I found this interesting missive on standard rail gauge on the internet. First part attributable to Professor Tom O'Hare, University of Texas at Austin. - Its obviously of US origin but doesn't detract too much from the British history. Don't know if all this is exactly true but it sounds credible.
Quote....
"The US Standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and the US railroads were built by English expatriates.
Why did the English people build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.
Why did they use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.
Okay! Why did the wagons use that odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing the wagons would break on some of the old, long distance roads, because that's the spacing of the old wheel ruts.
So who built these old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in Europe were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of their legions. The roads have been used ever since.
And the ruts? The initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagons, were first made by Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made for, or by, Imperial Rome they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.
Thus, we have the answer to the original question. The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman army war chariot. Specs and Bureaucracies live forever."
... and it gets better
(unknown origin)
"So, the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's 'backside' (original word :censored:) came up with it, you may be exactly right. Because the Imperial Roman chariots were made to be just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses.
Now the twist to the story. . . .
There's an interesting extension of the story about railroad gauge and horses' behinds. When we see a Space Shuttle sitting on the launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are the solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at a factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line to the factory runs through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than a railroad track, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horses' behinds.
So a major design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined by the width of a horse's backside (original word :censored:)!"
Essentially the article is correct. Loved the 'booster' twist. Who would have thought?
Thanks.
Quote from: austinbob on January 08, 2015, 06:14:47 PM
I found this interesting missive on standard rail gauge on the internet. First part attributable to Professor Tom O'Hare, University of Texas at Austin. - Its obviously of US origin but doesn't detract too much from the British history. Don't know if all this is exactly true but it sounds credible.
Quote....
"The US Standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and the US railroads were built by English expatriates.
Why did the English people build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.
Why did they use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.
Okay! Why did the wagons use that odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing the wagons would break on some of the old, long distance roads, because that's the spacing of the old wheel ruts.
So who built these old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in Europe were built by Imperial Rome for the benefit of their legions. The roads have been used ever since.
And the ruts? The initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagons, were first made by Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made for, or by, Imperial Rome they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.
Thus, we have the answer to the original question. The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman army war chariot. Specs and Bureaucracies live forever."
... and it gets better
(unknown origin)
"So, the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's 'backside' (original word :censored:) came up with it, you may be exactly right. Because the Imperial Roman chariots were made to be just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses.
Now the twist to the story. . . .
There's an interesting extension of the story about railroad gauge and horses' behinds. When we see a Space Shuttle sitting on the launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are the solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at a factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line to the factory runs through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than a railroad track, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horses' behinds.
So a major design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined by the width of a horse's backside (original word :censored:)!"
Seems very plausible. If it's not true, it should be!
It's a good story. But not necessarily true. Do have a read of Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp (http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp)
Certainly, the bit about the Romans is (a very old) urban myth. Or rather, dirt tracks and other primitive roads were about 5 feet across all around the world simply because that's how big a horse and cart would be. You could substitute Ming Chinese, Tudor English or Ancient Egyptians for Romans and it'd still be basically true.
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: NeMo on January 08, 2015, 06:51:58 PM
It's a good story. But not necessarily true. Do have a read of Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp (http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp)
Certainly, the bit about the Romans is (a very old) urban myth. Or rather, dirt tracks and other primitive roads were about 5 feet across all around the world simply because that's how big a horse and cart would be. You could substitute Ming Chinese, Tudor English or Ancient Egyptians for Romans and it'd still be basically true.
Cheers, NeMo
Killjoy! ;)
Quote from: NeMo on January 08, 2015, 06:51:58 PM
It's a good story. But not necessarily true. Do have a read of Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp (http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp)
Certainly, the bit about the Romans is (a very old) urban myth. Or rather, dirt tracks and other primitive roads were about 5 feet across all around the world simply because that's how big a horse and cart would be. You could substitute Ming Chinese, Tudor English or Ancient Egyptians for Romans and it'd still be basically true.
Cheers, NeMo
That's a great article Nemo - and is obviously focused on the missive in my post. Just a shame that the orignal post is not 100% true cos I loved the story. Thanks
Quote from: ScottyStitch on January 08, 2015, 06:56:42 PM
Quote from: NeMo on January 08, 2015, 06:51:58 PM
It's a good story. But not necessarily true. Do have a read of Snopes:
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp (http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp)
Certainly, the bit about the Romans is (a very old) urban myth. Or rather, dirt tracks and other primitive roads were about 5 feet across all around the world simply because that's how big a horse and cart would be. You could substitute Ming Chinese, Tudor English or Ancient Egyptians for Romans and it'd still be basically true.
