Talk:Minimum-gauge railway

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

conversions[edit]

In Minimum gauge railway: 18 in (457 mm) and in Minimum gauge railway#List of Minimum Gauge Railways 450 mm (17.72 in) or 450 mm (1 ft 5.72 in) as opposed to 457 mm (18 in) or 457 mm (1 ft 6 in). The template:RailGauge needs to be readjusted. Peter Horn User talk 02:45, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hesston 14inch gauge not in template[edit]

The 14inch gauge of Hesston Museum shwos an error. Its gauge is not included in the railgauge template. I can't add it as I have not permission. Can anyone of you add this gauge? Thank you.
--Peter Walt A. (talk) 17:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is the required conversion? Keith D (talk) 18:07, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
14 inch (356 mm) - Do you mean this with the term conversion? --Peter Walt A. (talk) 12:50, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is exactly what I required - I have added the entry to the template so should be available now.Keith D (talk) 19:29, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusions[edit]

Why does this article, per recent changes (Tobias Conradi again?), now exclude 15 inch gauge rails, including the most significant of the lot, the Eaton Hall, but it includes 20 inch gauge railways that were outside Heywood's "Minimum" definition. Can someone please revert this neatly, I'm out of time to do it myself. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What is exactly a minimum gauge Railway?[edit]

I already boldly lowered the maximum of the minimum gauge "definition" in order to exclude the Ffestiniog railway and Welsh Highland Railway from the minimum gauge railways.

I do not possess the original book written by Arthur Heywood, but I am quite convinced that his writings only concerned his 15 inch gauge railway (and its 10 1⁄4 in (260 mm) predecessor which proved to be too small for normal operations).

So in conclusion I propose to:

--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 15:36, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to matters of "track gauge"(sic), WP doesn't follow its stated policy of RS, but is instead controlled by WP:OWNership and sock-puppeting trolls like Tobias Conradi. So although Heywood invented the term "Minimum Gauge Railway", his definition is thoroughly abused and generally ignored, in favour of common knowledge from one or two editors.
Heywood was working ten years after the development of narrow gauge railways, firstly with the moderate-distance two foot(sic) gauge Ffestiniog and also the three foot of the Isle of Man. 18 inch railways were also well established for short distances in works, shipyards and factories. His goal was clear: "narrow gauge" railways already existed and were of no interest to him. His goal was to find the minimum gauge that was workable for a people-carrying estate railway. His cut-off defined a minimum, but not a maximum. Obviously cost (and utility) increased with gauge, so Heywood's target was how small he could make a railway, not how big. If someone had the budget to build a 2' line, they were simply outside Heywood's remit. They could build a 2' line, everyone already knew that it would be workable.
Heywood's questions were whether a stable, roofed, carriage could be built for even smaller gauges and whether a locomotive with the power to haul a useful load could too. Smaller gauges already existed, both as human-hauled tramways (underground trams were of very small gauge) and as miniature railways as toys for rich men playing engine driver. These could not carry on the work of an estate railway.
An estate railway in Heywood's terms was between that of a factory railway and a passenger-carrying railway. It ran for distances of a mile or two, over poorly graded track. Stability was important, speed or comfort were not. There was no need to rise from a carriage seat, or journey time that would require this, but a journey would be long enough to rely on a locomotive's continuous rating, not an intermittent rating.
Heywood's conclusions were that 15" and 18" were practical minimum gauges that were smaller than existing narrow gauge practice and yet could also carry on useful work. Smaller gauges could not: 10¼", 12", 7¼" were either unstable with a passenger carriage or couldn't provide adequate boiler capacity for a useful locomotive. Even for 15" gauge, Heywood considered that the limitations of the 18" factory railways would only be overcome by careful design: multi-axle side tank engines with articulated axles (despite the several complexities all of this introduced). The four-coupled short-wheelbase saddle tanks in use at 18" gauge were of no use to Heywood as although they had the power and adhesion to move a load, they lacked stability and evaporation capacity (heavy loads were moved by cycling the boiler pressure. A simplification was his use of launch boilers rather than locomotive boilers. A complexity he did support was the use of bogie carriages with bogies beyond the carriage ends, or even Jakobs bogies, to lower the centre of gravity and improve stability.
So overall, it's 15", 18", 400mm and 500mm that fall under minimum gauge. 600mm, 2' and upwards already existed as narrow gauge and so were not Heywood's invention, even though Decauville embraced exactly his concept in the years following, as did Hunslet's quarry locomotives (which remained distinct in design from Hunslet's similar-gauged locomotives for longer distances). Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, you gave a very clear discription in your reply of which I summerize the following characteristics of medium gauge:
15 to 18 gauge, estate railways with distances of a mile or two, no need to rise from a carriage seat.
I propose to stick to the 15 to 18 inch gauge range falling under the minimum gauge definition.
Two thoughts on this (given the fact that you included the 500mm gauge):
* In my opinion, the 500mm gauge does not meet the summerized characteristics above for two observations: The 500mm Southern Fuegian Railway is a passenger carrying railway with dining services, the following photographs indicate that the first class carriages are Open coaches with the ability sto stand upright: [[1]] Definitely not meeting Heywoods original views. The same more or less applies to the 500mm gauge Chemin de Fer Touristique du Tarn : [[2]]
* The Great Laxey Mine Railway, although 19 in (outside the original definition) appears minimum gauge to me, considering this photo: [[3]]. But still outside the original, and you already mentioned that Heywood wanted an even smaller gauge than the Laxey railway.
In conclusion, in respect to Arthur Heywoods visions, and to anticipate future discussions on this matter, I propose to limit the minimum gauge definition to 15 - 18 inch railways.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An exception of using a particular gauge for a more substantial railway doesn't really invalidate Heywood, any more than the 10 miles of the Ratty or the RH&DR mean that 15" are now "main line"s. The train del fin del mundo was a Decauville line of second-hand parts and as no-one riding it was there from choice, they put up with what they had.
The Laxey is largely the same tech as the 18" Crewe or Horwich works systems: tiny locos with no range. These are less capable than Heywood's designs, even if slightly wider. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:18, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This morning I found a good example of a 500mm minimum gauge railway and translated it from the French wiki, the Jardin d'Acclimatation railway. So the range IS 15 inch to 500mm. Agreed? --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 11:33, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Surely it is not wrong? 10.25 inch was the original gauge applied under this label - and it is basically ignored despite the fact that the Wells and Walsingham operate a public railway using this gauge. Neith-Nabu (talk) 16:31, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
* The Wells and Walsingham is an interesting example, because they do seem to be meeting Heywood's criteria, and yet doing it with just 10+1⁄4 in. I'd be interested to compare the passenger coach sizes to something like the R&ER. It's notable that they operate locos by either using IC engines (which weren't available to Heywood) or by using Garratts, which also post-dated Heywood's main work (and post-dated petrol locos).
I'd support including it, but that would have to be carefully written to highlight that Heywood saw the gauge as too small, also that Francis' railways are unique in achieving this with 10+1⁄4 in, and noting how he had to do so. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:45, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad my thoughts made sense. I'll be interested to see how it fits into the picture. I may be able to measure some of the stock at some point this Autumn if that helps (bearing in mind that that would be primary research). One loco on the line is a standard steam loco, but it does find the run challenging and is restricted in its use. However, the gradients on the route are harsh enough that a lot of standard gauge locos would struggle! Neith-Nabu (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

14 in (356 mm) construction railway[edit]

