• What was largest gauge steam locomotive. Where?

  • Discussion of steam locomotives from all manufacturers and railroads
Discussion of steam locomotives from all manufacturers and railroads

Moderators: Typewriters, slide rules

  by Robert Gift
 
My great uncle, who was a locomotive engineer on the PRR, said
one of the problems with steam locomotives was thathey were limited
in size due to the 4' 8-1/2" track gauge.

Otherwise, they could have been even bigger and more powerful.

When visiting the Panama Canal, the track I saw looked slightly larger
than standard gauge. But I had no way to measure it.
Is it larger?

Did larger gauge railroads have even more spacious passenger cars?

I think it unfortunate that we are not 5 or 6 foot gauge.
What is the gauge in Russia?

Thank you,
Last edited by Robert Gift on Mon Aug 21, 2006 4:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.

  by Aa3rt
 
Robert, standard gauge (the one used in the U. S., Great Britain and many other parts of the world) is actually 4 feet 8.5 inches.

There have been many other track widths used.

Russia is 5 feet. The Panama Railroad that you inquired about WAS 5 foot gauge until it was relayed at standard gauge somewhere around the year 2000.

We had a long discussion of different railroad gauges in the Worldwide Railfan forum. Check this link:

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=3172

Incidentally, one of the largest gauges of a common carrier railroad that I'm aware of was Great Britain's "Great Western Railway" that was originally built to 7 feet, 1/4 inch.

The Erie Railroad was originally built to a 6 foot gauge.

The widest gauge ever employed that I'm aware of was an 8 foot gauge used by a logging railroad in Washington or Oregon. We discussed these as well in this thread:

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=11463

Here's a link to a photo of the 8 foot gauge logging railroad. The locomotive in the photo is a Class A Climax, a geared locomotive, built by the Climax Locomotive Works in Corry, PA. Note the flanges on both sides of the wheels. This is a "tram" road, using timbers or "stringers" instead of steel or iron rails.

http://www.gearedsteam.com/climax/image ... lbr_co.jpg

  by Robert Gift
 
Thank you for the wonderful information, Art.
I am very appreciative.

I don't know where 11-1/2" came from.

In the 1990s I rode on an engine of the Panama Railroad.
With all the problems in Panama, the last thing I expected is to re-gauge the track.
Why re-gauge to something SMALLER?

A grade crossing signal failed to operate because someone had stolen the
copper wires to sell for scrap.
I offered to flag the crossing.

Standing athe very front of the locomotive, I noticed that many rails were loose, I recall by hearing them and then seeing some move.
I told a friend, "If I ever return, I shall bring a spike hammer."

Is it unfortunate that the US didn't adopt Erie's 6 ft. gauge?
What magnificence our locomotives could have attained.

I presume our passenger cars could likewise have been more spacious.

OR, would this have made litttle difference?

Thank you,
  by ErieAtlantic7597
 
Robert,

You are so right. As Art stated the old Erie was originally built to 6 foot gauge. I have a few pics of their 4-4-0s. They were even big for their day.
When the Erie standard gauged in the 1880 some where, they now had high and wide clearences. Which served the Erie well for many years. But, they had to standard gauge due to the difficulty in transloading freight and the non ability to integrate cars of different roads.
Its difficult for me to even visualize 6 foot gauge equipment going all the way to Chicago. But they did.
As far as large locomotives go, the Erie had S class Berkshires. With almost one hundred inch boilers at their widest point and standing sixteen foot, four inches from rail head to top of stack. For an east coast road, that pretty big. The original 6 foot gauge permitted these high and wide engines of latter years.

Take care,

Bruce

  by Aa3rt
 
Robert Gift wrote:Thank you for the wonderful information, Art.
I am very appreciative.
You're most welcome!
Robert Gift wrote:In the 1990s I rode on an engine of the Panama Railroad. With all the problems in Panama, the last thing I expected is to re-gauge the track. Why re-gauge to something SMALLER?
Check your post that was moved to the Worldwide Railfan forum. This question should get more exposure, and hopefully an answer from a more learned individual there.
Robert Gift wrote:Is it unfortunate that the US didn't adopt Erie's 6 ft. gauge? What magnificence our locomotives could have attained.

I presume our passenger cars could likewise have been more spacious.

OR, would this have made litttle difference?
When the original Erie was chartered as the "New York and Erie" way back in 1836, the thinking was that by using the wider gauge, the loads would be more stable, larger lots could be hauled, and, yes, passenger cars would be more spacious and stable. While I doubt that there's much discernable difference in a passenger car of standard versus 5' gauge, wider track gauges obviously would be more stable (providing the track is maintained) and would allow more room for passengers and freight.