Cheers, NeMo
Killjoy! ;)
Quite!! ScottyStitch. I would have loved to have believed the original - but then who is right??
As Twain was supposed to have said, without any literary evidence apparently, "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story, unless you can't think of anything better".
Cheers, NeMo
Quote from: NeMo on January 08, 2015, 07:04:44 PM
As Twain was supposed to have said, without any literary evidence apparently, "Why let the truth get in the way of a good story, unless you can't think of anything better".
Cheers, NeMo
Again - 'Quite' - Lets believe the original story and publish it on Wiki - a lot of their stuff is a bit iffy anyway.
I was going to say that if the Roman empire had not declined they might have gone
on to build the first steam locos, then they could say "My chariot's on fire".
I'll get me toga.....
Here's a web site that gives more information - unfortunately is doesn't back up the original story in this post but its still very interesting and probably true.
http://www.discoverlivesteam.com/magazine/34/34.html (http://www.discoverlivesteam.com/magazine/34/34.html)
Such a shame...
Quote from: Agrippa on January 08, 2015, 07:34:55 PM
I was going to say that if the Roman empire had not declined they might have gone
on to build the first steam locos, then they could say "My chariot's on fire".
I'll get me toga.....
Or as Monty Python said "What have the Romans ever done for us?" (Life of Brian)
So railways can be added to heating, bathing, aqueducts etc :)
Quote from: newportnobby on January 08, 2015, 08:44:17 PM
Quote from: Agrippa on January 08, 2015, 07:34:55 PM
I was going to say that if the Roman empire had not declined they might have gone
on to build the first steam locos, then they could say "My chariot's on fire".
I'll get me toga.....
Or as Monty Python said "What have the Romans ever done for us?" (Life of Brian)
So railways can be added to heating, bathing, aqueducts etc :)
Sanitation...
The last bit of the story about the shuttle boosters is also totally rubbish, failing to understand the difference between structure gauge and track gauge. Or alternatively why the horses are twice as lardy in America.
It's mostly a myth, the Romans didn't build roads with ruts in, as the roads were mainly built by the legions to enable swift movement of foot soldiers. Any ruts were probably worn into the roads by chariots or goods wagons over the long years since those roads were first built.
Yes, the 'standard gauge' of 4 foot 8.5 inches was used by the USA because most of their railroads had British engineers and board members, and the standard gauge became 'standard' after a British government ruling after standard gauge had spread over most of the UK except the GWR and resulted in bedlam where passengers and goods had to change trains from standard to broad gauge.
The track gauge at the colliery(and probably most of the other local pits that were owned by the same company) where George Stephenson originally worked as engineer was 8 foot 4.5 inches, and was more than likely only that gauge because that was the widest the wagon axles could be without breaking under the weight of coal in the loaded wagons, or any wider and more than one horse was required to pull them back up the wagonway from the quayside. And as George Stephenson or his son Robert had a finger in most of the pies that were the early railway schemes, 8 foot 4.5 inches was the natural choice as that was what they were used to working with.
The link between standard gauge railway track and Ancient Rome is tenuous to say the least!
Chris
Are you sure you're not getting your 8ft 4½in mixed up with 4ft 8½in, Chris :goggleeyes:
There's broad gauge and there's very broad gauge! One thing mentioned earlier was loading
gauge, not sure why Britain ended up with a smaller loading gauge on standard track compared
with Europe. And I think this led to the scale differences in N gauge , 1/148 UK, 1/160 Europe.
If I'm wrong on last point no doubt I'll be shot down in flames !
Could possibly be from either the navvies that were used to building structures for the canals, or just that as the old colliery wagon ways had a restrictive loading gauge it wasn't thought necessary to make it any bigger as the railways were originally for moving goods and not passengers. And most of the goods in the early Victorian days were fairly small items, coal or stone?
I believe the loading gauge was literally down to the fact we don't have the room the Europeans have :hmmm:
As a consequence tunnel bores (be it railway or canal) were always very tight - hence us not being able to use double decker trains, apart from the ones used on the Southern Region multiple units where the legs of the folks on the upper deck dangled into the spare space between those on the lower deck.
Odd really, when you consider 1/160 is smaller than 1/148 :confused2:
Quote from: newportnobby on January 09, 2015, 11:02:52 AM
Odd really, when you consider 1/160 is smaller than 1/148 :confused2:
That's the point: In reality our rolling stock is smaller, so we need a bigger model of it to squeeze a decent size motor and other gubbins in.
The chimney on the Rocket (Stephenson's one, not the space shuttle) was too tall to go under most bridges, including the one at Rainhill. I'm not sure whether they decided it worked OK with a shorter chimney and built the bridges accordingly, or the bridges were there first and Stephenson had to trim the chimney down once he'd won the competition.
A similar thing occurred when the a Leicester & Swannington railway opened, they found the chimney on the loco(a Stephenson's product, as well as the L&S having Robert Stephenson as engineer) fouled the roof of Glenfield Tunnel(in 1832 it was apparently the longest rail tunnel in the world). Glenfield tunnel did have a notoriously narrow bore though, passenger coaches had to be specially made for it, and locos had to have cut down chimneys and narrowed & cut down cabs to work through to West Bridge, and in BR days any railtours had to be formed of brake vans as MK1 stock was too big...
I believe the track gauge goes back to the wheel set from a Roman chariot and a single tunnel is the width of two horses pulling the chariot.
Steve.
Quote from: xm607 on January 09, 2015, 03:20:35 PM
I believe the track gauge goes back to the wheel set from a Roman chariot and a single tunnel is the width of two horses pulling the chariot.
Steve.
I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense! So 2000 years after the Romans used wooden wagonways, just one insignificant colliery in the northeast of England decided that 'As the Romans used 4 foot 8.5 inches as the track gauge on their wagonways that nobody knew existed until the late 20th century we should do that same, even though we're blissfully unaware of this historical possibility until many years after we're going to die.'
More like the collieries in the northeast all had a broadly similar track gauge, but as the colliery Stephenson was engineer at had 4 foot 8.5 inches, that's what he was used to working with and that what all the railways he was involved with ended up using. Besides, Roman chariots were horse drawn and had only 2 wheels, and didn't need to be guided down a road with ruts or rails, but a coal wagon at a 19th century colliery would have had 4 wheels with a rigid wheelbase and as such had no means of steering.
The early waggonways evolved from traditional cart tracks, and probably for some time during this process the wagons would have been able to continue their journeys away without rails. That's one reason why a lot of them had flanged rails and non-flanged wheels.
Quote from: Wingman mothergoose on January 09, 2015, 03:49:26 PM
Quote from: xm607 on January 09, 2015, 03:20:35 PM
I believe the track gauge goes back to the wheel set from a Roman chariot and a single tunnel is the width of two horses pulling the chariot.
Steve.
I'm sorry, but that's utter nonsense! So 2000 years after the Romans used wooden wagonways, just one insignificant colliery in the northeast of England decided that 'As the Romans used 4 foot 8.5 inches as the track gauge on their wagonways that nobody knew existed until the late 20th century we should do that same, even though we're blissfully unaware of this historical possibility until many years after we're going to die.'
More like the collieries in the northeast all had a broadly similar track gauge, but as the colliery Stephenson was engineer at had 4 foot 8.5 inches, that's what he was used to working with and that what all the railways he was involved with ended up using. Besides, Roman chariots were horse drawn and had only 2 wheels, and didn't need to be guided down a road with ruts or rails, but a coal wagon at a 19th century colliery would have had 4 wheels with a rigid wheelbase and as such had no means of steering.
Its the width between the chariots two wheels and I know they did not run on tracks or rails, this came from the reason NASA gave for the space shuttle solid rocket boosters size and construction after the Challenger disaster, why they could not be made in one piece, because of transportation for refurbishment through railroad tunnels on a system based on ancient dimensions.
Steve.
Quote from: xm607 on January 09, 2015, 05:03:51 PM
Its the width between the chariots two wheels and I know they did not run on tracks or rails, this came from the reason NASA gave for the space shuttle solid rocket boosters size and construction after the Challenger disaster, why they could not be made in one piece, because of transportation for refurbishment through railroad tunnels on a system based on ancient dimensions.
Steve.
That's interesting - do you know if this is documented anywhere Steve?
Quote from: austinbob on January 09, 2015, 05:14:33 PM
Quote from: xm607 on January 09, 2015, 05:03:51 PM
Its the width between the chariots two wheels and I know they did not run on tracks or rails, this came from the reason NASA gave for the space shuttle solid rocket boosters size and construction after the Challenger disaster, why they could not be made in one piece, because of transportation for refurbishment through railroad tunnels on a system based on ancient dimensions.
Steve.
That's interesting - do you know if this is documented anywhere Steve?
Why yes, on the previous page of this thread (http://www.ngaugeforum.co.uk/SMFN/index.php?topic=25647.0), and for the tl;dr crowd here (http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp) (disclaimer: not everything you read on the internet is necessarily true).
