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

[Paul Blair <pblair@pcug.org.au>]

Back in 1969 (Ithink it was) there was a meeting of Federal and State
Transport Ministers (ATAC - Aus Transport Advisory Council) in Port
Augusta. The main job was to "name" the new Sydney-Perth train.

After the meeting, everone was invited to ride in the new IP carriages
up to Woomera and back, overnight. It was a very free and easy trip,
with Ministers and staff partying. I had the chance to have a chat to
Keith Smith, who was then CR Commissioner. We talked about the
original Trans etc etc, and I asked why it had been built to SG.

There was a mix of reasons. The Fed Gov, who built the line, wanted to
show the flag for SG to States. They had no idea that there would ever
be through travel, and anyway, changing trains at 2am wherever
required was considered "reasonable" in those days. Then there was the
question of rolling stock. It would be cheaper, and more independent
(!) to buy SG from overseas, so the CR management didn't become
beholden to any local State organisation. As I say, a whole mix!

3'6" would have been cheaper, saving on earthworks and sleepers. But
that would have tied CR to WAGR. 5'3" would have had the same effect
with SAR. So SG it was! Or so he told me.

Of course, different logic applied to the NAR!!

Paul Blair
Canberra

On Wed, 18 Apr 2001 01:30:15 +1000, "Ted Gay" <tedgay@bigpond.com>
wrote:

>
>"Maurie Daly" <mauried@tpg.com.au> wrote in message
>3adb8187.1719697@can-news.tpg.com.au">news:3adb8187.1719697@can-news.tpg.com.au...
>> 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
>> >
>> Yes , its a fair question and one that has puzzled me too.
>> TAR was completed on 17 Oct 1917.
>> The BG line from Adelaide to Pt Pirie wasnt completed until around
>> 1925 ,(I only have the date it got to Red Hill.)
>>
>And when was the standard guage extented from Port Augusta to Port Pirie?
>
>Ted
>
>> An even more interesting question is why was it necessary to create
>> the Commonwealth Railways to operate the TAR.
>> It could have easily been operated by the SAR and the WAGR using
>> rolling stock paid for by the Feds .
>> Why did we need a completely new railway bureacracy to operate just
>> one line ?
>>
>> MD
>>
>

-------------------------------
Paul Blair
pblair@pcug.org.au