Here’s a hypothetical…

The train world seems to have settled on standard gauge as the most common choice for building new railways. But let’s say you wanted to build a really big and heavy duty railway for hauling cargo. A standard gauge rail wagon can carry a 40 ft inter-modal container (sometimes even 2 if double stacked), or around 100 tonnes of ore.

Let’s say you wanted to double it and build a railway wagon that could hold 2 containers side by side (or 4 if double-stacked), or 200+ tonnes of ore.

Naturally we would need to build a wider and heavier railway track for it. The gauge would be around 2.5 – 3 metres.

Is there any physical limits to building a railway gauge this wide? Can we just scale up a standard gauge railway system to a new super size, or is there some upper limit to how big we can make it?

party_pants said:

Here’s a hypothetical…

The train world seems to have settled on standard gauge as the most common choice for building new railways. But let’s say you wanted to build a really big and heavy duty railway for hauling cargo. A standard gauge rail wagon can carry a 40 ft inter-modal container (sometimes even 2 if double stacked), or around 100 tonnes of ore.

Let’s say you wanted to double it and build a railway wagon that could hold 2 containers side by side (or 4 if double-stacked), or 200+ tonnes of ore.

Naturally we would need to build a wider and heavier railway track for it. The gauge would be around 2.5 – 3 metres.

Is there any physical limits to building a railway gauge this wide? Can we just scale up a standard gauge railway system to a new super size, or is there some upper limit to how big we can make it?

The Nazis wanted to create a super gauge railway system, but like most super-sized things the Nazis wanted, it never made it to fruition. According to a documentary I saw on the subject, standard gauge is quite accidently the optimum railway gauge. Unfortunately, they didn’t give a good enough explanation of why this is so.

It should be noted that different aspects of a railway scale differently as the gauge is changed, so it is not simply a case of scaling everything equally.

Hitler’s super train.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkuEP5iMRiM (12 mins)

Standard gauge? Rumour has it, it was the wheel ruts of Roman chariots. Wide enough to accommodate a horse’s arse.

https://www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-1533,00.html

the best option is the one you have hey

There is a long list of limitations.

KJW said:

party_pants said:

Here’s a hypothetical…

The train world seems to have settled on standard gauge as the most common choice for building new railways. But let’s say you wanted to build a really big and heavy duty railway for hauling cargo. A standard gauge rail wagon can carry a 40 ft inter-modal container (sometimes even 2 if double stacked), or around 100 tonnes of ore.

Let’s say you wanted to double it and build a railway wagon that could hold 2 containers side by side (or 4 if double-stacked), or 200+ tonnes of ore.

Naturally we would need to build a wider and heavier railway track for it. The gauge would be around 2.5 – 3 metres.

Is there any physical limits to building a railway gauge this wide? Can we just scale up a standard gauge railway system to a new super size, or is there some upper limit to how big we can make it?

The Nazis wanted to create a super gauge railway system, but like most super-sized things the Nazis wanted, it never made it to fruition. According to a documentary I saw on the subject, standard gauge is quite accidently the optimum railway gauge. Unfortunately, they didn’t give a good enough explanation of why this is so.

this vid has been in my feed for a few days

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkuEP5iMRiM

The Insane Giant Nazi Railway – The Breitspurbahn

Haven’t watched it.

> Let’s say you wanted to double it and build a railway wagon that could hold 2 containers side by side (or 4 if double-stacked), or 200+ tonnes of ore.

I love it.

I get annoyed by bridges over roads that are only 4.3 to 4.6 metres tall, whicdh is Austalian normal for new road bridges. That’s nowhere near enough for a big load. No matter how you try, you can’t get two containers on top of one another under those bridges.

There are no real limitations for a double width railway system. Precision in placing sleepers and rails is very much more important than gauge when it comes to wear and safety considerations. In general, wider is safer.

Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_track_gauges#Broad_gauge
This lists six railways with gauges in excess of twice Australia’s standard gauge.

The three main railway gauges in Australia are 1,067 mm narrow, 1,435 mm standard, and 1,600 mm broad; a slow progression towards unification to standard gauge has taken place since the 1930s.

mollwollfumble said:

> Let’s say you wanted to double it and build a railway wagon that could hold 2 containers side by side (or 4 if double-stacked), or 200+ tonnes of ore.

I love it.

I get annoyed by bridges over roads that are only 4.3 to 4.6 metres tall, whicdh is Austalian normal for new road bridges. That’s nowhere near enough for a big load. No matter how you try, you can’t get two containers on top of one another under those bridges.

There are no real limitations for a double width railway system. Precision in placing sleepers and rails is very much more important than gauge when it comes to wear and safety considerations. In general, wider is safer.

Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_track_gauges#Broad_gauge
This lists six railways with gauges in excess of twice Australia’s standard gauge.

The three main railway gauges in Australia are 1,067 mm narrow, 1,435 mm standard, and 1,600 mm broad; a slow progression towards unification to standard gauge has taken place since the 1930s.

Australian absolute minimum clearance for new road bridges is 5.2 m.

In most cases bridges will have the minimum allowed clearance at some point because every additional mm costs money.

But returning to the question, from TATE:

“Five isolated heavy duty railways for the cartage of iron ore in the Pilbara region of Western Australia have always been private concerns operated as part of the production line between mine and port, initially commencing in 1966 with Goldsworthy Mining Associates’ Goldsworthy railway, and recently in 2008 with Fortescue Metals Group’s Fortescue railway and in 2015 with Roy Hill Holdings’ Roy Hill railway. These lines are continually optimising axle loads (currently the heaviest in the world) and train lengths, that have pushed the limit of the wheel to rail interface and led to much useful research of value to railways worldwide. An open access sixth standard gauge iron ore network was proposed to the Oakajee Port in the Mid-West region to the south of the Pilbara but the project is currently on hold pending a viable business case.”

The Rev Dodgson said:

But returning to the question, from TATE:

“Five isolated heavy duty railways for the cartage of iron ore in the Pilbara region of Western Australia have always been private concerns operated as part of the production line between mine and port, initially commencing in 1966 with Goldsworthy Mining Associates’ Goldsworthy railway, and recently in 2008 with Fortescue Metals Group’s Fortescue railway and in 2015 with Roy Hill Holdings’ Roy Hill railway. These lines are continually optimising axle loads (currently the heaviest in the world) and train lengths, that have pushed the limit of the wheel to rail interface and led to much useful research of value to railways worldwide. An open access sixth standard gauge iron ore network was proposed to the Oakajee Port in the Mid-West region to the south of the Pilbara but the project is currently on hold pending a viable business case.”

Coupler strength is always a consideration. Remember the first carriage coupler has to take the strain of the entire train that follows.

Woodie said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

But returning to the question, from TATE:

“Five isolated heavy duty railways for the cartage of iron ore in the Pilbara region of Western Australia have always been private concerns operated as part of the production line between mine and port, initially commencing in 1966 with Goldsworthy Mining Associates’ Goldsworthy railway, and recently in 2008 with Fortescue Metals Group’s Fortescue railway and in 2015 with Roy Hill Holdings’ Roy Hill railway. These lines are continually optimising axle loads (currently the heaviest in the world) and train lengths, that have pushed the limit of the wheel to rail interface and led to much useful research of value to railways worldwide. An open access sixth standard gauge iron ore network was proposed to the Oakajee Port in the Mid-West region to the south of the Pilbara but the project is currently on hold pending a viable business case.”

Coupler strength is always a consideration. Remember the first carriage coupler has to take the strain of the entire train that follows.

Not necessarily. Some of the ore trains & coal trains have multiple locos along the length of the train.

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

> Let’s say you wanted to double it and build a railway wagon that could hold 2 containers side by side (or 4 if double-stacked), or 200+ tonnes of ore.

I love it.

I get annoyed by bridges over roads that are only 4.3 to 4.6 metres tall, whicdh is Austalian normal for new road bridges. That’s nowhere near enough for a big load. No matter how you try, you can’t get two containers on top of one another under those bridges.

There are no real limitations for a double width railway system. Precision in placing sleepers and rails is very much more important than gauge when it comes to wear and safety considerations. In general, wider is safer.

