[s-cars] Fw: Dimensions

[chris chambers]

Fun read but not exactly true.
Following was found here:
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.htm


Origins:   This is one of those items that -- although wrong in many of
its details — isn't exactly false in an overall sense and is perhaps
more fairly labelled as "True, but for trivial and unremarkable
reasons." Marvelling that the width of modern roadways is similar to
the width of ancient roadways is sort of like getting excited over a
notion such as "modern clothes sizes are based upon standards developed
by medieval tailors." Well, duh. Despite obvious differences in style,
clothing in the Middle Ages served the same purpose as clothing today
(i.e., to cover, protect, and ornament the human body), and modern
human beings are very close in size to medieval human beings (we are,
on average, a little bit taller and heavier than we were several
centuries ago, but not much), so we naturally expect ancient and modern
clothing to be similar in size. 

So, rather than going into excruciating detail about the history of
transportation, we'll simply note that roads are built (or worn) to
accommodate whatever uses them, and that for many centuries prior to
the advent of railroads, what travelled on roads were mostly wheeled
conveyances, pulled by beasts of burden (primarily horses), carrying
passengers and goods. Physical conditions dictated some of the
dimensions of those conveyances (such as the width of their axles) and
largely ensured that they would fall within a fairly narrow range of
variation: Horse-drawn vehicles, whether they were chariots or carts or
carriages, all served similar functions, so practical considerations
(e.g., the speed at which horses could travel, the amount of weight
horses could pull, the number and arrangement of horses that could be
controlled by a single driver) required that they be relatively similar
in size as well. 

That may suffice as an explanation covering the specific combination of
horse-drawn vehicles and roads, but what about vehicles that travelled
on rails instead of roads (such as trolleys), or that weren't pulled by
horses (such as trains)? Why should they be similar in size to their
predecessors? 

Although we humans can be remarkably inventive, we are also often
resistant to change and can be persistently stubborn (or perhaps
practical) in trying to apply old solutions to new conditions. When
confronted with a new idea such as a "rail," why go to the expense and
effort of designing a new vehicle for it rather than simply adapting
ones already in abundant use on roadways? If someone comes along with
an invention known as an "iron horse," wouldn't it make sense to put
the same type of conveyance pulled by "regular" horses behind it? That
is indeed exactly what was tried in the early days of American
railroads, as captured in the following illustration: 



(The caption reads: "This locomotive in New York State, like its other
early counterparts, pulled passenger cars based on old-fashioned
carriages. The technology evolved quickly in the 1840s, however, and
the United States played an important role in that evolution.") 

Similar thinking occurred in Britain. Historian James Crow, writing
about Housesteads, the 3rd century Roman fort built along Hadrian's
Wall, notes that: 


The wheel rut and gate stop in the north passage are well preserved,
and a number of reused stone blocks formed part of the latest surface
to survive. The gauge between the ruts is very similar to that adopted
by George Stephenson for the Stockton to Darlington railway in 1837,
and a 'Wall myth' developed that he took this gauge from the newly
excavated east gate. There is a common link, but it is more prosaic,
and the 'coincidence' is explained by the fact that the dimension
common to both was that of a cart axle pulled by two horses in harness
(about 1.4m or 4ft 8in). This determined both the Roman gauge and
Stephenson's, which derived from the horsedrawn wagon ways of South
Northumberland and County Durham coalfields.2 
 


It is rather inaccurate to claim that "US railroads were built by
English expatriates," but it is fair to say that since the English
started to develop railroads slightly ahead of the Americans, some U.S.
railroads used equipment purchased from English manufacturers, thus
necessitating that the rails on which that equipment ran be the same
size in both countries: 


England, the innovator in railroad technology, enjoyed an early head
start over America. When New Jersey sponsored a bold rail and canal
connection between New York and Philadelphia in 1831, they ordered a
custom-built locomotive from the English company — the John Bull. The
railroad became an immediate success, carrying over 100,000 passengers
in 1834.1 
 


