What if Brunel had won?
Discussion
The current standard gauge isn't really a significant limitation on speed. On the UK rail network the biggest limitation is the difficulty of fitting high speed services in between slower ones. In countries which can build dedicated lines for high speed services the limitations are things like the wear and tear on the track from high speed running, the difficulty of maintaining contact with the overhead power cable, and as speeds get higher still, aerodynamic drag and the amount of power needed to overcome it. A broader track gauge would only provide a bit of extra lateral stability and lateral stability isn't really lacking anyway.
The big problem with rail freight is the pain-in-the-arsery of taking stuff off trucks and putting it on trains, then taking it off trains and putting it back on trucks again at the other end. What is needed here is the ability to drive a truck on board a train with no further messing about, which requires an adequate loading gauge. And as far as loading gauge is concerned going for Brunel's broad gauge wouldn't have made a great deal of difference. It is true that ex-broad-gauge lines have a more generous loading gauge (except where it has been encroached upon) than standard, but the difference isn't enough to be any use in terms of getting road vehicles on board trains. It's mainly height that you need for doing this.
We would have had a significantly less extensive rail network to begin with as the construction costs would have been higher; also the cost of converting standard gauge lines to broad gauge would have been immense and would have caused many lines to go out of business. Some too would maybe have taken the cheaper option and converted standard gauge double track to broad gauge single track to avoid rebuilding all the structures; again the resulting low-capacity low-speed lines would have been more likely to fail to be viable.
The practical difficulties of converting would have led to pressures to provide exemptions from the requirement and we would have ended up with a lot of breaks of gauge which would fragment the network and reduce its viability as a whole.
Not every idea Brunel had was a good one and the broad gauge was one of them. It simply isn't necessary to go that wide. You can do just as well with standard gauge, and it didn't give the Great Western any advantage. The limitation on speed in those days was not the track gauge but the capabilities of the locomotives - and a lot of the broad gauge locomotives were a bit rubbish (though not for reasons related to the gauge).
Brunel was working in a time when people didn't know much about things until they tried them, and a lot of his ideas were without much by way of theoretical underpinnings, so sometimes they worked and sometimes they didn't. The behaviour of railed vehicles and the rails beneath them is one of those areas which the theory of the time didn't cover and Brunel's ideas for track suffered as a result. Another example is his original track design with rails mounted on longitudinal baulks supported on piles at the rail joints; what happened was that the ballast would compact under the lengths of the rails and lower the level, while the piles remained at the same height, leading to a switchback ride and in extremis things flying off the rails; they had to rip the whole lot up and replace it with conventional (in design, if not in gauge) track.
I must admit I have long thought it would be kind of cool if the whole network had been broad gauge but looking at it objectively the Gauge Commissioners were right.
The big problem with rail freight is the pain-in-the-arsery of taking stuff off trucks and putting it on trains, then taking it off trains and putting it back on trucks again at the other end. What is needed here is the ability to drive a truck on board a train with no further messing about, which requires an adequate loading gauge. And as far as loading gauge is concerned going for Brunel's broad gauge wouldn't have made a great deal of difference. It is true that ex-broad-gauge lines have a more generous loading gauge (except where it has been encroached upon) than standard, but the difference isn't enough to be any use in terms of getting road vehicles on board trains. It's mainly height that you need for doing this.
We would have had a significantly less extensive rail network to begin with as the construction costs would have been higher; also the cost of converting standard gauge lines to broad gauge would have been immense and would have caused many lines to go out of business. Some too would maybe have taken the cheaper option and converted standard gauge double track to broad gauge single track to avoid rebuilding all the structures; again the resulting low-capacity low-speed lines would have been more likely to fail to be viable.
The practical difficulties of converting would have led to pressures to provide exemptions from the requirement and we would have ended up with a lot of breaks of gauge which would fragment the network and reduce its viability as a whole.
Not every idea Brunel had was a good one and the broad gauge was one of them. It simply isn't necessary to go that wide. You can do just as well with standard gauge, and it didn't give the Great Western any advantage. The limitation on speed in those days was not the track gauge but the capabilities of the locomotives - and a lot of the broad gauge locomotives were a bit rubbish (though not for reasons related to the gauge).
