I was reading a book by Brian Hardy about the tube trains on the Isle of
Wight and he states that the LUL track gauge is 4 foot 8.75 inches but the
BR gauge is 4 ft 8.5 and that this caused issues initially. Is this a true
statement (perhaps he was misinformed?) as it seems amazing to me and if it
is does it cause any operational issues on shared tracks such as on the
Bakerloo and Met?

B2003

Not on the Met Chiltern run over LUL lines, I think you mean the
District on the richmond branch

Boltar wrote:
I was reading a book by Brian Hardy about the tube trains on the Isle of
Wight and he states that the LUL track gauge is 4 foot 8.75 inches but the
BR gauge is 4 ft 8.5 and that this caused issues initially. Is this a true
statement (perhaps he was misinformed?) as it seems amazing to me and if it
is does it cause any operational issues on shared tracks such as on the
Bakerloo and Met?

B2003

(Boltar) wrote in message . com...
I was reading a book by Brian Hardy about the tube trains on the Isle of
Wight and he states that the LUL track gauge is 4 foot 8.75 inches but the
BR gauge is 4 ft 8.5 and that this caused issues initially. Is this a true
statement (perhaps he was misinformed?) as it seems amazing to me and if it
is does it cause any operational issues on shared tracks such as on the
Bakerloo and Met?

B2003

Regular 4'8½" gauge track actually varies in gauge between 4'8¼" and
4'8¾" depending on track curvature. If you think about it, this
difference of half an inch between minimum and maximum is actually a
quarter inch on either side - a wholly insignificant amount. If stock
which has wheels ¼" further apart tries to run on such rails, there
are likely to be no problems, although they may end up riding on the
wheel-flanges. As to whether that statement is true, I have no idea.

"Boltar" wrote in message
om...
I was reading a book by Brian Hardy about the tube trains on the
Isle of
Wight and he states that the LUL track gauge is 4 foot 8.75 inches
but the
BR gauge is 4 ft 8.5 and that this caused issues initially. Is this
a true
statement (perhaps he was misinformed?) as it seems amazing to me
and if it
is does it cause any operational issues on shared tracks such as on
the
Bakerloo and Met?

I seem to recall that the track gauge in the south of the USA is
different from the rest. At one time, I know, the gauge in the S.
was 5', but eventually they had a big switchover like the GWR did
here. Why the S. didn't become exactly identical to the N. I don't
know. What the exact numbers are, I don't know. Anyway, the
difference apperently doesn't matter

Jeremy Parker

From: (James)
Date: 02/09/2004 15:43 GMT

Regular 4'8½" gauge track actually varies in gauge between 4'8¼" and
4'8¾" depending on track curvature. If you think about it, this
difference of half an inch between minimum and maximum is actually a
quarter inch on either side - a wholly insignificant amount. If stock
which has wheels ¼" further apart tries to run on such rails, there
are likely to be no problems, although they may end up riding on the
wheel-flanges. As to whether that statement is true, I have no idea.

"Regular" track as you call it ("plain line" as PW engineers term it) might not
be too much a problem if you're ¼" tight or wide to gauge - although it
probably wouldn't ride too smoothly. It becomes a rather serious problem though
when going through pointwork, where flanges ¼" wide to gauge may try to
"wrongside" the frog for example; failing which they'll probably bash its nose
to pieces in no time instead.

In article ,
Boltar wrote:
I was reading a book by Brian Hardy about the tube trains on the Isle of
Wight and he states that the LUL track gauge is 4 foot 8.75 inches but the
BR gauge is 4 ft 8.5 and that this caused issues initially.

The issue I read of, I don't know how far true though, was that the
Standard stock's hardened steel tyres wore the rails down excessivly
fast when they first went to the IoW.

Nick
--
"And we will be restoring neurotypicality just as soon as we are sure
what is normal anyway. Thank you". -- not quite DNA

(Nick Leverton) wrote in message ...
In article ,
Boltar wrote:
I was reading a book by Brian Hardy about the tube trains on the Isle of
Wight and he states that the LUL track gauge is 4 foot 8.75 inches but the
BR gauge is 4 ft 8.5 and that this caused issues initially.

The issue I read of, I don't know how far true though, was that the
Standard stock's hardened steel tyres wore the rails down excessivly
fast when they first went to the IoW.

Perhaps he got the wrong end of the stick. It seemed a bit strange to me
that the gauges would be different even if only by .25 inch.

B2003

On Thu, 2 Sep 2004 16:14:26 +0100, "Jeremy Parker"
wrote:


"Boltar" wrote in message
. com...
I was reading a book by Brian Hardy about the tube trains on the
Isle of
Wight and he states that the LUL track gauge is 4 foot 8.75 inches
but the
BR gauge is 4 ft 8.5 and that this caused issues initially. Is this
a true
statement (perhaps he was misinformed?) as it seems amazing to me
and if it
is does it cause any operational issues on shared tracks such as on
the
Bakerloo and Met?

I seem to recall that the track gauge in the south of the USA is
different from the rest. At one time, I know, the gauge in the S.
was 5', but eventually they had a big switchover like the GWR did
here. Why the S. didn't become exactly identical to the N. I don't
know. What the exact numbers are, I don't know. Anyway, the
difference apperently doesn't matter

Jeremy Parker


There are regional variations in the UK albeit by only a tiny margin.

The Liverpool & Manchester 4' 8"
The London Tube 4' 8 3/8"
Uk Standard Guage 4' 8 1/2" (4' 8 " on tight curves)

and (I think) the Glasgopw Underground was 4' 7"

Nigel

In article ,
James wrote:
(Boltar) wrote in message . com...
I was reading a book by Brian Hardy about the tube trains on the Isle
of Wight and he states that the LUL track gauge is 4 foot 8.75 inches
but the BR gauge is 4 ft 8.5 and that this caused issues initially. Is
this a true statement (perhaps he was misinformed?) as it seems
amazing to me and if it is does it cause any operational issues on
shared tracks such as on the Bakerloo and Met?

B2003

Regular 4'8½" gauge track actually varies in gauge between 4'8¼" and
4'8¾" depending on track curvature. If you think about it, this
difference of half an inch between minimum and maximum is actually a
quarter inch on either side - a wholly insignificant amount. If stock
which has wheels ¼" further apart tries to run on such rails, there
are likely to be no problems, although they may end up riding on the
wheel-flanges. As to whether that statement is true, I have no idea.


Official track gauge is normally specified in mm. As I recall, the BR
track gauge was actually changed a few years ago by a few mm. I think it
changed from 1438mm to 1435mm (or maybe the other way around) for
nominally straight track. It was something to do with the slight
variations in the preferred rail head and flange profiles, both of which
tend to change with wear. Gauge widening is only significant on sharply
curved track.

David

In message , Nick Leverton
writes
In article ,
Boltar wrote:
I was reading a book by Brian Hardy about the tube trains on the Isle of
Wight and he states that the LUL track gauge is 4 foot 8.75 inches but the
BR gauge is 4 ft 8.5 and that this caused issues initially.

The issue I read of, I don't know how far true though, was that the
Standard stock's hardened steel tyres wore the rails down excessivly
fast when they first went to the IoW.

Nick

I believe the wear increased exponentially at over 70 mph.
;-)

--
Bob Adams - email address: