Talk:Dual gauge

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Peer review Dual gauge has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
Trains Portal
DYK 2007-02-28
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
See also: WikiProject Trains to do list
This article lacks sufficient references and/or adequate inline citations.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (assessment comments)
High This article has been rated as high-importance within the Trains WikiProject.
This article is within the scope of the Operations task force.
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Dual gauge as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Czech language Wikipedia.

I wish this article had a little bit less terminology. I'm a little confused by the conversion section; what is a "sleeper"? It's not in the railroad terminology article linked below either. -edisk

The pitfalls of writing as a railway enthusiast! I've made an attempt to fix the conversion section, but what other terms are rail-babble to the layman? Point as regards rail terminology taken. I'll add sleeper. Anything else missing? zoney ███ talk 23:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Resolution of gauge: 1 mm or 0.1 mm?

I found the following equivalents in the text:

  • 5 ft 2 in (1574.8 mm)
  • 5 ft 6 in (1676.4 mm)
  • 6 ft 2 in (1879.6 mm)

I think they would actually be:

  • 5 ft 2 in (1575 mm)
  • 5 ft 6 in (1676 mm)
  • 6 ft 2 in (1880 mm)

Certainly 4 ft 8.5 in gets metricated in the UK to 1435 mm gauge rather than 1435.1 mm. I would have thought that a resolution of 1 mm would apply elsewhere, rather than 0.1 mm as implied in this article. I have not checked other articles to see if resolution is inconsistent. What do others know?
Bobblewik 07:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not believe that accuracy greater than millimetre is required. I think someone simply got a bit too happy with false accuracy. —Morven 20:00, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I was positive that it was a case of false precision but it is nice to have a second opinion.
Bobblewik  (talk) 20:25, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Actually, worse than that - I just copied them from an online conversion tool without thinking about it! My apologies! It'd all be so much simpler if we all used the perfect gauge (5 ft 3 in, 1600 mm). Broader but not too broad, and easily convertable! Ah sure, 'tis grand! :o) zoney ███ talk 00:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree that it would be simpler to have a single universal gauge, and nice for passengers if that gauge were 1.5 m or more. As far as exact conversion is concerned, we need multiples of 127 mm (5 inches). The Irish gauge has a conversion mismatch of 0.2 mm (which is evidently tolerable). But it is the first value that is within 1 mm of a multiple of 100 mm and a multiple of 1 inch. That may be partly what you meant by 'easily convertable'. Other multiples of 400 mm are less interesting.
Bobblewik  (talk) 11:59, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Resolution of gauge. 1 mm

There is no need to quote the gauge with more resolution of 1mm. Model railways excepted. When quoted in inches, 4' 8½" implies a resolution of about 1/4 inch equal to +/-6mm.

[edit] Picture needed for African Gauge unification

Could the person who did the neat diagram for the 3 rail Dual Gauge please do a similar picture for African 4 rail narrow gauge dual gauge, including the bonus Standard Gauge configuration.

Done. Though I wasn't the author of the original, which incidently needs to be redone (not just straight download and resave, artifacts must be removed) as a PNG. zoney ♣ talk 14:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Picture needed for African Gauge unification 2

Zoney picture looks pretty good!

However the 1000mm and 1067mm gauge look too similar.

Could the 1000mm and 1067mm gauges be make to look different, even though the diagram might otherwise be to scalee.

I'd prefer it stays accurate, in real life one won't see visually a 7 cm gauge difference either. The dimensions on the image are already a slight exaggeration (one can just about see the difference). zoney ♣ talk 09:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The revised picture with the extra measurements (435mm, etc) look very good. Syd1435 09:14, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

A recent (Oct 2004) proposal for an electrified Kenya-Sudan line could use just such sleepers since Kenya & Uganda are 1000mm while Sudan is 1067mm. Further North is Egypt at 1435mm. Syd1435 09:18, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

[edit] Complexity of a dual gauge switch

According to the picture of a swith in the Czech Republic, one would guess that such switch is actually simpler than switch of one gauge rail. I understand, if rails are dual guage in all directions then the switch is more complicated. But I don't see any point to add the note about complexity of such a switch under a paragraph about quite quaint accident. I am not a railway expert, so I kindly ask to move the note somewhere a bit else (above a paragraph about accident?) and discuss the problem of complexity a bit more widely. Of course, only if such a request is reasonable.

[edit] Complexity of dual gauge turnouts.

Point taken, some changes made.

211.30.76.7 06:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Revision of diagrams

I was not too satisfied with the first version of the "3-rail diagram", which I originally created. I have therefore updated this image. I did also update the "African 4-rail diagram" in the same style.

--SAB 08:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'Tis good stuff. zoney ♣ talk 11:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Title of article

I think "dual gauge" is somewhat misleading, as there may be more than two gauges involved. "Combined gauge" or "Combined track" (former title of the article) would IMHO be better.

--SAB 18:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But: 'Dual gauge' is the most obvious title and applies to most situations. I would certainly suggest the others exist as redirects. The problem is that nobody is going to be looking for, or linking to, the names 'combined gauge' or 'combined track'. —Morven 18:24, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)
I agree. Most of the content here relates to dual gauge, and there is little multi-gauge track that is more than dual. Dual gauge is rare enough! I think we should stick with this obvious, common title. zoney ♣ talk 19:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Transporter wagons

Thanks to Philip J. Raymond for tidying up the transporter wagon item.

My prime aim was to get a two way link to Leek and Manifold Valley Light Railway which actually used the things, the L&MLR being a brand new topic mentioning these transporter wagons.

Syd1435 10:14, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

[edit] Examples

In Stuttgart, Germany...etc. Unless the trams run on meter gauge and the U-bahn runs on standard gauge, dual gauge is irrelevant. But the loading gauge of the larger equiment needs to be taken into account, if both run on standard gauge and thus the distance between track centers need to to be adequate so as to accomodate the wider equipment. --Peter Horn 17:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Note revised. --Peter Horn 18:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In Stuttgart, trams do run on meter gauge, while stadtbahn (not U-Bahn) cars do run on standard gauge, so there is a definite need for dual gauge there (see the picture I've inserted in the article). Trams use the middle and right rail, and stadtbahn cars use the left and right rail, so both will be alligned to platform edges to the right of the track (trams have doors on the right side, only, stadtbahn cars have doors on both sides). -Urbanskater 22:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] tracks or sleepers?

"An advantage of the four-rail dual gauge track is that the four rails combined to give some of the greater strength of two rails of double the weight. The allows the old rails to be reused to some extent, instead of being scrapped and used for fenceposts."

Seems less than clear. Coriolise 11:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see the sense in this either. Even if there is four-rail dual-gauge track, each train still runs only on two of the four rails. How do the ununsed rails contibute to the strength (stability?) of the used ones? -Urbanskater 22:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
Because the rail pairs are connected together via the sleepers and fastenings (like multiple panels of a Bailey bridge), they have a combined strength that is more than that of one rail in isolation. Tabletop (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] other dual gauge tracks (Italy)

Please add in the page the Potenza-Avigliano line, that is 3rail dual gauge 950/1435 about 12 km. Intermediate stop of Tiera has two platform on either side to accomodate the different width of trains. At the other end of line, between Bari and Modugno the NG trak run parallel to the SG of Bari-Taranto main line. A short rail section of about 5km 1000/1435 is present between Trento and Lavis, to allow use of NG line for an induistrial siding along the line. In Sassari station first track is dual gauge 950/1435 IN past between 1952 and 1974 the section between Agrigento Bassa and Agrigento Centrale (5km) was 4 rail 950/1435, in late sisties changed to 3 rail.

[edit] Suggestions

I have just come upon this article whilst bimbling around WP, and whilst very interesting, I found it a little confusing. Some of the references to lines both extant and planned need a little more contextual support to my mind. the Section Example in Africa refers to the Central line, without mentioning the country, and further on, the use of flag icons rather than a text indication is a little unclear. I had to rely on mouse-over text to tell me which countries were being referred to. Perhaps you the authors are too close to the material, and are assuming a background in your subject that many readers won't have.Yendor1958 (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Four-rail tracks in Lucerne - a picture for the article, if someone can identify it

Mixed-gauge rail crossing in Lucerne, Switzerland
Mixed-gauge rail crossing in Lucerne, Switzerland

I took this picture in Lucerne. I assumed it was dual-gauge, but why are there four tracks?

I think it would be a good picture for the article, if it can be identified, and perhaps the article could explain this configuration.

--Nate Silva (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the 4-rail configuration is to allow sufficient clearance (e.g. past station platforms) for standard gauge wagons loaded on narrow gauge "transporter" wagons?? - otherwise, with 3-rail configuration, the standard gauge wagon would overhang too far on one side of the track. I understand the use of transporter wagons is relatively common on the Swiss metre gauge lines. I passed through Lucerne last year and noted dual gauge track to the south of the city (in the direction of the metre gauge Brunig Pass line) to serve a number of industries.

UD123546 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearance past bridges, tunnels and platforms is the most likely reason. The 4-rail configuration may also allow fixed diamonds at the end of the common section rather than turnouts with moving parts. Fortunately the difference between 1000mm and 1435mm allow for 4-rail dual gauge leaving room for the railclips. Dual gauge with say 1600mm and 1435mm leaves little room for the railclips and would require the rails even in 3-rail configuration to be "filed/shaved" to fit at considerable cost.
In Bangladesh, which has long sections of presumably 3-rail dual gauge, changes to 4-rail dual gauge over the new 4km long Jamuna Bridge. Figure that one out! Tabletop (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)