On Aug 2, 7:45*pm, D7666 wrote:
On Aug 2, 7:02*pm, Andy wrote:



, do you ever read all of a post before commenting?

Yes.

"A train has to fit the defined loading gauge for the route and this
means it will
automatically within the structure gauge (plus clearance)"

I * was responding *this paragraph:


Isn't it the case that the loading gauge is the maximum size of train
allowed to fit with the structure gauge.
A train has to fit the
defined loading gauge for the route and this means it will
automatically within the structure gauge (plus clearance).



The first sentence is at variance with the second - the first is not
correct because you imply the two gauges are the same. They are not
the same.

The 2nd sentence is more or less correct, so I did not comment.


No the first sentence says loading gauge gives the allowable
dimensions for the train to fit (within) the structure gauge, it most
definately does say that they are the same. The second sentence then
expands on this.

I was answering your point which seemed to suggest that the loading
gauge is defined by the train and not by the route.

"As I understand the term, a 378 does fit the loading gauge ...
because the term loading gauge refers to the train itself ... so a 378
always fits itself )", which is not correct at all. Loading gauge
has always been defined by the limits of the infrastructure, not by
the train.

A new train can either be built to fit the existing loading gauge for
a route, or the tight spots on the route can be relaxed to allow a new
design to fit within a larger loading gauge. One of the classic
examples of the latter is the singling of track through the tunnels on
the Tonbridge - Hastings route upon electrification, adjusting the
infrastructure to fit larger sized trains. There are many other recent
examples too.