Talk:List of track gauges/Archive 1

Lithuanian railways
In the list about different gauges it's stated that Lithuania and Russia have the same. The situation is clearly more complex for Lithuania as can be seen on this page: http://www.litrail.lt/wwwEN.nsf --Smallchanges 20:25, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Gauges Names/Defined.
I think that the gauges that have a name should have that name added to the list

I also think that it should be mentioned in what messaurement system the gauge was defined (and how) (and why "misstakes").

I also think that gauges that only differ since they changed the nominal messaurement to reflect closer tolerances shold be trown together.

Seniorsag 13:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Estrada de Ferro Oeste de Minas in Minas Gerais
From 760 mm to 762 mm. please see: User talk:Peter Horn

(Copy and paste)Hi Peter

Do you have any evidence the gauge is 760mm? The only source I have says 2'6". I'd be surprised if it was built to 760mm, as most lines of this "gauge family" outside Europe that were not 2'6" were built to 750mm, following German practice. 760mm was an Austrian aberration, and the Austrians (or Serbs for that matter) did not have a lot of influence in these matters outside Europe. Cheers --Michael Johnson 14:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've reverted. Waters is quite firm on the question of gauge. As he is a noted rail historian, has visited the railway numerous times, and has researched original Brazilian documentation on the line, I think it unlikely he would make such a fundamental mistake. Besides, this line predates the Austrian 760mm lines. I will check up a couple of mags with locomotive drawings in them, though. Cheers --Michael Johnson 14:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

and User talk:Michael Johnson

Hello Michael,

I wondered about that myself. My error came from List of Rail Gauges which I assumed to be correct. The trick is now to track down the original source of that error. Railroad Gauge Width does not mention the EFOM. My 1969/1970 edition of JANE'S only mentions a Viaçao Ferrea Centro-Oeste (VFCO) (Comprising former EFBM, EFG, and RMV) as having both and  gauges. So I'll take your word for it and proceed to correct the list of rail gauges.

Ciao, Peter Horn 15:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Correction, correction: Railroad Gauge Width does mention under Brazil. Peter Horn 15:38, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Copy and paste. Peter Horn 16:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Sarajevo (Bosnia and Herzegovina)
The metric value doesn't match the imperial one. Is it wider or narrower than Brunel's broad gauge? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.169.17.178 (talk) 10:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

The only references to gauges used to Sarajevo are a 760mm gauge and 'standard gauge'. I have removed the table entry until someone can find a citation. Brian R Hunter (talk) 16:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Southern Fuegian Railway
Is the track gauge 600 mm or 500 mm?? Peter Horn 01:20, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Italy and NG
I noted many lineas are missing. Most italian olines are standard gauge, the italian narrow gauge of 950 mm (1m between centre of rail in origin, as standard was 1,5 m giving the 1445). But there are many with other gauges: 1000 mm: Trento-Marilleva, Genova-Casella, Trieste Tramway line 2 (and, closed in the sixties, genova and cagliari tramway systems, Pracchia-Mammiano (closed 1967), Calalzo-Dobbiaco (closed 1964), Spoleto-Norcia (closed 1964), Rimini-S.Marino (closed 1944),Val di Fiemme (closed 196x),Bolzano lines (surviving only the Rittnerbahn section) 1200 mm: Genova-Rivarolo (rack, with funicular like flanges) 914: from 1914 to closure in 1921 S.Ellero-Vallombrosa (rack) 800: Aosta Pila (currently waiting for a reopening) 760: (called Bosniac Gauge): Chiusa-Plans, Asiago lines 151.16.221.181 (talk) 20:13, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

one big table to allow sorting?
should this be one big table to allow sorting? and one row for each pair of gauge and country? TrackConnect (talk) 09:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Software error and headlines
I didnt touch the headlines, but the old before Wongm edit came back. The map Wongm removed came not back. Confusing. As if there was an error in the software. Also it looked as if I deleted some Spain/FEVE content, but I didnt touch that neither. The Argentina content I deleted on purpose, to fix a former wrong insert by myself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_rail_gauges&diff=226758923&oldid=226752208

Headlines: Anyway, if they are changed we _might_ have to care for broken references. But I wouldnt worry to much about that. There is no "what links here" for sections, I assume, so it is hard to control anyway.

