That infortunate British loading gauge!!

For me, a "continental" railway enthusiast it had been since ever ,an enormous regret, a sorry evidence that the British loading gauge is so restrained, "petty" I can't stop imagine your wonderful engines (steam diesel elecric alike) designed with a "normal" loading gauge! (eg Berne gauge)
More painful : what would be the british railway scene IF IF the Broad gauge would have been generalized! what a fantastic railway system you would have! the most beautiful and efficient in the World ,sure!
Somebody, here, could explain the historical, political, economical psychological reasons behind this sad
regards with sadness
noel

 

The story is very simple Noel.

In the 1820s-50s when our Railway system was being built at the rate of thousands of miles a year (much earlier than the Continental systems) technology prohibited the building of large locomotives, rolling stock etc. Small locos and trains were the norm - so it was only natural that the average loading gauge was not much bigger than these early trains. Whereas on the continent, by the time large scale railway building was taking place technology had developed to the point that Engineers were able to look to the future and build a loading gauge with ever-larger trains in mind.

Now the Broad Gauge. Brunel's Magnum Opus, of course, but the simple problem with it was that the standard gauge was simply too dominant by the time the Government decided some standardisation in gauges had to take place. This occurred in 1846, and it was decided that whilst Broad Gauge was far superior, Standard Gauge was simply too common to expect all the other companies to fall into line with the Great Western. Instead, the Great Western was expected to gradually come into line with the others. The last Broad Gauge trains ran in 1892.

 

Thanks Jamie but I know that very well (I'm a teacher in History specialized in the 19th century Industrial Revolution and I know very well your preserved railway)
It's more a personal(aesthetic ) regret that a lack of knowledge BUT why the british railways companies have not cured this problem after this initial mistake?? I think it was possible to resolve it on a consequent period of time (eg between 1880 and 1920 )
The GCR was built on Berne gauge structure for an projected link with the Continent(Watkin was a genius at these times almost at the level of the great Brunel) I think that most of british engineers and companies Boards of this period were, infortunately, very narrow minded and "pinch penny"
regards
noel

 

I don't think there was any "initial mistake", the loading gauge in this country developed to suit the requirements of what it was expected for the railways to do - there was nothing preceeding it upon which to decide something larger would offer benefits, and on the whole I don't think it has caused this country too many great problems either.

It is only in more recent decades that this country has imported locomotives and rolling stock from overseas where a larger loading gauge might be the norm. for the companies concerned - thus requiring locomotives/rolling stock designed specifically for this country. For the majority of this country's railway history it has been the other way around - we have built our own and exported to the rest of the world.

Once the railways had been built to 'the standard' it would have been an enourmous cost to demolish and rebuild the countless bridges, enlarge cuttings/embankments and tunnels to accept a larger loading gauge, which in practice would have offered the individual railway companies little or no benefits in return. As an island our railway network has been cut off from adjoining countries, so their decision to utilise a larger loading gauge has had limited negative consequences - loading a train onto a ferry to get across the channel isn't quite as straight forward as a train crossing between mainland european countries.

I suppose if one wished to be awkward you could turn the question/statement around to say it's unfortunate that having adopted the standard British track gauge, that other countries then failed to also adopt the "normal" and standardised British loading gauge that went with it as well! hwell:

 

I understand very well all these arguments(cost, pioneering of the first railways, and so...) but imagine if UK have had the wisdom to keep the BG! trains 5m wide, 6m high, goods trains of 5000-15OOO tons range and more, and ,of course, speeds over 300 km/h
For me I K Brunel is the greatest british genius of all times!
I regret, the abandonment of the NVR's "political" continental engines use too!
regards
noel

 

Mmm, would have been difficult to 'keep' something that the country never had, and something that didn't even exist when the country's railways were built! 90 years had elapsed between the opening of the Stockton to Darlington and when the Berne gauge was formalised!

Of course it's possible to have 5,000 - 15,000 ton trains in the UK without needing the Berne loading gauge, you just potentially have to have a longer train comprising of more wagons!

As for the speed, the limiting factor in that case is more the hilly and winding route that railways in the UK tend to follow. There is nothing stopping a train built to UK loading gauge travelling at 186mph given suitable track ...in the same way that adopting the larger proportions of the Berne gauge wouldn't have prevented UK railways snaking along valleys and climbing over hills - all factors that make high speed train travel in the UK a 'challenge'!

Once again, the 'benefits' of the larger Berne gauge offered minimal to no advantages to the numerous pre-grouping railway companies in this Country. Why on earth would the pre-grouping "Lower Wallop to Lesser Nowhere Railway" go to the expense of rebuilding their railway to a European loading gauge when there was no connection to that system in this country, much less that the LW to LN Railway Co. would ever be connected to it! The Uk loading gauge had been working perfectly well for 100 years to haul famer Giles and his dozen chickens to market and drag local coal trains about, so what benefit would the Berne gauge have offered that would have justified the huge expense of rebuilding?

 

Simply now, since 1994 particularly!

 

That would make Brunel's gauge look positively narrow by comparison.

 

With the opening of the Channel Tunnel I can see there would be more benefit now than in the past, but the C.Tunnel is still only one limited connection with the rest of Continental Europe.

Given the fragmented nature of the semi-privatised railways in this country I'd say the greatest obstical to rebuilding the entire network to a larger gauge is simply cost. ...or at least the huge cost followed by limited return on that investment.

Just upgrading the West Coast Mainline to the same loading gauge has cost a fortune and taken years. Getting funding in place to re-engineer the whole network just so continental through trains can work into this country seems a limited benefit. I agree it would make sense for any newly constructed lines that join onto the 'Channel Tunnel link' to be built to the larger sizes, but rebuilding the entire UK rail network just ain't gonna happen due to cost!

 

But why?

We aren't really going to see the day morecombe to Paris trains are faster and cheaper than flying.
so this means freight, which more practically is going to be road hub to Europe, again, it's cheaper.

Building HS2 to Berne gauge would make sense, and maybe some select routes to major cities or motorway links buts thats really all.

 

The old GWR broad gauge was also the 'tall gauge". Some of the early BG locos look to have been about 18 ft tall to the top of the chimney!
The GWR wasn't the only company to adopt Broad Gauge - several other railways in the South West were built to the 7 ft gauge - they had no choice really - and they were eventually taken over by the GWR anyway.

 

Isn't it a virtual certainty that HS2 will be built to the same gauge as the high speed lines in Europe ?

The height issue with the UK gauge will get addressed in time as hight of freight containers get ever taller. However, width is unlikely to change so we are stuck with what we have.

Iam not sure that the UK railways are particularly hamstrung by the current gauge anyway are they ? Not sure I would want to sit in 6 abreast seating anyway.

 

I would think the main problem with the loading gauge is the use of freight vehicles, particularly container trains, that have to use a different size of container compared to other railways or shipping lines. However certain routes have been upgraded in recent years to allow the bigger containers and new wagons are being developed with smaller wheels and lower bodies to allow these bigger containers without having to alter numerous bridges and tunnels.

 

I've read many a discussion about this, and the conclusion has always been the same - the GCR *was* built to a relatively generous loading guage, but it wasnt to Berne, or any other continental loading guage. The former didnt even exist at the time.

Chris

 

Breitspurbahn! Type it into google. It never happened, and probably wasn't really feasible with the tech of the time, but just imagine...

 

The nazis engineers (specially Todt, Speer , primarly it was an idea of Hitler himself) have worked on a fantastic project of very broad gauge (3 m wide!!!!!!) for an all new high speed-250 km/h-railway link between Rostov(Russia) to Paris via , of course, Berlin
There was also a stupending project of steam engine built in concrete!!!yes!('cose shortage of steel)
i have always noticed that , alas !! except the Great Brunel the british enginemen were more conservative, less innovative than their continental (and north american) counterparts!
regards
noel

 

Maybe it's just what we're familiar with, but I think that often British locos and trains, built to our tighter loading gauge, actually have nicer proportions - more graceful, than the taller, fatter continental or American ones. A direct comparison is our Inter-City 125 High Speed Trains, which look somewhat neater than the Australian XPT versions, which were built to a bigger loading gauge. At least we have a track gauge the same as most of Europe, which is more than can be said of Spain, Portugal or Ireland!