GWR Broad Gauge

[matacaster]

Just curious, but

Anyone know what the loading gauge profile was with dimensions for GWR broadgauge infrastructure?

How does this compare to current loading gauges?

Are there any remaining tunnels that conform to broadgauge specifications?

Would deep sea containers or double-deck trains be able to run on said infrastructure if it still exists?

Was Brunel right or wrong?

 

[Bevan Price]

I don't think the broad guage "height" specification was much different from "standard guage". Brunel thought that broad guage would allow higher running speeds, at least in part because locos and stock could have a lower centre of gravity than standard guage equivalents, making them more stable. Only the loading guage width was greater than for standard guage. The early broad guage GWR did indeed get faster average speeds than most other standard guage lines. The problem was that almost all the other railways chose standard guage - causing problems with trans-shipment of freight & passengers at the boundaries with these other railways.

 

[Holly]

I don't think the broad guage "height" specification was much different from "standard guage". Brunel thought that broad guage would allow higher running speeds, at least in part because locos and stock could have a lower centre of gravity than standard guage equivalents, making them more stable. Only the loading guage width was greater than for standard guage. The early broad guage GWR did indeed get faster average speeds than most other standard guage lines. The problem was that almost all the other railways chose standard guage - causing problems with trans-shipment of freight & passengers at the boundaries with these other railways.

One of the more historic cases read by all students of law in their first or second year is the 19th Century case of Hadley versus Baxendale. Which was a dispute about liability and compensation for the shipment, by canal barge, of a mill shaft that was supposed to go by rail.

But it didn't go by rail because that would have involved transhipment across a break in gauge and it just so happened a barge was making the same journey (Bristol to Woolwich). A coal barge if memory serves.

 

[edwin_m]

Didcot Railway Centre has a transhipment shed and the difference in width of the holes for the two tracks can be seen. The best photo I can find of this is by scrolling down this page:

http://glostransporthistory.visit-gloucestershire.co.uk/Railgloschur2.htm

The height does indeed seem to be the same, though a former broad gauge route might have more clearance towards the top corners which are the critical areas for intermodal freight. However with over a century of rail development since then, this clearance will probably have been infringed in many places - although even in the 1990s the 165 and 166 units were built wider than normal for use on the larger clearances of the former GW routes (but also of the standard gauge GC route).

Brunel seems to have got it wrong on stability, and I think that would have been fairly obvious even at the time. American stock on standard gauge and South African on 3'6" show that a train remains stable even when it is surprisingly wide compared with the track gauge. The 7ft gauge might have prevented a few high speed derailments but it would not have allowed faster curving speeds in general. The lateral forces inside the train would have become intolerable, throwing loose objects and standing passengers around, well before the cant deficiency was big enough to be an overturning risk.

 

[pablo]

I wonder why so many can't spell gauge?

Have a look at Saltash Bridge with a standard gauge train emerging.

 

[Taunton]

Some GWR standard gauge locos were wider than other railways, for which reason the larger ones that ran without difficulty on the home system were prohibited on other railways. It was not unknown for a Hall to be sent incorrectly onto the LMS or Southern and come back with scrape marks on the cylinder covers. Surprisingly, they seem much more widespread in preservation, without difficulty, than was the case when they were in service.

Also to be borne in mind is that at the time of the Broad Gauge, trains, particularly on the standard gauge, were generally not built out to the loading gauge limits like they were in more recent times.

 

[Bald Rick]

I wonder why so many can'r spell gauge?

Gauge is a word my typing fingers struggle with.

But they manage can't alright!

 

[civ-eng-jim]

I wonder why so many can'r spell gauge?

You'd be surprised how many can't pronounce it either! Someone phoned me up once regarding a "gorging" report....

 

[Peter Mugridge]

I wonder why so many can'r spell gauge?

*ahem*



Having said that, I should admit that I am notorious for making typos all over the place....

 

[jimm]

This picture from Moreton-in-Marsh of an original Brunel broad gauge bridge gives some idea of the vertical and lateral clearances. Container trains with 9ft 6in boxes certainly aren't allowed and this bridge and other similar ones on this line are likely to have to go if electrification ever happens.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/willc2009/7035165355/in/photolist-bHF4yp-bok2ZP

 

[3141]

This picture from Moreton-in-Marsh of an original Brunel broad gauge bridge gives some idea of the vertical and lateral clearances. Container trains with 9ft 6in boxes certainly aren't allowed and this bridge and other similar ones on this line are likely to have to go if electrification ever happens.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/willc2009/7035165355/in/photolist-bHF4yp-bok2ZP

But has the track been built up higher over the past 125 years or more since the broad gauge was eliminated?