TrackConnect (talk) 05:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

6 foot gauge
"Erie Railroad until 22 June 1880" -- That's not completely true, the Official Guide of June 1881 still lists the Erie RR under "6 ft., and 4 ft. 8½ in.", and some other railroads related/connected to the Erie were still completely 6 ft. (like the Sterling Mountain Railway in Sterlington, NY, that was, afaics, the last 6' railroad in North America (converted some time after 1890, probably mid-1890s), still listed as "6-0" in the June 1893 Official Guide, but the timetable there is from Oct. 1890.) I don't have further sources when the last 6ft track of the Erie RR was abandoned, maybe someone has them. BR, --Thogo (Talk) 15:02, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Egyptian narrow gauge
Weren't there were some Emetty narrow gauge lines in Egypt (in the north of the Delta) and narrow gauge trams in Cairo, possibly up to the mid 1970s?--SilasW (talk) 15:03, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Tolerances
Some of the listed gauges have very slight differences, one wonders if they should all be classed as separate. This official report on a recent British derailment on page 35 has

"Track gauge and alignment

111: NR/SP/TRK/001 specifies a standard gauge of 1435 mm with maximum gauge limit at 1446 mm and minimum at 1424 mm." The 22 mm (~7/8") range suggests there often is not a tight adherence to the nominal value.--SilasW (talk) 20:31, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Uncommon or obsolete?
This article currently seems to state that all gauges of less than metre gauge are either uncommon or obsolete. I'd say that that is not the case. 3' and 2' gauge are certainly not uncommon, or obsolete. Possibly the same could be said of 2' 6" gauge. Mjroots (talk) 14:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Lack of sources
This article does give many sources. Can its measurements for the Ffestiniog railway be reconciled with what a report by the RAIB into a derailment on 3 May 2008 says "The railway has a track gauge of 23½ inches (597 mm)"? See earlier talk sections about exactness (track gauge has "rude mechanicals'" tolerances) and overstated precision.


 * 23½" is the same as 1' 11½". Britains tend to say feet and inches, while Americans tend to say inches. Quibling, but the Ffestiniog Railway is spelled Festiniog.


 * If you go through old newspapers, gauges are sometimes quoted incorrectly, say 7' 6" instead of the true GWR gauge of 7' 0". Also, the press tends not to mention the extra quarter inch in the Great Western Gauge, namely 7' 0.25".


 * Other gauges are also often quoted to the nearest inch, say 5' 6" for the Iberian 5' 5.5", since such roundings are not really important.

Tabletop (talk) 02:37, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

South Africa
The Gauteng line in South Africa is 4' 8.5".

Surely no high speed line in South Africa is 5' 6".

Tabletop (talk) 04:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

5 Swedish feet
5 Swedish feet = 1435mm? 121.102.47.215 (talk) 05:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No. Five Swedish feet = 1485 mm. -- Picapica (talk) 12:25, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Never used gauges
Victoria, in Australia, debated the use of 2' 9" gauge to replace 5' 3". There appears to be an inconsistency for three Swedish gauges.

Queensland, in Australia, also debated the use of cheaper 2' 9" gauge to replace 3' 6".

New South Wales, in Australia, debated the use of a gauge "less than 3' " to replace 4' 8.5" past Goulburn, Bathurst and Murrurundi, also to save money.

Tabletop (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

Gauge names
The name of the gauges depends a bit on what other gauges are there.

On the western front in WWII, the gauge lines were called "broad gauge" as compared to the  gauge lines which were called "narrow gauge". Tabletop (talk) 12:23, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

called "broad gauge", called "narrow gauge". 58.138.55.55 (talk) 13:39, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Metric v. "Imperial"
All the gauges are listed in metric and imperial units but most gauges are defined in just one of those systems. Some may be doubly defined e.g Standard Gauge where 4'8½" differs from 1435mm by an utterly insignificant one tenth of a millimetre. So shouldn't the list indicate which is the defining measurement for each gauge?.