Brunel was working in a time when people didn't know much about things until they tried them, and a lot of his ideas were without much by way of theoretical underpinnings, so sometimes they worked and sometimes they didn't. The behaviour of railed vehicles and the rails beneath them is one of those areas which the theory of the time didn't cover and Brunel's ideas for track suffered as a result. Another example is his original track design with rails mounted on longitudinal baulks supported on piles at the rail joints; what happened was that the ballast would compact under the lengths of the rails and lower the level, while the piles remained at the same height, leading to a switchback ride and in extremis things flying off the rails; they had to rip the whole lot up and replace it with conventional (in design, if not in gauge) track.
I must admit I have long thought it would be kind of cool if the whole network had been broad gauge but looking at it objectively the Gauge Commissioners were right.
Simpo Two said:
Although if you think how much overhang the current system has, and then imagine that same overhang scaled up onto broadgauge, you'd have carriages about 12 feet wide, which could be useful - twice as many passengers/freight for every unit of train length?
Not really, because the lines would have been built to suit the broad gauge stock of the early Victorian era, which did not have that sort of overhang - they had much the same as the standard gauge (cf. mixed gauge track where both types could pull up to the same platform, the rail next to the platform being the "common" one). So you might get one extra seat in the width, but not any more than that without huge amounts of rebuilding of every structure.OK, so the arguments against broad gauge go back to the fact that there was a critical mass of infrastructure that it didn't fit.
So start with a blank canvas - say 1800. All you have is canals and fields, and turn a blind eye to the Duke of Bridgewater. Which gauge would be better?
(not that I know, just interested)
So start with a blank canvas - say 1800. All you have is canals and fields, and turn a blind eye to the Duke of Bridgewater. Which gauge would be better?
(not that I know, just interested)
If you were starting from scratch wide guage would have been better, though much more expensive to build. You could get many more people on the same length train for commuters, and you could drive lorries on and off for freight.
It wouldn't change the fundamental limitations of inflexible, scheduled services, though- everything would still have to get to the station, and from the destination station, and possibly change.
It wouldn't change the fundamental limitations of inflexible, scheduled services, though- everything would still have to get to the station, and from the destination station, and possibly change.
We would still only see an advantage now if the 19th-century railway builders had had the foresight to construct lines for 21st-century conditions 
Broad gauge was originally seen as a means of increasing lateral stability, not as a means of allowing for wider carriages. While it did allow for some increased width the amount of "overhang" was still about the same as for standard gauge so there was only an increase in width in the between-the-rails part of the carriage, so you only gain about one seat's worth.
While it would be possible to increase the "overhang" to fit in, say, two more seats in the width of the carriage, we would still have a network which had not been built with the clearances to allow for this. It would still be necessary to completely rebuild the whole lot; not only would tunnels, overbridges and station platforms need to be altered, but the spacing between parallel tracks would need to be increased, so except for single line sections you would have to rebuild everything.
The limitation regarding driving lorries on and off trains is not width but height. Again, there was no requirement for the original broad gauge lines to provide lots of vertical clearance, so they didn't. Existing ex-broad-gauge routes do not allow lorries to be driven on and off trains, and this would still be the case if the whole network had originally been broad gauge.
So, even starting from scratch and doing the whole lot in broad gauge would not have conferred much of an advantage on us today. We would need the original builders to have not only built in broad gauge, but to have realised that the main advantage of broad gauge is not increased lateral stability but the possibility of increased capacity in wider vehicles and to have allowed the appropriate lateral clearances, and also to have anticipated that one day people would want to put whole vehicles which were much larger and taller than anything - road or rail - that existed at the time on the back of trains, and allowed the vertical clearance required for that.
Broad gauge was originally seen as a means of increasing lateral stability, not as a means of allowing for wider carriages. While it did allow for some increased width the amount of "overhang" was still about the same as for standard gauge so there was only an increase in width in the between-the-rails part of the carriage, so you only gain about one seat's worth.
While it would be possible to increase the "overhang" to fit in, say, two more seats in the width of the carriage, we would still have a network which had not been built with the clearances to allow for this. It would still be necessary to completely rebuild the whole lot; not only would tunnels, overbridges and station platforms need to be altered, but the spacing between parallel tracks would need to be increased, so except for single line sections you would have to rebuild everything.
The limitation regarding driving lorries on and off trains is not width but height. Again, there was no requirement for the original broad gauge lines to provide lots of vertical clearance, so they didn't. Existing ex-broad-gauge routes do not allow lorries to be driven on and off trains, and this would still be the case if the whole network had originally been broad gauge.
