Prototype Question: Why narrow gauge?

A very inappropriate example, in that case. As I wrote before, "Wide Cabs" is a term favoured by railfans and other non-professionals, who are either unaware or unconcerned with the inaccuracy of their terminology. Associations of railroads such as the UIC, and railroad owners/operators such as JR use the term "narrow gauge" because it IS correct to do so. What railfans call locomotive cabs is irrelevant to how railroads owners/operators describe their trackage, PARTICULARLY when they wish to distinguish between different gauges operated as part of one network, such as is found in Japan.

That may or may not be the case - I am inclined to doubt any facts or observations you present, on the strength of your wildly imaginative previous postings. Regardless, it is specious to argue that because non-professionals use incorrect terminology, the professionals must therefore be doing likewise. It is an convention agreed upon and used by railway administrators, engineers and operators throughout the world. Everyone doing it does make it right.

Where do you get your "facts" from???? There are a few THOUSAND kilometres of 610mm/2'0" gauge track in service in the sugar industry. So by your definition 610mm must be standard gauge as well....

I'll rephrase that question:

"Why do you claim standard gauge is dominant?"

And please note where I'm posting from. I know quite well what the position is with the railways in Australia. But I'm fascinated by the nonsense you regularly post in relation to them.

Mark Newton wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@optusnet.com.au:

"The narrower and more limited the field of knowledge of a so-called expert, the more vaguely related subjects this person responds to with claims of authority and knowledge, lacking both."

I forgot who made that quote, but I find it VERY appropiate ...

Oh well. Back to module building ...

LOL!!! Good one!!!

We've had 7'.., 5'6", 4'8 1/2" 4'something, 3', 2'6" and 2'. There's certainly a few bits of 2' around as well as 4'8 1/2" (tram)

3'6" would be "the normal gauge" in NZ or "NZ standard" but those are different to "Standard gauge".

Then why do you keep replying? Can't you see what he's up to?

Sheesh!

Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed.

More like a trolling expedition...

Don't bother to reply via email...I've been JoeJobbed.

Mark,

Where do you get the impression the term "wide cab" is "favoured by railfans and other non-professionals"?

I work for CSX Transportation as a conductor, and we refer to locomotives equipped with the North American Safety Cab as "widebodies," conductor AND engineer alike.

Dieter Zakas Motive Power, NJ

Shouldn't that be "Canadian" Safety Cab? After all, that's where it was first used.

-- Cheers Roger T.

Home of the Great Eastern Railway

On Thu, 08 Jul 2004 08:16:20 +1000, Mark Newton

wrote:

You are so caught up in your own fantasy and vitriol that you have lost sight of the fact that I have not made any "wildly imaginative postings" other that the ones you have dreamed up.

You do not even remember what this thread is about. All you can remember is that you are attacking me for some vague reason; something I wrote pissed you off.

I am not going to give you the pleasure of reading what I said yet again as I have repeated it several times. You are simply too caught up in your attack fit to understand that it was a question to open a door to some brief discussion about nomenclature and gauge.

I have never claimed to be an expert on all things railway throughout the world. That is nothing more than another one of your misrepresented and misunderstood deductions. You have repeatedly exhibited a deep inability to comprehend the meaning of what is being said, preferring to consistently attack everyone who expresses any opinion contrary to your extremely provincial one. This ridiculous rant of yours about my comments regarding the Japanese railway system is merely an example of your effort to misguide and misrepresent the meaning of a statement. It is not necessary to know exactly how many kilometers of each gauge of track exist in order to know that there is an overwhelming preponderance of one over the other. In fact, in Japan the ratio of 1067mm to 1435mm is greater than six to one. So, you see, I am quite correct in saying that there is a preponderance of 1067mm over 1435mm. You, who ~are~ the self proclaimed expert on all things did not know that or you would not have challenged me to list them. So you are a charlatan as well as a troll. It is you who does not know his arse, but claims to be expert. I make no such claim now, then or ever. That is merely another of your lies. You are a blind troll who attacks like a trained dog without really knowing or caring why. You totally over reacted to an innocuous observation that was never intended to challenge the world authority on railways. I repeat, you are a troll. You cling to your knowledge of your own turf and use it as a weapon to bludgeon others instead of educating them when they err. You are a mean spirited ambush hunter who cannot be trusted to either understand or assist, only to attack. The problem is your attacks are too often totally off the mark. You accuse me of making "wildly imaginative postings", yet cannot produce one, let alone more than one such that you can use the plural.

This current ridiculous thread cannot be one of them since it originated as a tangental question to another thread to generate comment. Little did I know that I was pissing in your corn flakes. However, I am glad that I did, because it has been interesting to watch you boil and fume. Perhaps you will have a stroke and we will all be rid of you once and for all. You do seem to be consumed by anger and must live a pathetic life. I shall have to ask around and see who I know that may know you and find out. I won't be surprised if I find you have few friends. Perhaps I can find Terry Flynn. He seems to know you, so I will ask him. Terry has some off the wall ideas, but at least he is cogent and sane, which is more than can be said for you.

Ah here we go, eh? Grabbing at some silliness like sugar cane plantation trackage. Sugar cane plantation trackage? At any rate, who cares about sugar cane plantation trackage? An irrelevant piece of tripe if ever there was one. Sugar cane trackage is only a railway by the strictest of definitions and is in no way whatever imaginable relevant to the railway infrastructure of the country. You are grabbing at straws to keep from drowning in your own venom. I have to stop and laugh at you for trying to pull that crap.

All right then, you get to rephrase, then so do I.

There are three generally accepted majority gauges, the others being relegated to industrial, agricultural or other uses out of the mainstream of the national system. This is not me saying this, it is your government. I'll not quote sources as the information is quite abundant and is easily available to anyone who wants to look for it. I will paraphrase and summarize, keeping wholly within the truth, if you can understand the meaning of that phrase. There is the Cape Gauge, or narrow gauge of 1067mm, the standard gauge of 1435mm and the broad gauge of 1600mm

Of the three, the broad gauge is the least represented in total mileage. It is not necessary for me to know the exact mileage, it is enough to know that it is the smallest of the three. The remaining 1,957km of broad gauge is shrinking and may, in time, disappear altogether. Yes there is some resistance in Victoria. They maintain that conversion to standard gauge in and through Melbourne is excessively difficult and want to maintain passenger service on the broad gauge. Otherwise, however, the move toward standardization with 1435mm gauge is proceeding. This according to RTSA in numerous newsletters. There is some renovation of the 1600mm going on, but for the most part it is dwindling. Even some of the renovated portions are being laid with dual gauge sleepers to facilitate changeover to standard gauge in the not too distant future. If this is getting too wildly imaginative for you hang on, it gets wilder.

The narrow gauge, from what I can tell from 10,000 miles away, seems to be neither growing nor shrinking very much. I am really not interested much in narrow gauge per-se, but I may learn more about the Qld. lines as time progresses, since I am interested in the system as a whole. At any rate I don't have any wildly imaginative postings to make regarding the approximately 15,000km of narrow gauge. Excluding sugar cane plantation track which is nothing short of silly.

Standard gauge. Now there's the one. You can go from Sydney to Perth without change of gauge, as has been the case for some time now. There is standard gauge all the way to Brisbane. However, not being there I have not bothered to discover if a passenger can ride the whole distance from Brisbane to Perth. None the less it will be interesting to find out. Not only that, but the line from Adelaide to Darwin is open, standard gauge all the way. The only north-south transcontinental railway in the world, or so says the literature. the 27,000+km standard gauge trackage is nearly double that of the narrow gauge and growing all the time, even as I write this.

If the above cited is not enough to establish that standard gauge, dominant in number of miles extant, dominant in number of miles planned for future construction and clearly the darling of the Government, is not the dominant gauge in the country then I cannot imagine what it will take to establish that fact.

Regarding your inane rebuttal to my comment regarding New Zealand equipment interchange: Yours is a superfluous argument, not germane to the issue. Purchase and sale of equipment does not satisfy the requirements for frequent and regular interchange. You are once again distorting the meaning and grabbing at straws to try to perpetuate your attack. You are the one who hasn't a case. As in Japan, the NZ 1067mm gauge is by far and away the dominant one. The fact that some minuscule amounts of other gauges exist does not diminish this in any way. They are not part of the national railway system and exist as adjuncts and auxiliaries.

You should be posting from an asylum as there is clearly something grievously wrong with you.

I sincerely hope that the nonsense above proves amusing to you as I will enjoy printing the verbatim articles should you try to say that any of it is untrue or fanciful.

And now, all that being said, I should think that anyone with a brain ( that possibly excludes you) should be sick of both this thread and you. Certainly I am and intend to have nothing else whatever to do with your bizarre persona, your distorted reasoning, your vulgarity ( the true mark of a weak mind) and your lies. So, adios Mark. May we never meet again. That means that henceforth I shall ignore you. I'm sure you will be pleased.

Captain Handbrake

Of course. Most countries have had more than one gauge including the USA. We've had

6', 5' 3", 5', 3' 6', meter gauge, 3', 2', and 18" along with standard gauge. I worked on building an 18" gauge railway back in 1964. It failed, but only after nine years. The New Orleans trolley line operates right to this day on 5' 3" gauge. but that is nothing more than a bit of trivia that is nice to know. It has nothing to do with railways. It is entirely outside the scope of the national system.