 

[Penmorfa]

At the moment there are 9,328 guage items for sale on Ebay

 

[Bevan Price]

I wonder why so many can'r spell gauge?

Oops - I'm getting careless again. Although some of my spelling errors are due to trying to type too quickly.

 

[jimm]

But has the track been built up higher over the past 125 years or more since the broad gauge was eliminated?

A fraction, perhaps, but the speed limit through Moreton-in-Marsh is 60, so there is no need for deep ballast, and there are a series of original bridges along the Cotswold line (and other Brunel routes) of similar profile, with bags of lateral clearance but essentially no more vertically than those built for standard gauge at the same time - hence my comment that electrification is likely to mean curtains for them.

 

[edwin_m]

I guess if the bridge is wider it may be easier to lower the track without undermining its piers or abutments.

 

[387star]

Speaking of gauge how do Eurostar trains run in France??? Is gauge the clearance rather than the gap between the tracks

 

[najaB]

Speaking of gauge how do Eurostar trains run in France???

Quite well, thanks.

Is gauge the clearance rather than the gap between the tracks

Standard Gauge

 

[Ploughman]

Structure gauge, is as it says for Structures which include Bridges, Platforms, Tunnels, Signals and can also include the passing clearance between tracks.

 

[jimm]

I guess if the bridge is wider it may be easier to lower the track without undermining its piers or abutments.

You won't be lowering the trackbed at Moreton-in-Marsh, there can be problems with flooding there.

 

[edwin_m]

You won't be lowering the trackbed at Moreton-in-Marsh, there can be problems with flooding there.

I guess the clue's in the name!

 

[Blamethrower]

So with this extra clearance, why don't GWR trains today run with a larger loading guage?

Why are platforms built to protrude when almost every train I get on, still has a gap to step up and out to?

GWR is the best place to have captive stock for the route. Whilst DD has been discussed on another thread, why can't the GWR make themselves some new captive stock instead of the one-size-fits-all IEP?

If the GWR commuters/intercity could have their width increased surely this would be a massive capacity increase?

If so, what other trains use GWR stations? Cross country? just add some pendo style retractable steps

 

[HowardGWR]

So with this extra clearance, why don't GWR trains today run with a larger loading guage?

Why are platforms built to protrude when almost every train I get on, still has a gap to step up and out to?

GWR is the best place to have captive stock for the route. Whilst DD has been discussed on another thread, why can't the GWR make themselves some new captive stock instead of the one-size-fits-all IEP?

If the GWR commuters/intercity could have their width increased surely this would be a massive capacity increase?

If so, what other trains use GWR stations? Cross country? just add some pendo style retractable steps

I don't know where to start. I'll just write that only the old Mainline is 10 feet between the lines (and no longer everywhere and think about diverting from Main to Relief)) so that solves that one. On capacity, an extra 6 ins (which is what the GW used for excess-size stock) will not exactly enable another passenger to sit in the row, and it's height that is more important, allowing double deck trains.

 

[RPM]

This discussion has reminded me of a slight conundrum regarding the Aylesbury - Princes Risborough branch. This has always been a single track line but was originally built in broad gauge. Two of the overbridges on the line are original Wycombe Railway structures and they appear to be wide enough to span double track. One might assume that they were built with possible future track doubling in mind but that cannot be so as they are only wide enough to span double standard gauge tracks, not double broad gauge tracks. I can only therefore assume that they were designed to give a very generous span over a single broad gauge track. I wondered if it was standard practise to give such generous clearance on broad gauge lines, or if this was simply a Wycombe Railway quirk? This thread seems to suggest the latter.

 

[Ploughman]

In a large number of cases, on single lines structures such as bridges were often built to double track size in anticipation of future double tracking or in some other instances 4 track size over initial 2 track.
However the intervening embankments / Cuttings were usually left at the original size and not dugout until needed.

 

[jimm]

So with this extra clearance, why don't GWR trains today run with a larger loading guage?

Why are platforms built to protrude when almost every train I get on, still has a gap to step up and out to?

GWR is the best place to have captive stock for the route. Whilst DD has been discussed on another thread, why can't the GWR make themselves some new captive stock instead of the one-size-fits-all IEP?

