I found your premise to be true in actual practice... By keeping engine and rolling stock wheelbases short they can negotiate very small radius curves even using regular HO track. This train easily runs on only a 10 inch radius curve... Greg
Hence my comment about terrain. They are cheaper to construct, such as noted above, as they'll more often go around, instead of punching through obstacles- Less cut, fill, tunneling. Material use is lower, as smaller tie does cost less than a standard gauge version, as does rail. Less material is used in roadbed, trestle and bridge work, as there is usually less tonnage at any one time. Thus also cheaper to maintain. Just speaking from some real world experience. Boxcab E50
Your description is exactly what lends itself to so many interesting creative modelling designs. Instead of a dull level straight track line, you can explore a wide variety of exciting steep tight winding routes that need to conform to the terrain rather than the terrain being forced to conform to the track. Greg
When you look at late 19th century freight cars, there isn't as much of a difference between SG and NG. The same holds with the locomotives (beyond the initial 4-wheel cars and 2-4-0s of the 1871 D&RG). The best known NG railroad cars were built to turn-of-the century designs. The C&S cars, were all based off of an 1897 design...with enhancements in the later cars (betterndorf hardware on the 1907 cars and steel underframes on the 1910 cars). The D&RGW 3000 series, 1000 series, and 5500 series also date from this period iirc. 30' was common to the SG cars. Very few NG cars were built after this, and so they didn't get too much longer. Notable exceptions were the long cars owned by the Tweetsie and Oahu Railway...roads which continued modernizing after the Colorado Roads began their slow decline. Smaller cars are less efficient...hence the trend towards bigger cars. I've never seen an incident in which a railroad car couldn't make a curve...even modern passenger cars. On the contrary, I have seen locomotives (especially big steam) have issues. I believe that railroad cars having issues with curves are almost exclusively a model issue. A string of 23' Colorado Central cars just looks better on 24"R curves (On30 or On3) than 48' Pullman Buffet-Lounge-Sleepers. A notable exception to my statement is the shorty cars used by the Sierra. Most On3 D&RGW modelers operate there K-36s on 36"-42"R curves. The real thing can't handle anything tighter (or isn't rated to handle) than a 60"R curve (in O scale). The models can do this because there is more play in the running gear and more swing in the lead/trailing trucks...plus loose coupling. My Rivarossi NKP 765 can handle 18"R curves...the prototype can't make it around twice that (reduced to HO scale). So, our model rolling stock most negotiate much tighter curves than the prototype would ever see...something accomplished by their normal lack of full brake linkage and body-hung brake beams. Normally, car length was based on the capacity of the cars (usually limited by the truck capacity, but sometimes the framing). Cars which carry denser loads are usually short, those carrying lighter loads are longer (and taller). This is why mail baggage cars were usually shorter than coaches. Similarly, ore cars are shorter than hopper cars and coke cars have a greater volumetric capacity. Lengthening cars causes more material to go into their structural integrity (we engineers refer to this a "bending moment"...you see it in arched bridges and diamond girders). There is a trade off between the increasing dead weight of a car versus building an additional car. Another component is that heavier cars require more powerful brakes. That is a really fascinating chapter of railroad history (straight air to auto air to quick action air to high speed air to etc)...increasing the power of brakes requires very expensive changes to the entire, national freight car fleet (changing the pressure or pipe line diameter for recharge). NG railroads would have loved to use larger cars, but they didn't want to pay for it. Most kept using the older (obsolete) K brakes well into the AB era...because of the cost of upgrading. The same applies to 40' cars (note, the D&RGW converted some older SG cars during the 1950s-1960s). Most didn't use 30'-34' cars with 20-30t capacity because they were operationally better, rather they did so because the costs of upgrading couldn't be justified by the marginally profitable NG roads. I firmly believe that some of the NG appeal is because of the equipment. Nearly all of the surviving NG cars are wood (excluding the EBT, WP&Y, and OR&L). Many of the freight cars have arch bar trucks. The survival of CATS and such have introduced pre-depression and turn-of-the-century railroading to many people...and in color. Michael
I have found American Narrow Gauge Railroads by George Hilton to be a really definitive work on Narrow Gauges. In the 1860s in Europe, there was almost a mania for Narrow Gauge founded on the belief that Broad Gauge (including standard gauge) cost too much to build and that in lightly populated areas, narrow gauge would suffice. Other reasons included a belief in effeciencies derived from lower tare weight as well as newly available industrial locomotives in narrow gauge. Robert Fairlie was a narrow gauge evangelist in part to support his locomotive design (0-4+4-0) which he claimed to be more effecient as all the weight was on the drivers. (Problem was the design exceeded the engineering of the time.) This narrow gauge mania was played out all over the world due to the British Empire which is why Austrailia and Africa (and Japan who copied the British model) are 42" gauge. These narrow gauge acolytes also believed in effeciency over speed. We know now that narrow gauge (NG) roadbed requires almost as much building as standard gauge, the economies of the tare weight did not overcome the economies of scale, extreme smallness had diseconomies of scale, labor cost was almost the same for both NG and Standard gauge, interchange was burdensome, and speed helped offset any NG economies (more equipment turns). I've heard it said by modern railroad executives that if we had to start over again, gauge would probably be in the 5'to 6' range. I'd recommend American Narrow Gauge Railroads to anyone interested in Narrow Gauges. You can still find used copies at Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/American-Narr...=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1283790552&sr=8-8 Andy "Tetsu Uma"
