Narrow guage questions


B

bkpigs

Member
I know that narrow guage has the narrow space between the rails (duh), but I was (and still am) under the impression that the overal width of the rolling stock is the same as standard guage. Is this true?

Also, if the above is true then what would make building a narrow guage cheaper? I know the ties would be shorter and that would save some $. But if the overall width of the rolling stock is the same wouldn't the amount of cutting into the side of the mountain or hillside be the same as standard guage?

Just wounderin

Brad
 
In terms of life-sized railroads, I believe the primary advantage of narrow gauge was the ability to have tighter radius turns. This could be advantageous in a hilly/mountainous area as it becomes easier to conform to the curves of the land rather than boring a tunnel.
 
The stock is slightly narrower and much shorter and not as tall as standard guage stock. the main advantages were tighter curves and steeper grades, thus they were used primarily in mountainous areas like Colorado.

In terms of modeling, narrow gauge has a lot going for it, sharper curves, steeper grades, shorter trains and smaller stock. In effect, a lot more trains in the same space as a standard gauge layout.
 
During the late 1800's there was a movement to build narrow guage railroads. The idea was that you could build a smaller size railroad and save money yet haul almost the same amount of goods. So narrow guage railroad sprang up all over the country. They weren't all in mountains and they weren't all in the west. Those are just the ones that survived the longest.

The Ma & Pa started as a narrow gauge road and had an empire planned all the way from where the EBT is now, all the way to Philadelphia.

Unfortunately the basic premise was fataly flawed. It cost almost the same to cut a narrow gauge right of way as it does to cut a standard gauge right of way. And since a lot of narrow gauge railroads were placed on less than optimal alignments they ended up costing more per mile than standard gauge lines.

Equipment ended up costing almost the same also. The hardware, the brake rigging and truck components cost the same to make. The only savings was how much wood or steel was used to make the the body. And in the greater scheme of things, that wasn't that much. Same with engines. The expensive parts of making a locomotive were about the same.

As the capacity of standard gauge cars increased rapidly in the late 1800's and early 1900's the capacity of the narrow gauge lines fell further behind and less competitive. And as interchange of rail cars became commong the requirement to transfer goods between narrow gauge and standard gauge became less and less attractive.

So narrow gauge died off. Most narrow gauge lines were started in roughly the same time frame. Virtually no narrow gauge common carriers were started in the 20th century. The concept had been proven to be flawed. The only lines that survived until the 1950's were the ones that served a limited, difficult area (DRGW), or had some uniquely efficient operation (EBT).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top