This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I've started to substantially redo this page to make it a bit more readable. Split into sections, and I've laid out the per-country stuff by continent and then by nation in headers. A lot of work still to do. —Morven 20:05, 29 Mar 2004 (UTC)

The very heavy narrow trains in South Africa and Queensland, Australia (10,000t or more) show that narrow gauge is capabable of almost as much as the broader gauge.

A lot of the arguements about narrow versus broad gauge are really false. What is important is the strength of track (rails, sleepers, roadbed) and loading gauge (tunnels, bridges and platforms).

Australia has suffered greatly from a lack of uniform gauge, and it has been a costly exercise to rectify even part of the problem. At least all the mainland capitals are connected by uniform gauge mainlines, albeit lines full of low speed curves and gradients - but that is another problem.

AWS 09:59, 14 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Can somebody explain to me the following sentence from this article:

In practice, all presently existing narrow-gauge railroads have gauges of 1067 mm (3 ft 6 in) or less.

There are most definately railways with a gauge between 3ft6in and standard gauge. The Glasgow Subway with a gauge of 4ft for example. Are we saying they are not narrow gauge (in which case what are they?) or what?. -- Chris j wood 23:25, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

More likely, the "In practice..." sentence is just an erroneous statement (The "In practice" phrase is redundant anyway, as I should have spotted earlier). Be bold! - Picapica 16:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think, the East Germany-Link is misdirecting. I think correctly is a link to germany or States of Germany. see also content in http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schmalspurbahn ; http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Schmalspurbahnen_in_Sachsen (Sachsen). greetings from germany! -- Rotkäppchen 13:16, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

The text I assume Rotkäppchen is referring to reads:

A large network of narrow-gauge lines exists in former East Germany

which seems reasonable usage to me. If we were to just change the link to Germany then we would be saying that Germany has ceased to exist, and if were also to drop the 'former', then we are adding nothing to the heading immediately above. The only way I can see of improving it would be to replace the reference to 'former East Germany' with references to the specific Lander containing the lines. -- Chris j wood 16:08, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

There are a couple of references to miniature railways in the text, notably in the United Kingdom section. There is a significant distinction between narrow gauge and miniature railways. Also, the miniature railways link takes you to the model railways page, which is incorrect: miniatures are neither narrow gauge nor model railways. I'd propose the creation of a specific page describing miniature railways, with the specific links to the Romney, Hythe and Dymchurch and others minatures moved there.

Gwernol 03:29, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Are you going to write it? -- rbrwr ^± 06:07, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah well, there's the rub... I'm not an expert on minature railways, my interest is in narrow gauge. I can put together a skeleton article with the hope that someone more knowledgeable would complete it. I'll try to put something together in the next few days. Gwernol 15:36, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since the above discussion took place (two years ago) the article for miniature railway has been created, however, the link from this article has been lost. I would suggest that an indication of the difference between narrow gauge and miniature railways (with a link) needs to be summarised in the introduction, and expanded upon under 'Gauges used'. While the difference is clear to railway enthusiasts, it may be less obvious to general readers; besides which, miniature railways has a section describing the differences, and it would be appropriate to mirror the equivalent here.

EdJogg 11:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone think it might be a good idea to split the country specific lists in this article into say Narrow gauge railways in Europe and Narrow gauge railroads in North America etc etc, as this article is getting rather long. G-Man 23:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. It seems that the entire section "Narrow gauge worldwide" could be turned into separate pages. This would make the main article more readable IMO. -- CodeGeneratR 07:17, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Disagree. I like the complete coverage under 1 head here, & XT links bug me. Trekphiler 23:28, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd like us to reconsider this question. The article is getting out of hand (in my opinion, obviously). We now have country articles that list detailed histories of particular lines, which is inappropriate for an overview of the ng railways in that country. The latest addition to the US section on the HE&WT is a pretty detailed history of a railway which hasn't been narrow gauge for almost 120 years. The content is great but should be in a separate HE&WT article, not here. There are plenty of other examples of this problem spread throughout the article.

I think its time for someone to be bold and start a radical pruning of the article. I am happy to do this. I won't remove any content, just move some of it to a more appropriate location, whether that's an existing article or a new one. I propose as a guiding principle that detailed line histories don't belong here, general overviews of the role of narrow gauge railways in a particular country do.

Thoughts? Gwernol 16:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Unsoureced, but I've heard WPYR op the last domestic-use narrow-ga steam loco built (by Baldwin), now in the Baldwin museum. Trekphiler 23:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Domestic? The reference to the White Pass and Yukon helps me understand what you mean by "domestic", but keep in mind that this is a very international site. Depending on where you're from, "domestic" and "foreign" mean different things.-- CodeGeneratR 00:30, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Anyone got any info on fastest 2ft gauge trains?

The Maine narrow gauge typically scheduled 15 to 20 miles per hour, and regarded 60 mph as a dangerous maximum. Thewellman ( talk) 00:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Contradiction here:

from the introduction:

On the other hand, standard-gauge railroads have a greater haulage capacity and allow 
greater speeds than those a narrow-gauge system can ever hope to attain.

and lower down:

There is a common myth that narrow gauge trains are not able to run at the same high speeds
as those networks with broader gauges. This has been recently disproven in Japan and
Queensland, Australia,

I'll let someone who knows the subject better than me reword it properly. -- 81.179.196.211 19:19, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree this is confusing as written. Here's my take. Historically this has been true: narrow gauge railways were always run with significantly lower maximum speeds than contemporaneous standard gauge lines. Using Victorian technology this was necessary. The Japanese and Australians are able to build high-speed narrow gauge because of modern laser-guided tracklaying and other technology advances. At least that's how I understand it. I'm happy to hear corrections.

