Re: Suburban densities and rail service (was Re: Putting light rail in subway)

[Deeg <galtfd@att.net>]

On Tue, 25 Apr 2000 12:39:43 +1000,
billboltonREMOVE-TO-EMAIL@computer.org (Bill Bolton) wrote:

>Quite a lot of regauging has gone on in the US over the years to
>achieve the current widespread standardised gauge environment.
>
I wonder how valid a comparison there is between traffic patterns in
the US and Australia. At least through most of the 19th century, a
better parallel might be between Australia and South America. But even
in the earlier-integrated US, multiplicity of gauge persisted after
its disadvantages were evident.

Already before the Civil War standard gauge was the overwhelming
choice in the northern United States, and re-gauging of primary lines
throughout the US and Canada was virtually complete by 1871 (at about
the same time that the Victoria and NSW systems were first venturing
in the direction of the Murray), with the Erie holding out until 1880
(three years before the meeting at Albury-Wodonga.) I'm not versed in
what disadvantages the North may have suffered during the Civil War
due to gauge disparities (most significantly in Ohio), but it is fair
to say that the broad gauge lines in the South would likely not have
been changed over so early without the defeat of the Confederacy and
the widespread devastation of those lines in the war.

The fact of the Erie's keeping its 6-foot gauge long after it had
become a millstone on the line's development shows the difficulties in
making the change. The Erie, after all, didn't even enjoy the sort of
regional hegemony that permitted Brunel's Great Western to maintain
its individuality for so long.

The one major re-gauging in the US post-1880 involved some parts of
the Denver & Rio Grande system. The fact that significant portions of
the D&RGW (W for Western) remained 3'6" until closure in mid-20th
century points up that the more difficult change from narrow to
standard may never prove worthwhile.

Of course in retrospect it would have been better for all the
Australian systems to choose the same gauge. Since they did not - for
the same variety of reasons that different gauges were chosen in other
parts of the world - it seems perfectly logical that these largely
self-contained networks would have resisted the expense of re-gauging.

Don Galt

>Its not like everyone selected the same gauge to start with there
>either, with different areas initially electing to go with a gauge
>that suited their local view of things.  It was the US Civil War
>experience that really started the push for gauge standardisation in
>the US.
>
>Australia didn't really meet that sort of pressure to standardise
>until World War II,and even then its taken 40+ years since to get to
>the current "all mainland state capitals" directly connected by a
>standard gauge.
>