Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them

Railroad Tracks

Chas

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Joined
Mar 15, 2010
Messages
17,472
Garage
Country Flag
england
Worth the read. How true it is, I don't know!

The U.S. Standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches.

That's an exceedingly odd number.

why was that gauge used?
Because that's the way they built them in England, and English expatriates designed the U.S. Railroads.

Why did the English build them like that?

Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.

Why did 'they' use that gauge then?

Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they had used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.

Why did the wagons have that particular Odd wheel spacing?

Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.

So, who built those old rutted roads?

Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (including England) for their legions. Those roads have been used ever since.

And the ruts in the roads?

Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.

Therefore, the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot.


So the next time you are handed a specification, procedure, or process, and wonder, 'What horse's ass came up with this?', you may be exactly right...
Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses.

Now, the twist to the story:

When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, you will notice that there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah.

The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit larger, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains and the SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.

So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass. And you thought being a horse's ass wasn't important!

Now you know, Horses' Asses control almost everything.

Explains a whole lot of stuff, doesn't it?
 
Isambard Kingdom Brunel wanted to introduce a 7 ft gauge and built one to prove his point. The problem was, there was already too much infrastructure in Britain based on the 4ft 8.5ins gauge, so it didn't come about.

If it had, it would be a lot easier to build stable high-speed trains today!

Having spent most of my working life in the IT Industry I can confirm that many large IT Projects were based on a Horse's Ass :icon-wink:.

Bob.
 
I'm not so sure of the truth of it Chas, this may give more insight into the choice of gauge for railways, but it's much less fun than your posted horses' ass theory :lol:

The choice of gauge is far more technical and performance based and of course these days with 'National' rail operator companies instead of 'regional' railway companies as it was in the old days in the U.K., one main factor these days is standardization, so that rolling stock can be transferred from one part of the network to another.

Under the regional railways of old (England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, different regions used different gauges (hard to believe now :icon-biggrin:) so a standard national gauge is a relatively new concept.

The U.K. gauge may have been exported to the US, but it's unlikely. More plausible would be who and from where the locomotives and rolling stock would come from. The tracks would likely be gauged to suit the rolling stock manufacturer.

If they were 'home' US made then they would have had a free choice, but the technological and fit for purpose parameters would still rule the gauge, irrespective of what it measured.

There was a theory that non standard was a good thing, so that aggressive invaders couldn't benefit from using a track network with their own rolling stock.

These days of iner-continental and international rail travel, a unified gauge would obviously be to the best advantage.

Railway locos and carriages have no axle differentials, they rely on the taper of the rim or 'tyre' of the wheels to create the differential of rotating speeds between the inner and outer rail of a curve, and this is where track gauge becomes important depending on the frequency of curves. A windy track through mountainous terrain for example, probably couldn't support a wide gauge of say 7' whereas a narrower gauge would be better. Conversely, if your need is high speed rail, then the track will be straighter and a wide gauge would be an advantage.

It's all very complicated, but hugely more boring than the horses' ass theory, I like that a lot. :lol: :clap:
 
Isambard Kingdom Brunel wanted to introduce a 7 ft gauge and built one to prove his point. The problem was, there was already too much infrastructure in Britain based on the 4ft 8.5ins gauge, so it didn't come about.

If it had, it would be a lot easier to build stable high-speed trains today!

Having spent most of my working life in the IT Industry I can confirm that many large IT Projects were based on a Horse's Ass :icon-wink:.

Bob.

I've worked on a few projects where the actual manager was a horse's ass.
 
I'm not so sure of the truth of it Chas, this may give more insight into the choice of gauge for railways, but it's much less fun than your posted horses' ass theory :lol:

The choice of gauge is far more technical and performance based and of course these days with 'National' rail operator companies instead of 'regional' railway companies as it was in the old days in the U.K., one main factor these days is standardization, so that rolling stock can be transferred from one part of the network to another.

Under the regional railways of old (England, Scotland, Wales and Ireland, different regions used different gauges (hard to believe now :icon-biggrin:) so a standard national gauge is a relatively new concept.

The U.K. gauge may have been exported to the US, but it's unlikely. More plausible would be who and from where the locomotives and rolling stock would come from. The tracks would likely be gauged to suit the rolling stock manufacturer.

If they were 'home' US made then they would have had a free choice, but the technological and fit for purpose parameters would still rule the gauge, irrespective of what it measured.

There was a theory that non standard was a good thing, so that aggressive invaders couldn't benefit from using a track network with their own rolling stock.

These days of iner-continental and international rail travel, a unified gauge would obviously be to the best advantage.

Railway locos and carriages have no axle differentials, they rely on the taper of the rim or 'tyre' of the wheels to create the differential of rotating speeds between the inner and outer rail of a curve, and this is where track gauge becomes important depending on the frequency of curves. A windy track through mountainous terrain for example, probably couldn't support a wide gauge of say 7' whereas a narrower gauge would be better. Conversely, if your need is high speed rail, then the track will be straighter and a wide gauge would be an advantage.

It's all very complicated, but hugely more boring than the horses' ass theory, I like that a lot. :lol: :clap:
I did say I don't know it was true, it was just for the amusement factor, you know me Clive, I'm the court jester on this forum. Thanks for that link, very interesting.
 
Last edited:
Don't like the adverts?  Click here to remove them
I did say I don't know it was true, it was just for the amusement factor, you know me Clive, I'm the court jester on this forum. Thanks for that link, very interesting.

....And Chas, there may be some truth in it too, who really knows.

It's certainly more entertaining than the alternative, I like it, and jest away mate, we love it all :thumbup: :lol:
 
Back
Top