This being the case, I'd suggest rewriting the introduction to explicitly refer to the historical situation and have the "common myth" section acknowledge that this was true for many decades but is now much less true thanks to modern technology. What do others think? Gwernol 19:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

The 1st statement still holds true today ... at least "rapid trains" run at speeds of 330km/h in standard gauge and only at 160km/h in narrow gauge ... and anyone cares to comment about tons per axle on the various gauges ??? being the limiting factor the tecnical/mechanical limitations of rail , suspensions and such ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sotavento ( talk • contribs) 05:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure the problem of speed has much to do with gauge, but more to do with curves. Modern high speed trains such as the TGV operate on newly built right of ways with extremely broad curves, while surviving narrow gauge railways normally operate on historical routes with (usually) tight curves. Apples and oranges. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 06:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

It has everything to do with gauge ... since high speed trains run on a complex equation of track alignement , cant , superelevation and track geometry ... the smaller gauges tend to have a extreme limiting range on these values so it affects the possible higher speeds. Sotavento ( talk) 19:22, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

The article contains the following enigmatic statement:

To avoid speed restriction where some cane trams cross the main line, several of these crossings have been converted to drawbridges.

I think this deserves more explanation. Why exactly would a drawbridge merit a higher speed restriction than a level crossing?. Surely both entail exactly the same risks of collision etc. -- Chris j wood 20:51, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Chris. Here's the explanation. The drawbridges are (typically) very low-level structures that carry the 2ft gauge cane tramways across the 3ft 6in gauge Queensland Railway tracks. When the drawbridge is down it is only a foot or two above the top of the QR rail. Most of the time the drawbridge is in the up position, which allows QR trains to run straight through. In this position, the QR track is normal; if it were a level crossing the QR trains would have to slow down for each crossing as the trackwork for a level crossing (aka a diamond crossing) cannot be taken at high speed. The line with the drawbridge up can be taken at full line speed.

I don't know that this should be explained in this article since it is too long already, maybe its time to spin out separate articles on the cane tramways and QR? If so, this explanation could go into either or both. I hope this makes sense. Gwernol 20:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, I see. For some reason I'd read this as meaning it was to prevent the cane trams slowing down. Now I've got the right picture in my head, it is obvious. I certainly think an article on the cane tramways would be a great idea. I've seen the tracks on a couple of visits to Northern Queensland, but never at times when they were operating. -- Chris j wood 15:10, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm very uncomfortable with several of the statements made in this article. I also don't like the tone that some of it is written in. For example;

"But most narrow-gauge lines were constructed as stand alone "feeders" entirely dependent upon transshipment to a larger main-line network." - This seems like something that would be hard to verify, and my own experience with the subject matter tells me that in fact most narrow gauge lines were NOT feeders, but in fact survived as railways independant from, and not connected to, any kind of standard gauge network. The author of this article only notes large narrow gauge networks as being those which avoid the "narrow gauge to standard gauge" problem, but in reality I've found that most of these types of narrow gauge lines are the smaller, industry serving types.

"One of the finest is the 600 mm narrow-gauge railway (Żnińska Kolej Powiatowa) running from Żnin via Wenecja (Polish Venice) and famous Biskupin to Gąsawa in the Pałuki region." - One of the FINEST? Finest by who's definition? This is definately not NPOV.

"The massive narrow-gauge (3 ft 6 in, 1067 mm) coal trains of the Queensland Railway with 100 wagons and 2 midtrain electric locomotives show what is possible with narrow gauge if you strengthen the track enough" - I don't like the tone of this statement at all. This at least needs to be reworded.

"Much work has been done to rectify the gauge chaos, but there is still much to do. By and large any uniform gauge would have done the job satisfactorily." - Again, difficult or impossible to verify, also reads with the wrong tone, sounds like POV rather than NPOV. This needs rewriting at best, perhaps simply removing the bits that cannot be verified and replacing them with facts.

Whoever wrote this needs to know that while their contribution is valuable, they've left a lot of mess for people to clean up. -- Badharlick 16:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Badharlick. You raise some interesting questions. Here are my thoughts:

1. "Most narrow gauge lines are feeders" - I think you are correct that this is too strongly worded. Interestingly the "Advantages of narrow gauge" section is better, stating "In many countries, due to their lower construction costs, narrow-gauge railroads were built as "feeder" or "Branch" lines..." but even this is probaby too strong. I'd support toning down this language.

2. "One of the finest is the 600 mm narrow-gauge railway" this is indeed a POV statement, though its hardly a major crime. Perhaps reword to "The 600 mm gauge Żnińska Kolej Powiatowa railway runs from Żnin via Wenecja (Polish Venice) to Gąsawa in the Pałuki region."

3. "The massive narrow-gauge (3 ft 6 in, 1067 mm) coal trains of the Queensland Railway..." you don't say what you dislike about this sentence. Its neither great, nor terrible in my opinion. Most readers of this article would (I'm guessing) get the correct meaning. Would you care to suggest an improved alternative?

