Earlier tonight, I was watching an episode of the “Hitler’s World: The Post War Plan” (Transporting The Reich) in which, discussing Hitler’s plans for a very broad gauge (3000mm) railway, it was said that the standard gauge of 1435mm is just by chance the right relation between mass and energy, but this was not explained. What is meant by the relation between mass and energy with regards to railway gauge?
KJW said:
Earlier tonight, I was watching an episode of the “Hitler’s World: The Post War Plan” (Transporting The Reich) in which, discussing Hitler’s plans for a very broad gauge (3000mm) railway, it was said that the standard gauge of 1435mm is just by chance the right relation between mass and energy, but this was not explained. What is meant by the relation between mass and energy with regards to railway gauge?
Possibly has to do with the wider the track the heavier the train has to be to pull the same load.
No idea on the mass and energy question.
The traditional explanations are along the lines of narrower gauge being capable of tighter bends and being cheaper to build in terms of the lengths of timbers used for sleepers and the amount of crushed rock required to make up the ballast. A 3000 mm rail gauge would need sleepers about 4000 mm long for example. However a wider gauge is more stable so it can travel faster, and carry heavier loads.
party_pants said:
No idea on the mass and energy question.
Same here.
I suspect they were making stuff up.
I think they’re talking about the physics of the rail, pads, sleepers, and ballast.
I was thinking about the German problem and wondered why they couldn’t have a track that fitted over the Russian one, it would still use the same ties and ballast but would close that gap. It might mean the train goes a bit slower and a bit of a slant but it would be quick to adapt the Russian track, but I suppose that is an obvious thought and must be a good reason why they didn’t do it.
AwesomeO said:
I was thinking about the German problem and wondered why they couldn’t have a track that fitted over the Russian one, it would still use the same ties and ballast but would close that gap. It might mean the train goes a bit slower and a bit of a slant but it would be quick to adapt the Russian track, but I suppose that is an obvious thought and must be a good reason why they didn’t do it.
Dual-gauge railways generally use a third rail, but this may be a problem if the two gauges differ by only a small amount and the two rails are too close together for things such as points. This seemed to be the case with the Russian rail gauge and the standard rail gauge.
I’ve never heard the mass & energy claim before. Sounds like bollocks :)
Bubblecar said:
I’ve never heard the mass & energy claim before. Sounds like bollocks :)
But surely there is a optimal sized locomotive? Too small and the engine hasn’t enough power, but slightly larger (remembering that twice the engine volume might yield 4 times the horse-power per engine weight) it gets more efficient. Conversely increasing the size of the gauge above a certain size would mean there was extra extraneous weight of the physical train when compared to its capacity to pull a load?
thinks
Witty Rejoinder said:
Bubblecar said:
I’ve never heard the mass & energy claim before. Sounds like bollocks :)
But surely there is a optimal sized locomotive? Too small and the engine hasn’t enough power, but slightly larger (remembering that twice the engine volume might yield 4 times the horse-power per engine weight) it gets more efficient. Conversely increasing the size of the gauge above a certain size would mean there was extra extraneous weight of the physical train when compared to its capacity to pull a load?
thinks
Choice of size and power of a locomotive mostly relate to the typical job it has to do, the type of engine used etc. There would be a fairly wide span of gauges that would give acceptable performance for a wide range of jobs.
I think the clue was in the voice over about inspired by British ships and trade routes. I imagine the huge trains were designed to carry goods all the way across europe much as ships carry goods over the seas between countries.
The nazis and hItler has a thing about size, the proposed capital, the proposed planes and trains, the actual tanks and siege guns.
AwesomeO said:
I think the clue was in the voice over about inspired by British ships and trade routes. I imagine the huge trains were designed to carry goods all the way across europe much as ships carry goods over the seas between countries.The nazis and hItler has a thing about size, the proposed capital, the proposed planes and trains, the actual tanks and siege guns.
I suppose it would make sense if you wanted to transport large things, like prefab buildings or large bits of machinery or tanks. I guess for most things that fit in a standard shipping container the standard gauge is enough. I suspect also that many things have been built to fit standard container size.
party_pants said:
AwesomeO said:
I think the clue was in the voice over about inspired by British ships and trade routes. I imagine the huge trains were designed to carry goods all the way across europe much as ships carry goods over the seas between countries.The nazis and hItler has a thing about size, the proposed capital, the proposed planes and trains, the actual tanks and siege guns.
I suppose it would make sense if you wanted to transport large things, like prefab buildings or large bits of machinery or tanks. I guess for most things that fit in a standard shipping container the standard gauge is enough. I suspect also that many things have been built to fit standard container size.
There can be no question of changing existing railways from standard gauge now. It would require insane amounts of money and work and massive disruption.
Bubblecar said:
party_pants said:
AwesomeO said:
I think the clue was in the voice over about inspired by British ships and trade routes. I imagine the huge trains were designed to carry goods all the way across europe much as ships carry goods over the seas between countries.The nazis and hItler has a thing about size, the proposed capital, the proposed planes and trains, the actual tanks and siege guns.
I suppose it would make sense if you wanted to transport large things, like prefab buildings or large bits of machinery or tanks. I guess for most things that fit in a standard shipping container the standard gauge is enough. I suspect also that many things have been built to fit standard container size.
There can be no question of changing existing railways from standard gauge now. It would require insane amounts of money and work and massive disruption.
