Secret Cargo?
- Thread starter TomPM
- Start date
There's a nice story about how the Roman Empire
created Standard Gauge because of the ruts in the roads that the Chariots travelled...
It happens to be a very popular story too...
Then, of course, there are those that beleave that the only reason that it is Standard Gauge is simply because Robert Stevenson called it "Standard Gauge".
Let's face it... Standard Gauge is a lot easier to say than "four-feet-eight-and-one-half-inches-gauge."
But I have my own theory on why Standard Gauge is 4' 8 1/2".... Which makes sense as to why Robert Stevenson would want to propagate it...
Even though it wasn't Henry Ford's revolutionary assembly line... It was mass production.
If you were going to set up a factory to mass produce something, wouldn't you want to Standardize production?????
Then, it would be a case of economics. To say that your factory produces equipment according to a certain set of standards. If you want to buy something else, then you can pay extra for the re-tooling, or buy it elsewhere.
It is all about marketing. Think in terms of Beta vs. VHS or Mac vs. IBM...
The one who sells the most units gets to set the Standards... :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
created Standard Gauge because of the ruts in the roads that the Chariots travelled...
It happens to be a very popular story too...
Then, of course, there are those that beleave that the only reason that it is Standard Gauge is simply because Robert Stevenson called it "Standard Gauge".
Let's face it... Standard Gauge is a lot easier to say than "four-feet-eight-and-one-half-inches-gauge."
But I have my own theory on why Standard Gauge is 4' 8 1/2".... Which makes sense as to why Robert Stevenson would want to propagate it...
Even though it wasn't Henry Ford's revolutionary assembly line... It was mass production.
If you were going to set up a factory to mass produce something, wouldn't you want to Standardize production?????
Then, it would be a case of economics. To say that your factory produces equipment according to a certain set of standards. If you want to buy something else, then you can pay extra for the re-tooling, or buy it elsewhere.
It is all about marketing. Think in terms of Beta vs. VHS or Mac vs. IBM...
The one who sells the most units gets to set the Standards... :thumb: :thumb: :thumb:
Whoa up guys..In the early years of railroads the track gauge varied from railroad to railroad from 3'-5'..This of course called for unloading cars from one railroad to the other of course some railroads just switch out the trucks.Finally after the railroads started to move more and more freight a track compromise was worked out.The settled size was 4'81/2"..Of course some railroads was still built to 3' gauge..Thus the name Narrow gauge was used,whereas the more commonly used 4'81/2" was called "standard" gauge because there was still a lot of narrow gauge railroads being built.Oddly,a lot of the railroads wanted to use 5' gauge and this almost became the "Standard" gauge.
As I grew up in South Africa, I thought the SAR was a standard Gauge at 3'6" and didn't find out anything more 'till I came to Canada.
OK, well I don't want to seem like the "know it all" but the truth to the 4' 8.5" setting is because they did a lot study on the wear reduction of rail and wheels and found that this gauge was best suited because it had the least wear and tear on wheels and rail and created less problems. Meaning the wheels and rail didn't have to be replaced as often. I watched a show on the subject but I can't remember the name of it because it was a while back. It's also like the problem they had when producing rail because the rail head was flat at one time way back in the day but today it has more of a crown to it also reducing rail and wheel wear. I'm gonna do some research on it and see if I can't find the name of that show because it explained it all and how standard became standard. I don't see how they are going to be able to use such a large locomotive for such a narrow gauge track do to it's size and extreme weight. I can see a lot of problems coming from using an American made locomotive on narrow gauge track. I see how much bow is depressed into the u.s track when a train roll's over it and it bow's under the weight but they use lighter rail so I'm betting more than anything that something is going to happen do to "weaker" track.
The only way I've ever heard about anything becoming "standard" is when a bunch of very rich and very powerful people get together and say, "Look, this is what we want and this is the only thing we are going to buy." Manufacturers either comform to their specs or go out of business, regardless of whether they have a better product or not. A good example of that is Betamax xs VHS. Although technically Beta was a superior product Sony mismanaged it and they lost out. Apple vs PC is another prime example as to the "standardization" of an industry.
Unless an industry is a self-contained unit, from the design phase to the end user, they are subject to the whims of the marketplace.
Unless an industry is a self-contained unit, from the design phase to the end user, they are subject to the whims of the marketplace.
the story I read was, that in the early days of American railroads, bfore the U.S. started building their own locomotives, they were buying locos from Great Britain, which was using the 4' 81/2" gauge. Intead of spending the extra cash having imported locos made to a specail guage, they were bought "off the shelf", and American rails were laid to the GB gauge.
During the Civil War, the south actually regauged all their track to 5 feet. This was to prevent the north from moving troops and supplies on southern rails, and also prevented the north from using captured southern rolling stock and locomotives in the north
During the Civil War, the south actually regauged all their track to 5 feet. This was to prevent the north from moving troops and supplies on southern rails, and also prevented the north from using captured southern rolling stock and locomotives in the north
I have a book "Machine Design Fundamentals" that has a few pages in the back devoted to a modern broad gauge concept. When they mean broad, they mean BROAD. Something in the range of 20 feet, or wide enough to put two intermodal shipping containers side by side. Being so wide, the CG was real low and therefore extremely stable. The major downfall is the lack of infrastructure. Start from scratch.
It's pretty interesting telling of the pros of such a system.
I'll have to dig out that book and see if I can kickstart my scanner and post it here.
Hey, who remembers that show "Super Train" (I believe that was the name)? It came out in the mid to late '70's.
It's pretty interesting telling of the pros of such a system.
I'll have to dig out that book and see if I can kickstart my scanner and post it here.
Hey, who remembers that show "Super Train" (I believe that was the name)? It came out in the mid to late '70's.
anyways I think the reason the locos were covered was to hide the paint job, it they were not standard gauage trucks on the locos they would never have ridden on the tracks, the non standard guage units made by EMD London usually leave on flat car, one left by large cargo plane in the 90s , no way to run them on standard guage tracks. s those thoughts were a waste of time.
Pitchwife said:Sounds familiar. Lasted about three episodes, right?
I believe so. MRR did a small article about the modeling behind it. 1/2" scale + or -. Pretty good sized by the looks of the workers/modelers standing around it.
I think the only people who watched it were mrr's and I would bet money on it that not even one could tell you what the storyline(s) was about.