Instead of "massive", I would suggest "long and very heavy". (?) Peter Horn 15:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

4. "Much work has been done to rectify the gauge chaos..." again I agree that this could be improved. Care to take a stab at it?

While I agree with much of what you write, your last sentence: "Whoever wrote this needs to know that while their contribution is valuable, they've left a lot of mess for people to clean up." is itself written in a very unfortunate tone. Please remember to remain civil. The editor(s) who wrote these sections were clearly acting in good faith and you should do the same. Why not help to improve the article instead of sniping at those who have worked on it? That would be a much more productive approach? Best, Gwernol 04:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate that they were acting in good faith, and I believe I made efforts to note that fact - my intention was to encourage contributors, especially the ones working on this article, to be more careful and considerate when editing or contributing. I've encountered many people who will add unverified facts and do all sorts of other things merrily unaware that they are leaving tons of work for everyone else to pick up, either because they were not aware that they had more work to do, or because they couldn't be bothered. This article is now so unnecessarily enormous (due to indiscriminate contributing and repeated information, as well as vast blocks of incorrect/armchair expert statements) that there are mountains of contradictions, unverified facts and simple disinformation that it will take hours if not days of solid editing to clear up, and that's before anything new can be added, since I don't believe that the article is presented/laid out in a user friendly way. Since such articles tend to be repaired in a rather piecemeal fasion, I'd estimate that it will be many months before this one is improved to a point where reliable information is being added in an orderly fashion.

I should point out that I'm by no means here to snipe anyone, and I think that it is highly contradictary to make a point of mentioning the good faith rule, only to then make such an unfounded judgement. You do not know for sure my motives, so you should assume good faith - that is what that rule is there for. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't accept what I've said without accusing me of character attack, then I'd thank you to make no further mention of it, if not for my feelings then for the sake of the rules you seem so keen to encourage others to follow.

The reason why I have not contributed anything yet is because none of my ideas have been discussed yet. I don't know enough (or perhaps I'm not arrogant enough) to be absolutely 100% sure that what I want to add is correct. In short, I'd rather propose changes to the article in the talk section first, before I go ahead and contribute "willy nilly" as, in my opinion, others have been doing, giving rise to the present situation where the article is far larger than it needs to be. At the very least, people will have a chance to correct my often bad grammar before it finds it's nasty way onto the article.-- Badharlick 00:13, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There were and are also many narrow gauge street tramways, particularly in Europe, where the need for a narrow body width meant that a track gauge of a metre was necessary (trams are usually wider than the tracks they run over) (emphasis mine: this statement is hilarious Peter Horn 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)). A notable example of this is the tramway system of Linz, Austria.

O please, please, even the narrowest tram is wider than the 1435 mm or 56.5" of standard gauge. The only consideration here would be lesser construction costs. Peter Horn 15:31, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree, this statement is wrong. The main reason for using metre gauge is a tighter turning circle, very useful in city streets. Most new trams are now "off the shelf" designs and the manufacturers provide both metre gauge and standard gauge models.

Why pick on Linz? All 4 tram systems in Switzerland are metre Gauge ( Zürich, Basel, Bern and Geneva), not "nearly all" as it says further down under Switzerland; plus lots more in Germany, see de:Liste der Städte mit Straßenbahnen. The tighter turning circle allows balloon loops at the end of routes, which in turn allows the use of unidirectional trams with a drivers cab at one end only, and doors on one side, and more space for passengers.

According to de:Liste der Städte mit Straßenbahnen Linz is actually 900 mm Gauge! TiffaF 10:18, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Quite a number of statements on this article regarding the reasons for narrow gauge being chosen over standard gauge are false. Just to relieve any confusion, I'd like to take the time to note the real reasons here.

The first myth is that narrow gauge is in most cases lightly laid, and that this is due to cost saving reasons. This is not the case; generally only temporary systems, hand worked systems, and systems using only very light locomotives have lightly laid track. The latter is the only case where cost is maybe an issue, but usually any money saved is only incidental.

The second myth is that narrow gauge is only chosen as an alternative to standard or broad gauge for just one single reason (cost OR size). While in a handful of cases this may be true, the reality is that there are multiple reasons which stack up to outweigh the benefits of any other gauge. These reasons are cost of construction (sleepers and rails are not as heavy, trackbeds are not so large, gradients can be steeper and curves can be tighter), cost of equipment (smaller locomotives and rolling stock mean lower initial investment and lower running costs), flexibility (extensions and pointwork can be added easily and be done by existing employees without the need for contractors or lengthy downtime) and resulting economic working compared to standard gauge branch line operation carrying the same quantity of freight.

The third myth is that narrow gauge suffers because it cannot interchange equipment with standard gauge or broad gauge networks in countries where standard or broad gauge is the norm. This is simply not the case, and it is certainly not "the most fundamental problem" as the article describes. Far from it, transfer points where freight or passengers transfer from narrow to standard gauge trains have been proven to incur only negligable costs (if any) that still do not outweigh the cost of standard gauge running. Even in the event of a situation where a standard gauge line would be more cost effective, such a line would've been chosen and built instead. Very few lines were actually built to a narrow gauge for cost saving reasons only, and such poorly thought out affairs did not last very long, nor did their accompanying industries. The ability to exchange equipment is only a convenience, rather than a necessity - having freight transferred multiple times before it reaches it's destination slows down the transport time, and eventually becomes too expensive and cumbersome.

The first mistake is to compare narrow gauge to standard gauge. Narrow gauge is not there to do the job of standard gauge, narrow gauge is there because the job is too small to merit the use of standard gauge, but still large enough to merit some form of rail borne transport. It's what goes between road transport and standard gauge railways. Generally operating a standard gauge line to do the job of a narrow gauge line is too fuel intensive for the small amounts of freight being transported. Lorries also present a similar problem, having only limited capacity and therefore having to make several trips is too fuel intensive.

While there are many contradictions, incorrect statements, and other problems with this article, I hope that I've cleared up some of the most glaring issues for future editors/contributors. -- Badharlick 04:24, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

First Myth - narrow gauge is not generally lightly laid. This seems to vary a lot in different countries. In particular, narrow guage in the UK, the US, China and India do tend to be light railways. Many (but not all) African narrow gauge lines were built to heavier standards, as were some Australian ones. The break seems to come above 36 gauge, with 42 and above lines generally being heavy rail, and 36 and under being light rail, though even this has plenty of exceptions. Of course, the article already mentions this in the "contradictions of gauge" section.

Second Myth - gauge only chosen for one reason. I agree, the decisions were often complex. Another reason for the choice was often the gauge already in use in the area which influenced choice. The article doesn't assert that only a single reason was used, and mentions almost all the reasons you list.

Third Myth - narrow gauge suffers because it cannot transfer equipment. You state that this is "simply not the case". In fact it was a significant problem, in particular it added significant costs to short line operations that were, as the article describes, "islands" surrounded by rail transport of other gauges - even other narrow gauges. Can you cite sources to show that "transfer points where freight or passengers transfer from narrow to standard gauge trains have been proven to incur only negligable costs (if any)"? George Hilton's exceeltn book "American Narrow Gauge Railroads" describes the transhipment costs in some detail and the impact is significant. Many British lines incurred significant costs both in resources and time, at their transhipment points which often became limiting factors in their ability to hyandle traffic, particularly as labor costs rose over time . Look at the unsuccessful lengths the Leek and Manifold went to, for example, to try to avoid these problems.

Gwernol 09:05, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

This is always an interesting question. Transfer costs are a cost but are only significant to the extent that they affect the ability to retain business. That is so long as the customer is prepared to accept the cost of transfer the cost is not significant. Let me give a modern example. Nearby here (Hastings, Vic, Australia) is a steel mill that takes slab steel and turns it into sheet products. The slab steel comes from another mill about 800km to the north. It arrives in Melbourne on a standard gauge train then is craned across to a broad gauge train for the final 50km of its journey. Likewise sheet steel product goes the opposite direction. The transfer is a cost, and of course all concerned would like to avoid that cost. However the options, which are either to convert Melbourne's suburban rail system to standard gauge, or to move the mill are just not feasable. So the cost is simply a cost of doing business, in this case an acceptable cost. The problem for narrow gauge lines is that the cost became unacceptable. For instance when the Leek & Manifold was built, the cost of transhipment might have been acceptable to move goods another 8 miles towards their destination. The killer for the narrow gauge worldwide was the arrival of reliable automobile, and in particular truck tranport. Time and time again looking at lines it is the mid 1920's that strike as the turning point between a viable operation and declining traffic. Of course the longer the narrow gauge line the less important transhipment as a cost, and therefore the more viable the line. It is also well worth remembering that at one time transhipment was commonly practiced - even between railways of the same gauge. This was the practice in the US in the mid 19thC - freight was transfered between carriers so cars didn't go off onto other companies rails. Some railways adopted different gauges to ensure that didn't happen. And of course the cost of transhipment varied according to the labour cost, which varies according both to the era, and to the country. And then there were many narrow gauge lines around the world that were actually the "standard" gauge in the areas they served, so of course transfer costs did not affect them at all. -- Michael Johnson 05:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

PS cross platform transfer of passengers has never been a cost, and where passenger traffic is important, but freight traffic negligable, two or more gauges have been able to co-exist quite comfortably. See for instance Japan and Switzerland, or indeed transfer between Melbournes train and tram systems, which are on different gauges. -- Michael Johnson 06:07, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter what gauge railways use, as long as they use the same gauge. Standard gauge, or Stephenson gauge, is as good as any and better than most. In North America, Canada originally standardized on 5'6" broad gauge, but once the first Canadian railway converted to the Northern U.S. standard of 4'8.5", that railway got all the business from the U.S. and all the other railways had to convert to compete. Similarly, the Southern states originally standardized on 5' gauge, but after the first railway from the North to the Gulf of Mexico converted to the Northern standard, it got all the Northern business, and the Southern railways had to convert to compete. In the Rocky Mountains, thousands of miles of narrow (3') gauge railways were built, but they quickly discovered that the practical advantages of standardization outweighed the theoretical advantages of narrow gauge in mountain terrain, and by 1900 almost all of the lines had converted or gone out of business.

