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

[Bill Bolton <billbolton@computer.org>]

"David Bennetts" <davibenn@ozemail.com.au> wrote:

> My point was that you can run trains up to 160 km/h on 3'6" track

"Up to" being the operative word.

Only some parts of the tilt train route are capable of supporting that
speed.  From what I have seen, the cost per km of construction on the
160km capable sections are not significantly different from equivalent
std gauge construction costs.

> No I didn't.  If there were 3'6" gauges in NSW, Victoria, etc the same
> amount of money as presently spent on maintenance would have gone somewhat
> further.

But not for high speed operation.

> The point is that we presently don't have any real advantage in terms of
> speed or haulage capacity by using gauges wider than 3'6"

If you look at the Queensland rail *system* in comparison to the
*systems* of States with broader gauges, rather than just selective
routes, that is plainly incorrect.

By just looking at selective routes, the Trans Australian standard
gauge route plainly has significantly greater capacity than any route
in Queensland.

Cheers,

Bill


Bill Bolton
Sydney, Australia