea from Britain - Ireland's standard gauge is 5'3". Some narrow gauge lines did exist (some preserved), mostly 3 foot gauge.
Wikipedia has an intersting article on the early gauges (inc. 6'2", 5'2", & 4'8.5"), and why this gauge was chosen. (History of rail transport in Ireland - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)
Any stock transferred between Britain and Ireland had to be re-gauged of course. For many years the railways of both the republic and Northern Ireland have been independent of British railways, but in the early part of the 20th century many of the Irish companies were subsidiaries of British ones, so such re-gauging did sometimes take place.:thumb:
In Japan one metre is 'standard' and the bullet train uses 'broad gauge' which is what we call standard here. They are slowly changing most of over to our gauge so soon their 'broad' will become their 'standard.
Kind of funny if you think about it
This does not match the facts.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/ja.html#Trans
Gauge Total KM
1435mm....... 3,204 km
1372mm....... 77 km
1067mm....... 20,264 km
762mm....... 11km
On a percentage basis.
1435mm 13.60%
1372mm 0.33%
1067mm 86.02%
762mm .05%
------
100.00%
1435mm is 4ft 8 1/2 in
1372mm is 4ft 6in (known as Tokyo streetcar gauge)
1067mm is 3ft 6in (Japanese standard gauge)
762mm is 2ft6in
Using standard gauge for Shinkansen lines probably had more to do with getting 5 seats abreast in economy coaches.
Some JR Freight photos which would all be on 3ft 6in lines. Freight is minor factor in Japanese railways. Most freight in Japan is moved by ships.
“ŒIŽÔ—¼Hêƒgƒbƒvƒy[ƒW
Google Translate
Google Translate
Subordinate Commentary
:thumb:
Triplex:
The VIRGINIAN's triplex was a steam compound 2-8-8-8-4, NOT an electric locomotive. They also
operated 2-10-10-2s that had the largest (low
pressure) cylinders on any locomotive to serve
on this continent. Unlike their triplex, the
2-10-10-2s had lesser problems with engines'
parts wear, and making adequate steam to get
over the road. So they lasted longer than any
ones triplexes.
For what it is worth the MoPac bought
compound 2-8-8-2s for similar service as
the VIrginian's behemoths. Namely as
banking engines (a/k/a pushers), to shove
the hills. One was ordered (I believe #4000 or
5000) with multiple auxiliary locomotive
engines for both tender bogies (a/k/a trucks).
Auxiliary locomotives (a/k/a booster engines),
were mostly based upon Bethlehem Steel
or Franklin Railway Appliance models. This
MoPac 2-8-8-2 (+ 6 +6) was in fact a unique
animal. To whit, a four engined locomotive;
a QUADRUPLEX in other words. Like the
triplexes the extra boosters made the
MoPac's locomotive more a headache than
a boon.
Probably, better quality of care in places
where wages were a lower portion of operating
expenses could have made all of these more
complex locos viable.
The VIRGINIAN 2-10-10-2s , like the
one group of ERIE mallet's that did work well
(their Wootten system 0-8-8-0s), soldiered
on providing low speed muscle shoving
trains over the Blue Ridge, and Pocono grades
respectively, for many years.
For what it is worth, since someone brought
it up, the Confederacy was not more handicapped
than the USA in the Civil War by gauge
differences. The largest and most modern
railroads was the ERIE, at the time. It was
a six ft. gauge railroad (as was the Lackawanna),
that connected with the six ft. gauge M&O
at Cincinnati.
So there was no interface of equipment with any "standard" gauge lines by the extensive system
of six feet railroads.
Ohio was covered with a maze of lines which
were built to "Ohio" gauge. This was
deliberately set at a non-standard gauge by
the legislature in Columbus to force rail
lines coming into the state to have to break
bulk, if they wanted state assistance.
Most, after the initial lines came, did need it.
This was because buying rights of way at
fair prices quickly became impossible;
without the use of the state's power of
eminent domain to force the sale of property
and judicially set equitable prices.
Erie, Pennsylvania would not let any
line coming into the city connect directly
to another railroad in order to preserve all
the jobs involved in breaking bulk there.
Richmond, Virginia had similar laws for
similar reasons. They were not alone
in indulging in this sort of municipal
job preservation and creation all over
the country.
The burdens of inability to interchange
freight cars was not sectionally biased.
Read Rogers book on the railroad networks
development in the 19th century, or
see Bianculli's volume 2 in his TRAINS and
TECHNOLOGY; in the Nineteenth Century.
There also was a cultural and systemic bias
against interchange of freight. That boils
down to lack of organization to administer
such a system, at the time the war broke out.
There are many facets to the latter matter,
but this is not the time or place to go into
it, because few care about these details. I
do hope these comments are helpful anyway.
Good-Luck, Peter Boylan
:thumb:
Triplex:
The VIRGINIAN's triplex was a steam compound 2-8-8-8-4, NOT an electric locomotive. They also
operated 2-10-10-2s that had the largest (low
pressure) cylinders on any locomotive to serve
on this continent. Unlike their triplex, the
2-10-10-2s had lesser problems with engines'
parts wear, and making adequate steam to get
over the road. So they lasted longer than any
ones triplexes.
For what it is worth the MoPac bought
compound 2-8-8-2s for similar service as
the VIrginian's behemoths. Namely as
banking engines (a/k/a pushers), to shove
the hills. One was ordered (I believe #4000 or
5000) with multiple auxiliary locomotive
engines for both tender bogies (a/k/a trucks).
Auxiliary locomotives (a/k/a booster engines),
were mostly based upon Bethlehem Steel
or Franklin Railway Appliance models. This
MoPac 2-8-8-2 (+ 6 +6) was in fact a unique
animal. To whit, a four engined locomotive;
a QUADRUPLEX in other words. Like the
triplexes the extra boosters made the
MoPac's locomotive more a headache than
a boon.
Probably, better quality of care in places
where wages were a lower portion of operating
expenses could have made all of these more
complex locos viable.
The VIRGINIAN 2-10-10-2s , like the
one group of ERIE mallet's that did work well
(their Wootten system 0-8-8-0s), soldiered
on providing low speed muscle shoving
trains over the Blue Ridge, and Pocono grades
respectively, for many years.
For what it is worth, since someone brought
it up, the Confederacy was not more handicapped
than the USA in the Civil War by gauge
differences. The largest and most modern
railroads was the ERIE, at the time. It was
a six ft. gauge railroad (as was the Lackawanna),
that connected with the six ft. gauge M&O
at Cincinnati.
So there was no interface of equipment with any "standard" gauge lines by the extensive system
of six feet railroads.
Ohio was covered with a maze of lines which
were built to "Ohio" gauge. This was
deliberately set at a non-standard gauge by
the legislature in Columbus to force rail
lines coming into the state to have to break
bulk, if they wanted state assistance.
Most, after the initial lines came, did need it.
This was because buying rights of way at
fair prices quickly became impossible;
without the use of the state's power of
eminent domain to force the sale of property
and judicially set equitable prices.
Erie, Pennsylvania would not let any
line coming into the city connect directly
to another railroad in order to preserve all
the jobs involved in breaking bulk there.
Richmond, Virginia had similar laws for
similar reasons. They were not alone
in indulging in this sort of municipal
job preservation and creation all over
the country.
The burdens of inability to interchange
freight cars was not sectionally biased.
Read Rogers book on the railroad networks
development in the 19th century, or
see Bianculli's volume 2 in his TRAINS and
TECHNOLOGY; in the Nineteenth Century.
There also was a cultural and systemic bias
against interchange of freight. That boils
down to lack of organization to administer
such a system, at the time the war broke out.
There are many facets to the latter matter,
but this is not the time or place to go into
it, because few care about these details. I
do hope these comments are helpful anyway.
Good-Luck, Peter Boylan
I'm pro 2-10-10-2...I'm also pro 0-10-2 and pro 0-10-0. I can't imagine what it would have been like to been there on the day when one of the 2-10-10-2s blew up...and the conductor didn't know until a farmer told him. So sad.
A Virginian model railroad would be cool...I like their MB 2-8-2s...very classy design.
Interesting facts about the Japanese "standard gauge". There are engineering limitations on speed for a given gauge. Adopting 56.5" gauge for the Shinkansen line in Japan allowed them not only more seats, but also a more stable ride...and hence a faster line...than 42" gauge. This is not as big of a deal as it was in the steam era...but it is still a very big deal.
I was also under the impression that they were widening the gauge of their convention railroads. I do know that they have some very serious steam railfans...so hopefully don't lose their ability to operate the preserved steam engines.
I know about the 2-8-8-8-4, but they also had a 3-unit electric by that name. http://www.northeast.railfan.net/images/tr_vgn100.jpg
Well Bill I stand corrected again. I suppose I can no longer trust those tv shows that tell us about railways around the world. Dang, and I so enjoyed them too. I was not aware of them lying to us. Weird. I wonder why they did that?
Thanks again for setting me straight. Like a fool I trusted a different source. Sorry for miss informing you guys. I honestly thought they were telling the truth. I had no reason to believe they would lie about something as simple as that.
Oh well, live and learn.
Once again Bill thanks for setting the record straight. Much appreciated
Thanks again for setting me straight. Like a fool I trusted a different source. Sorry for miss informing you guys. I honestly thought they were telling the truth. I had no reason to believe they would lie about something as simple as that.
Oh well, live and learn.
Once again Bill thanks for setting the record straight.
Much appreciated I don't know if it is clearly a 2-12-2. It looks as if the drivers are in 2 sets under each unit, and each set isn't 6 wheels, but the outer one is the motor shaft -- you can see daylight under several of them.Since the first unit is clearly a 2-12-2-, where did they get the name from?
Triplex is because the 3 units form one locomotive -- note that it's numbered 100 at each end.
(And they did have a steam triplex as well.)