Imperial measuring is done in feet and inches plus either multiples of 1/64th of an inch or decimal parts of an inch (but the list shows nothing as fine as eighths on a US or UK railway). To give metric gauges imperially with such eccentric fractions of an inch as 23/40, 2/3, and 5/6 gives no credence to the article. Where the gauge is metric the inches of the imperial equivalent should be given in decimals, one place (=2.5mm) should do but two places, possibly with that 2nd place as either 0 or 5, should satify any real railway engineer.

This is in en.WP so why are all decimal points ,s no .s?

One would have thought that the frequent editing of the article would have arranged for the Standard Gauge subheading not to have a line through it.--SilasW (talk) 20:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * The first Spanish gauges were defined in Castilian feet. Broad gauge ("normal") was six feet, and the first "narrow" line (Langreo) was five feet two inches. This happened to be 1,441 mm... close enough to "standard" that they might use British and American rolling stock.--Grijalvo (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Do you have a reference for the (Castilian) five feet two inches? I would agree that 1441 mm is close enough to  for interoperability, but I also note that one reference to Iberian gauge lists some early Portuguese standard gauge track as (1,44 metros).  I now wonder if this was just an approximation to the nearest centimetre or if was closer to the Langreo gauge. Tim PF (talk) 11:29, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

A mistake, maybe?
Maybe the listings of Brunel's gauge have some misplaced countries? Never heard of 7' 1/4" lines in those parts.--Grijalvo (talk) 03:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)


 * You mean the Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Afghanistan entries? Yes, that seems odd... Maybe there was a plan for a road with that gauge that never materialized? --Thogo (Talk) 11:15, 16 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I cannot find any reference to them using that gauge, so I've removed them from the table, although "also 2140" occurs elsewhere still. Tim PF (talk) 11:39, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

Magnus Volk's Brighton and Rottingdean Seashore Electric Railway
Is this a gauge at all or instead two parallel tracks, each of narrow gauge? The specific article has a link which states: "the line had two separate 2ft 8½" gauge tracks with their respective outer rails 18ft apart". --Wikiain (talk) 23:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at this image it appears that each vehicle uses both those sets of tracks, so it's reasonable to talk in terms of a much larger gauge. Could anybody seriously call that a narrow gauge vehicle? :-) bobrayner (talk) 13:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

List of rail gauges → List of track gauges – Per Talk:Track_gauge. HTML2011 (talk) 22:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Oppose – I see about 11 separate but related move discussions. They should all be cancelled, and one multiple-move discussion should be started.  Dicklyon (talk) 01:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed at Talk:Track gauge and was approved. HTML2011 (talk) 12:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * That discussion concerned the specific article Rail gauge, and has no direct effect on anything else. See also various threads in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2011, 1. -- Red rose64 (talk) 15:59, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Support With the exception of Australia, "track gauge" is the most common term. Per WP:COMMONNAME the article should indeed be renamed to List of track gauges. Alpha_Quadrant    (talk)  01:44, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Double articles?
Which are the difference between List of track gauges by size (which is of course sorted by size) and List of track gauges (which is sorted by size too)?--79.17.150.185 (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * List of track gauges by size has less content, virtually no sourcing, and has a couple of other awkward little problems; I think it should be redirected to List of track gauges which is in a better state. bobrayner (talk) 03:00, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Medium gauge
It would be good to have an article at medium gauge or medium gauge railway. For the moment I have redirected both to List of track gauges, which contains a good (if unsourced) summary. Andrewa (talk) 19:55, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
 * What would be the medium gauges? Anything between 1,432 mm and 914 mm? Peter Horn User talk 05:31, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * "Medium gauge" is not a phrase I am familiar with, do we have sources available? —Sladen (talk) 07:17, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * It's not familiar to me either, I only ran across the term in this article, see below. As noted above, this was unsourced, and I see it has now been removed. But a quick google showed the term to be in fairly common use  . Andrewa (talk) 09:34, 21 October 2013 (UTC)


 * See https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_track_gauges&oldid=533313931#Medium_gauge for what seems a possible definition. But see also Category talk:Narrow gauge railways by track gauge. Andrewa (talk) 09:37, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There isn't a single proper definition for medium gauge. See: Narrow gauge railway. The term medium gauge can apply to narrow, standard and even broad gauge depending on geographical and historical circumstances. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 16:49, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Then we should say that somewhere, citing appropriate sources and trying to avoid WP:OR. Andrewa (talk) 12:48, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * There is already a properly sourced explanation of the term medium gauge: Narrow gauge railway. Maybe it should be moved to the track gauge article.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

