This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles
I agree on that, it is very messy and lacks citations. Atlesn (talk) 16:43, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. I think the list is useful and doesn't need a lot of maintenance. We don't have to list all lines in areas where there is a large standard gauge network; just link to our article on that network, as is done for the U.S. and should be done for Canada. But the information on smaller countries is quite interesting.--agr (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
US and Canada share the same single network. Anyway, each and every installation or network that is interesting should have a page, and be in the categorie for s.g. -DePiep (talk) 18:17, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree, but many countries have an overabundance of information. There is no need to list all railway companies of Canada or separate Japanese lines (replace with "Shinkansen high speed railway lines and some urban railways"), etc, etc. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 19:39, 17 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Categories don't allow comments that clarify what is going on in each country. That is the most valuable part of the present list. Countries that are exclusively or almost exclusively standard gauge don't need a detailed breakdown, but perhaps a mention of exceptions.--agr (talk) 17:01, 19 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
An installations section is in line with the other track gauge articles, complemented by categorization.
If the national rail network of a country is standard gauge, only mention "national rail network" (when applicable, supplemented with "and various or several tram networks / urban / industrial railways")
When several widely used gauges co-exist in a country, refer to / link to the "track gauge in COUNTRY" article or the track gauge section of "Rail transport in COUNTRY" articles (when present)
Oddities deserve to be mentioned at all times.
Only brief notes, detailed info should be in articles covering a particular country.
Quite acceptable. -DePiep (talk) 17:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
By the way "engvar=en-UK" is in this case quite superfluous as "allk=on" automatically gives the British spelling. Peter HornUser talk 18:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 09:37, 6 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The article as written is about the gauge, not about railways. A discussion would be good if you want to change that. Dicklyon (talk) 17:02, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon,@TonyBallioni, Yes, the article is written about gauge. But it can be altered to reflect on railway stuff. The same was done on Narrow gauge when it was moved to Narrow-gauge railway in 2007. Please see [1]. Same is also the case for Broad gauge which was moved to to Broad-gauge railway. Since all the rest gauge articles are of "gaugename-gauge railway" format, I support renaming it thus. Regarding content change, I believe a tweak in the lead section would suffice the same. Although I believe I may not be the right person to make any changes, we could get it done by any senior wiki rail editor. What do you people think. Is my request reasonable? 168.233.20.6 (talk) 06:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Entirely about railways, other things can have gauges, railway aficionados are quick to drop "railway" of their great many railway topics, but on Wikipedia every article is a landing page and the title needs to introduce the topic to the wide audience. This is not page in a book on the railways. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support for consistency. As 168.233.20.6 said, it takes only a minor tweaking to broaden the topic, and the "railway" has WP:RECOGNIZABILITY benefits as SmokeyJoe outlined. No such user (talk) 11:36, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support to follow the "Foo-gauge railway" naming convention. ToThAc (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
Origins of standard gauge in the continent
Stephenson gauge in imperial units is 5'8"1/2, 1435 mm from rail interior to rail interior ( to be more precise, 14 mm under the rolling plane)
The first public railway in continental Europe was Saint Eienne Andrezieux (opened 1827), gauge 1500mm from rail axis to rail axis)
All the early railways in france had that gauge, roughly 1440 mm, in the tolerances for Stephenson gauge.
For Paris St Germain (1835) , the definition of gauge was 1440mm interior 1560 exterior and 1500 from axis to axis;
For the next lines (begining with Paris Versailles) the gauge was either 1440 or 1445, compatible with 1435 gauge.
Belgium had the same rules
First line in Germany was Nuremberg Furth, built by Von Denis, franco-german engineer, using french Standards. the next lines in germany used a quasi standard gauge compatible with French gauges — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.92.64.223 (talk) 19:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The interior/exterior/axis-to-axis values given above strongly suggest that the origin of the standard gauge is a measure of 5 feet (a nice round number) from outside to outside of the rail, resulting in the inside measurement being 4'8". Very likely even in Stephenson's time taking an inside measurement had become so common no-one remembered it was equivalent to a 5 foot outside measurement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:c7c0:8538:3d2d:9c19:6af2 (talk) 02:02, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Non-encyclopaedic content
There is a lot of dubious material in this article, and a lot of improbable citation.
Perhaps the most important fact (or assertion) is the choice of 4ft 8+1⁄2in by G Stephenson, and at the time of writing this we are asked to rely on a "fun" entertainment snippet in a local Australian newspaper. (Townsville, population 180,000.) A more authoritative source would be better, but there is a huge amount of narrative missing in the explanation.
I don't understand the importance of listing vast numbers of railways that used standard gauge. People may come to this page for information about the topic, but don't care to wade through huge tables of lists. (In any case the lists are non-exhaustive, thankfully.) Afterbrunel (talk) 11:37, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Stephenson gauge is 4'8", not 4ft 8+1⁄2in, and the half was added by Robert, not George.