Recently, the 14 in (356 mm) gauge template was added. This gauge was used for the construction railway of the 2 ft (610 mm) Chicago Tunnel Company#Construction and is below the definition of minimum gauge railways as provided by Sir Arthur Heywood. Definitely not a ridable miniature railway, but can it be added to the Minimum gauge railway article? And if not, anny suggestions where to place this gauge? (same question applies for the List of track gauges) --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:26, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To make this matter more complicated: I just learned from further up on this talk page, Hesston Steam Museum has a 14 in (356 mm) ridable miniature railway --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 18:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

As understand it Wikipedia is concerned with recording fact not speculation particularly not inventing definitions. Let us be quite clear - the term Minimum Gauge Railway was coined by Sir Arthur Heywood to emphasise his belief that 15inch was the minumum practical for a working railway and particularly to distinguish it from the 18 and 24 inch railways that were usual at that time. 2.31.0.79 (talk) 09:33, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fairbourne Railway[edit]

Note that the Fairbourne reasonably may or may not be counted as a minimum gauge or a miniature, depending on the date. For many years it was 15" (ie minimum) although it has now shrunk to 12¼", since the mid '80s. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:51, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Narrow gauge railway[edit]

After reading all that, I still cannot understand the difference with Narrow gauge railway.--Io Herodotus (talk) 21:24, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good quest. -DePiep (talk) 21:35, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No answer? In that case those two articles should be merged.--Io Herodotus (talk) 11:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the two of us don't see the difference. That is not enough to declare them being the same. As I read them, at least their history is different: 'narrow gauge' originates in UK, and refers to sizes < s.g. (or even, in special places & eras: < Brunel 7ft gauge). There seems to be a lower limit of ~500mm. OTOH, 'minimum gauge' originates in France, from the Decauville factories & system. These have an upper limit of say 800mm, and unrelating to s.g. From this, I don't think a 400 mm gauge can be classified under 'narrow', and 1100 mm can be classified as 'minimum'. -DePiep (talk) 13:21, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Narrow gauge is a definition (roughly anything less than standard gauge) and Minimum gauge is a concept, coined and constructed by the British Heywood in 1874. Simultaneously, the French Decauville pursued the same concept and started production of his railway in equipment 1875. (The concept is actually the least possible gauge still practical for estate and agricultural use).
In conclusion, I will oppose a merge proposal. However, should a concept / principle be used as a definition on Wikipedia? In particular when Minimum gauge is only confined to 15" as purists state (omitting the 19mm broader very similar Decauville system) and its definition and usage overlaps with the smaller narrow gauge gauges and the ridable miniature railways.--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just read Heywood's book:

Conclusions:

  • Heywood didn't restrict his definition to only 15", giving credits to Decauville arriving at nearly similar conclusions adopting a minumum gauge of 16", chapter IX implies that minimum gauge was conceived at a bandwith of 15" to 24" (2ft)
  • Having an overlap with narrow gauge, the main distinctions are
    • Being different from narrow gauge in a sense that narrow gauge imitates rolling stock and roads of standard gauge.
    • That minimum gauge stock is as simple, cheap, and efficient as possible
    • That minimum gauge has a smaller minimum curve radius than NG
  • Minimum gauge is a concept, not an actual gauge definition

II. OBJECTS OF THE 15 IN. GAUGE.

What is the smallest and therefore the cheapest railway capable of being practically and advantageously worked? This is the question to which I venture to think I can give a reliable answer.

In the year 1874, after various preliminary trials, I determined to construct a line of 15 in. gauge, as the smallest width possessing the necessary stability for practical use, although I once laid down one of 9 in. gauge for my younger brothers, which proved by no means deficient in carrying power.

The stability of this 9 in. line was perfect enough so long as persons did not attempt to ride on the ends and edges of the carriages and wagons, but man being an article of approximately standard size, it is clear there must be a minimum gauge which will be stable enough to be independent of such liberties.

Rolling stock properly proportioned to a 15 in. gauge seems the smallest that will thoroughly insure safety in this respect, and indeed in France the late M. Décauville, who did so much to develop lines of this class, arrived at nearly similar conclusions in adopting a minimum width of 16 in.

