On 1 Aug 2006 17:24:41 +0100, (Andrew Robert Breen)
wrote:

My point was that I can't think of a railway network which was started
from new much after 1914 which went for sub-standard gauge.

Bulgaria built a fair bit of 760mm gauge in the south of the country
after WWI.

Thailand converted (some?) lines from standard to metre, to match its
neighbours.

Other than the Shinkansen, have there been many totally new networks
built since 1914?
--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

In article ,
Arthur Figgis wrote:
On 1 Aug 2006 17:24:41 +0100, (Andrew Robert Breen)
wrote:

My point was that I can't think of a railway network which was started
from new much after 1914 which went for sub-standard gauge.

Bulgaria built a fair bit of 760mm gauge in the south of the country
after WWI.

Thailand converted (some?) lines from standard to metre, to match its
neighbours.

Other than the Shinkansen, have there been many totally new networks
built since 1914?

Shinkansen is the obvious example, with the AVE lines as another, more
recent case..

--
Andy Breen ~ Not speaking on behalf of the University of Wales, Aberystwyth
Feng Shui: an ancient oriental art for extracting
money from the gullible (Martin Sinclair)

J. Gulliford wrote:
Mind you, the Seaton tramway, a lovely little line, is the gauge it is
because they lifted it and moved it there from Eastbourne.

JG.


They did move it from Eastbourne to Seaton, but at the same time they
regauged it from 2 ft to 2 ft 9 in.

Mike

Stephen Furley wrote:
Rupert Candy wrote:

and converting
the electrical system from standard 3rd rail to side-contact.

Bottom contact; side contact was Manchester - Bury, and I think after
conversion, Holcombe Brook, which was originally overhead.

The shoegear in New York is interesting; it's a sort of Manchester -
Bury system turned on its side. It's top contact, but the rail is
protceted except for a narrow gap on the inner side, and the shoe is a
flate plate which comes in from the side to contact the top of the
rail.

New York has three separate third-rail systems: Metro-North (ex NYC),
LIRR (ex PRR), & the Subway. The Subway is top-contact; LIRR is
top-contact, with a protective board on top; & Metro-North is
bottom-contact. (I think I've got that right.) I imagine that you're
referring to the LIRR?

Mike

"Mizter T" wrote in message
oups.com...

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

In article . com,
Mizter T wrote:
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

In article . com,
Mizter T wrote:
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

See above. OTOH, no-one has started building a new network from
scratch
at less than standard gauge for a long time: not since Big Mistake
One,
IIRC.

I'll be the mug who volunteers to look stupid and ask which railway
is
the "Big Mistake One"?

Sorry. An it's an accepted convention in some groups, but not (yet!)
universal in this 'un. Big Mistake One = 1914-1918, the Great War, the
First World War and other less descriptive titles. Of course, the
First

I'll not make that interpretational mistake again, thanks for the
explaination. I'm guessing that "Big Mistake Two" isn't a phrase that's
in common use.

It's common enough in some groups. Big Mistake Three, OTOH, is not
(yet) in mainstream use, though it's possible to see that it might
be required in time

I see. I kind of presumed that 'Big Mistake One' referred, in part at
least, to the spectacular ineptitude of some of our marvellous
generals, the horrendous nature of trench conflict, and the potentially
preventable nature of said war. When it comes to the second war then
most wouldn't regard it as a mistake to have fought 'the good fight'
against fascism, though of course again it would've been preferable if
the world hadn't ended up in that situation in the first place.


Surely big mistake 2 was big mistake 1 continued being that it was
inevitable that play would resume after the conditions imposed by the
victors (or lesser loosers) after big mistake 1

Bigguy wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message
oups.com...
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

In article . com,
Mizter T wrote:
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

In article . com,
Mizter T wrote:
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

See above. OTOH, no-one has started building a new network from
scratch
at less than standard gauge for a long time: not since Big Mistake
One,
IIRC.
I'll be the mug who volunteers to look stupid and ask which railway
is
the "Big Mistake One"?
Sorry. An it's an accepted convention in some groups, but not (yet!)
universal in this 'un. Big Mistake One = 1914-1918, the Great War, the
First World War and other less descriptive titles. Of course, the
First
I'll not make that interpretational mistake again, thanks for the
explaination. I'm guessing that "Big Mistake Two" isn't a phrase that's
in common use.
It's common enough in some groups. Big Mistake Three, OTOH, is not
(yet) in mainstream use, though it's possible to see that it might
be required in time
I see. I kind of presumed that 'Big Mistake One' referred, in part at
least, to the spectacular ineptitude of some of our marvellous
generals, the horrendous nature of trench conflict, and the potentially
preventable nature of said war. When it comes to the second war then
most wouldn't regard it as a mistake to have fought 'the good fight'
against fascism, though of course again it would've been preferable if
the world hadn't ended up in that situation in the first place.


Surely big mistake 2 was big mistake 1 continued being that it was
inevitable that play would resume after the conditions imposed by the
victors (or lesser loosers) after big mistake 1

Wrong newsgroup! (I can see this thread ballooning undesirably...)


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

Dave Arquati wrote:

Bigguy wrote:
"Mizter T" wrote in message
oups.com...
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

In article . com,
Mizter T wrote:
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

In article . com,
Mizter T wrote:
Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

See above. OTOH, no-one has started building a new network from
scratch
at less than standard gauge for a long time: not since Big Mistake
One,
IIRC.
I'll be the mug who volunteers to look stupid and ask which railway
is
the "Big Mistake One"?
Sorry. An it's an accepted convention in some groups, but not (yet!)
universal in this 'un. Big Mistake One = 1914-1918, the Great War, the
First World War and other less descriptive titles. Of course, the
First
I'll not make that interpretational mistake again, thanks for the
explaination. I'm guessing that "Big Mistake Two" isn't a phrase that's
in common use.
It's common enough in some groups. Big Mistake Three, OTOH, is not
(yet) in mainstream use, though it's possible to see that it might
be required in time
I see. I kind of presumed that 'Big Mistake One' referred, in part at
least, to the spectacular ineptitude of some of our marvellous
generals, the horrendous nature of trench conflict, and the potentially
preventable nature of said war. When it comes to the second war then
most wouldn't regard it as a mistake to have fought 'the good fight'
against fascism, though of course again it would've been preferable if
the world hadn't ended up in that situation in the first place.


Surely big mistake 2 was big mistake 1 continued being that it was
inevitable that play would resume after the conditions imposed by the
victors (or lesser loosers) after big mistake 1

Wrong newsgroup! (I can see this thread ballooning undesirably...)


You might just have a point there!

allan tracy wrote:
Of course, this still begs the question as to why so much of the World
has railways with narrower guage than standard?

Simple, the narrower the track gauge the tighter the corners you can
have plus the less physical right of way area you have to level so it
costs less.

Surely, someone must have thought it was a good idea at the time but
why?

Brunel probably thought the same thing about standard gauge.

B2003

mmellor wrote:
Stephen Furley wrote:
Rupert Candy wrote:

and converting
the electrical system from standard 3rd rail to side-contact.

Bottom contact; side contact was Manchester - Bury, and I think after
conversion, Holcombe Brook, which was originally overhead.

The shoegear in New York is interesting; it's a sort of Manchester -
Bury system turned on its side. It's top contact, but the rail is
protceted except for a narrow gap on the inner side, and the shoe is a
flate plate which comes in from the side to contact the top of the
rail.

New York has three separate third-rail systems: Metro-North (ex NYC),
LIRR (ex PRR), & the Subway. The Subway is top-contact; LIRR is
top-contact, with a protective board on top; & Metro-North is
bottom-contact. (I think I've got that right.) I imagine that you're
referring to the LIRR?

Mike, my knowledge of New York is not that great; I should have said
that *some* of the third rail was as I described; I did not intend to
imply that all of it was000. I've certainly seen protected third rail
on both PATH and the Subway. I've only used Metro-North from Harlem
125th Street to GCT, and the LIRR from Jamaica to Penn Station; I can't
remember what system these used. I've used the Metro-North Port
Jervis line, from Hoboken, but only just into New York (Suffern), but
that line is not electrified. I've frequently ridden the NJT service
between Trenton and Newark, aand occasionally through to New York, but
that is overhead.

Andrew Robert Breen wrote:

See above. OTOH, no-one has started building a new network from scratch
at less than standard gauge for a long time: not since Big Mistake One,
IIRC.

How about the Romney Hythe and Dymchurch railway? They do serve a real
public transport purpose as well as touristy stuff (I assume the school
trains still run).

Robin