So, even starting from scratch and doing the whole lot in broad gauge would not have conferred much of an advantage on us today. We would need the original builders to have not only built in broad gauge, but to have realised that the main advantage of broad gauge is not increased lateral stability but the possibility of increased capacity in wider vehicles and to have allowed the appropriate lateral clearances, and also to have anticipated that one day people would want to put whole vehicles which were much larger and taller than anything - road or rail - that existed at the time on the back of trains, and allowed the vertical clearance required for that.
Brunel did indeed choose his broad gauge for the extra stability it gave at the time, when materials and means of surveying were limited.
In accidents BG trains stayed upright where NG/SG ones would have rolled over. The Irish gauge is 5 feet 3 inches. The Spanish 5 feet 6 inches. Stephenson had a number of gauges to choose from in the north of England, some at 5 feet or over. He chose 4 feet 8 inches, with the half inch added later. Brunel's BG from London to Bristol did allow for faster trains than elsewhere. Fewer curves, no severe gradients helped that.
As for the loading gauge matter, Continental railways were being built to much higher and wider loading gauges than those at the time being built in the UK. But land was not as available in the UK as on the Continent, so may well have been more costly to buy. There may have been more foresight. Besides, the German railway network was designed from the start with military use in mind.
The only British main line built to the Continental loading gauge was the late-comer the Great Central Railway - built with the main intention of allowing for Continental goods wagons and coaches to be brought across the Channel by ferry and hauled to the heart of England. And Beeching axed it!
In accidents BG trains stayed upright where NG/SG ones would have rolled over. The Irish gauge is 5 feet 3 inches. The Spanish 5 feet 6 inches. Stephenson had a number of gauges to choose from in the north of England, some at 5 feet or over. He chose 4 feet 8 inches, with the half inch added later. Brunel's BG from London to Bristol did allow for faster trains than elsewhere. Fewer curves, no severe gradients helped that.
As for the loading gauge matter, Continental railways were being built to much higher and wider loading gauges than those at the time being built in the UK. But land was not as available in the UK as on the Continent, so may well have been more costly to buy. There may have been more foresight. Besides, the German railway network was designed from the start with military use in mind.
The only British main line built to the Continental loading gauge was the late-comer the Great Central Railway - built with the main intention of allowing for Continental goods wagons and coaches to be brought across the Channel by ferry and hauled to the heart of England. And Beeching axed it!
PaulV said:
would double deck coaches be feasible?
Plenty of double deck trains on mainland Europe and they run on the same gauge as ours. We don't have them here because our antiquated infrastructure lacks the required overhead clearance.PaulV said:
and what sort of speeds would they be running at?
I don't think a broader gauge would make trains faster. TGVs and the like are already running about as fast as conventional trains can. Friction and air resistance are the enemies at greater speeds, not the lack of a wider gauge. If anything, wider trains would create more air resistance and thus waste more energy running at higher speeds. MagLevs overcome the friction issue but unless Hyperloop is deployed extensively I doubt we'll see significant increases in train speed. Given the mess we're making of establishing HS2 I can't see us having MagLev or Hyperloop in my lifetime.Pigeon said:
...they had to rip the whole lot up and replace it with conventional (in design, if not in gauge) track.
There is actually still rather a lot of broad gauge rail kicking about in the West of England. Presumably, with literally thousands tons of the stuff that couldn’t be reused because it was the wrong profile, Swindon would have been faced with the choice of either melting it all down and starting again, or finding other uses for it.They started to use it for fence posts. Here is an example that exists between Chippenham and Calne on the former branch line that is now a footpath and cycle track:
Aromer said:
The only British main line built to the Continental loading gauge was the late-comer the Great Central Railway - built with the main intention of allowing for Continental goods wagons and coaches to be brought across the Channel by ferry and hauled to the heart of England. And Beeching axed it!
A lot of people believe that. I used to believe it too until I found out better! Although it is built to a larger loading gauge than other British lines, it wasn’t actually full Continental loading gauge.I won't get into the "Beeching axed it" discussion because this has come up on here umpteen times (especially on the HS2 threads) and, suffice to say, there are differing views 0ver whether it was worth saving or indeed worth building in the first place
rs1952 said:
A lot of people believe that. I used to believe it too until I found out better! Although it is built to a larger loading gauge than other British lines, it wasn’t actually full Continental loading gauge.