What track gauge?
In List of track gauges the track gauge of Carmelit is given as 1,980 mm and in the article itself as 1,435 mm, see Talk:Carmelit. Peter Horn User talk 05:26, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
 * The German wiki mentions 1,981 mm, 6 foot 6 inch, no other source found for this particular gauge.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Sort order
Is there a reason for the sort order of this article, which sorts descending size of gauge within ascending size of gauge group. So at break of group, we end up with 89mm gauge sorted next to 1432mm gauge, 508mm gauge next to 1435mm gauge, and 1435mm gauge next to 9000mm gauge, which is far from intuitive.

There seem to be two sensible choices


 * 1) Reordering the gauges within each group to be listed in ascending size order.
 * 2) Reordering the gauge groups in descending size order

I'd suggest the first, in order to be consistent with the sidebar template. Thoughts?. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 11:12, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Agree it is not looking good now. I support putting them in ascending order over all. -DePiep (talk) 14:57, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ ascending. -DePiep (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Gauge check
Checking gauges listed. They should correspond with the RailGauge/doc/input options list. -DePiep (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Below-narrow gauges

 * The 340 mm gauge is sourced already. -DePiep (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Check narrow
Below are the ten gauges that currently are not known in the RailGauge data list. We need sources and definitions. I've added row id's A–J for reference. -DePiep (talk) 23:30, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added references for all narrow track gauges above.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:58, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * That's these then (great). I'll process the new facts. -DePiep (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Check standard gauge

 * Not here.

Check broad

 * List_of_track_gauges

Rows labeled P–U


 * -DePiep (talk) 02:20, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * P: Reference with track gauge already present
 * Q: Reference added
 * R: Reference added
 * S: Offline reference already present: Jones, Robin. Britain's Weirdest Railways. Horncastle: Morton's Media Ltd. p. 13.
 * T: Reference added (source indicates metric definition, category needs adjustment)
 * U: Reference added
 * --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 20:03, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Some details:
 * "655 mm" has a source that looks like being a de:wiki copy. That would be a circular wiki-self-source. A better link available?
 * "946 mm" has a source link, but it is not actually mentioned in the source.
 * "3,300 mm" was added 18 February, 2012. The editsummary says "10 ft 11 in", and quite convincingly this is in imperial units for being Colville/Scotland/that era. From this definition, I convert the mm size into being 131 in. Will add to RG/sandbox.
 * More on Template talk:RailGauge. -DePiep (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
 * "655 mm": another source:  655mm is mentioned for an unnamed mine railway in Westphalia. (The Harkorter Kohlenbahn was actually located in Westphalia)
 * "946 mm": another source:
 * --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 09:46, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