The change is essential. And is happening, slowly.
>The traditional explanations are along the lines of narrower gauge being capable of tighter bends.
The opposite
Bubblecar said:
party_pants said:
AwesomeO said:
I think the clue was in the voice over about inspired by British ships and trade routes. I imagine the huge trains were designed to carry goods all the way across europe much as ships carry goods over the seas between countries.The nazis and hItler has a thing about size, the proposed capital, the proposed planes and trains, the actual tanks and siege guns.
I suppose it would make sense if you wanted to transport large things, like prefab buildings or large bits of machinery or tanks. I guess for most things that fit in a standard shipping container the standard gauge is enough. I suspect also that many things have been built to fit standard container size.
There can be no question of changing existing railways from standard gauge now. It would require insane amounts of money and work and massive disruption.
Only 55% of the world’s rail is at standard gauge, according to Wiki.
I still believe the mass & size optimums will be with reference to rail, ties & ballast. Train size (loading gauge) is tightly limited by the width of the corridor, passing clearances, and the height, width, and curve of other infrastructure like tunnels and bridges, and other transporters like trucks, cranes, & ships. Once we know how big trains can be – The optimum rail/tie/ballast configuration to carry it should be pretty straight-forward physics.
As an aside they probably understated how important railways were to the German military, every staff had a rail expert and in the planning to the first smack down, plans included just about every train and every soldier down to the carriage number they should occupy and the whole network was timed down to the minute, in a time before computers it was crazy complicated.
Always worried about the two front war they always invisaged shuttling troops between east and west.
AwesomeO said:
I think the clue was in the voice over about inspired by British ships and trade routes. I imagine the huge trains were designed to carry goods all the way across europe much as ships carry goods over the seas between countries.The nazis and hItler has a thing about size, the proposed capital, the proposed planes and trains, the actual tanks and siege guns.
Agreed:
Can you say “Megalomaniac”?
:) Sure… I knew you could! (:
not satisfied with the Tiger Tank
Heir Hairbrain commissioned
The ELEPHANT Tanks bogged
down in the melting permafrost.
AwesomeO said:
I was thinking about the German problem and wondered why they couldn’t have a track that fitted over the Russian one, it would still use the same ties and ballast but would close that gap. It might mean the train goes a bit slower and a bit of a slant but it would be quick to adapt the Russian track, but I suppose that is an obvious thought and must be a good reason why they didn’t do it.
The Russian 1520mm gauge meant that they could use the standard gauge 1435mm lines because their wheels simply rode further up the wheel taper.
Looks like you’re in for a bit more wet season Tamb, cyclone Trevor has formed
KJW are you happy with the answers put forward?
I can have the Train Man cast his eye over it, if necessary.
Sounds like BS. Different rail gauges are better in different circumstances.
KJW said:
Earlier tonight, I was watching an episode of the “Hitler’s World: The Post War Plan” (Transporting The Reich) in which, discussing Hitler’s plans for a very broad gauge (3000mm) railway, it was said that the standard gauge of 1435mm is just by chance the right relation between mass and energy, but this was not explained. What is meant by the relation between mass and energy with regards to railway gauge?
This doesn’t have an obvious answer.
One sense in which a optimum gauge exists is in turns. With a too narrow gauge at high speed the train topples over on the turn. But trains don’t usually have differential gears.so a wide gauge can’t make sharp turns either. So there has to bevan optimum gauge.
A narrow gauge has to have a narrow and therefore less powerful engine and can carry a smaller payload. But the weight of a wide gauge train has to be large and therefore it’s not fuel efficient and has slower acceleration.
On the practical side: “The original Japanese railways generally used narrow gauge, but the increased stability offered by widening the rails to standard gauge would make very high-speed rail much simpler, and thus standard gauge was adopted for high-speed service. With the sole exceptions of Russia, Finland, Uzbekistan, and India (where even wider gauge is used) all high speed rail lines in the world are still standard gauge, even in countries where the preferred gauge for legacy lines is different.” Here, standard gauge is defined as 1,435 mm.
Don’t forget the legacy issues. Modern electric trains were preceded by steam trains. They in turn were preceded by cable-driven cars or horse-drawn cars on rails. The business of building rails precedes the business of building steam locomotives. It could be that the gauge was chosen long before the first steam locos were built, and that the locos were built to fit the existing rail.
There was also Brunel’s broad gauge of 7 1/4 feet, but this was deliberately changed to standard gauge in the 1890s at the direction of a government board in the name of stadardisation. This gauge probably was designed and optimised for the locomotives and cars of its day.
party_pants said:
Don’t forget the legacy issues. Modern electric trains were preceded by steam trains. They in turn were preceded by cable-driven cars or horse-drawn cars on rails. The business of building rails precedes the business of building steam locomotives. It could be that the gauge was chosen long before the first steam locos were built, and that the locos were built to fit the existing rail.There was also Brunel’s broad gauge of 7 1/4 feet, but this was deliberately changed to standard gauge in the 1890s at the direction of a government board in the name of stadardisation. This gauge probably was designed and optimised for the locomotives and cars of its day.
Whereas Brunel’s broad gauge was designed and optimised for locomotives and cars of the future?
more like he wanted to create a flat wagon so a tank could be driven straight on to it
artillery pieces such as big bertha could be transported easily
hitler built roads and railways to facilitate moving tanks around