Re: NG v SG

[pierson@gone.enet.dec.com (dave pierson)]

In article <7e0p64$e7p@ob1.uws.EDU.AU>, "Ben Staples"
<98711576@student.hawkesbury.uws.edu.au> writes...

>I am aware that the "Standard Gauge" is a British concoction, used mostly,
>as you say, in English speaking countries.

	errrrrr.
	And France, and Germany and Most of South America, and most of
	the middle east.  Most of which are not 'English Speaking'.
	(Lets not get started on whether the US speaks 'english'...
	8)>>)

>But now that you could, if you could negate the gauge difference, travel from
>the north of Scotland to Singapore why not have a standard gauge.

	Why have one, for the sea leg?
	(for longish sea legs...)

	'intermodal' (containers, swap bodies) is a well established
	technolgy.  RR Running gear is expensive, complicated and heavy.
	It makes little finanical sense, i should think, to send it off
	on a relatively slow ship, when it could be earing revenue
	at home.

	RR Running gear is expensive, complicated & heavy, I should
	think it wasteful to waste  ship capacity either volume or weight,
	shipping USEless volume & weight.

	RR Running gear is expensive, complicated & heavy, I should think
	it wasteful to expose it sea salt, corrosiion, etc.

	RR Running gear is expensive, complicated & heavy, I should think
	sending it internationally, where the coupler standards, brake
	line standards and Spare Parts are all different is a bit iffy.

>And if they ever get the port of Darwin going with fast ferries to Asia,
>you could load rail carriages into it at Darwin for transport across and
>then rail further inland from the port.

	All of which can be nicely done by well understood swap body
	or container technolgy.  Without sending expensive, complicated
	heavy railway running gear (which is wasted money, since its
	not on rails) off across the planet, to a railway which has no spares
	when something brakes, different couplers, different braking systems.

>Surely Australia understands the problems of not following or implementing a
>standard. And since last time I looked, we all lived on one planet, a global
>standard would be preferable to an island one.

	It is not my place to speak for Australia.  In the US, internally,
	we did, and wisely so, i think, (mostly) standardize, and (wisely,
	i think) share standard with our run thru neighbors, Canada & Mexico.

	HOWever, a standard should serve a purpose.  A longish sea voyage
	requires enough of a break that the details of the underlying rail
	gear are (i think) irrelavant.  The relavant bit (i should think)
	is to standarize on the _container_ (sizes) to international
	practice.

thanks
dave pierson                        |the facts, as accurately as i can manage,
Compaq Computer Corporation         |the opinions, my own.
334 South St                        |
Shrewsbury, Mass USA                 pierson@gone.enet.dec.com
"He has read everything, and, to his credit, written nothing."  A J Raffles
"....the net of a million lies...."	Vernor Vinge