Talk:Dual gauge/Archive 1

Comment

I wish this article had a little bit less terminology. I'm a little confused by the conversion section; what is a "sleeper"? It's not in the railroad terminology article linked below either. -edisk

The pitfalls of writing as a railway enthusiast! I've made an attempt to fix the conversion section, but what other terms are rail-babble to the layman? Point as regards rail terminology taken. I'll add sleeper. Anything else missing? zoney ███ talk 23:14, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

A "sleeper", in this context, is a railroad tie and NOT a sleeper, big difference! Peter Horn User talk 18:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolution of gauge: 1 mm or 0.1 mm?

I found the following equivalents in the text:

• 5 ft 2 in (1574.8 mm)
• 5 ft 6 in (1676.4 mm)
• 6 ft 2 in (1879.6 mm)

I think they would actually be:

• 5 ft 2 in (1575 mm) 62
• 5 ft 6 in (1676 mm) 66
• 6 ft 2 in (1880 mm) 74 or 74 in (1,880 mm)

Certainly 4 ft 8.5 in gets metricated in the UK to 1435 mm gauge rather than 1435.1 mm. I would have thought that a resolution of 1 mm would apply elsewhere, rather than 0.1 mm as implied in this article. I have not checked other articles to see if resolution is inconsistent. What do others know?
Bobblewik 07:43, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do not believe that accuracy greater than millimetre is required. I think someone simply got a bit too happy with false accuracy. —Morven 20:00, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. I was positive that it was a case of false precision but it is nice to have a second opinion.

Bobblewik  (talk) 20:25, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Actually, worse than that - I just copied them from an online conversion tool without thinking about it! My apologies! It'd all be so much simpler if we all used the perfect gauge (5 ft 3 in, 1600 mm). Broader but not too broad, and easily convertable! Ah sure, 'tis grand! :o) zoney ███ talk 00:58, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it would be simpler to have a single universal gauge, and nice for passengers if that gauge were 1.5 m or more. As far as exact conversion is concerned, we need multiples of 127 mm (5 inches). The Irish gauge has a conversion mismatch of 0.2 mm (which is evidently tolerable). But it is the first value that is within 1 mm of a multiple of 100 mm and a multiple of 1 inch. That may be partly what you meant by 'easily convertable'. Other multiples of 400 mm are less interesting.

Bobblewik  (talk) 11:59, 22 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I do strongly recommend, nay urge, the use of Template:RailGauge at all times!

In a few articles I found 190.5mm gauge or 7+1⁄2 in (190.5 mm) gauge, an accuracy to the nearest 0.5 mm. See above Peter Horn User talk 16:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Resolution of gauge. 1 mm

There is no need to quote the gauge with more resolution of 1mm. Model railways excepted. When quoted in inches, 4' 8½" implies a resolution of about 1/4 inch equal to +/-6mm.

Picture needed for African Gauge unification

Could the person who did the neat diagram for the 3 rail Dual Gauge please do a similar picture for African 4 rail narrow gauge dual gauge, including the bonus Standard Gauge configuration.

Done. Though I wasn't the author of the original, which incidently needs to be redone (not just straight download and resave, artifacts must be removed) as a PNG. zoney ♣ talk 14:09, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Picture needed for African Gauge unification 2

Zoney picture looks pretty good!

However the 1000mm and 1067mm gauge look too similar.

Could the 1000mm and 1067mm gauges be make to look different, even though the diagram might otherwise be to scalee.

I'd prefer it stays accurate, in real life one won't see visually a 7 cm gauge difference either. The dimensions on the image are already a slight exaggeration (one can just about see the difference). zoney ♣ talk 09:10, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The revised picture with the extra measurements (435mm, etc) look very good. Syd1435 09:14, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

A recent (Oct 2004) proposal for an electrified Kenya-Sudan line could use just such sleepers since Kenya & Uganda are 1000mm while Sudan is 1067mm. Further North is Egypt at 1435mm. Syd1435 09:18, 2004 Nov 9 (UTC)

Complexity of a dual gauge switch

According to the picture of a swith in the Czech Republic, one would guess that such switch is actually simpler than switch of one gauge rail. I understand, if rails are dual guage in all directions then the switch is more complicated. But I don't see any point to add the note about complexity of such a switch under a paragraph about quite quaint accident. I am not a railway expert, so I kindly ask to move the note somewhere a bit else (above a paragraph about accident?) and discuss the problem of complexity a bit more widely. Of course, only if such a request is reasonable.

The 1435 and 1600 are too similar, and need moveable "K-crossings" as well as the switches to be practible. Brennan designed such switches c1905, but was eventually rejected. Tabletop (talk) 13:41, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Complexity of dual gauge turnouts.

Point taken, some changes made.

211.30.76.7 06:21, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Revision of diagrams

I was not too satisfied with the first version of the "3-rail diagram", which I originally created. I have therefore updated this image. I did also update the "African 4-rail diagram" in the same style.

--SAB 08:02, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

'Tis good stuff. zoney ♣ talk 11:04, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Title of article

I think "dual gauge" is somewhat misleading, as there may be more than two gauges involved. "Combined gauge" or "Combined track" (former title of the article) would IMHO be better.

--SAB 18:06, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

But: 'Dual gauge' is the most obvious title and applies to most situations. I would certainly suggest the others exist as redirects. The problem is that nobody is going to be looking for, or linking to, the names 'combined gauge' or 'combined track'. —Morven 18:24, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Most of the content here relates to dual gauge, and there is little multi-gauge track that is more than dual. Dual gauge is rare enough! I think we should stick with this obvious, common title. zoney ♣ talk 19:18, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Transporter wagons

Thanks to Philip J. Raymond for tidying up the transporter wagon item.

My prime aim was to get a two way link to Leek and Manifold Valley Light Railway which actually used the things, the L&MLR being a brand new topic mentioning these transporter wagons.

Syd1435 10:14, 2004 Nov 24 (UTC)

Examples

In Stuttgart, Germany...etc. Unless the trams run on meter gauge and the U-bahn runs on standard gauge, dual gauge is irrelevant. But the loading gauge of the larger equiment needs to be taken into account, if both run on standard gauge and thus the distance between track centers need to to be adequate so as to accomodate the wider equipment. --Peter Horn 17:11, 22 March 2006 (UTC) Note revised. --Peter Horn 18:28, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

In Stuttgart, trams do run on meter gauge, while stadtbahn (not U-Bahn) cars do run on standard gauge, so there is a definite need for dual gauge there (see the picture I've inserted in the article). Trams use the middle and right rail, and stadtbahn cars use the left and right rail, so both will be alligned to platform edges to the right of the track (trams have doors on the right side, only, stadtbahn cars have doors on both sides). -Urbanskater 22:51, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Why do we have a picture of the Singapore LRT? That's not dual gauge. The picture looks a bit like dual gauge but it isn't. And it's not mentioned in the text. Hayttom (talk) 18:03, 14 July 2016 (UTC)

That bothered me too, so I deleted it.Douglas W. Jones (talk) 16:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

tracks or sleepers?

"An advantage of the four-rail dual gauge track is that the four rails combined to give some of the greater strength of two rails of double the weight. The allows the old rails to be reused to some extent, instead of being scrapped and used for fenceposts."

Seems less than clear. Coriolise 11:01, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I can't see the sense in this either. Even if there is four-rail dual-gauge track, each train still runs only on two of the four rails. How do the ununsed rails contibute to the strength (stability?) of the used ones? -Urbanskater 22:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Because the rail pairs are connected together via the sleepers and fastenings (like multiple panels of a Bailey bridge), they have a combined strength that is more than that of one rail in isolation. Tabletop (talk) 10:42, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

other dual gauge tracks (Italy)

Please add in the page the Potenza-Avigliano line, that is 3rail dual gauge 950/1435 about 12 km. Intermediate stop of Tiera has two platform on either side to accomodate the different width of trains. At the other end of line, between Bari and Modugno the NG trak run parallel to the SG of Bari-Taranto main line. A short rail section of about 5km 1000/1435 is present between Trento and Lavis, to allow use of NG line for an induistrial siding along the line. In Sassari station first track is dual gauge 950/1435 IN past between 1952 and 1974 the section between Agrigento Bassa and Agrigento Centrale (5km) was 4 rail 950/1435, in late sisties changed to 3 rail.

Suggestions

I have just come upon this article whilst bimbling around WP, and whilst very interesting, I found it a little confusing. Some of the references to lines both extant and planned need a little more contextual support to my mind. the Section Example in Africa refers to the Central line, without mentioning the country, and further on, the use of flag icons rather than a text indication is a little unclear. I had to rely on mouse-over text to tell me which countries were being referred to. Perhaps you the authors are too close to the material, and are assuming a background in your subject that many readers won't have.Yendor1958 (talk) 08:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Four-rail tracks in Lucerne - a picture for the article, if someone can identify it

Mixed-gauge rail crossing in Lucerne, Switzerland

I took this picture in Lucerne. I assumed it was dual-gauge, but why are there four tracks?

I think it would be a good picture for the article, if it can be identified, and perhaps the article could explain this configuration.

--Nate Silva (talk) 18:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe the 4-rail configuration is to allow sufficient clearance (e.g. past station platforms) for standard gauge wagons loaded on narrow gauge "transporter" wagons?? - otherwise, with 3-rail configuration, the standard gauge wagon would overhang too far on one side of the track. I understand the use of transporter wagons is relatively common on the Swiss metre gauge lines. I passed through Lucerne last year and noted dual gauge track to the south of the city (in the direction of the metre gauge Brunig Pass line) to serve a number of industries.

UD123546 (talk) 14:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Clearance past bridges, tunnels and platforms is the most likely reason. The 4-rail configuration may also allow fixed diamonds at the end of the common section rather than turnouts with moving parts. Fortunately the difference between 1000mm and 1435mm allow for 4-rail dual gauge leaving room for the railclips. Dual gauge with say 1600mm and 1435mm leaves little room for the railclips and would require the rails even in 3-rail configuration to be "filed/shaved" to fit at considerable cost.

In Bangladesh, which has long sections of presumably 3-rail dual gauge, changes to 4-rail dual gauge over the new 4km long Jamuna Bridge. Figure that one out! Tabletop (talk) 10:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Hendaye triple-gauge?

Where does the metre-gauge railway in Hendaye come from?--Bancki (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Refimprove tag

I have added a refimprove tag to this article since most claims seem to be unsourced. Here are two concrete problems, although I guess they are only the tip of an iceberg:

• The article claims that an Irish railway converted from "5 ft 2 in (1,600 mm)," to "5 ft 3 in (1,600 mm)". I suspect that only the first metric conversion is wrong, but I am not going to touch this before checking with a source. However, I can only find Wikipedia mirrors on this topic.
• A proposed triple gauge system for Africa gets a lot of weight in this article. The only thing similar to sourcing for this is a single footnote saying "RailywaysAfrica". Yes, "RailwaysAfrica", no further details at all. The system is mentioned in African Union of Railways as one of many "conspicuous by their absence". Is this all original research? I have no idea. Hans Adler 10:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

62 or 62 in (1,575 mm) and 63 or 63 in (1,600 mm). Therefor 5 ft 2 in (1,600 mm) is pure and unadulterated nonsense!!! Peter Horn User talk 16:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Dual, tripple and multiple rail gauge

Kars–Tbilisi–Baku railway

"Copy and paste" from Talk:Kars–Tbilisi–Baku railway#Gauge

Dual gauge tracks in Wallaroo, South Australia. The outer rail on the right is for Australia Broad Gauge (still in use by an occasional tourist train), the inner rail is for standard gauge (discontinued further along the line, and disused)

Kars–Tbilisi–Baku railway#Gauge. Dual gauge between 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) and 1520 would require 4 rails because the small difference of 85 mm (3.35 in) simply does not allow 3 rail dual gauge track. 1600 and 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in), with a difference of 165 mm (6.5 in), is about as close as one can get to be able to have 3 rail dual gauge. See rail gauge in Australia. Peter Horn User talk 01:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Quite so! Same with 1000 and 1067 in southern Africa. However just as Russia wants to extend its broad gauge to Vienna, Europe may want to extend standard gauge to central Asia, to reduce transshipment costs. Tabletop (talk) 03:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There may be an expensive solution, a specially designed cross section rolled steel rail, a flanged inverted U with a groove on a wide flat top. Peter Horn User talk 19:25, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Quite so! Tabletop (talk) 10:58, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

This might be suitable for slow speed lines only.

Rolling a special cross-section or trimming a standard rail to fit would be expensive. One solution might be to use the special flatter and thick rail used for switchblades in tangential turnouts.. Tabletop (talk) 23:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Dual gauge between the Indian gauge of 1676 or the Iberian gauge of 1668 and the standard gauge of 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) also exists because the difference of 9.5 inches (241 mm) or 233 mm (9.17 in) allows it. Peter Horn User talk 19:12, 18 August 2009 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 18:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Triple gauge in Afghanistan

"Copy and paste" from User talk:Tabletop/Archive02#Triple gauge in Afghanistan

The 156 mm (6.14 in) or 152 mm (6 in) difference between 1520 or 1524 and 1676 is manageable using light rails with each with a base of less than 6 in (150 mm) and special clips. Peter Horn User talk 20:09, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Special clips have been developed in South Australia, where standard gauge and Irish gauge are a close fit. The track cannot use the heaviest rails, which may restrict axleloads.

One might also use tangential turnout rail and its baseplates, which has the same weight, but is stockier than normal rail. Tabletop (talk) 00:47, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Railway wheels are about 75mm wide, and can tolerate a certain degree of overgauge track, say 25mm, at perhaps a reduce speed.

If the pair of light rails making the gauge rails are say 40kg/m, do they have the strength and stiffness of a single rail of say 80kg/m, which would exceed the weight of the opposite rail of say 60kg/m.

Not likely. Peter Horn User talk 01:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Are there any problems such as twisting in the hot sun due to having unequal rails on either side.

The linear expansion would be the same. Peter Horn User talk 01:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Multiple gauge track would probably require special tamping machines.

Probably and likely. Peter Horn User talk 01:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

75 mm wide wheels would appear to be tram wheels at best! In North American practice the overall width is 5+1⁄2 in (139.7 mm) ±1⁄8 in (3.18 mm), this includes the flange which is 1+5⁄32 in (29.37 mm) wide. In addition to that there are special 28 in (711.2 mm) wheels that are 5+23⁄32 in (145.26 mm) ±1⁄8 in (3.18 mm) wide, this includes a flange that is 1+3⁄8 in (34.93 mm) wide. This info, minus the convertions, was taken from my 1970 edition of the CAR and LOMOTIVE CYCLOPEDIA a.k.a. Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia Of American Practice By the Simmons-Boardman Publishing Corporation. It has occurred to me that two heavy bullhead rails or double-headed rail, horizontally bolted together to maintain the correct spacing and mounted on special plates, might be feasible but expensive. The difference between 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) and 1520 could possibly be accomodated by a double grooved version of the LR55 rail. If the track is overgauged by 25 mm the grooves at all crossings would needed to be 12.5 mm wider than usual, don't overlook the back to back dimension between the wheels!! Incedentally, all the locomotives that were exported from the Montreal Locomotive Works came equiped with standard North American wheels Peter Horn User talk 21:30, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

At Rail profile#External links you'll find Table of North American tee rail (flat bottom) sections. The bottom dimension (BW) of 85 lb/yd (42.16 kg/m), 90 lb/yd (44.64 kg/m) and even some 100 lb/yd (49.61 kg/m) will fit within 6 in (152.4 mm). 85 lb/yd (42.16 kg/m) supports N. Am axle loads albeit at reduced speeds. Peter Horn User talk 22:27, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Btw 80 kg/m (161.27 lb/yd) is rather heavy! Peter Horn User talk 22:35, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Maybe the twinned rails could be 30 kg/m (60.48 lb/yd) totalling 60 kg/m (120.95 lb/yd). It would be most useful if the old light rails can be reused, as otherwise they are not much use except for fencepost or for scrap.

Another potential problem with the twinned gauge rails is whether there is enough space in between for thermit welding. Tabletop (talk) 00:39, 27 August 2009

(UTC)

Since Thermite welding does not appear to involve the use of welding rods there should be enough room. Peter Horn User talk 01:35, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Thermit welding uses molds held in place by steel formwork. The molds are made of a friable sandy material, and can be rubbed into shape to suit different size or worn rails. If the steel formwork does not fit, special formwork would be needed, so long as the molds do not get too thin. It probably would be necessary to unspike the other gauge rail and move it out of the way to make more room. At least this issue has been flagged, so that the whole idea cannot be shot down by unexpected issue. Tabletop (talk) 02:12, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

At Rail profile#External links you'll find ThyssenKrupp handbook, Vignoles rail & ThyssenKrupp handbook, Light Vignoles rail. Either one should be able to tell you which is the heaviest rail of which the flat bottom dimension does not exceed 130 mm or even 135 mm. Some additional comments above. Peter Horn User talk 01:51, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

It is very good to see a number of extra alternative solutions (and some data about rail sizes) since one of these is bound to be better than the others. I know about bullhead rail, and bullhead checkrail, but I have to say, I had not thought of using them for the Afghan multi gauge track. Tabletop (talk) 02:29, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

And Bullhead rail would work nicely in 1600/1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) dual gauge in Australia. Peter Horn User talk 02:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

All other things being equal, existing off the shelf rail sizes should be used. In Australia, only a few of the European sizes are made (AS40, AS50, AS60, AS68 and BL53) and no bullhead (which predates the BHP Steelworks of about 1915 and was imported anyway). Tabletop (talk) 02:53, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"copy and paste" from other talk pages, see abouve for sources. Peter Horn User talk 18:24, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

[outdent]There's no benefit to making odd profile rails to squeeze dual gauge tightly together as has been discussed here. I'd have to go digging to reference it, but there is a minimum clearance requirement between the rails of dual gauge, based upon the potential for debris to lodge in the gap and cause derailment. I'm pretty sure that it was detailed on railpage a few months ago. Apparently the dual gauge Irish broad gauge / standard gauge tracks in Australia apply a lower speed limit to the broad gauge than to the standard gauge for this reason. --Athol Mullen (talk) 08:10, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

It is very important and highly desirable that the Indian broad gauge and Russian gauge lines meet without any other gauge intervening. 121.102.47.39 (talk) 04:59, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Too Many Gauges at Locomotive Factories

Škoda quad-gauge track

Locomotive factories frequently seem to have plenty of rail gauges in their in-plant trackage, as illustrated by the photo of the tracks at Škoda Transportation (Russian gauge, standard gauge and meter gauge, I think). My best guess at the geolocation of this image is 49.7384721°N 13.3606028°E / 49.7384721; 13.3606028 (the track is in the shadow of the retaining wall in the Google satellite view).

The turntable at Brookville Equipment Corporation, a locomotive manufacturer, appears to have 8 rails. They make mining equipment as well as standard-gauge locomotives, so they have to handle an extreme range of gauges. See this blog post for a photo of the turntable. The turntable is located here: 41.151183°N 79.065571°W / 41.151183; -79.065571. Most of the tracks into the factory are only dual gauge (standard and Cape Gauge, because that is the most common gauge for mining equipment in North America), but the test track and one track into the factory seem to have all the gauges.

The article mentions just one example in passing; this should be broadened:

• The EMD locomotive plant in McCook, Illinois maintained a small amount of multi-gauge track with up to seven parallel rails in 1960s and 70's ...

I found the current multi-gauge EMD test track in Muncie, Indiana. Look at the aerial photos centered here: 40.161505°N 85.397437°W / 40.161505; -85.397437. It seems to have 5 rails, and it passes through a crossing diamond where it crosses a standard gauge line. That's where I centered the image. Russian gauge, standard gauge, meter gauge and cape gauge?

I found the GE test track on Google Maps. Look at the aerial photos centered here: 42.145467°N 80.01625°W / 42.145467; -80.01625. It looks like the current test track only has 3 gauges, plus overhead wire, plus third rail. There is still a turnout where standard gauge merges with the others. That's where I centered the image map uisng the above coordinates.

It would be nice to get photos of the GE and Brookville tracks into Wikimedia Commons. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 16:32, 8 April 2015 (UTC) (Revised Douglas W. Jones (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2015 (UTC))

Locomotive on Brookville 7-rail multi-gauge test track

7-rail test track in left foreground

• I found some photos of the Brookville multi-gauge test track in commons. They aren't the greatest -- the photographer was focusing on the locomotive, not on the track. I added them to Wikimedia category: Dual-gauge rail tracks and linked to them here. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 15:50, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

To continue the list of locomotive factories that have dual-gauge trackage, take a look at ABB Group plant outside Zurich. Look at the aerial photos centered here on Google, for example: 47.4163245°N 8.5355134°E / 47.4163245; 8.5355134. 4 gauges are visible, probably standard, meter and Russian broad gauge, and they have several multigauge turnouts. Douglas W. Jones (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Here is another locomotive factory with a long multi-gauge test track, the Vossloh España plant outside Valencia. You can find a quad-gauge turnout at the this location: 39.5437076°N 0.3101011°W / 39.5437076; -0.3101011(Google street view even has a good view of it from the nearby grade crossing). The test track connects to the rest of the plant by a transfer table: 39.5453628°N 0.3053644°W / 39.5453628; -0.3053644. In this case, the rails appear to be Spanish broad gauge, standard gauge and meter gauge. 75.175.221.169 (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

South Australia

The material referrenced for SA is well out of date, and has not been updated for quite a while - more contemporaneous info can be found in the forums at railpage.com.au Sulzer55 (talk) 11:29, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Except that web fora are not generally reliable sources. Tim PF (talk) 23:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Small differences

Re Dual gauge#Configuration: differences as small as 3+1⁄2 in (89 mm) between 5 ft (1,524 mm) and 56.5 could be accomodated with an adaption (two grooves) of this profile without resorting to 4 rails. See my comments at Talk:Rail profile#LLR55 rail. Peter Horn User talk 18:51, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Dual gauge using two stepped rails.

I'm not sure if this is covered by the above paragraph, but it is certainly missing from the main article. After the standard gauge line from Hungary crosses the border into Ukraine, it terminates in the station at Csap (Hungarian name - I don't know what the town/station is called in Ukranian). The platform where it terminates is also used by regular Ukranian trains running on Russian (ex-Soviet) gauge tracks. The difference between these guages is too small to allow a third rail to be used, so instead both rails are 'stepped' - i.e. the Ukranian trains run on the top of the rail and the Hungarian trains on the lower (inner) step.

I hope this explanation is clear! This is based on brief observation and by blowing up a couple of rather poor phone photos, so my understanding may be wrong, but it definitely seemed to work this way from what I could see/deduce. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.31.182.95 (talk) 00:25, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Gauge conversion

Half of the Gauge conversion section is either irrelevant or just duplicates content that rightly belongs in the Gauge conversion article. Gauge convertible sleepers do not make dual gauge, and I've seen nothing about India to indicate that it uses dual gauge (rather than just plain gauge conversion).
Unless anyone has serious objections or gets there first, I shall prune out those irrelevances in the next few days. Tim PF (talk) 20:02, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Earliest Third Rail

The earliest significant lengths of third rail occurred on the Great Western Railway in the UK, between the 1435 and 2140 systems. It is not known when this started, but it was all removed in 1892. Tabletop (talk) 13:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Dual gauge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070928065008/http://www.ippmedia.com/ipp/guardian/2007/06/14/92487.html to http://www.ippmedia.com/ipp/guardian/2007/06/14/92487.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20060910185049/http://www.vr.com.vn:80/English/hientaihoatdong.html to http://www.vr.com.vn/english/hientaihoatdong.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:57, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dual gauge. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005091110/http://sbchf.narod.ru/11/sahjd.html to http://sbchf.narod.ru/11/sahjd.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Diagram of "Proposed broad quadruple gauge of the 1435mm, 1520mm, 1676mm and 2140mm"

This is a very nicely drawn diagram, but what does it achieve? Who has proposed this arrangement? This is pure speculation, not a record of fact. One of the gauges shown is Brunel gauge! Including this diagram suggests that they do meet or have met somewhere - which is misleading. For four rails for 1435/1524/1676mm the gaps would be 152 and 241mm, there is a debate on this above, but no reference to a respectable railway engineering publication which states that four rails are unworkable - so suggesting that five are needed is speculation. There is already a good diagram of this type which illustrates the topic by showing what can be done and where it exists. I propose to remove it unless anyone states a good reason why it should stay. Chris.Bristol (talk) 21:00, 17 January 2017 (UTC) Now removed. Chris.Bristol (talk) 02:04, 10 February 2017 (UTC)