My point that got this whole ridiculous thread going was a tangential remark to another post that I thought that since 3' 6" was by far and away the most dominant and prevalent gauge in NZ that it really wasn't narrow gauge in that context. That is there is no other gauge in greater or even widespread use throughout the country that is broader than 3' 6". Now, is that correct or not? I realize that there may be some vehicles that run on rails that may be standard gauge, but their number and mileage is more or less insignificant when compared to the national rail network of 3' 6". Such an opinion should in no way be construed to mean that I think I am an expert on the railways of NZ. I never said that. What I did say is pretty clear. I am inclined to think of it as the gauge standard of NZ rather than calling it narrow gauge. Normal Gauge is good too. I like Cape Gauge best of all. Narrow gauge seems pejorative to me, and carries a certain stigma of second ratedness with it. NZ railways may be having some temporary difficulties but I cannot think of them as second rate. Certainly there is nothing at all second rate about Japan's 1067mm lines. When I lived there in the 60s I rode extensively on the trains and found them the equal, and in many cases the better, of the standard gauge trains in my own country.

Captain Handbrake

That statement is correct now, and has been for many years. But the first railway(s) in New Zealand were built to the broad gauge (5'3"), so when 3'6" was introduced it was the narrow gauge.

So, historically, 3'6" was narrow gauge even in New Zealand.

John Dennis

Point noted. I wonder if you read the rest of the message. Since this thread was hijacked by the troll from Australia it took a turn for the worse and degenerated into another of his inane attacks. Do you think the term narrow gauge is pejorative? I do and that is why I hate to use it. If you had a choice would you prefer to use Cape gauge or is narrow gauge perfectly OK?

Captain Handbrake

Captain Handbrake@Atlantic Coast Line.com wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@news.west.earthlink.net:

Correction: This thread was hijacked by an ignorant troll from the USA claiming knowledge on prototypes he evidently knew as much as about as the US government knows about foreign policy - you.

Don't try and shift blame. It doesn't work.

Wrong oh great Japan expert. It merely occurred to me to ask a tangential question about the use of the term narrow gauge and perhaps start a new brief thread on the subject. I never said a single thing about Japanese prototypes except to note that there is a great preponderance of 3' 6" gauge as compared to standard gauge. Do you deny that statement is true? Standard gauge: 3,204 km 1.435-m gauge Narrow gauge: 19,855 km 1.067-m gauge Other misc. narrow gauge is present as well.

That looks to me like slightly greater than six to one in favor of the narrow gauge. Is that wrong? Admittedly the information is old. It is from all the way back in May of 2004. Can you supply the correct numbers without throwing a temper-fit?

What else can you find that I said other than some laudatory remarks about how much I enjoyed using the system and how nice it was while I was there. Then why are you getting so distraught.? And why do you feel it necessary to make a comment about the US Government. Could it be that there is something greater hidden in your agenda? Perhaps you think I am a convenient target to vent your anger against the USA upon. If so then that is truly sad. At any rate, I do not now, nor did I ever claim to know anything in great depth about Japanese railways other than what I personally experienced and a few odds and ends of information picked up over the years. Any claim to the contrary by you or any others is simply not true. I did watch a two hour documentary about the Shinkansen and was very interested to see all the new, updated, modern equipment they are now using. I rode on the Tokaido Shinkansen as it was the only one extant at the time. However I do have sense enough to realize that in no way imbues the robe of expert upon me. Never the less, I don't think it is necessary to have a Ph.D. in Japanese Railway Studies to mention them in a slightly related topic. You and your friend are the ones who jumped off the deep end. Chill dude. Don't get in the boat with Newton, you'll regret it later. Go back and read what I wrote. All I wanted was to talk about narrow gauge.

Captain Handbrake

That is correct.

Very true.

No problem there.

3'6" is the "New Zealand Standard gauge" but it is definitely not "standard gauge" to anyone here.

Regards, Greg.P.

I have no problems with the term narrow gauge. It is in common usage here in Australia to describe 3'6" gauge. It's a descriptive term.

I doubt whether anybody other than some in the railfan community here would even know the term "Cape gauge". I would be surprised if anybody in Japan knew of the term. How many Newfies would have described their 3'6" line as "Cape Gauge"?

John Dennis

Probably none John. This whole sorry thing is the result of my attempt at trying to have a bit of harmless fun going sour. It was supposed to be one of those "if it's the widest gauge they have, why do they call it narrow?" things. Well, it didn't work and another member of the group got mean and pissed me off and things went to hell from there. Sorry, but it was supposed to be a light, trivial thing. Never meant to get serious or to go this far. Probably the best thing at this point is to just drop the whole thing and move on. Any possibility of further discussion of this topic in any but a warlike mood is gone. I am sorry for that. It was never what I meant to do when I started out.

Captain Handbrake

Greg, like I said to John: This whole sorry thing is the result of my attempt at trying to have a bit of harmless fun going sour. It was supposed to be one of those "If it's the widest gauge they have, why do they call it narrow?" things. Well, it didn't work. Probably the best thing to do is to just drop the whole thing and move on. Any possibility of further discussion of this topic in any but a hostile environment is gone. I am sorry for that. It was never what I meant to do when I started out.

Captain Handbrake

snipped-for-privacy@hotmail.com (John Dennis) wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@posting.google.com:

They do know about the term - it occasionally does crop up. [Speaking from _experience_ and _research_, not _conjecture_]