763 mm
About this edit by, the Curaçao horse-drawn tram. Track gauge "763 mm" is unknown so far, and no source has been added. Please add a source for this gauge definition. Or, could it be this is a "30 inch" gauge, which corresponds with ? -DePiep (talk) 13:18, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * mentions "30 inch" for the phosphate mine on the island. When no source appears that the horse tram was defined (or ordered) to be "763 mm", I think we better stick to this one. -DePiep (talk) 14:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The Dutch article has as source an article from "Op the Rails", an NVBS railhobby publication. This is an secondary source, but there are several other English sources. Maybe usefull to check on them. The very small difference could result from the later actual measurement of the gauge or a rounding difference when taking over the imperial specifications.Smiley.toerist (talk) 10:17, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * ... or the 1 mm difference has risen from an early/old conversion mistake inch to mm. Even if the source(s) you mention would name this "763 mm", we must assume it is from 30 inch. Especially since the local phosphorus mine has 30 inch gauge. (it the source undisputedly says "763 mm", we can apply the 914/915 mm thing., see its category, & that German city (Magdeburg?). -DePiep (talk) 11:12, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * It was the city of Chemnitz, yes. As far as I know there are no primary sources left for a gauge definition of 915mm. It appears in all books about the street railway, but I have yet to see an official document. The company who built the horse tram was British, but it might be that the city administration wanted a definition in millimeters, and they just rounded it up instead of down (3ft are exactly 914.4 mm). However, I don't have any (copy of an) official document saying so. The gauge was later re-defined as 925mm, anyway. (For that, there are many primary sources.) --Thogo 13:04, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. See Trams in Chemnitz and Category:Articles that mention track gauge 914 mm. We have stated here that the gauge was defined to be 3ft/914mm, but it was named 915 mm. Track gauge does have this separate 915 mm entry option for this. For this Curacao tram we can do the same, but only if that misnomer "763 mm" is in the best source available. Without such source, we state it is 30 inch (762 mm). -DePiep (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
 * In the German WP, we have changed it from 915 to 914 a while ago, got rid of the 915mm category (with that single entry) and only stated that 3ft are "nearly 915mm". Until someone comes up with a primary source where the gauge was defined as 915mm, we wanted to stick to the plain 3ft gauge definition. --Thogo 21:18, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of track gauges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070430033344/http://members.shaw.ca:80/twofooter/ww2ftrr.htm to http://members.shaw.ca/twofooter/ww2ftrr.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 23:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 22:17, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Langreo
The gauge was 5' 2", but in Spanish measures (pie de Burgos, actually). It came to 1,440 mm and was chosen to be as near to the Stephenson gauge as allowed by the legal measure units. Spain went metric many years after the first railways, and everything was reckoned in feet, leagues, etc. Please amend this, and the Imperial equivalent. Grijalvo (talk) 17:10, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Standard Gauge (Rail gauge)
Hi Peter,

It is beginning to look like the statements that was a de facto standard prior to the Liverpool and Manchester Railway are unsupported statements. Baxter (1966: P 56) states that there was no standard gauge for horse railways, but there were rough groupings. In the north of England none were less than 4ft. Wylam, built before 1763, was 5ft 0in; as was John Blenkinsop's Middleton Railway - the wikipedia article says 4ft 1in, and Baxter (1966: P 56) says the old 4ft plateway was relaid to 5ft so that Blenkinsop's engine could be used.

Baxter (1966: P 56): Others were 4ft 4in Beamish or 4ft 7.5in (Bigges Main and Kenton and Coxlodge). Stephenson favoured 4ft 8in for waggonways in Northumberland and Durham and used it on his Killingworth line. The Hetton and Springwell waggonways also used the gauge. Stephenson's Stockton and Darlington railway was built to 4ft 8in and used it for fifteen years before being changed to.

Whishaw (1842): The Chester and Birkenhead railway, authorised on 12 July 1837, was 4ft 9in (page 54); The Eastern Counties Railway, authorised on 4 July 1836, was 5ft 0in (page 91); London and Blackwall Railway, authorised on 28 July 1836, was 5ft 0in (page 260); The London and Brighton Railway, authorised on 15 July 1837, was 4ft 9in (page 273); The Manchester and Birmingham Railway, authorised on 30 June 1837, was 4ft 9in (page 303); The Manchester and Leeds Railway, authorised on 4 July 1836, was 4ft 9in (page 319); the Northern and Eastern Railway,authorised on 4 July 1836, was 5ft 0in (page 363). The 4ft 9in railways were intended to take gauge vehicles and allow a running tolerance. The rest of the railways in England, excluding the Great Western Railway were gauge. I've not included Scotland, Wales or Ireland.

From this the so called standard gauge could be regarded as 4ft 8in to 5ft 0ft.


 * Baxter, Bertam (1966). (The Industrial Archaeology of the British Isles. Stone Blocks and Iron Rails (Tramroads) Newton Abbott: David & Charles.

Pyrotec 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Whishaw, Francis (1842). The Railways of Great Britain and Ireland: Practically Described and Illustrated. Newton Abbott: David & Charles Reprints. (published 1969) ISBN 0-7153-4786-1.

Copy and paste from User talk:Peter Horn Peter Horn 16:07, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Here is another discussion on 4 ft $1 1/4$ in. Peter Horn User talk 21:28, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of track gauges. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061205185702/http://jwr.janes.com/public/jwr/index.shtml to http://jwr.janes.com/public/jwr/index.shtml
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822032507/http://members.shaw.ca/twofooter/ww2ftrr.htm to http://members.shaw.ca/twofooter/ww2ftrr.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:42, 23 May 2017 (UTC)