No need for SG in Vic !

 
  Dangersdan707 Chief Commissioner

Location: On a Thing with Internet
Dan, I sympathise, but you're too late. You're at least 22 years too late since they narrowed the Adelaide - Melbourne line, or maybe 60 years too late since they built the standard gauge track from Albury to Melbourne. But you're probably 102 years late since they started building the trans Australian line to standard gauge and you could be 164 years too late after Sydney decided to have a different track gauge to Adelaide and Melbourne. In any case you are definitely too late to be pushing this cause, so unless you have a time machine handy, let
Bogong
shame fellow I know I'm to late though about the time machine please refer to my older post on the conspiracy:shock:

Sponsored advertisement

  Lockspike Deputy Commissioner

Despite the ignorance that lead to the establishment of this thread, it has been a thought provoking and interesting read, thank you.
  MetroFemme Assistant Commissioner

Why did they choose standard gauge for the trans australia line since we are in the process of celebrating 100 years of it being launched?

They could have gone with narrow gauge or broad gauge.
  tazzer96 Deputy Commissioner

Why did they choose standard gauge for the trans australia line since we are in the process of celebrating 100 years of it being launched?

They could have gone with narrow gauge or broad gauge.
MetroFemme
I really don't know the exact reason why.  Likely pressure from NSW, and the fact SG had british origins and back in those days we did things in very british ways.

Honestly, BG would have been the better option for a national gauge.
  Z VAN Locomotive Driver

Why we have gone to Standard Gauge has a two part answer.
Britain declared 4'81/2" as standard for the UK and all of the Colonies.
The change to broad gauge here was fine because we are an Island but changing back to standard gauge was the start of a problem we have been struggling with for the last 150 years.
After several enquires and a dose of common sense it was agreed and it is cheaper to gauge convert broad to standard because you simply move one rail in 61/2 inches. These decisions were made when all sleepers were wooden.
These ideas predate the Trans line so we are lucky some people with vision could see ahead. They certainly had good vision as we did not do much until connecting Melbourne from the north in 1962.
Have a look at the conversion of the Mildura line and really it is pretty simple.
At least we are doing it but it does beg the question why it took so long to start?
Repeating myself, let us make the Goulburn Valley lines next.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
Why did they choose standard gauge for the trans australia line since we are in the process of celebrating 100 years of it being launched?

They could have gone with narrow gauge or broad gauge.
I really don't know the exact reason why.  Likely pressure from NSW, and the fact SG had british origins and back in those days we did things in very british ways.

Honestly, BG would have been the better option for a national gauge.
tazzer96
Because in 1903 the Commissioners of all the Australian Railways, meeting in Melbourne, had agreed that standard gauge was the best way forward. I cannot agree that BG would have had any advantages over SG in 1903.
  M636C Minister for Railways

Why did they choose standard gauge for the trans australia line since we are in the process of celebrating 100 years of it being launched?

They could have gone with narrow gauge or broad gauge.
MetroFemme
At the time, the line connected with 3'6" lines at each end.

However, 3'6" was, at the time, significantly less capable than standard or broad gauge.
Standard gauge was seen as the future (since it is easier to narrow broad gauge than widen standard gauge).

Had the SA broad gauge extended to Port Augusta at the time, broad gauge would have given a direct connection at one end.

Narrow gauge would have given a direct connection to Perth but not a through journey to Adelaide.

It all worked out well in the end, anyway....

Peter
  The Vinelander Minister for Railways

Location: Ballan, Victoria on the Ballarat RFR Line
oh no it seems I've started a flamewar Embarassed
It seems like you have acheived your objective.   I do love a good troll.

If your not a troll though, you are the dumbest person to ever post on this page.
tazzer96

So you've forgotten Chiddabang then Question
  Colonel Leon Junior Train Controller

Location:
I think we are starting to recover after THAT person who posted some dumb stuff trying to rewrite history and questioning projects that have proven to be the correct decision.
You could call me a crazy standardisation skeptic!  lol Smile
Dangersdan707
No, we wouldn't. We would call you something different.
  woodford Chief Commissioner

Why did they choose standard gauge for the trans australia line since we are in the process of celebrating 100 years of it being launched?

