G Scale Model Train Forum banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
451 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What if a Class I railroad decided to try to save money by going narrow gauge, just like their 1890's counterparts?

What would a Class I railroad in CWR look like at only 24" gauge?

High Point NC, March 18, 2009:



Yeah, yeah, I know. I know.

Matthew (OV)

PS: Taken today, out the window of my truck, in the rain, with a cell phone, so yeah, not gonna win the photo contest.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
371 Posts
"What if a Class I railroad decided to try to save money by going narrow gauge, just like their 1890's counterparts?"

I'm guessing they would discover exactly what their 1890 counterparts discovered: the whole "save money by reducing the width between the rails" concept is nonsense.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,297 Posts
Where NG saved money was in initial construction, they were simply cheaper to build, cheaper to equip but otherwise the operating costs were pretty similar, coal is coal ya know.

NG had advantages in rough terrain that allowed the trains to venture into the narrow canyons of places like Colorado, but it still cost alot to build those lines, just not as much as a standard guage would have required.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
371 Posts
They saved money by building to lower standards: narrower rights-of-way (as narrow as 15 feet, compared to 100 for the average standard gauge), steeper grades, poor or no ballast, ties that were too far apart, rail that was very light, cars that were very small, and not capable of carrying very much. Some narrow gauges tried to get by with 12 lb rail, normally used only for streetcar lines.

Don't get me wroing, I love to model narrow gauge; all that baling-wire-and-chewing-gum is what makes it interesting. But by and large, they were lousy investments. Virtually all of the ones that made money were eventually converted to standard gauge.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
451 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
I didn't mean to start a war. The double track main line is being put back in through North Carolina, having been removed in the 70's, as a "cost saving" measure. THe idea is to remove the various bottlenecks, and allow more and faster traffic. The ties and tie plates are down, and the CWR laid out ... this week, they're moving it into place. Behind me, on the other side of the crossing I'm on, the machine is moving the rail out onto the plates and spiking it.... but in the photo, you can see the rails not yet positioned, and it looks for all the world like narrow gauge track..... which is why I was trying to make a humorous caption for the photo.

Geez.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
150 Posts
Posted By astrayelmgod on 03/20/2009 9:16 AM
Don't get me wroing, I love to model narrow gauge; all that baling-wire-and-chewing-gum is what makes it interesting. But by and large, they were lousy investments. Virtually all of the ones that made money were eventually converted to standard gauge.




Once one gets away from the North and South American model there are several viable narrow gauge systems. The Rhätische Bahn in Switzerland was built to meter gauge standards not for economy, but because it was the only size that would fit in the mountainous terrain. Miles of tunnels including spirals, hundreds of stone viaducts and bridges all made for high construction costs.


One hundred and eleven years later it is still going strong with out any bailing wire or chewing gum in sight. 


Jack 
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,510 Posts
Posted By SlateCreek on 03/20/2009 10:49 AM
I didn't mean to start a war. The double track main line is being put back in through North Carolina, having been removed in the 70's, as a "cost saving" measure. THe idea is to remove the various bottlenecks, and allow more and faster traffic. The ties and tie plates are down, and the CWR laid out ... this week, they're moving it into place. Behind me, on the other side of the crossing I'm on, the machine is moving the rail out onto the plates and spiking it.... but in the photo, you can see the rails not yet positioned, and it looks for all the world like narrow gauge track..... which is why I was trying to make a humorous caption for the photo.

Geez.


I was wondering about it... looked mighty narrow for the size of rail. It is FUNNY! Thanks for the explanation... I never would'a guessed.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
371 Posts
Matthew--

My apologies; the picture is so dark on my screen that I completely missed your point. All I see is sky, and some curvy gray lines.

Jack --
Yes, Switzerland, New Zealand, and many other countries have extensive networks of narrow gauge built to, and operated at, high standards. I was thinking about American narrow gauge, which was very much intended to be cheap, cheap, cheap.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
Posted By astrayelmgod on 03/20/2009 1:14 PM
Matthew--

My apologies; the picture is so dark on my screen that I completely missed your point. All I see is sky, and some curvy gray lines.

Jack --
Yes, Switzerland, New Zealand, and many other countries have extensive networks of narrow gauge built to, and operated at, high standards. I was thinking about American narrow gauge, which was very much intended to be cheap, cheap, cheap.


Please add the railways of Japan and all of Southern Africa.

Six million passengers travel into and out of Metro Tokyo every day on a network of 'narrow gauge' tracks involving almost 200,000 rail operations.

Seamlessly, and keeping perfect timings.

Only the legendary Shinkansen trains run on 1435mm gauge track.

tac
http://www.ovgrs.org/
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top