The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number.

Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and English expatriates built the US Railroads.

Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.

Why did "they" use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.

Okay! Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.

So who built those old rutted roads? Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and England) for their legions. The roads have been used ever since.

And the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.

The United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot. And bureaucracies live forever.

So the next time you are handed a spec and told we have always done it that way and wonder what horse's ass came up with that, you may be exactly right, because the Imperial Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back ends of two war horses.

Now the twist to the story...

When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site.

The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The SRBs had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds.

So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a Horse's ass.

And you thought being a horse's ass wasn't important ??

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Now as to we've always done it that way....

Take theatre lenses...

The barrel diameter is 70.6mm. Now wait the metric system wasn't in vogue back then so it is rational to think that it wouldn't fall on an even millimeter.

So what is it in english units? 2-25/32! it isn't even a nice number for that! Who came up with that size? Call it 3" or 2.75" But 2.78125" How did they "agree" on that size?

At least when the 50s hit and new big-boy lenses were needed for the extra light we settled on a nice rosey 4" number.

Steve

BTW does the concept of precision in measurements and calculations get taught in science classes these days? Cracks me up when calculations are carried out to nine decimal places even though the original measurements feeding those calculations are only reliable to two or three (e.g. the 70mm AR arguments in Widescreen Review a few years ago).

Regards,

 |  IP: Logged

Steve

Of course we in the UK lowered our nominal 240V to 230 to meet the continental Europeans.

As for railways... I say tear 'em up and tarmac them over! I've often thought that they were a nineteenth-century solution to a twenty-first century problem: now I hear that they are a Roman solution to a twenty-first century problem! Promoting railways as the way to solve our transport needs is like promoting Victorian hygiene practices to improve public health. Just some of the reasons why they're a totally obsolete technology:

• The trains go no faster than they did 100 years ago. OK, it's technically possible to build ones that do (e.g. the French TGV), but the sheer cost of this is out of all proportion to the economic and social benefits the trains bring.
  
• Their brakes are so shitty that trains have to travel several miles apart. The brakes on cars are so good that (assuming the driver is competent) they can safely cruise at 70mph with only 150 yards between each vehicle. This means that the level of land utilisation on land used for railways is hopelessly uneconomic.
  
• Trains are getting more dangerous. The proportion of total rail journeys which end in the passenger being killed or injured is on the increase. Again, there are technical solutions which would bring this rate down, but at a huge cost. According to an article I read recently, the foolproof train protection system which stops drivers from shooting the lights would cost around £1,000 per passenger at current levels.
  
• Trains are inflexible. You have to travel when someone tells you, not when it is convenient for you to go.
  
• Trains are f***ing expensive. Unless you are prepared to book a long time in advance and go at a highly inconvenient time, it costs roughly twice what it would to go by car, taking into account all motoring costs. And if more than one person is travelling, just forget it! If you consider that trains are highly subsidised and that motoring is highly taxed, the true differential is even greater.
  
• Trains are even more f***ing unreliable. Enough said.
  
• Travelling in them is about the unpleasant experience possible, (apart, possibly, from being executed in an underpowered electric chair). You usually have to share a carriage with antisocial yobs, screaming babies and aggressive dogs.
  

I do agree, passenger trains suck!

Freight trains are cool. If you think about it, what other mode of transportation for cargo is more efficient than a freight train? About three or four V-16 Diesel Locomotives to drag a mile of freight cars loaded to the gills down a set of tracks at 79 miles per hour sounds like a good deal to me.....

 |  IP: Logged

Trains are a 24 hour medium...for cargo and it is easy to keep a fresh crew operating them unlike poor truckers that have to make as many A-B deliveries to pay off CAT for their outragous parts.

As to renewable energy...you are gonna have to change what we know about the physical properties of those to make them work. Virtually all of the earth friendly vehicles are trading one ill for another and are in fact, not so earth friendly. LNG is an intriquing one but keeping it safe is another thing. Solar isn't efficient enough and ANYTHING that uses a battery is a feel-good pro-environment item...batteries are not terribly efficient and always involve metals. Anything that involves plugging the car in is horrible since you either have coal polution or neuclear waste to contend with.

Believe me, I think we should try and try to come up with something other than oil based engines (also horribly inefficient) but thus far, everything else isn't good either.

Steve

In the United States up through the late 1950's, rail travel was the most common source of transportation. It was in the post-war era that G.M. and Standard Oil went throughout the U.S. and purchased/dismantled most major mass transit systems so that they could build highways and sell cars...what a mess this has become!

Little by little major citys across the U.S. are recognizing just how much light rail has rectified traffic problems and systems are now being restored.

I am a licensed Streetcar Motorman/Conductor and Dispatcher as I was a volunteer with Old Pueblo Trolley in Tucson, AZ.

As far as passenger service being efficient...just look at what the Japenese have done with the famous Bullet Train...and there has never been an accident.

The reason for the likes of Amtrack not being successful...$$ and politics!...good ole government!

Cargo travel by rail is the best solution...but safety is a must and is sometimes compromised by corporate greed!