I won't get into the "Beeching axed it" discussion because this has come up on here umpteen times (especially on the HS2 threads) and, suffice to say, there are differing views 0ver whether it was worth saving or indeed worth building in the first place
Indeed, there was no such thing as 'the Continental loading gauge' in the 1890s when the Great Central's London Extension was planned. While European railways usually had a more generous loading gauge than British ones, on account of their later construction, there was a lot of variance, just as there was in the UK - there's a big difference between, say, the narrow clearances of some of the ex-SER lines in Kent and Sussex and the bits of the GWR originally built to broad gauge or the former GNR main lines which also allowed for quite a lot of clearance on account of their preference for locomotives with big outside cylinders. Europe didn't have a standard loading gauge until 1912, and even then it was just a minimum standard so wagons and carriages marked appropriately could be used anywhere, but there were plenty of vehicles restricted to their home countries or networks. I won't get into the "Beeching axed it" discussion because this has come up on here umpteen times (especially on the HS2 threads) and, suffice to say, there are differing views 0ver whether it was worth saving or indeed worth building in the first place
The GCR main line was built to a larger loading gauge than was normal for British railways but by no means was as capacious as the 'biggest' European lines.
As others have said it's not the standard gauge which is the problem, here's a typical US double stack container train . Not totally universal across the US but there is enough of the network to make these trains a common sight nearly everywhere. All up weight of 125tons(US) per vehicle typical set is 5cars articulated .
London underground "tube" trains (not District/Circle/Hammersmith & City) may all appear to be the same shape and size but they're not. In addition to the cross-section of a static car there's the question of "radius". In other words, how far the middle of a long car deviates from the rails when the train is turning a tight radius bend. The trains will all fit in the same hole but some lines have tighter curves - and so shorter cars - than others. For the same reason the "mind the gap" issue in curved stations is greater on some lines than others.
In round numbers,
But that's not the end of it. The number of cars in a train also varies, depending on available platform length on each line.
In round numbers,
- Bakerloo/Central/Victoria/Waterloo & City = 16.5 metre cars
- Jubilee/Northern/Piccadilly = 18 metre cars.
But that's not the end of it. The number of cars in a train also varies, depending on available platform length on each line.
rockin said:
But that's not the end of it. The number of cars in a train also varies, depending on available platform length on each line.
That problem has been resolved in part by central locking, that we've had in the UK for the last 30 or so years.Testament to that was sitting in Paddington yesterday morning waiting for a train home. The automated announcemnts made interesting listening (for a nerd...)
"Due to short platforms, passengers for A should travel in the font three coaches.
Passengers for B should travel in the front 5 coaches"
Passengers for C should travel in the rear 2 coaches
And so on.
This appears to be a particular problem on GWR trains with their new 5, 9 and 10 coach fixed formations, especially on the Oxford-Worcester-Hereford, Reading to Bedwyn lines, and most stations in Cornwall
Mention should also be made (because it's interesting!) of the operation the GWR had when it ridded itself of the last bits of the broad gauge network in 1892 - by which time there was 177 miles of pure broad-gauge track and 253 miles of mixed-gauge track, nearly all of it on the Paddington-Exeter mainline and then the former Cornwall Railway to Penzance, plus branches such as Truro and Hemerdon.
It was decided to convert all that pure broad-gauge track to standard gauge in a single weekend, May 21/22. In the run-up, 15 miles of broad-gauge siding were laid at Swindon to accomodate engines and rolling stock which was either to be scrapped or converted to standard gauge. A special 50-page instructional book was issued to traffic managers, district engineers and station masters detailing how and when each station and goods yard was to accept the last of its inbound broad-gauge rolling stock, when it was to send out the last stock and when any surplus broad-gauge stock was to be collected by special train for dispatch to Swindon - all to ensure no rolling stock was 'stranded' by the change of gauge. All goods accepted after Wednesday, May 18, had to be trans-shipped to standard-gauge wagons and all broad-gauge vans and wagons had to be cleared west of Exeter by Thursday, May 19. Fourteen special empty-stock trains were organised for the night of Friday 20/Saturday 21 to clear all the remaining passenger stock back to Swindon. The GWR pulled its steamships from its cross-Channel and Channel Islands services to run passenger services between Plymouth, Fowey and Falmouth, while other services were substituted by road coaches.
The last broad-gauge Down Goods train left Paddington for Plymouth on May 17. The last Down through passenger train ran from Paddington to Penzance on the morning of the Friday, May 20 and the last broad-gauge departure from Paddington was at 5:00pm for Plymouth. The last broad-gauge movement of all left Penzance at 9:10pm for Swindon, and consisted of a pair of double-headed engines hauling the last of the remaining broad-gauge stock. It stopped at every station on the main line, where the station master was handed a note stating that this was the last broad-gauge train and in turn the station master had to hand in a signed note confirming that no broad-gauge stock remained at his station or on any relevant branches. The departure of the clearing train was also the signal for the engineers to take possession of the line.