They could have gone with narrow gauge or broad gauge.
I really don't know the exact reason why.  Likely pressure from NSW, and the fact SG had british origins and back in those days we did things in very british ways.

Honestly, BG would have been the better option for a national gauge.
Because in 1903 the Commissioners of all the Australian Railways, meeting in Melbourne, had agreed that standard gauge was the best way forward. I cannot agree that BG would have had any advantages over SG in 1903.
YM-Mundrabilla
As I understand it, the multiple gauge problem in Australia goes back much earlier. Before any lines were lines were built both VIC and NSW agreed to use the irish gauge of 5ft 3in. After Vic had started building lines but before NSW built any they (NSW) got a new (English) engineer and he said "irish gauge is rubbish go for SG". This change was approved by Britain (Aus being a british colony at the time), inspite of comments even at the time that this was one of the stupidest decisions ever made.

woodford
  trainbrain Chief Commissioner

I think we are starting to recover after THAT person who posted some dumb stuff trying to rewrite history and questioning projects that have proven to be the correct decision.
You could call me a crazy standardisation skeptic!  lol Smile
Dangersdan707
more like a fool with a blinkered vision....................
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

The problem with that woodford was that the first railways in this country were in Newcastle NSW and they were built to the standard gauge. All I can say is thank goodness for that English engineer who correctly set us on the correct path of standard gauge in NSW.
  railblogger Chief Commissioner

Location: At the back of the train, quitely doing exactly what you'd expect.
The problem with that woodford was that the first railways in this country were in Newcastle NSW and they were built to the standard gauge. All I can say is thank goodness for that English engineer who correctly set us on the correct path of standard gauge in NSW.
simstrain
The first line in the country was in Victoria, not NSW. It ran from Flinders Street to Port Melbourne.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
The problem with that woodford was that the first railways in this country were in Newcastle NSW and they were built to the standard gauge. All I can say is thank goodness for that English engineer who correctly set us on the correct path of standard gauge in NSW.
The first line in the country was in Victoria, not NSW. It ran from Flinders Street to Port Melbourne.
railblogger
And it was broad gauge but unfortunately is now standard gauge as a tram line. This is the only form of BG to SG conversion that I would not support!Sad
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
Blogger, I suspect Simstrain is referring to some obscure and largely forgotten horse powered tramway in the back blocks of nowhere.

But yes the first proper railway was to Port Melbourne AND it was sensibly built to the vastly superior 1600 mm broad gauge. Razz
  Dangersdan707 Chief Commissioner

Location: On a Thing with Internet
And it was broad gauge but unfortunately is now standard gauge as a tram line. This is the only form of BG to SG conversion that I would not support!Sad
YM-Mundrabilla
a least it hasn't been built over most of the way, imagine all the skyscrapers and apartments that would have gone up around Albert park and Sandbridge! no idea why its a tram now
  mikesyd Chief Commissioner

Location: Lurking
oh no it seems I've started a flamewar Embarassed
It seems like you have acheived your objective.   I do love a good troll.

If your not a troll though, you are the dumbest person to ever post on this page.

So you've forgotten Chiddabang then Question
The Vinelander
In fairness tazzer96 joined RP after the very challenged Chidda Bang departed (seems he was Banned even, I missed that!!).

tazzer96 if you do a search on the profile for Chidda Bang, you will see why The Vinelander disagreed with your statement as Chidda wins that hands down. He was a 'case' and has probably found a job writing (fantasy) Timetables somewhere.
  YM-Mundrabilla Minister for Railways

Location: Mundrabilla but I'd rather be in Narvik
And it was broad gauge but unfortunately is now standard gauge as a tram line. This is the only form of BG to SG conversion that I would not support!Sad
a least it hasn't been built over most of the way, imagine all the skyscrapers and apartments that would have gone up around Albert park and Sandbridge! no idea why its a tram now
Dangersdan707
It's a tram now so that they could sell all the railway land at Port Melbourne and Montague to developers.
  Bogong Chief Commissioner

Location: Essendon Aerodrome circa 1980
"... He... has probably found a job writing (fantasy) Timetables somewhere. "