And once the Americans caught up, they began selling railroad
technology back to England, further establishing a similarity of
equipment (and hence track size) between the two countries: 


American companies emulated and improved upon the English designs. By
1841, ten American railroad shops had sprung into existence and they
produced 375 of the 500 engines in the United States. Those shops soon
began changing the English designs, making the engines more powerful
and the rails cheaper, better suited to the rough conditions in the
United States. The American shops even exported their engines,
including to Britain.1 
 


Nonetheless, despite this commonality of equipment, well into the 19th
century the U.S. still did not have one "standard" railroad gauge. At
the time of the Civil War, even though nearly all of the Confederacy's
railroad equipment had came from the North or from Britain (of the 470
locomotives built in the U.S. in 1860, for example, only 19 were
manufactured in the South), 113 different railroad companies in the
Confederacy operated on three different gauges of track. This lack of
standardization was, as historian James McPherson points out, one of
the many reasons the Union was able to finally vanquish the Confederacy
militarily: 


The Confederate government was never able to coax the fragmented,
run-down, multi-gauged network of southern railroads into the same
degree of efficiency exhibited by northern roads. This contrast
illustrated another dimension of Union logistical superiority that
helped the North eventually to prevail.3 
 


The eventual standardization of railroad gauge in the U.S. was due far
less to a slavish devotion to a gauge inherited from England than to
the simple fact that the North won the Civil War and, in the process,
rebuilt much of the Southern railway system to match its own: 


[I]n the occupied South the government went into the railroad business
on a large scale. In February 1862 [Secretary of War] Stanton
established the U.S. Military Rail Roads and appointed Daniel McCallum
superintendent. A former Erie Railroad executive and an efficient
administrator, McCallum eventually presided over more than 2,000 miles
of lines acquired, built, and maintained by the U.S.M.R.R. in conquered
portions of the South.3 
 


In other words, there was nothing inevitable about a railroad gauge
supposedly traceable to the size of wheel ruts in Imperial Rome. Had
the Civil War taken a different course, the eventual standard railroad
gauge used throughout North America might well have been different than
the current one. 

Now, as for that Space Shuttle addendum . . . When Thiokol was building
the solid rocket boosters (SRB) for the space shuttle, they had to keep
shipping considerations in mind, but they didn't necessarily have to
alter their design because any particular tunnel that lay between their
plant and the Florida launch site wasn't large enough. (The original
article implies that one specific railroad tunnel was a cause for
concern, but since the location of the tunnel isn't identified, it's
difficult to evaluate that claim.) In any case, railroads don't run
through tunnels only "slightly wider than the railroad track" unless
every one of their engines and all their rolling stock is also only
"slightly wider than the railroad track." (And unless the tunnels
encompass only a single set of tracks, of course). Data from the U.S.
Army's Rail Transport in a Theater of Operations document, for example,
makes it fairly clear that one would be hard-pressed to find railroad
equipment anywhere only "slightly wider" than 4 feet, 8.5 inches. 

Over and above our love of odd facts, this tale about railroad gauges
succeeds because of the imagery of its play on words: space shuttle
technology was designed not by a horse's ass (figuratively, some
overpaid government know-it-all) but because of a horse's ass
(literally, the width of that particular portion of equine anatomy).
People find this notion amusing, feeding the story's popularity as
charmed readers to pass it along to others in a cascade of forwards.
Were it not for this internal play on words, this entire breathless
"Did you know?. . ." would likely die a quiet and unnoticed death,
because when you get right down to it, why rails are spaced the way
they are isn't all that interesting a topic to most people. 

"Very interesting, educational, historical, completely true, and
hysterical"? One out of five, maybe. 



=====
"When you see a rattlesnake poised to strike, you do not wait until he has struck before you crush him." ~ Franklin D. Roosevelt

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com