It must not, of course, be understood that gauges of such small proportions are to be advocated except where the traffic is unlikely to increase beyond their capacity, and where the material to be moved can conveniently be loaded in moderate sized wagons.

Feeling, however, convinced of the eventual recognition of the utility of lines of minimum gauge, I took some pains to become acquainted with what had been already achieved in this direction, with the result that, excepting only the Festiniog railway, where every detail was most ably worked out by the late Mr. Spooner, I found generally both road and rolling-stock constructed as mere imitations of those of the standard gauge, and showing a want of apprehension of the totally different conditions to be satisfied. To endeavour to solve the various problems involved in the successful design of engines, carriages, wagons, and roadway for a minimum gauge is, therefore, the main object of my little railway. The chief ends in view are the application of such lines to agricultural or commercial purposes on large estates, or where quarries, brick yards, and other industrial establishments need better connection with the pier or railway station from which their productions are forwarded.

VI. WAGONS AND CARS

The aim throughout has been to make the details of all the rolling-stock as simple, cheap, and efficient as possible, which has been principally achieved by adopting designs and modes of construction largely at variance with commonly accepted notions. The totally different conditions under which minimum-gauge lines work, as compared with ordinary railways, renders this possible without any sacrifice of safety or durability.

IX. REMARKS ON NARROW GAUGE RAILWAYS.

Up to this point I have merely detailed the particulars of the construction of my experimental railway and of the line at Eaton, giving at the same time the reasons that have led me to adopt certain methods and designs. I now propose, in conclusion, to offer a few remarks upon the application, in this country and abroad, of small railways of 2 ft. gauge and under to do work at present done by means of horses and carts.

That there are many openings for lines of 2 ft. gauge and under, is beyond dispute. But while, already, this mode of transport is largely made use of abroad and in our colonies, a deeply rooted prejudice has hitherto prevented it from gaining a footing in England and Scotland. --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Circular categorisation[edit]

I discovered a circular categorisation and broke it [4]. Minimum-gauge railway is in Category:Sir Arthur Heywood with eponymous article Sir Arthur Heywood itself being a member of Category:Minimum gauge railways. However, without any explanation or resolving it was reverted [5] by Andy Dingley. I propose to break the circle, as no opposing argument has been brought forward. -DePiep (talk) 12:00, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pelion line[edit]

The Pelion line has to be added among the others. 600 mm gauge, at mountain Pelion, Thessaly, Greece, the narrowest public transport railroad of the world, build by the father of the famous painter de Quirico, now in use a part of the initially built railroad. Anjius (talk) 15:45, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

600mm is generally considered as narrow gauge. 450mm is about the limit for minimum gauge. The reason is that narrow gauge 600mm existed before Heywood developed the idea of minimum gauge, which is defined as being the combination of both useful for 'estate' work, and also being smaller than narrow gauge. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:08, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Feldbahn-Museum 500"[edit]

There's a collection of 500 mm stuff near Nuremberg. I haven't seen it, and don't know if it qualifies as an "installation" for this article. Could be mentioned somehow though.
http://www.feldbahn500.de/
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feldbahn-Museum_500
--BjKa (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OTOH after reading through (and doing some cleaning-up on) most of the past comments, I get the impression that this whole "minimum gauge" thing is something thoroughly British, hinging solely on the writings of Sir Arthur. I'll certainly want to stay out of this in the future, and stick to "narrow gauge", as it is used in all other cultures. --BjKa (talk) 10:40, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

20 in (508 mm)[edit]

See Template talk:Track gauge#20 in (508 mm) Peter Horn User talk 20:41, 29 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]


wells & Walsingham Light Railway[edit]

This belongs on this page. It is a fully-registered public railway of minimum gauge, so, arguably, is a better example of the type than some of the "garden railways" presently included. Neith-Nabu (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Minimum-gauge_railway&oldid=1204014560"