I'd agree the point that we don't need to list standard gauge railways, because it's simply the standard, thus the default assumption. It could be worth listing some more specific ones, where this is a contrast. So for countries where 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm) or 5 ft 3 in (1,600 mm) was the default, then it might be worth nothing those that were either exceptional, or were converted. Japan would be a good example. I'd also note the Middleton Railway and Scotch gauge (and maybe some other 4 ft (1,219 mm)) because these were so early that there wasn't yet a standard. Scotch gauge wasn't, as WP claims, "narrow gauge" because narrow gauge means narrowed gauge - a gauge reduced from a by-then established standard. These early railways were aiming at the same notion of convenient standard gauge, just not getting quite the same sums as the Stephensons did. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:00, 30 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the standard tolerance on Standard Gauge?
No-one can build and maintain track at an exact gauge of 1.435 International Standard metres. There must be a definition (International [bar USA], National, or local) of the allowable deviation, in new build track and in later use.
Equally, there must be specifications for the variability of the outline of the outer part of the cross-section of the rims of the wheels.
Yes -- the 'exact' gauge is the minimum. The maximum seems to depend on a lot of things, eg high speed rail probably has tighter tolerances. The 'southern' 4 feet 9 inches was close enough to run 'standard' trains, but presumably not vice-versa.
Also I'm trying to find out whether the USA standard is 4 ft 8 1/2 inches or 4 feet 8.5 inches or 56.5 inches !! The defining body in the US seems to be the Association of American Railroads. Alanf777 (talk) 21:08, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They're exactly the same. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 21:26, 8 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The issues is -- how exactly was it specified? ANSWER : four feet eight and one-half inches Alanf777 (talk) 02:33, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In the US at least, standard gauge is defined by Federal law (49 CFR part 213). It is specified in numeric feet and inches: 4'8" (minimum), etc. The tolerance depends on the track class (which basically means the maximum speed allowed). There are also allowances for gauge variation under load. I would assume other countries have a similar regulation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:300:c7c0:8538:3d2d:9c19:6af2 (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment* The standard tolerance on Standard Gauge railway track varies depending on the specific element being measured. Here's a breakdown:
Gauge:
Standard Gauge: 1435 mm (4 ft 8 1/2 in)
Tolerance: ± 3 mm (± 0.12 in)
Other Track Components:
Track Alignment:
Cant (Superelevation): Tolerances vary based on the curve radius and speed limits.
Tangent Track:Tolerances are typically very tight, often in the range of millimeters.
Curve Track:Tolerances are generally looser than tangent track, allowing for some variation in alignment to accommodate the curve.
Track Level:
Tolerances:Typically measured in millimeters or inches per unit of length (e.g., mm/meter or inches/100 feet).
Track Cross Level:
Tolerances: Similar to track level, measured in millimeters or inches per unit of length.
Rail Height:
Tolerances:Typically in the range of a few millimeters.
Tie Spacing:
Tolerances:Usually within a few millimeters.
Ballast Depth:
Tolerances:Can vary depending on the type of ballast and the track structure.
Factors Influencing Tolerances:
Speed Limits:Higher speed limits generally require tighter tolerances.
Track Type:Heavy-haul lines often have tighter tolerances than branch lines.
Track Maintenance Practices:Regular maintenance helps ensure track tolerances are met.
Environmental Conditions:Temperature fluctuations, frost heave, and other environmental factors can affect track geometry.
Importance of Tolerances:
Smooth Ride: Tight tolerances ensure a smooth ride for passengers and freight.
Track Stability:Proper tolerances contribute to track stability and reduce the risk of derailments.
Train Speed: Tolerances influence the maximum speed that trains can safely travel on a particular track.
Other considerations
The specific tolerances for a particular railway line are usually defined in the track standards and specifications for that line.
It's interesting to know that in the case of US, the gauge is defined by law. So we have to find out if any regional body has a standard set of definitions.
The world Gauge map shows Northern Ireland as being standard gauge (light blue), where as it should be Irish gauge (light green).
NI_Railways
Was edited by Newfraferz87
82.15.216.132 (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's a british history of the Gauge War that details the negotiations, politics, and meetings that led to the adoption of standard gauge and the nature of its origins as a compromise standard based on economic factors. It describes the process in detail and should constitute a primary source for rejecting the "roman chariot wheelbase" myth and other dubious accounts, as it covers the entire causal chain in detail
Regrettably, I read it in person in a library several years ago, and cannot remember the details; nor do I have experience in searching book collections. I leave this here in case any interested party who does have the skills to locate research on a topic is interested.
2A02:C7E:75B:6000:3839:BF78:EB35:AA27 (talk) 15:07, 6 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