The War Between The States (AKA "The Civil War") showed the shortcomings of the multiple gauges employed, especially in the South. (Gauges of 4'8.5", 5' and 5' 6" were all in use which required transfer of material at almost every interchange.) I recall reading years ago that this fact was not lost on President Abraham Lincoln who deemed that 4' 8.5" would be the gauge employed for the transcontinental railroad. I can't recall my source after many years but one can only wonder how American railroading may have differed if a wider gauge had been chosen.

BTW-a couple of photos of vintage Erie Railroad 6' gauge equipment, appear in Roger Grant's excellent Erie Lackawanna-Death of an American Railroad, 1938-1992. For a fan of the Erie or Lackawanna, this is a most interesting volume, and discusses the formation of the Erie and the reasons that the 6' gauge was chosen.

  by Juniatha
 
Hi Robert

Shemp and Bruce have given some interesting notes on gauges.

M ay I ad that the Russian 5 foot gauge was mainly chosen for strategic reasons since with the historic experience of Napoleon before Moskwa the Russian Tsar felt vulnerable if railway tracks of one gauge would go through from Western Europe to lead directly into Moskwa.
Technically there was little in that small change from 1435 to 1524 mm gauge. Actually the difference is small enough to make it perplexingly difficult to decide on spot which track is standard gauge and which is Russian 'broad gauge' as I found when travelling the Russian railways in the 1990s.
S tandard gauge? Yes they do have some standard gauge tracks: the strategic reserve steam locomotives that were stationed in loco parks behind the border to Poland and other Eastern European states were standard gauge. (Just in case they would decide to say 'Hello, again' - *g*) Locomotives from those strategic reserve parcs were used to haul the military trains during the invasion of Tchecoslovakia in 1968 to end Dubcek's regime who's political deviation from the Russian 'book of rules' towards more freedom and democracy has become known as 'Prague springtime'.
I n the wake of things like this and the general quite bossy behaviour of Russian military in the Eastern block, the Russians had made themselves so 'welcome' in Poland that when Germany re-united and the question was how to arrange withdrawal of Russian troops from East-Germany, the Polish said, in short: that's none of our problem, you may use the sea ports of East-Germany and go by the Baltic sea to Kaliningrad. In the end Germany paid for Polish authorities to allow Russian troops to pass through Poland by rail transport going East. There is a large re-gauging facility in Brest where cars and coaches get bogies exchanged. This is used regularly for through going passenger and freight traffic.

Y ou wrote:
>> Otherwise, they could have been even bigger and more powerful. <<

That is the question! One aspect to be considered in any case is that with a wider gauge curveature also has to be wider - in reverse that was the reason for construction of narrow gauge networks in Africa and India: it allowed more flexibility in difficult landscapes and brought down construction costs. Why have curves to be wider with wider track? simplified answer: because the wheels are mounted rigidly on an axle so the outer and inner wheel cannot run on different rotational speed in a curve, the difference being taken care of by the conical tire profile, i.e. the outer wheel is supposed to run on the higher, the inner on the lower part of the tire profile; since there is a limit to that, with wider track gauge the larger difference of the length of outer to inner rail in a curve demands wider curves proportionally to track width increment.
To evaluate advantage or implication of wider track gauge we would have to define:
-a- are we talking of having a loading gauge enlarged proportionally, or
-b- are we talking of just having a wider track but much the same loading gauge as on standard gauge such as the Spanish RENFE has (1676 mm - 5 1/2 ft)

-b- does not change a thing as concerns inner spaciousnes of passenger coaches or load volume of freight cars. Still, the Spanish railways are obliged to respect the general European loading gauge to at least allow traffic going through by 'just' changing bogies. Also, they have the same axle loads as the rest of Europe, i.e. basically 20 t, with mailnines having been upgraded to 22 - 22.5 t (metric).
This latter point leads to -
-a- wider gauge with larger loading profile: assuming a loading gauge for standard gauge of height by width of 4800 x 3200 mm or 189 x 126 ins (approximately NYC) a loading gauge profile of a six foot gauge proportionally enlarged would be 1829 : 1435 = 1.275 the height and width of that standard gauge profile, i.e. 6120 x 4080 mm or 241 x 160 ins - that is 1.6 times the cross section!
Since with this width and height one would for sure also have vehicles proportionally longer to make full use of the gauge, especially in view of the mentioned wider curves, say vehicle length is also proportionally increased. So, the volume of a typical vehicle would then be 1.6 x 1.275 = 2.036 or practically 2 times that of a standard gauge vehicle!
Well, now with European axle loads of 20 - 22.5 t that would mean the 6 ft railroad would carry 40 - 45 t axle loads; with US standard gauge axle loads of 32 - 39 t that would mean .... forget it!
An H-8 scaled up to 6 ft track would be an amazing, gorgeously gigantic engine - but it would be prone to sink into the ground once coming off the concrete floor of the erecting shop, only to be re-found by achaeologists of the third millenium, if mankind can survive, to leave them wondering what the heck did we do with such a giant machine ..