So you're saying that he's now a senior advisor to the transport minister? Shocked
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

No the first railway was in Newcastle in 1831. It was built by the Australian agricultural company and was a gravitational railway. It was standard gauge.
  mikesyd Chief Commissioner

Location: Lurking
No the first railway was in Newcastle in 1831. It was built by the Australian agricultural company and was a gravitational railway. It was standard gauge.
simstrain
The Federal Government disagrees.

https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/history.aspx

Yes, various wagons ran on a pair of rails (some made of timber even) prior to 1854, with various means of power (Gravity, Human, Beast), but the first 'real' railway (an Iron Horse that belched smoke and steam whilst towing wagons) was the 1854 line to Sandridge.


Anyway, perhaps we should get back to the Topic, which is Victoria and conversions to SG.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

Blogger, I suspect Simstrain is referring to some obscure and largely forgotten horse powered tramway in the back blocks of nowhere.

But yes the first proper railway was to Port Melbourne AND it was sensibly built to the vastly superior 1600 mm broad gauge. Razz
Bogong

It wasn't a horse powered tramway, it was a gravitational railway using iron fishbed track and wagons to move coal and lots of it to port. http://www.arhsnsw.com.au/docsrrc/rrcdload01.pdf
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

Essentially the gauge difference problem is due to the dithering and intransigence of the NSW Government of the time and its incompetent Engineers-in-Chief.

A quote about SG from the 1905 paper linked above:
"Some people seem to think there is some magical charm, some peculiar virtue in this particular dimension to account for its prevalence and success. I cannot agree with them. I regard it as a mere accident, which, once established and being found tolerably satisfactory, spread and occupied the field, compelling other gauges of later date to give way to it, the evils of break of gauge being found far greater than the benefits of the few extra inches that gauge reformers in numerous cases added."

As Australia (or the 3 colonies as it was at the time) was starting with a clean sheet it didn't matter much which gauge was standardised on.

(The gauge of the Newcastle railway is unknown, only posited to be standard gauge. It would be very difficult to find a description of the locomotives used on the railway. Still I believe there is a plaque at Sydney's Central Station claiming to be the location of Australia's first railway, so who are we to argue?)

This discussion is mostly for historical interest although I think there is a case for a greater Federal contribution to SG-conversion projects in SA & Vic.
  simstrain Chief Commissioner

No the first railway was in Newcastle in 1831. It was built by the Australian agricultural company and was a gravitational railway. It was standard gauge.
The Federal Government disagrees.

https://infrastructure.gov.au/rail/trains/history.aspx

Yes, various wagons ran on a pair of rails (some made of timber even) prior to 1854, with various means of power (Gravity, Human, Beast), but the first 'real' railway (an Iron Horse that belched smoke and steam whilst towing wagons) was the 1854 line to Sandridge.


Anyway, perhaps we should get back to the Topic, which is Victoria and conversions to SG.
mikesyd

The topic is that SG is evil and that Victoria shouldn't change to SG and that NSW should have converted to BG instead. My counterpoint is that I'm glad NSW is SG and not BG and the A pit coal railway in Newcastle was the first railway in Australia and that it used railway built to standard gauge 20+ years before Melbourne's first railway.

When it comes to rail what does the federal government know. That document doesn't even seem to know that such a historical railway even existed and isn't even mentioned. Until recently we thought it was just a wooden tramway but with recent discoveries it was in fact found that it was a gravitational iron standard gauge railway that moved coal to port in wagons.

I have bit my tongue long enough about this SG bashing troll and am fighting back as a proud New South Welshman that SG is the future and that Victoria had better get with the SG program and get used to it.
  kitchgp Chief Commissioner

My counterpoint is that I'm glad NSW is SG and not BG and the A pit coal railway in Newcastle was the first railway in Australia and that it used railway built to standard gauge 20+ years before Melbourne's first railway.
simstrain

To quote from the paper you quoted:
"Nothing has yet been said in this paper about the gauge of the iron railways, as there has been no direct statement found in the AACo’s research archives so far."

Sponsored advertisement

Display from:   

Quick Reply

We've disabled Quick Reply for this thread as it was last updated more than six months ago.