It's important to realize that North America is a very competitive railway environment in which any company that had to endure the cost of a break-of-gauge would very quickly go broke. North America has a lot of railways and no railway in the United States runs all the way from coast to coast. Canadian National Railway is the only railway that runs from the Atlantic to the Pacific (and south to the Gulf of Mexico) and it uses standard gauge. A company that wants to run a box car from New York to Los Angeles has a choice of different railways to use, and has to use a minimum of two to go the full distance, so all the railways have been forced to use the same gauge. The only place a mixed gauge railway system can survive is a place where there is little competition between railways. RockyMtnGuy 08:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that a route involving a gauge transfer will always loose out to a route that doesn't. Which is the reason almost all "narrower" gauge railways are either feeder lines or regional networks. I think the point of the discussion is that the "myth" is the transfer costs by itself made narrow gauge unviable. In fact the transfer cost only made narrow gauge unviable where a more economical alternative was available. In 19thC America that was standard gauge through routes, later for surviving feeder routes that was usually road transport. -- Michael Johnson 00:16, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a couple of engineering opinions about this issue: 1st - (with respect to the narrow-gauge advantage in mountainous terrain} the advantage of greater allowable curvature is valid (assuming shorter rolling stock) but narrow gauge has no advantage with respect to steeper grades. Steeper grades just come with mountainous country. Greater frictional forces for multiple smaller cars carrying the same tonnage actually puts the narrow gauge at a disadvantage with respect to grades. In theory, greater curvature would reduce grades with fewer and smaller bridges and minimized earthwork construction.

2nd - The issue of freight transfer costs should be considered in comparison to interest payments on the increased capital costs of standard gauge bridges, rails, sleepers, ballast, and earthwork cut and fill. Internal combustion earthmoving machinery dramatically reduced construction costs; and the freight transfer issue is too often discussed for a facility after the original construction cost differences have been minimized by inflation and/or accepted as investor losses through bankruptcy, receivership, reorganization, or nationalization. Thewellman ( talk) 19:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

The article says, "Non-industrial narrow gauge mountain railways are or were common in the Rocky Mountains of Canada..." No they weren't. There were no narrow gauge railways built in the Canadian Rockies. There were narrow gauge railways built in the Columbia Mountains to the west, and the Foothills to the east, and the American Rockies to the south, but I don't know of any built in the Canadian Rocky Mountains proper. Railroading in the Canadian Rockies was a serious engineering exercise not suitable for undercapitalized companies, and all the companies who did build railways there (Canadian Pacific, Canadian Northern, Grand Trunk Pacific, and Pacific Great Eastern) built standard gauge. RockyMtnGuy 02:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

This article is getting very large. Authors should consider daughter articles for detailed infomation on various systems and countries. -- Michael Johnson 00:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

The only real issue is the "Narrow guage worldwide" section, which currently accounts for about 75% of the article length. This has been considered previously (see 'Split' above) where a split was proposed but not carried through.

It would be logical to split this section to a daughter article, such as Narrow gauge railways of the world, which would make a good book title but is not welcomed in WP, so how about Narrow gauge railways (by country)? If that title is not appropriate, the next logical break is by continent, which will work for Europe, but none of the others would be large enough to stand on their own; and while Narrow gauge railways in Europe is a very good title, Narrow gauge railways everywhere in the world except Europe doesn't work quite so well...

Any ideas? -- EdJogg 10:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

European narrow gauge railways and Non-European narrow gauge railways? The plurality (is that a word?) doesn't meet Naming conventions but it's the best I can think of. – Tivedshambo (talk) 11:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, doing a search for 'railways' in the article title, there is already European railways, but that was created quite recently and is likely to be renamed List of railway companies in Europe, or something similar...

...and then I spotted something much closer to home: British narrow gauge railways (D'oh!). This article has been in existence for well over two years with this title, so is a definite precedent for your first suggestion, however there are no other articles starting 'Non-European...', so that might be an issue.

EdJogg 12:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I've already split out British narrow gauge railways, Canadian narrow gauge railways, American narrow gauge railroads, Narrow gauge railways of Australia (should probably be renamed for consistency) and Chinese narrow gauge railways. Other obvious candidates would be: Indian narrow gauge railways, South African narrow gauge railways, Brazilian narrow gauge railways and Italian narrow gauge railways since these are all countries with a substantial recorded history of narrow gauge use. Others can be split out as there section here grows beyond a couple of paragraphs. The other thing we might consider is limiting each section of this article to one representative photograph. That would help the page layout. We could create a European article, but it seems like its just adding an extra layer: I'm more in favor of keeping one master list with short overviews by country, with main articles for countries with large numbers of railways. If we do split out by continent, we could easily create Asian narrow gauge railways, North American narrow gauge railways, South American narrow gauge railways and African narrow gauge railways in addition to the European article. Gwernol 12:17, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out, and my apologies for raking-up an old issue. The more I think about this problem, the harder it is to come up with a rational solution. What is there at present is entirely in line with your policy, which seems quite sound, yet the section is still very big, and the short See also/External links/References sections at the end are an awful long way from the beginning of the article. (Yes, you have the TOC to use, but that's not the point.) The only 'complete' solution I can see would be to remove the whole lot to one or more new articles, leaving a one-sentence summary, but then you run into the problems of boundaries and article titles, which is where we came in. The alternative is to continue with the current arrangement, looking for sub-groups that could be split out.

As for the photos, a limit of one per country/region would be appropriate, with the additional restriction that the section must contain several paragraphs, such that when viewed, the text was always longer than the image (thus avoiding whitespace). An alternative would be to have a 'vertical gallery', with all the images stacked on the right (defined in groups directly under one or more of the sub-headings). I have seen this work well with a number of articles, but it does lose the direct relationship between text and image, so may not be appropriate here. Nevertheless, images associated with very short paragraphs might be usefully 'lost'.

At least the article is in capable hands :o) Hopefully your redirect-eradication task will not occupy you for too much longer...

EdJogg 14:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Do the mules realy run on narrow gauge track, if so, which gauge? Peter Horn 01:01, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Variable gauge axles are simply not an option as there is simply not enough space (room) for the mechanisms between the backs of the wheels when they are in the narrow gauge position. Peter Horn 01:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

The June issue of RGI has an article about progess regarding Variable Gauge Axles between SGZ and MG in Switzerland. Clearly they must be having some success overcoming the lack of space between the backs of the wheels. Note: The Swiss have a lot of experience sqeezing clockwork mechanism into confined spaces. Tabletop ( talk) 14:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Narrow gauge railways with increase maximum axle load which must increase the number of sleepers per kilometer. 121.102.47.39 ( talk) 10:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What? Compared to Standard Gauge?? Tabletop ( talk) 14:05, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Oh please. Any gauge can support any radius curve as small or short as 40 ft or 12.2 m as is particularjy the case of tramway track. The rolling stock on any gauge is adapted to or designed for the minimum radius of curvature to be negotiated. Peter Horn 19:26, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Narrow gauge railway#Advantages of narrow gauge

"Narrow gauge allows tighter turning in restricted city streets." Are you kidding? The one time 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) trams of Montreal and the present day 58.875Toronto trams turn just as nicely in "restricted city streets". The rolling stock on any gauge is adapted to or designed for the minimum radius of curvature to be negotiated. Peter Horn 01:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have started a paragraph for narrow-guage railways in Romania and I can add to it as more lines are renovated and up-and-running. However, I am not a technical expert or an expert on railway history in Romania - can others help provide this information?

Also, I think the Hungary paragraph in this article should then be changed. It currently reads: "Following the Treaty of Trianon some railways were cut by the new border, many remained on the territory of Romania, Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia.... Freight haulage on the few remaining lines continued to decline until 1990 from when a patchwork of railways was gradually taken over by associations and forest managements for tourist purposes." Text concerning lines - like the Valea Vasar Mocanita - which are situated in a place that is no longer part of Hungary (the Treaty of Trianon was in 1920) should be moved to a paragraph for the country which now applies. I propose removing from the Hungary paragraph "Freight haulage on the few remaining lines continued to decline until 1990 from when a patchwork of railways was gradually taken over by associations and forest managements for tourist purposes", and putting into the Romania paragraph "From 1990 some narrow guage lines were taken over by associations and forest managements for tourist purposes"; paragraphs for other countries can also adapt the same text as appropriate. (Unfortunately, I don't know enough about the history of railways in Romania to be willing to transfer the deleted sentence verbatim). Any objections? Frankieparley 13:52, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've removed the following paragraph from this section:

Narrow gauge lines were very vulnerable to competition from trucks. The railroads' advantage has always been economy of scale and distance, and the transshipment requirement removed that. Trucks have no such transshipment problem and are more flexible in operation.

I'm not sure this is true - standard gauge railways have also proved vulnerable to competition from trucks. Trucking can also suffer from transshipment issues, of course. Most importantly, without any sort of citation this is really just original research which should be avoided.

Unfortunately, the entire section suffers from a lack of citations. It would be really useful if we could all help find relevant sources and add them to this section to avoid it appearing to be personal opinions. Gwernol 18:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I have recently changed the layout of the individual country sections so that the thumbnail images appear below the text, like this:

Portugal

Portugal had hundreds of km of 1 gauge railways, including: Linha do Porto à Póvoa e Famalicão - Closed. Some of the old trackbed is now used by the Oporto's Metropolitan railcars. Linha de Guimarães - Closed between Guimarães and Fafe, converted into a bike way. The rest is now broad gauge. Linha do Tâmega. Linha do Corgo. Linha do Tua. Linha do Sabor. Linhas do Vale do Vouga. Linha do Dão.

At least one passenger service known as the Linha do Tâmega is still in operation. It runs between Livração and Amarante in the District of Porto and runs near the River Tâmega.

I prefer this layout, as it allows the text to flow naturally regardless of the number of images present. What do other editors think? Is there a better layout? Thanks, Gwernol 15:57, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Can someone please undo the recent move from "Narrow gauge railway" to "Narrow gauge rail transport". The original title was entirely apposite, a redirect from "narrow gauge railroad" covering the common English alternative. The current title is not in common usage and appears nowhere in the article, however "narrow gauge railway" occurs 18 times and "narrow gauge railroad" 11 times. Let's not invent new terms which are rarely if every used. Bermicourt ( talk) 17:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Narrow gauge rail transport#Advantages of narrow gauge I dispute the parts about radii. Peter Horn 22:03, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

The Toronto street cars are built to negotiate a 36 feet (10.973 m) radius horizontal curve, see the specs in Toronto street car. Peter Horn 22:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

See Talk:Narrow gauge railway#Dubious claims below. Peter Horn User talk 00:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Editors should be clear that the disadvantage relates specificity to a narrower gauge, not to other factors like loading gauges. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 01:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Loading gauge and track gauge are closely related; first because using standard gauge clearances on a narrow gauge railway eliminates most of the hypothetical cost advantages of using narrow gauge, and second because you can't simply make trains arbitrarily high like some kind of rolling skyscraper. In the case of North American railways carrying double stacked container cars, the height clearance is 6,147 mm (20 ft 2 in) and the track gauge is 1,435 mm (4 ft 8.5 in). This gives a ratio of about 4.28 to 1, which is rather tall for its base. This allows them to stack two high-cube containers, each 9.5 ft (2,896 mm) high. If you calculate the difference, you find the bottom container is only about 355 mm (14 in) from the rails. They only achieve this by dropping the lower containers into wells in the cars, which not only lowers the height but the center of gravity.

Now, if you apply the same ratio of 4.28 to Cape gauge of 1,067 mm (3 ft 6 in) to achieve the same stability, you get a theoretical height clearance of 4,567 mm (15 ft 0 in). If you stack two standard ISO containers, each 8.5 ft (2,591 mm) high, you find the stack is 17 ft (5,182 mm) high and the bottom is 615 mm (2 ft 0 in) below track level. In other words, they don't fit. If you calculate it out the other way, adding 5,182 mm to 355 mm of bottom clearance, you find the top clearance would be 5,537 mm (18 ft 2 in), which would be a height to base ratio of 5.2:1. That is just short of what skyscrapers max out at (6:1), which is the reason for my "rolling skyscraper" comment. In other words, double stacked container cars on narrow gauge lines are at great risk of falling over, and I don't know of any railway that contemplates trying it.

However, if you take broad gauge, such as the Indian gauge, it's quite the reverse. If you multiply 4.28 by 1,676 mm (5 ft 6 in), you get a theoretical height clearance of 7,173 mm (23 ft 6 in) for the same stability. This is over a metre higher than the American double stack clearance, and is the reason Indian railways can run double stacked standard containers on flat cars - which cost half as much as well cars - at 100 km/h. That is one reason why India is converting its narrow gauge lines to broad gauge. RockyMtnGuy ( talk) 17:51, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

That may all be correct, but is original research. Find a source and it can go in. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 23:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

If "Narrow Gauge" were to refer to railways 3ft 6in track gauge and below, then what would one do with the poor old Padarn Railway in North Wales, that used a gauge of 4ft 0in? It certainly isn't Stephenson's Gauge! 80.229.210.97 ( talk) 14:55, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Narrow gauge really refers to anything smaller than standard gauge - practically speaking, it's anything less than 4 feet 8 inches (1,422 mm). The costs of constructing 4 ft gauge wouldn't be significantly different than standard gauge so, although it meets the technical definition of narrow gauge, it's a rather pointless narrow gauge. The point of using gauges of 3 feet 6 inches (1,067 mm) and narrower was that there were some theoretical advantages in construction costs. RockyMtnGuy ( talk) 20:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

There are many narrow gauge street tramways, particularly in Europe where 1,000 mm (3 ft 3+3⁄8 in) gauge tramways are common. Narrow gauge allows tighter turning than 1435 gauge or 1495 gauge in restricted city streets ^{dubious – discuss}. The tighter turning circle make balloon loops at the end of routes easier, which in turn allows the use of unidirectional trams with a driver's cab at one end only, and doors on one side, allowing more space for passengers ^{dubious – discuss}. Nonsense! The Toronto trams are capable to turn on a 36-foot (10.97 m) radius. So this paragraph should be deleted alltogether as nonsense. Peter Horn User talk 00:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

For any given fixed wheelbase length, a narrower gauge will give a tighter minimum radius curve. (No I don't have a source). So I guess that the above is what the authors were trying to get at, or maybe not. But yes using that type of example always comes up against the "apples & oranges" problem. So yes delete it. -- Michael Johnson ( talk) 01:02, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Narrow gauge railway#Taiwan. Give me a break, exchanging narrow gauge bogies for standard gauge ones should not be prohibitively expensive. When I worked for the Montreal Locomotive Works, MLW built locomotives for Peru and supplied both standard gauge and 36 Bogies for them. Similarly when MLW built locos for Tunisia these were supplied with both standard gauge and metre gauge bogies, not mounted at the same time of course. Peter Horn User talk 21:15, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Why does the tile of this article omit the hyphen? Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:14, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

In what order should the following narrow gauge pioneers be put in? And are there any other pioneer characters? Was the choice of the Norwegian narrow gauge influenced by the gauge successfully chosen by Queensland, or visa versa?

• William Doyne - railway experience in Ireland
• Abraham Fitzgibbon - Dun Mountain Railway - 1960 - railway experience in Ireland
• Robert F. Fairlie - Festiniog Railway - horse drawn 1832 ; double bogie locomotive 1864
• Abraham Fitzgibbon - Queensland Railways 1865
• Carl Pihl - Norwegian Railways - 1870

Tabletop ( talk) 11:28, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

There are many Gauges with roundabout 3 ft (English, Swedish, Castilian, etc.), e.g.

• http://www.cumbrestoltec.com/history
• http://www.durangotrain.com/ride-us/faqs (see How narrow is the narrow gauge?)
• http://www.spikesys.com/EBT/intro.html
• http://rgs.railfan.net/history.html
• http://www.trefoten.se/righteng.html

So we really should have a section for "three foot gauge railways". axp_de ^Hello! 20:47, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

There are indeed many railways with a 3-foot (0.91 m) gauge or thereabouts, including 891, 900 and 950, as well as 36, and there were many more in the past. There are even more railways that use the slightly larger 1,000 mm (3 ft 3+3⁄8 in) metre gauge and 42 Cape gauge. These are all dealt with in the "Gauges used" section under the "Medium gauge railways" sub-section.

I think the real question should be about a three-foot gauge railways article. If such an article could be justified (and I think it could), someone else might then come along and ask the same about "two-foot six-inch gauge railways", so it's then a case of WP:Notability, etc..

Having said that, I think that this article is a bit of a mess:

• The "Gauges used" section should probably be renamed to something like "Narrow gauge categories" or "Gauge groupings" and moved up the article.
• The definition of "Medium gauge" is not in line with some other articles; this is partly the legacy of recent wholesale changes made by a banned user which are now being addressed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains‎.
• There may be a case for a new "Commonly used gauges" section with sub-sections for "Three-foot gauge", etc., but it could also be argued that this would just duplicate parts of List of rail gauges.

I have now added a {{ see also| List of rail gauges}} to the top of the "Gauges used" section, and will raise the other matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains‎. Tim PF ( talk) 08:52, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

There is a chapter "successful narrow gauge". According to actual version of this article, "successful" seams to mean fast and heavy. According to the number of passengers (in relation to the population), Japan and Switzerland have the most successful rail systems in the world, and both countries have large narrow gauge networks. I think, the success of narrow gauge railways is to make a larger network in less populated regions affordable. So I think this chapter should rather get a new title "narrow gauge main line" and may be the fact with Switzerland and Japan should be mentioned. Helmigo ( talk) 00:19, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Some of that is covered in other sections (such as "Advantages of narrow gauge"), but please be aware of original research (ie you need to find citable references of what experts think or have proved). If you can, be bold and make the changes yourself. Tim PF ( talk) 21:57, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

why is the text centred in the page, with left edge jagged? It looks strange, and not like other wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.68.6.12 ( talk) 21:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Problem with the side bar template. Railwayfan2005 ( talk) 23:19, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Unlike Australia, Brazil and South Africa, New Zealand does NOT AFAIK operate 200 wagon trains, and should not therefore be included as a Successful narrow gauge railways.

Tabletop ( talk) 13:54, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Where does it state that 200 wagons per train is a required criterion for success? -- Redrose64 ( talk) 14:57, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Whilst I don't particularly care for that section, I think it should have two or three additional sub-sections added; one or two for heavy duty freight, and the other for loading gauge. Add a short introduction to what might make a successful railway, and decide on what to do about the economical standard gauge alternative.
The heavy duty freight can be due to either or both of track-standard (ie axle load, usually with a reasonable loading gauge), and length of train. Obviously a railway running 200-car trains is running big trains, but I'm not sure that even those are possible on Britain's standard gauge. Some may struggle with even a 20-car trains due to passing loop lengths.
Anyway, feel free to remove NZ from the 200-car train class, but I don't see any obvious reason why it is not a successful narrow gauge railway, but that gets included in its British sized loading gauge. Tim PF ( talk) 08:21, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

I still don't see where it states that New Zealand runs 200-wagon trains, so cannot remove NZ from the 200-car train class.

• The heavy duty 42 narrow gauge railways in ... New Zealand show that if the track is built to a heavy-duty standard, performance almost as good as a standard gauge line is possible.
• 200-car trains operate on the Sishen- Saldanha railway in South Africa, and high-speed tilt-trains in Queensland (see below).
• EFVM in Brazil. ... sees 4,000 hp (3,000 kW) locomotives and 200+ car trains.
• In South Africa and New Zealand, the loading gauge is similar to the restricted British loading gauge, and in New Zealand some British Rail Mark 2 carriages have been rebuilt with new bogies ...

Each of these is a separate statement. 200-car/wagon trains are noted only for South Africa, Queensland and Brazil, and not NZ. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 16:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

You are indeed correct, but if I was confused by it, then I will stand by my assertion that the section could do with a rewrite to make it clearer. Whilst I might not advocate bullet points, you have used them above to make clear that one paragraph encompasses four different reasons for success, but without any clear delineation. Tim PF ( talk) 22:20, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

"There are hundreds of kilometeres of 600 mm (1 ft 11 5⁄8 in), 750 mm (2 ft 5 1⁄2 in), 785 mm (2 ft 6 9⁄10 in), and 1,000 mm (3 ft 3 3⁄8 in) narrow gauge lines in Poland." propaganda BS; There where - is better time/tense; 99% of lines is scraped or is destroyed and not available to use [include the bigest web of narrow lines in Europe in Kujawy / east Greatpoland, what is the biggest lost for any narrow railway fan!]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.20.149.11 ( talk) 00:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

It can not be said, that interchange problems are generally a disadvantage of narrow gauge. If we, for example, talk about South African Gautrain, interchange is just in the opposite, an argument against standard gauge and for narrow gauge!-- Helmigo ( talk) 16:33, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.