I recall a discussion in Vienna during my studying engineering, among our group of steam loco minded students. It began by discussing Spanish four cylinder compound engines modified to the example given by André Chapelon in France; one guy had suggested that with a wider gauge it was easier to accomodate the intermediate receiver and that low pressure cylinders could more easily be placed inside the frames. It went to discussing the flexibility problem of wide axles versus the possibility of thicker crank axle blades and it soon became apparent that the originator of the idea had not much thought about the implication of track gauge to loading gauge profile, thus unexpressedly speaking of the 'Spanish version' of broad gauge. It was agreed in the end that while there are some advantages, the difference was not worth much as long as the loading gauge was not increased, while again a substantial increase of the latter would inevitably lead to completely different categories of weight and volume of railway vehicles and that's where the discussion tended to become more and more dissolved in red wine and the fragrance of the warm evening air in the garden of the venerable students hostel that was dreaming of k&k times of the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy under a sky that had turned form evening orange and cyan to night-blue over the length of the discussion ...
Juniatha
Last edited by Juniatha on Tue Mar 13, 2007 6:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
  by rlsteam
 
Hitler planned a broad-gauge railroad of 3 meters (almost 10 feet) called the Breitspurbahn. There is a Wikipedia entry on it ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breitspurbahn ) and there was an article some years ago in a railroad publication, probably TRAINS. Of course, it was never built, but Hitler ordered planning to continue almost to the end of WWII.

  by Robert Gift
 
Robert Gift wrote:Thank you for the wonderful information, Art.
I am very appreciative
.
Aa3rt wrote:You're most welcome!
Robert Gift wrote:In the 1990s I rode on an engine of the Panama Railroad. With all the problems in Panama, the last thing I expected is to re-gauge the track. Why re-gauge to something SMALLER?
Aa3rt wrote:Check your post that was moved to the Worldwide Railfan forum. This question should get more exposure, and hopefully an answer from a more learned individual there.
Thank you so much for that, too. I did not knowhere thye had placed it.
Robert Gift wrote:Is it unfortunate that the US didn't adopt Erie's 6 ft. gauge? What magnificence our locomotives could have attained.

I presume our passenger cars could likewise have been more spacious.

OR, would this have made litttle difference?
Aa3rt wrote:When the original Erie was chartered as the "New York and Erie" way back in 1836, the thinking was that by using the wider gauge, the loads would be more stable, larger lots could be hauled, and, yes, passenger cars would be more spacious and stable. While I doubt that there's much discernable difference in a passenger car of standard versus 5' gauge, wider track gauges obviously would be more stable (providing the track is maintained) and would allow more room for passengers and freight.

The War Between The States (AKA "The Civil War") showed the shortcomings of the multiple gauges employed, especially in the South. (Gauges of 4'8.5", 5' and 5' 6" were all in use which required transfer of material at almost every interchange.) I recall reading years ago that this fact was not lost on President Abraham Lincoln who deemed that 4' 8.5" would be the gauge employed for the transcontinental railroad. I can't recall my source after many years but one can only wonder how American railroading may have differed if a wider gauge had been chosen.
Yes. Imagine what American railroads would be like today?
4'8.5" because it was easier to make larger gauges smaller than smaller larger due to not fitting existing right of way, tunnels, etc.?
Aa3rt wrote:BTW-a couple of photos of vintage Erie Railroad 6' gauge equipment, appear in Roger Grant's excellent Erie Lackawanna-Death of an American Railroad, 1938-1992. For a fan of the Erie or Lackawanna, this is a most interesting volume, and discusses the formation of the Erie and the reasons that the 6' gauge was chosen.
Would love to see that.
I'm in Yantai, China until 8-29 so will have to wait.
Wonder if the Denver Public Library would have that book?

Thank you,
  by pjb
 
:-D
The Erie connected with the 6ft. M & O at Cincinnati which would have
allowed transit to St.Louis among other places without changing gauge.
The DL&W was also 6ft. in this time frame. However, the carriers
didn't concern themselves with the matter for many years, and
only decided to operate through passenger/express service when
they did get around to it under the pressure from the Express
and USPO organizations.

One of the things lost in most considerations of this matter was that
the operators of the time, and the general public did not find any great
inconvenience in gauge differences in the U.S. There was no through
freight rates, and very little freight was shipped by rail over long distances.
The private express companies were the first to create the agencies
and business infrastructure to handle such materials.

This led to the formation of fast freight companies (a/k/a Fast Freight
Lines). These were organized to move freight over long distances and
also on an interline basis, but had their own rail equipment, staff,
and freight terminals to provide the necessary transport, and
commercial infrastructure. In time this function was taken over by
the railways, for a variety of reasons.
Many of these reasons came from complaints about
with price gouging secondary to monopoly operations,
and the use of insider positions by railroad board
members to enrich themselves at the expense of the railroad
property- to the detriment of other stock holders, the bond
sector, and the shippers.

However, that was secondary to why no one save possibly
military tacticians , found differing gauges , especially when
there was a haul of a couple of a hundred miles available in
any one gauge of small account, through the 1870s.
Louis Hunter in his classic "STEAM BOATS on WESTERN RIVERS",
points out that there was no successful organization of
freight interchange between steam boat companies in this
era. Agreements to fix rates, and operate as Steam Boat
Lines, failed until the railroads became organized by the mid
1880s to provide regular through service. Under pressure
from organized competition the steam boat operators
belatedly tried to set up a modern infrastructure.

Prior to this anybody wanting to move goods requiring
the reloading of cargo say; to a ship bound for South Dakota,
from Pittsburgh, had to have a factotum/agent with stevedoring
and warehousing ability to handle the transfer at St. Louis.
The lack of capital, due to its high cost (20% per annum
was a low rate in antebellum to 1885 period ) meant that
one could not effectively organize at Pittsburgh to get goods
that far. In other words, factors bought goods they knew
would be saleable in the west. He may have transferred them
at Louisville ( or any other point on the river system) where
they were brokered to another factor who would get them
to a MIssouri River boat. Now some goods would be sold
by any factor at any entrepot along the way he controlled,
in order to get a more rapid return on his investment.
In many cases the ship owners acted as factors for certain
cargoes, and as freighters for the rest of the cargo. This
was adopted from the way Ocean commerce had been
conducted for centuries. It also acquired over time
the insurance systems for vessel and cargoes used
at sea (and created the HARTFORD STEAM BOILER
SAFETY Company, that revolutionized all steam engine
safety standards).
Along the way each middleman added cost to make a
profit out of each transaction to the extent it was possible.
Steamships were the cheapest line haul freighters as a
transportation mode, but were encumbered by a chaotic
infrastructure for handling general merchandise that not
only lost goods, and wasted time, but had a built in
expenses due to all the middlemen.

They were the principal mode, and railroads generally could
beat transit times, so people were not upset by what we today
would consider crappy and unreliable rail freight service.
Bulk commodities, simply did not travel long distances by rail.
They got waterborne, as soon as possible if they had to
move more than a short distance. The D&H is a good
example , because it was a canal feeder. Getting to a
canal or directly to a navigable river was the route of
all large volume products of mines and agriculture in this
epoch. Express Companies provided decent service for
personal communications, transfers of specie,
documents, and luxury goods.
The P.O.- by the way, was not organized well enough
to do these functions for the business sector.
That changes later, but is not germane to this discussion.
Telegraph companies by the end of the 1870s were qble
to provide almost instant communications over the
entirety of the land east of the Mississippi, and to certain
urban nodes on the Pacific Ocean, as well.
The Fast Freight LInes began to make the effort to
overcome, the gauge differences. This took the form of
organizing the transfer of freight on an interline
basis by: 1) setting up freight transfer terminals with
enclosed spaces to protect cargo from the elements;
2) using railway trucks with adjustable axles capable
of operating on multiple gauges of track; and 3)
setting up large railway truck changeout facilities
at points where gauges changed on a designated routing.
For minor differences (the N&W for instance was 4 ft.
9inch gauge into the period of Great War) and even
for difference of several inches the lines also employed
wide wheel tires to attempt to compensate for
differences. A good place to read about this is in
Anthony Bianculli's volume 2 on rolling stock in his four
volume , "TRAINS and TECHNOLOGY; The American
Railroad in the Nineteenth Century",
published by University of Delaware Press; 2002.
It is in print as ISBN 0- 87413-730-6 if you have deep
pockets, but you can get it on interlibrary loan or at your
local university research library.

In summary, the people circa 1840-1880 were generally
happy with what they had as transport services in the
built up portions of the country, but things they were a
changing.

The best online summary of railroad gauges is found at
the Gauge Sage, which makes interesting reading , even if
you are familiar with the matter. He is at:
< http://www.parovoz.com/spravka/gauges-en.php >

Good-Luck, PJB
Last edited by pjb on Thu Aug 24, 2006 4:23 pm, edited 2 times in total.
  by pjb
 
:-)
I have fixed the URL in my prior post so it now leads to English
language pps. of the "Gauge Sage".
Thanks for heads up about original mispost,
PJB
  by pjb
 
:-)
I have fixed the URL in my prior post so it now leads to English
language pps. of the "Gauge Sage".
Thanks for heads up about original mispost,
PJB