Which is true, IF the barrow gauge is engineered and constructed as was the standard gauge. That is the difference, often, they were not. Boxcab E50
Woodie- I cannot think of any reason that someone might argue with your statement. One reason I like On30 and efforts such as yours- There is not only realism portrayed, but also latitude for the whimsical aspect. Keep on doing what you are doing- Having fun. Boxcab E50
:thumbs_up::thumbs_up::thumbs_up::thumbs_up: For freight car technology, John H. White Jr's American Railroad Freight Car. For Passenger car technology, John H. White Jr's American Railroad Passenger car. All three belong in every narrow gauge enthusiast's library. Hilton's book is definitely the first book to get and the most important for understanding the movement. I'd recommend the passenger car book next. Robert Sloan's Narrow Gauge Databook (from the N-Trak website) is a pretty cost-effective survey of the better known operations. An often missed point: tunnels were rarer than ballast on NG roads. The famed D&RG had only one tunnel on its original NG mainline. The DSP&P had only Alpine Tunnel. The WP&Y had only the Summit Tunnel (until the diesel era). I think the under-appreciated South Pacific Coast probably had the most...it was constructed to a much higher standard than most other NG roads (partially double tracked and 60mph passenger trains with faster schedules than the SG Southern Pacific). Michael
With apologies to Monty Python "When I first came here, this was all mud. Everyone said I was daft to build a railroad with no roadbed on mud, but I built in all the same, just to show them. It sank into the mud. So I built a second one. That sank into the mud. So I built a third. That burned down, fell over, then sank into the mud. But the fourth one stayed up." Those lines that sank into the mud to provided a better base for the next time they laid the track . . . and then the line went bankrupt. Seriously, the underengineered lines (ties laid on the ground with little or no ballast couldn't run trains, at least not very well, which contributed to their demise. Roads with serious economic potential were purchased and converted to standard gauge. Logging lines which moved rail often to where they were harvesting not withstanding, I cannot think of any long surviving narrow gauge lines (EBT, C&S, D&RG, lines in Australia, Africa, and Japan, etc.) that didn't have at least adequate roadbed.
I don't believe I ever used the word "inadequate." From what I have seen of Colorado narrow gauge, they did the absolute minimum. Speeds as years passed, were less that at origins. I'm not talking about logging operations, were more often temporary and indeed crudely laid through dirt and mud. They had no intention of spending any capital on such niceties, and thus had plenty of derailments. Those larger operations, such as Polson/Rayonier, Weyerhauser, which were going to be working a vast stand of timber for quite some time, would, did and still do build to higher standards. In speaking initial expense to construct I spoke of less cut and fill, as they were more prone to following existing terrain. Flowing up and down, or around obstacles, instead of blasting and burrowing through them. Even so, they require less substantial fills and bridgeworks. The tonnage was lighter than standard gauge evolution. I'd guess having some experience accounts for nothing in these discussions. Oh well. Boxcab E50
Boxcab-you are right with that last statement. Although having some experience with a subject accounts for LESS than nothing it seems. Some always seem to profess to know more than we do...even when they speak from an armchair. Woodie
No, you didn't say inadequate nor do I question your experience. I think there has been a failure to communicate as we seem to be looking different aspects of the same thing. My point has been all along to explain why Narrow Gauge did not catch on in a big way across the U.S. I agree that narrow gauge lines saved engineering and construction costs by following the terrain and some savings were achieved in material cost. So why didn't NG catch on all over the U.S.? To answer that question, I submit the following: 1. The NG promoters overestmated the savings expected to be derived by using narrow gauges (Their estimate - in the neighborhood of 30%-40% per mile equipped over standard gauge. The 19th Century actuality, at best 12% savings in construction costs.) and 2. Particularly in the Midwest, some NG lines were little more than ties thrown on the ground with 30lb rail spiked to it which suddenly became common carriers. Now, there were some some cost savings derived at the time of construction but in practice the poorly constructed lines fell apart in next to no time. (Example: In 1884, one Toledo, Cincinnati, and St Louis (3' gauge) train derailed 12 times in 40 miles and their Auglaize River bridge was in such bad condition due to minimally engineered construction that locomotives could not cross and loaded cars had to be passed across one at a time with idler cars.) Fuel costs were higher when following an undulating line. Transload costs were also killers for NG lines and these are some of the major reasons why most (but not all) of them (outside of Colorado) ended up in receivership. I brought up logging roads only to clarify the aspect of NG to which I was referring (i.e. not logging roads) and we seem to agree that many of those were nothing more than some rails on felled logs which only had to support a 20 ton Shay at minimal speeds. As for the Colorado roads, I would say they built better (at least compared to some of the Midwest NG lines) or rebuilt their lines with better roadbed and if they would have had the money, would have put some of it back into track maintenance. I think we can agree that at least in the case of the RGS, it was perennially broke and didn't have the fund to put into the physical plant so it deteriorated. Random thought: Thinking about the bad bridge and idler cars example, that might have some interesting modelling and operation possibilities.
Well, I would agree they may have overestimated. If they were thinking ahead at all. For example, some Colorado operators were chasing after metal ore booms and probably did not even think about what was beyond the next day, week, or... Just slap it down quick and cheap, so as start reaping fast cash. Of course, we never know what the coming years will hold for us. There were some grandiose schemes, most of which at any time never have a chance to succeed. Boxcab E50
