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

["Rjaygee" <dartmouthmotel@bigpond.com>]

What a load of crap to say 3' 6" is cheaper than standard gauge.  It might
have been to a certain extent when Qld (and other Colonial gauge states) ran
dinky little toy trains, but I bet since loads have increased to std gauge
weights the cost of 3' 6" is probably greater. The greatest disadvantage is
the horrible wheel flange wear on heavy freight trains on curves.  Some one
once in this group said that Qld no longer used vertical rail but now canted
rail. Could someone explain how they could manage to convert as it not only
involves canting the rails inwards but also involve re-profiling wheels
treads to a conical profile.  I frankly do not believe they could have
converted every kilometre of rail or wheel to the canted standard.  I
understand 90 degree wheel treads and rails cause terrible rail/wheel wear
with heavy speedy loads. Any comments? Anyhow, to sum up, there is
absolutely no advantage in using 3' 6".  Too much sun fries brains up in
Qld.
Cheers
Rod Gayford
"David Bennetts" <davibenn@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
z1KC6.2941$EQ3.94176@ozemail.com.au">news:z1KC6.2941$EQ3.94176@ozemail.com.au...
>
>
>
>
> With hindsight, I feel it probably would have been better to choose 3'6"
> gauge. Then you wouldn't have had to worry about as many changes of gauge
> which were around for so many years when travelling Sydney - Perth.  One
> hundred years down the track, we're still  running trains which could do
> everything on 3'6" that they presently do on standard gauge.   3'6" gauge
is
> considerably cheaper to build and maintain, if you look at Queensland now
> they run faster trains on a good 3'6" track than most of NSW, and
> practically all Victoria and South can do on a wider gauge maintained to
> mediocre standard.
>
> Regards
>
> David Bennetts
>
>