The chariot thing is a myth. Yes the distance between chariot wheels nay have np been roughly 5 feet, but I wasn't aware Ancient Rome used the Imperial system of measurement, more than likely it was a rough guess due to the need to fit a horse in the traces between the two wheels and it could vary a fair amount from chariot to chariot. If two horses were used then the wheels would be wider apart than 4 foot 8.5 inches! Also the Romans didn't invent the chariot, they were around for hundreds of years(or longer) before Rome was even founded. The NASA thing is true though don't really know about 'ancient dimensions' though, as most US railroads were built to fairly generous proportions.
It's only chance that the 'standard gauge' of the railways ended up as 4 foot 8.5 inches, if Stephenson had worked at a different colliery it could just as easily have been 3 feet or 6 feet or anything else.
I've just found the real reason for 4ft 8.5 inch guage track:-
Because its the mean distance between the neck and ankles of damsels in distress.
:no:
I notice that many people have said that the gauge at the colliery where George Stephenson worked was 4 ft 8½ in. It wasn't. According to Andrew Dow (The Railway, British Track since 1804, Pen and Sword, 2014, p.110) the gauge at Killingworth Colliery was 4 ft 8 in. The extra half-inch "crept in" between Stephenson's time at Killingworth and the Rainhill Trials in 1829. It is likely that engineers found that they needed the extra half-inch gauge widening on curves, so they added it everywhere.
Sorry to appear pedantic, but it's best to get the facts right, or they will be promulgated wrongly for ever.
No need to apologise!
Quite right that we need to get the facts correct, like the myth about the Great Central's London Extension being built to 'continental loading gauge' which just isn't true, but people believe it as it's in a couple of books....
Going back to the conversation about early engines and tall funnels - Eric Steward was stationmaster at Lime Street, and once took me and the boys from my school model railway club onto the sidings at Edge Hill - the site of the early station. On one side of the deep cutting the remains of a wooden staircase zig-zagged down the rock face, and on the other were the caves in which the locos were "stabled" overnight. They were turned ninety degrees on turntables in the track and pushed in. Every cave had a rounded roof with a large groove in the centre to accommodate the folded-down funnel. The track was not a through track anymore, but Eric had used some European grant money to put a relief siding down the cutting in order to preserve a piece of history. GoogleEarth 53°24'5.57"N 2°57'1.04"W He had also had the entrance path to the station "paved" with the quarters of the early wooden wagon wheels. A true railwayman! :thumbsup:
That's Crown Street isn't it?
The siding now ends in Crown Street Park, Overbury Street. :thumbsup:
Yes it does.
Idling an hour in the departure lounge at Austin airport, I rediscovered yet again that 1435mm of track gauge fame is the circumference of a 9 inch circle. Now to find a fanciful explanation for that coincidence that does not involve a horse's haunches, or George Stephenson.
To show how my idling mind works, at the recent Bachmann open day in the Dean Forest, I drove Class 08 D3937. 39.37 inches= 1 metre.
It actually would make sense for some wagonways and later railways to have used "a" standard that already existed. From what I have read, some Roman streets were designed as both roadway and drain/sewer, with raised pavements forming the sides of the channel. To cross from one side to the other, stepping-stones were provided ... which of course would have had to have had a standard spacing, to be matched by chariots, carts or whatever, so that wheeled traffic could pass between the stones. If the Romans built such streets here, that would have set the same spacing. Even after such streets disappeared, the dimensions might well still be used, due to it being standard, existing ruts, wheelways on bridges, etc. and that would, in turn, have lead to wagonways matching existing carts. There's nothing to say that that happened, but it would be feasible.
Not all of the early railways in Britain were built to what we now call standard gauge. At least one very early Cornish horse drawn railway was built to 4 foot gauge. However, if you visit Pompeii and check out the ruts in the cobbled streets which were made by Roman vehicles you will find the gap between these ruts is very much around "standard gauge".
The Scotch gauge as it was known as, was 4ft 6 inches, the Irish Gauge was / is 5ft 3 inches.
For a period that ended in 1996 (from late 60s?) the BR gauge was not 1435mm (4ft 8 1/2in) but 1432mm (4ft 8 3/8in). This was an idea to reduce hunting by worn wheels... in 1996 they realised eventually they'd have to cut the gauge again as the wear just appeared in a different place.. So it was dropped as a silly idea..
So you know how to really annoy a P4 /S4 modeller of the 1980s period... tell him his track gauge is wrong..
The Roman 'War Chariot' is a myth. While a ceremonial Quadriga (4 horse chariot) was used in a formal 'Triumph', (Celebrating, at least initially, a exceptionally successful general.) Romans regarded the Chariot as old fashioned and unable to compete with cavalry and no threat whatsoever to their Heavy Infantry.