Over 4700 men had been transported in advance to a number of worksites at key locations the previous day in the Down-going stock clearance trains. They began work at 5:00am, worked through the night and finished work at 8:00pm on the Sunday. The men were organised into 66-men teams, each working on no more than four miles of line (junctions and yards were more complicated and so each team would cover less ground)
The entire conversion was completed on schedule in 31 hours. There were three injuries and one fatality. The Down Night Mail (now standard gauge), left Paddington on Sunday evening while the gangs were still finishing their work in the far west and arrived in Penzance at 4:40am on Monday. The first standard-gauge 'Cornishman' express left Paddington at 9am without a break in its normal weekday running schedule.
It was decided to convert all that pure broad-gauge track to standard gauge in a single weekend, May 21/22. In the run-up, 15 miles of broad-gauge siding were laid at Swindon to accomodate engines and rolling stock which was either to be scrapped or converted to standard gauge. A special 50-page instructional book was issued to traffic managers, district engineers and station masters detailing how and when each station and goods yard was to accept the last of its inbound broad-gauge rolling stock, when it was to send out the last stock and when any surplus broad-gauge stock was to be collected by special train for dispatch to Swindon - all to ensure no rolling stock was 'stranded' by the change of gauge. All goods accepted after Wednesday, May 18, had to be trans-shipped to standard-gauge wagons and all broad-gauge vans and wagons had to be cleared west of Exeter by Thursday, May 19. Fourteen special empty-stock trains were organised for the night of Friday 20/Saturday 21 to clear all the remaining passenger stock back to Swindon. The GWR pulled its steamships from its cross-Channel and Channel Islands services to run passenger services between Plymouth, Fowey and Falmouth, while other services were substituted by road coaches.
The last broad-gauge Down Goods train left Paddington for Plymouth on May 17. The last Down through passenger train ran from Paddington to Penzance on the morning of the Friday, May 20 and the last broad-gauge departure from Paddington was at 5:00pm for Plymouth. The last broad-gauge movement of all left Penzance at 9:10pm for Swindon, and consisted of a pair of double-headed engines hauling the last of the remaining broad-gauge stock. It stopped at every station on the main line, where the station master was handed a note stating that this was the last broad-gauge train and in turn the station master had to hand in a signed note confirming that no broad-gauge stock remained at his station or on any relevant branches. The departure of the clearing train was also the signal for the engineers to take possession of the line.
Over 4700 men had been transported in advance to a number of worksites at key locations the previous day in the Down-going stock clearance trains. They began work at 5:00am, worked through the night and finished work at 8:00pm on the Sunday. The men were organised into 66-men teams, each working on no more than four miles of line (junctions and yards were more complicated and so each team would cover less ground)
The entire conversion was completed on schedule in 31 hours. There were three injuries and one fatality. The Down Night Mail (now standard gauge), left Paddington on Sunday evening while the gangs were still finishing their work in the far west and arrived in Penzance at 4:40am on Monday. The first standard-gauge 'Cornishman' express left Paddington at 9am without a break in its normal weekday running schedule.
2xChevrons said:
Mention should also be made (because it's interesting!) of the operation the GWR had when it ridded itself of the last bits of the broad gauge network in 1892 - by which time there was 177 miles of pure broad-gauge track and 253 miles of mixed-gauge track, nearly all of it on the Paddington-Exeter mainline and then the former Cornwall Railway to Penzance, plus branches such as Truro and Hemerdon.
It was decided to convert all that pure broad-gauge track to standard gauge in a single weekend, May 21/22. In the run-up, 15 miles of broad-gauge siding were laid at Swindon to accomodate engines and rolling stock which was either to be scrapped or converted to standard gauge. A special 50-page instructional book was issued to traffic managers, district engineers and station masters detailing how and when each station and goods yard was to accept the last of its inbound broad-gauge rolling stock, when it was to send out the last stock and when any surplus broad-gauge stock was to be collected by special train for dispatch to Swindon - all to ensure no rolling stock was 'stranded' by the change of gauge. All goods accepted after Wednesday, May 18, had to be trans-shipped to standard-gauge wagons and all broad-gauge vans and wagons had to be cleared west of Exeter by Thursday, May 19. Fourteen special empty-stock trains were organised for the night of Friday 20/Saturday 21 to clear all the remaining passenger stock back to Swindon. The GWR pulled its steamships from its cross-Channel and Channel Islands services to run passenger services between Plymouth, Fowey and Falmouth, while other services were substituted by road coaches.
