Railways Document 2

If a railway line that is 3ft. 6in. wide meets a railway line that is 5ft. 3in. wide an obvious difficulty arises. This document uses examples of what happens when there are different railway gauges to explain why it is important for Australia to have a uniform gauge.

Focus questions
RwQ5 Identify three reasons why broad gauge lines are superior to railway lines of standard gauge, and two supposed advantages of narrower-than-standard-gauge railway lines.
RwQ6 List the difficulties that arise because of different railway gauges.
RwQ7 What are the advantages of having a uniform gauge?
RwQ8 What would be the 'great advantage' of having a uniform gauge in wartime?

THE IMPORTANCE OF AN UNIFORM GAUGE FOR AUSTRALIA

In the early days of railways, the most eminent engineers were divided in opinion as to the best gauge or width between rail and rail of a single line. Some contended for a broad and some for a narrow gauge as [most] desirable, and the long discussion which took place on this subject is known as the "battle of the gauges." At the head of the broad gauge party was Isambard Brunel, who contended for a width of 7ft. between the inner sides of the rails; and he constructed the Great Western on that principle. In the front rank of his opponents was Robert Stephenson, who maintained the opinion of his father-the late George Stephenson, the founder of our railway system – that 4ft. 8½in. was the most suitable width. The Stephensons carried out their opinions in the series of railways now known as the London and North Western, of which system Stephenson was the engineer.

The inconvenience, however, of different gauges throughout the country threatened to become so serious as railways extended that Parliament enacted, in 1846, that the narrow gauge of 4ft. 8½in. should thenceforth be adopted by the future lines in England, Scotland, and Wales, except in the district already served by the broad gauge. By this means facility of communication between the different parts of the country was secured, as the same carriages and wagons could pass from one line to the other. The Great Western, notwithstanding the superior speed then obtained on the broad gauge, found it necessary, to avoid losing traffic, to lay down a third rail, thus enabling narrow-gauge trains to run on its line. This arrangement was, however, but an imperfect palliative to the evil of break of gauge; and after some years' trial the third-rail system was practically abandoned, and at the present time the line is nearly wholly worked on the narrow gauge. The rails for the broad gauge have been gradually taken up, leaving only about 10 per cent. of the mileage as exclusively broad gauge. About another 10 per cent. is mixed gauge, the three rails accommodating both broad and narrow gauge. The remaining 80 per cent. of the length of the system is worked as exclusively narrow gauge. With insignificant exceptions the railways of Great Britain, France, Belgium, Holland, Germany, Austria, Switzerland, and Italy are now on the uniform or standard gauge of 4ft. 8½in.

A very similar change has taken place in Canada and the United States. In the former country a large mileage was originally constructed on the 5ft. 6in. gauge, which confessedly permits the employment of more powerful and durable engines than the standard, or 4ft. 8½in. gauge. The break of gauge was, however, found most inconvenient, and though most ingenious mechanical appliances were used to transfer the bodies of broad-gauge cars to narrow-gauge [bodies] and vice versa, the delay, loss, and practical inconvenience were found so great that hundreds of locomotives were entirely rebuilt, and many were altered at considerable expense in order to adapt them to the narrower gauge of 4ft. 8½in. In the United States the Erie system, one of the four great trunk lines westward, was originally built on the 6ft. gauge, permitting the employment of the most powerful engines and wide and comfortable passenger cars. The inconvenience of a break of gauge with other railroads was, however, felt to be overwhelming. As in England, a third rail was first laid down, and recently the last of the old broad-gauge rails was taken up. In the Southern States a gauge of 5ft. prevailed, and was almost universal South of the Ohio. The difference of 3½in. in gauge was so small that the task of transferring the bodies of the cars from one set of rails to another was easy, and the system used was apparently simple, cheap, and little likely to cause delay. Nevertheless, railroad managers for many years made preparations for a coming change. Locomotives and cars were so constructed that the change could be easily effected, and finally, in May, 1887, the gauge on some 10,000 miles of road was changed to 4ft. 8½in. within a week.

The above examples show that in three countries – Great Britain, Canada, and the United States – extensive practical experience has shown that any mechanical advantages possessed by broad gauge have been overpowered by the inconveniences and delays of transferring goods and passengers at the break of gauge; and that this hindrance to traffic practically isolates the broad-gauge lines, depriving them of profitable business.

The disadvantages of break of gauge are also felt in lines narrower than the standard. The supposed advantages of greater cheapness of construction and diminished deadweight of rolling-stock caused some 10,000 miles of 3ft. gauge lines to be constructed in the United States. It was found, almost without an exception, that such lines could not compete with standard gauge lines, and could not in most cases pay working expenses, for, while the first cost was not very materially lessened, the speed and capacity of the line to haul paying loads were greatly lessened, while the repairs after a few years' working compared very unfavorably with those of lines with stronger and heavier rolling stock. With one exception, no line of any importance is now worked in the United States on a gauge narrower than 4ft. 8½in., and that line, the Denver and Rio Grande, is in part laid with a third rail and the widening of the whole line is in contemplation. A similar change has taken place in Canada, where many of the narrow-gauge lines have been widened to the standard gauge of 4ft. 8½in.

It is evident therefore that the advantages of a standard and uniform railway gauge have been so very manifest that both broader and narrower gauges have been altered on many thousands of miles of railway to conform to the standard gauge. The total mileage in operation in the world at the end of 1885 was 303,058 miles. Of this length 74 per cent. were of the 4ft. 8½in. to 4ft. 9in. standard, 12 per cent. had larger gauges, and 14 per cent. smaller.

Another important point to be considered is the great advantage that would arise to the country in case we should at any time be involved in war, as the whole of the rolling-stock of the various colonies would be available for use at any point where an emergency arose; beyond this also if troops had to be pushed rapidly from one colony to another (assuming there was sufficient stock in each colony for the purpose) the delay involved by the break of gauge would be a fatal obstacle to the promptness and facility of their movements.

The Gauge Commission of 1845 (England) considered this question in regard to English railways, and said in their report:- "The troops (conveyed for sudden emergencies) should be carried with their equipments complete in all their details, and with their artillery and amunition, [sic] and it therefore, appears indispensably necessary that the whole should be conveyed in the same vehicles from the beginning to the end of their journey. The effect of a break of gauge might in this view of the case expose the country to serious danger."

Sir John Hawkshaw, a member of the Engineers and Railway Volunteer Corps, in reporting to the War Office on a scheme for moving by railway the entire military forces of England from the various depots to different arranged points, said:- "Had not the railways in England and Scotland been almost wholly of one gauge and the whole stock nearly everywhere available the problem would have been infinitely more difficult and its solution much less satisfactory. For it is not enough to say (as I am told it has been said) to get over the difficulty of break of gauge that the men – that is the soldiers – where the break of gauge occurred, could easily walk from one train to the other. It is of the last importance that trains once laden should pass onwards to their destination, but break of gauge would render this impracticable, and the amount of stock required would at once be nearly doubled. At every break of gauge the men could not proceed at all unless duplicate trains corresponding in capacity to the trains bringing them to that point were waiting ready to take them forward, thus rendering many duplicate trains necessary to do the work. Those who were engaged in the inquiries I have referred to will understand how difficult it would be to prepare such trains, and to make them meet each other at proper times. Moreover, one of the great difficulties in the operation arose from the vast extent of platform and loading and unloading places required for horses, guns and ammunition, which would have-to be extemporised at the time, and the necessity of which would be vastly increased by the break of gauge. In regard to guns, ammunition, baggage, horses, &c., the evils would be greater than with the men, for these could not be changed without the provision of the most extensive loading and unloading places, and the loss of a great amount of time."

March, 1889. E.M.G. EDDY.
[Chief Commissioner for Railways, New South Wales]

Excerpt from FEDERAL CONVENTION, 1897 (RETURN to the ORDER of the CONVENTION (March 24th, 1897), LAID on the TABLE by the CLERK and ORDERED to be PRINTED, April 2nd 1897.) [copy of Paper handed to the late Hon. Sir Henry Parkes, G.C.M.G., March 1889], SLV, MS 10037, MSB 130.