Narror Guage Track and tie spacing
Stan R. Ames
railroads. Does it vary for heavy operations or on Bridges or yards?
Any help most appreciated.
Stan Ames
hr...@qm2drive.mch.sni.de
: I am looking for some information on tie spacing for 3 ft narrow guage
: railroads. Does it vary for heavy operations or on Bridges or yards?
: Any help most appreciated.
: Stan Ames
Yes, it does vary.
I found an article about narrow gauge rail and ties in the
Narrow Gauge and Short Line Gazette November/December 1989 Page 63
This article shows a table with some three pages of dimensions for
narrow gauge rails and ties of about 85 locations. A close look will
reveal some typos, but I think that's ok on such an industrious work.
3 ft narrow gauge ties vary in the dimensions
from 4.5" to 8" high,
from 6" to 10" width,
from 5 ft 1" to 7 ft 10" long, and
spaced between the centers from 14.4" to 34".
The rail wheight vary from 30 lb/yd to 85 lb/yd.
I am to lazy to write down the whole table, so you have to look
for the article. If I get the time, I'll post a table about rail
weight and unit axle load.
so long
Holger
--
/\,/\ Holger Falkenberg; Plumserjochstra"se 3; 81825 M"unchen
/ o u \ Tel.: 089 / 42 64 47 (nur abends)
\<_Y_>/ internet email: Holger.F...@mch.sni.de
-oOO-/ " \-OOo---------------------------------------------------------
Bill Kepner
: railroads. Does it vary for heavy operations or on Bridges or yards?
When we rebuilt the Osier spur last Summer, the C&TS track foreman
dug into the back of his truck for a piece of wood about 18" long,
and said "use this between the ties to get a spacing". I asked how long
it was, and he didn't know. It just looked right !
Turns out we spaced them (using his gauge) around 23" on centers.
Narrow gauge railroading (at least on the D&RGW) meant "do whatever
works". No doubt to confuse the model railroader nickpickers :-)
Bill Kepner
Friends of the Cumbres and Toltec
: Any help most appreciated.
: Stan Ames
Andrew Waugh
> am looking for some information on tie spacing for 3 ft narrow guage
>railroads. Does it vary for heavy operations or on Bridges or yards?
I checked a number of the standard U.S. track references last night,
dating back to 1886, and not one of them mentioned tie (sleeper :-)
spacing for narrow gauge. Only a few even mentioned narrow gauge:
Wellington went through the cost savings and why the general
disadvantages of narrow gauge outweighed them; and the others
described how to convert narrow gauge to standard gauge.
This suggests two possibilities:
1) Even by 1886, narrow gauge railroading was so far beyond the
U.S. norm that its standards, if any, were not of interest.
2) Permanent way standards for narrow gauge were the same as
those for standard gauge for the same weight locomotives.
Support for the latter possibility comes from three sources:
1) The cost savings for narrow gauge ties given in Wellington
are based only the reduction in length of the ties, not on
a reduction in number.
2) The method of gauge conversion, described in several books,
commenced by replacement of some of the narrow gauge ties
by standard gauge ties -- typically 1 in 3. The track was
then widened (using the mixture of narrow and standard gauge
ties) and finally the remaining narrow gauge ties would be
replaced. This would obviously have been impracticable if the
tie spacing on the standard gauge was different to that on the
narrow.
3) The 1960 Janes yearbook gives the tie spacing on the D&RG as
19" irrespective of the gauge (the D&RG then still had some
250 miles of narrow gauge). The White Pass & Yukon had a tie
spacing of 24". The standard for the U.S. at that time seemed
to be 20" to 22".
In theory, of course, sleeper spacing should be irrelevant to track
gauge. What is important to the engineer in minimising the total
track cost for a given weight of locomotive. It is possible to trade
off tie spacing for the size of tie for the weight of rail:
* Smaller (i.e. narrower and shallower) ties were cheaper
than standard size tie. To give the same bearing surface,
however, you had to have more of them per mile. In many places
many small ties still worked out cheaper than fewer larger tie.
* Closer tie spacing reduced the bending moment on the rail
between tie. This allowed the use of lighter rails. Which was
more economical depended on the relative costs of ties and
rails. Often, however, the issue was improving the carrying
capacity of existing plant without replacing the rail. This
could be achieved by adding more sleepers for each rail length.
Of course, when talking about narrow gauge in the U.S. you have to be
careful about the date. The narrow gauge movement started as a *light*
railway movement and some of the original track construction standards
were very low. Hilton, in his epic book on the narrow gauge, quotes
Howard suggesting ties 5"x7"x7' spaced 24" apart (small sleepers,
placed far apart). The Texas & St. Louis had 7' ties approximately 20"
apart and the Toledo, Cincinnati, & St. Louis had a spacing of 24".
By 1878, Hulbert and Brooks were recommending 6"x8"x6' ties at
approximately 23". This would have been roughly typical practice on
contempory standard gauge lines - in 1886 this was a spacing of
approximately 22.5".
In summary then I would suggest that, for this century at least,
i) Very backward narrow gauge lines would have used small sleepers
placed far apart.
ii) Most narrow gauge lines would have used the same track
standards as *equivalent* standard gauge lines. The equivalent
is important! Surviving narrow gauge railways were generally
light railways and have to be compared with branch lines.
Sidings, broad or narrow, almost always had worse track
standards than the 'main' line.
andrew waugh