Have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_track_gauges#Broad_gauge
This lists six railways with gauges in excess of twice Australia’s standard gauge.

The three main railway gauges in Australia are 1,067 mm narrow, 1,435 mm standard, and 1,600 mm broad; a slow progression towards unification to standard gauge has taken place since the 1930s.

Australian absolute minimum clearance for new road bridges is 5.2 m.

In most cases bridges will have the minimum allowed clearance at some point because every additional mm costs money.

Ah, thanks, it’s still not high enough for two containers one above the other. Or for other large loads such as chemical processing tanks. Standard container height is 2.59 metres, and at least another 300 mm is needed under the containers for support and ground clearance. A typical low loader has a deck height of 800 to 1000 mm.

party_pants, I’ll give some thought to how the various parts of the railway would have to be scaled for this to work. It’s not simply doubling everything because that would require an excessive cost. Items to think of scaling are:
Larger wheels & more wheels, possibly both
Sleet rail width at top
Steel rail base width and bending strength
Retain the single sleeper or split it into two half-sleepers
Sleeper depth
Depth of gravel base & strength
Depth of sub-base

A starting point would be to specify maximum track curvature. If dimensions are exactly doubled then the maximum track curvature is halved then the sideways load on the rails is halved. Similarly, the extra downward force of the rails from track curvature are halved. So four containers in the space of one would lead to only a doubling of sideways track load. And less than 4 times the downward load.

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Australian absolute minimum clearance for new road bridges is 5.2 m.

In most cases bridges will have the minimum allowed clearance at some point because every additional mm costs money.

Ah, thanks, it’s still not high enough for two containers one above the other.

It’s not supposed to be.

India have just opened a new freight railway with overhead electric for double stacked containers. Max train height is 7.10 m. Contact wire height is 7.87m. Track gauge is 1676mm. This can operate two hi-cube containers double stacked.

There is plenty of double stacking going on in Australia for long distance freight, maximum clearance is 6.5m.

Shipping containers come in two heights, standard is 8’6” (2.59m) and high cube is 9’6” (2.89m).

The Rev Dodgson said:

mollwollfumble said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Australian absolute minimum clearance for new road bridges is 5.2 m.

In most cases bridges will have the minimum allowed clearance at some point because every additional mm costs money.

Ah, thanks, it’s still not high enough for two containers one above the other.

It’s not supposed to be.

Just half a metre more and it would be.

Also why is it spelt like that? Either change the spelling to guage or change the pronunciation to gawj.

dv said:

Also why is it spelt like that? Either change the spelling to guage or change the pronunciation to gawj.

well, we can hardly spell it ‘gays’.

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Also why is it spelt like that? Either change the spelling to guage or change the pronunciation to gawj.

well, we can hardly spell it ‘gays’.

let’s just called it “gag”.

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

dv said:

Also why is it spelt like that? Either change the spelling to guage or change the pronunciation to gawj.

well, we can hardly spell it ‘gays’.

let’s just called it “gag”.

Some people of the American persuasion also use ‘gage’ as the spelling.

Spiny Norman said:

party_pants said:

mollwollfumble said:

well, we can hardly spell it ‘gays’.

let’s just called it “gag”.

Some people of the American persuasion also use ‘gage’ as the spelling.

American spelling generally tends to be more sensible.

,, but nobody reads my threads

or what that the point?

party_pants said:

,, but nobody reads my threads

or what that the point?

I’ll have to change my name to “nobody” then, because I do read your threads.

> party_pants, I’ll give some thought to how the various parts of the railway would have to be scaled for this to work. It’s not simply doubling everything because that would require an excessive cost. Items to think of scaling are:
Larger wheels & more wheels, possibly both
Sleet rail width at top
Steel rail base width and bending strength
Retain the single sleeper or split it into two half-sleepers
Sleeper depth
Depth of gravel base & strength
Depth of sub-base

A starting point would be to specify maximum track curvature. If dimensions are exactly doubled then the maximum track curvature is halved then the sideways load on the rails is halved. Similarly, the extra downward force of the rails from track curvature are halved. So four containers in the space of one would lead to only a doubling of sideways track load. And less than 4 times the downward load.