If the GWR commuters/intercity could have their width increased surely this would be a massive capacity increase?

If so, what other trains use GWR stations? Cross country? just add some pendo style retractable steps

Have you never heard of Turbos? The 165/166 body is wider than other rolling stock precisely because it is able to take advantage of the clearances on former GWR routes - but the increased space available is hardly on a par with continental loading gauges, so no, you won't get a "massive capacity increase".

And the wider clearances will also make it easier to use the 26m-long coaches of the IEP than in other places on the network.

 

[snowball]

Is there an official loading/structure gauge diagram for the GWR ex-broad gauge lines that differs from the standard Wx gauges?

 

[markindurham]

The GW certainly had a wider kinematic envelope than the other 'Big 3' after Grouping, which is why the 'Kings', 'Halls' and 'Manors' have been so route restricted on the 'big railway' during the preservation era, and indeed one or two ex GW locos are known to have caused issues if inadvertently put on trains which went 'off region' during BR days.

The owners of King 6024 hope to have overcome this issue by having slightly narrower cylinders cast during her present overhaul.

 

[Blamethrower]

Have you never heard of Turbos? The 165/166 body is wider than other rolling stock precisely because it is able to take advantage of the clearances on former GWR routes - but the increased space available is hardly on a par with continental loading gauges, so no, you won't get a "massive capacity increase".

And the wider clearances will also make it easier to use the 26m-long coaches of the IEP than in other places on the network.

Yes I have, and it appears to be a Wiki myth that they are wider than other trains.

Plus there are 365's, 465's and 466's, do these have the same bodies as 166s? If so then South Eastern and Great northern has a larger loading gauge too?

EDIT: Aha found it -2.81 m is the width of the stock, a 319 is 2.81 m too so no, you're wrong. It's a wiki myth.

Now back to the original question, would shaving platforms and building wider long distance/commuter stock be a quick and easy way of increasing capacity and passenger comfort?

Plus, I didn't say that it would be on a par with continental loading gauge, surely they could be wide enough to comfortably have a 3+2 configuration?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't know where to start. I'll just write that only the old Mainline is 10 feet between the lines (and no longer everywhere and think about diverting from Main to Relief)) so that solves that one. On capacity, an extra 6 ins (which is what the GW used for excess-size stock) will not exactly enable another passenger to sit in the row, and it's height that is more important, allowing double deck trains.

not really. why are France abandoning that then and going for wide floor single deck commuter trains?

What I can't understand though is why everyone on here is always so down on building bigger trains, enhancing loading gauges, using what we currently have better etc etc.

"Can't be done, can't afford it" is almost always the answer. If this is the prevailing attitude between enthusiasts then will we ever get a better railway?

If the mainline was built to a larger loading gauge then why not build larger captive stock to increase capacity and passenger comfort? Crossing onto the slows makes no difference as they were also built to broad gauge no?

 

[hassaanhc]

Yes I have, and it appears to be a Wiki myth that they are wider than other trains.

Plus there are 365's, 465's and 466's, do these have the same bodies as 166s? If so then South Eastern and Great northern has a larger loading gauge too?

EDIT: Aha found it -2.81 m is the width of the stock, a 319 is 2.81 m too so no, you're wrong. It's a wiki myth.

The 165 and 166 have 23m length coaches while the 365 and 465 have 20-21m length coaches. Most other stock with coaches 23-24m long are usually ~2.7m wide rather than the ~2.8m wide of the 20m long ones.

 

[Blamethrower]

The 165 and 166 have 23m length coaches while the 365 and 465 have 20-21m length coaches. Most other stock with coaches 23-24m long are usually ~2.7m wide rather than the ~2.8m wide of the 20m long ones.

Cheers

Thing is though, this does not mean that the coaches are wider, it's just that the coaches are a bit longer and so stick out a bit more on corners. Not sure that is "using the wider loading gauge" to it's best effect as platforms have a finite length.

What about.....

(2.9m - 3m) x 20m coaches with walk-through gangways at the end of each?

This would mean comfortable seats plus tons of standing space. Also coaches would be short and therefore would not protrude.

We are the founding fathers of innovation, why are we now restricted to just buying things off the shelf? Where have all our problem solvers gone?

IEP is as bespoke as you can get, yet the only real "innovation" is adding a removable diesel engine, hardly ground-breaking.

Just another make-do and mend british psychological hang-up