Re: National guage standardisation - why 4'8.5"?

[fjones@pipeline.com.au (Frank Jones)]

On 16 Apr 2001 20:40:20 +1000, "Bradley Torr"
<truenorth@one.net.au.SPAMTRAP> wrote:

>I just have a question that's bugging me - when PM Andrew Fisher started
>building the Trans-Australian Railway in 1912 (or whatever year it was),
>why did the Commonwealth Railways engineers choose 4'8.5" for the railway,
>and all subsequent CR projects, right up to the Melbourne to Adelaide
>standardisation in the 1990's?
>
>Out of the five mainland states, two had 3'6" (WA and QLD), two had 5'3"
>(VIC and SA) and only one had 4'8.5" (NSW).
>
>I would have chosen 5'3" had I been a CR engineer way back then. Why?
>Because two states already had it, and 5'3" from Port Augusta to Kalgoorlie
>would have been a logical extension of South Australia's system. It would
>have been possible to travel all the way from Orbost VIC to Kalgoorlie WA
>on the one guage as well. Also, it seems kinda unfair for a guage used only
>by New South Wales to be imposed on the rest of the nation.
>
>Regards
>BT
> 

I think one of the reasons was that it is far cheaper to make the
gauge narrower on 5'3" gauge wooden sleepers (basically move 1 rail in
on the existing sleepers) than to widen SG to BG (requiring new
sleepers).

Also, at the time, some parts of SA were still 3'6" anyway e.g. the
south east region around Mt. Gambier which wasn't converted until the
1950s. Even then the steel sleepers used in the area had holes drilled
for SG.

Port Pirie/Port Augusta were only NG at the time too, so 5'3" at PA
would have still involved a break of gauge.