The last broad-gauge Down Goods train left Paddington for Plymouth on May 17. The last Down through passenger train ran from Paddington to Penzance on the morning of the Friday, May 20 and the last broad-gauge departure from Paddington was at 5:00pm for Plymouth. The last broad-gauge movement of all left Penzance at 9:10pm for Swindon, and consisted of a pair of double-headed engines hauling the last of the remaining broad-gauge stock. It stopped at every station on the main line, where the station master was handed a note stating that this was the last broad-gauge train and in turn the station master had to hand in a signed note confirming that no broad-gauge stock remained at his station or on any relevant branches. The departure of the clearing train was also the signal for the engineers to take possession of the line.
Over 4700 men had been transported in advance to a number of worksites at key locations the previous day in the Down-going stock clearance trains. They began work at 5:00am, worked through the night and finished work at 8:00pm on the Sunday. The men were organised into 66-men teams, each working on no more than four miles of line (junctions and yards were more complicated and so each team would cover less ground)
The entire conversion was completed on schedule in 31 hours. There were three injuries and one fatality. The Down Night Mail (now standard gauge), left Paddington on Sunday evening while the gangs were still finishing their work in the far west and arrived in Penzance at 4:40am on Monday. The first standard-gauge 'Cornishman' express left Paddington at 9am without a break in its normal weekday running schedule.
That is fascinating. I never knew that, but I am glad that I now doIt was decided to convert all that pure broad-gauge track to standard gauge in a single weekend, May 21/22. In the run-up, 15 miles of broad-gauge siding were laid at Swindon to accomodate engines and rolling stock which was either to be scrapped or converted to standard gauge. A special 50-page instructional book was issued to traffic managers, district engineers and station masters detailing how and when each station and goods yard was to accept the last of its inbound broad-gauge rolling stock, when it was to send out the last stock and when any surplus broad-gauge stock was to be collected by special train for dispatch to Swindon - all to ensure no rolling stock was 'stranded' by the change of gauge. All goods accepted after Wednesday, May 18, had to be trans-shipped to standard-gauge wagons and all broad-gauge vans and wagons had to be cleared west of Exeter by Thursday, May 19. Fourteen special empty-stock trains were organised for the night of Friday 20/Saturday 21 to clear all the remaining passenger stock back to Swindon. The GWR pulled its steamships from its cross-Channel and Channel Islands services to run passenger services between Plymouth, Fowey and Falmouth, while other services were substituted by road coaches.
The last broad-gauge Down Goods train left Paddington for Plymouth on May 17. The last Down through passenger train ran from Paddington to Penzance on the morning of the Friday, May 20 and the last broad-gauge departure from Paddington was at 5:00pm for Plymouth. The last broad-gauge movement of all left Penzance at 9:10pm for Swindon, and consisted of a pair of double-headed engines hauling the last of the remaining broad-gauge stock. It stopped at every station on the main line, where the station master was handed a note stating that this was the last broad-gauge train and in turn the station master had to hand in a signed note confirming that no broad-gauge stock remained at his station or on any relevant branches. The departure of the clearing train was also the signal for the engineers to take possession of the line.
Over 4700 men had been transported in advance to a number of worksites at key locations the previous day in the Down-going stock clearance trains. They began work at 5:00am, worked through the night and finished work at 8:00pm on the Sunday. The men were organised into 66-men teams, each working on no more than four miles of line (junctions and yards were more complicated and so each team would cover less ground)
The entire conversion was completed on schedule in 31 hours. There were three injuries and one fatality. The Down Night Mail (now standard gauge), left Paddington on Sunday evening while the gangs were still finishing their work in the far west and arrived in Penzance at 4:40am on Monday. The first standard-gauge 'Cornishman' express left Paddington at 9am without a break in its normal weekday running schedule.
My wife (Polish) described to me a holiday they took to Russia during communism. They stayed in their railway car as it was hoisted off their wheels and onto the Russian equivalent. She has no idea about any of the mechanism involved or why it was done. I presume there was a gauge difference but all I can think of is how they arrived at the decision that people must remain in their cars during the hoisting, and why they didn't just change trains entirely.
Gassing Station | Boats, Planes & Trains | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff