Talk:Rail gauge in Australia

	Australia portal Rail gauge in Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Australian Transport (assessed as Low-importance).
	Need help improving this article? Ask a Librarian^{What's this?} at the National Library of Australia.
	The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance.

Trains: By country series Mid‑importance

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. See also: WikiProject Trains to do list and the Trains Portal.TrainsWikipedia:WikiProject TrainsTemplate:WikiProject Trainsrail transport articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated projects or task forces:
/
	This article is supported by the By country series task force.

CSD nomination

This article was nominated for CSD as a short article lacking context. Given that it then consisted of one line, that is understandable. However, it had a couple of links in What Links Here and as an Australian, I had some background in it. I have created it as an Australian rail stub. It still needs more referencing. Capitalistroadster 07:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

I indend to expand his article into either Rail gauge in Australia or Gauge standardisation in Australia, with discussion of the various gauge standardisation proposals that have appeared over the years. Not just the origins of the gauges.

Eg:

the 1921 Royal Commission into Gauge Standardisation
The 1940s Clapp plan.
Work on the 1960s - 1970s Kalgoolie - Perth and Broken Hill - SA links to form the Transcontinental line.

A few sources found so far:

"Standardisation of Railway Gauges" (HTML). Year Book Australia, 1967. Australian Bureau of Statistics. 25/01/1967. Retrieved 2008-02-08. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Ron J. Fitch (2006). "Australian Railwayman: From Cadet Engineer to Railways Commissioner". Rosenberg Publishing. pp. pages 195 - 199. ISBN 1877058483. Retrieved 2008-03-05. {{cite web}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Feel free to jump in and help! Wongm (talk) 10:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Army depots

Additional break of gauge stations were at:

Tocumwal
Oaklands
Bandiana (east of Wodonga)
Wodonga Coal sidings, for transhipping coal.
Wodonga may have also had facilities for transfering livestock.

Tabletop (talk) 09:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you consider Bandiana break-of-gauge? It was a depot served by tracks of two gauges, sure, but was there transhipment taking place, IE were goods transhipped there? OTOH Tocumwal was a very important change of gauge point, with large facilities for bogie exchange. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Bandiana was mostly a military depot. It is possible that a Bandiana is some kind of military equipment.

Served by tracks of two gauges, or perhaps a low speed siding track of mixed gauge?

Tocumwal and Oaklands were also military depots.

Never any bogie exchange at Tocumwal or Oaklands. Tabletop (talk) 12:58, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

During WWI and WWII, most freight waggons were 4-wheel.

IIRC, Wodonga had a small bogie exchange from 1960s.

Stillborn gauges

For over a century, newspapers and parliaments in Australia debated two issues:

cheaper railways using narrower gauges.
the inconvenience of the break of gauge.

Thus South Australia considered building more 1067 than they actually did, with possibly more breaks of gauge.

Thus Victoria considered in the 1870s building large section of the country network in either 1067 or 2' 9". This is separate from the small lengths of 762 lines actually built in the 1900s.

Thus Queensland also considered introducing 2' 9" to reduce costs compared to their original 1067. ^[1]

Tabletop (talk) 02:56, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do not put it in without refs Satu Suro 04:15, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tabletop (talk) 13:06, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

South Australia also considered at least one 2'6" line, as did NSW, while the original plans for Vic included substantially more 2'6" lines. --Michael Johnson (talk) 01:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Parliamentary". Rockhampton Bulletin and Central Queensland Advertiser (Qld. : 1861 - 1871). Qld.: National Library of Australia. 23 May 1871. p. 2. Retrieved 27 October 2013.

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

No consensus to move. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:28, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rail gauge in Australia → Track gauge in Australia – Per Talk:Track_gauge#Requested_move. HTML2011 (talk) 22:56, 24 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I think rail gauge is the more widely used term in Australia. [1] Not sure about other places though. Moondyne (talk) 00:25, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your link only shows "Google Web Search Interest". There is even more interest in "rail"[2]. And what about:
- https://www.google.com/search?q=%22track+gauge%22+site%3Aau 16,700 results
- https://www.google.com/search?q=%22rail+gauge%22+site%3Aau 13,400 results
- You are editing since 2003 [3]??? How much nonsense like this have you spread in Wikipedia since then? HTML2011 (talk) 12:24, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I realise that you have only been editing for two days, so I should inform you that we don't look kindly on personal attacks. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:05, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why should you inform me of that? HTML2011 (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of the last comment that you posted. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:38, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Worldwide, it appears that "track gauge" is the common term. In Australia, it appears that "rail gauge" is the most common term. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 02:22, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. I agree with Moondyne and AQ that "rail gauge" is the common term in Australia. Worth creating a redirect at Track gauge in Australia, though. Jenks24 (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect created. This request could probably be closed, as the discussion has established that the current title is correct per WP:ENGVAR. Alpha_Quadrant ^(talk) 17:24, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Map

If someone feels up to it I think a detailed map or maps showing the different gauges in Australia would greatly help the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.180.127 (talk) 02:01, 28 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The Clapp map in the article now has a legend listing gauges. Tabletop (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rejections

In 1922, 273 inventions to solve the break of gauge had been rejected, and none adopted.

In 1933, 140 devices were rejected.

How can the number of rejections go DOWN from 1922 to 1933? Tabletop (talk) 12:44, 26 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ref gauge used

a lot of internal wiki converts are written where the gauge was built to blah blah (metric) (btw that's halb imperial)

shouldn't these be all written with the imperial measure quoted and the metric in brackets ? no-one built a 600mm rail track, it was a 2' gauge!! --Dave Rave (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No. Metric oriented countries constructed 600mm gauge railways and Imperial oriented countries 2ft, which is converted as 610mm. Example: 600mm rolling stock of the (metric German) Namibian railways was later used on imperial 2ft (610mm) South African tracks. See:Two-foot-gauge railways in South Africa and Template:RailGauge for all proper conversions.

I should have been more parochial, in pre metric days, rails were not built to 1435mm or 600mm, it's 4'81/2" and 2', shouldn't this show in the article dialogue? --Dave Rave (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Metrication started in France in the 1790s and was implemented in stages around the world. Widespread introduction of railways occurred during that same period. In conclusion, there wasn't a pre-metric period in railway history. It's true that many metric countries adopted the imperial "standard" 4'81/2" track gauge, but domestic metric networks were developed in metric "round" values like the 600mm Decauville track in France and (good example) metre gauge, their imperial counterparts were 2 ft (610 mm) and 3 ft 6 in (1,067 mm). Standard gauge was originally DEFINED in 4'81/2" and BUILT TO 1435mm in France, Germany, the Netherlands or 4'81/2" in the UK, US or other imperial oriented countries.

On Wikipedia, as a rule of thumb:

Track gauges are always defined in their original unit.
Articles concerning countries which adopted specific track gauges AFTER metrication mention track gauges in metric values or converted imperial values. (in general: Europe)
There is no general consensus about articles concerning countries which adopted specific track gauges BEFORE metrication. (Australia, India)

--Aaron-Tripel (talk) 17:18, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

true and true, but this article is about Australia , which is imperial,. As you say there is no consensus, shouldn't one be made.? The short north was never built to 1435mm, it's 4'8.5" --Dave Rave (talk) 21:58, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, Australia is metric since 1970: Metrication#Chronology and status of conversion by country. The issue of lack of uniform Template:RailGauge usage in AU has been raised before: Talk:Rail transport in Australia#Presentation of rail gauges. See this talk page for lengthy discussions about track gauge issues on WP: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains/Archive: 2011, 1 --Aaron-Tripel (talk) 16:57, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Rail gauge defined in metric or in imperial units? What the source says. If in pre-metric 1965 rolling stock was ordered in Germany by mm in contract? -- gauge is defined metric for that stock. Same for track orders. And after 1970 there could be ordered in imperial units (say, in England). If there is a source for it, write it. (btw, every sourced gauge definition, be it in metric or in imperial units, should be available in {{RailGauge}}). And the input unit you use, states the definition (that's why s.g. can be 1435mm or 56.5in: a difference in this matter). Note that the lk=on option links the gauge to the defined unit: 1,435 mm (4 ft 81⁄2 in) or 4 ft 81⁄2 in (1,435 mm).

An other issue could be: "the article is written in imperial units all by style, so what about that metric definition?" (or v.v.). Well, 1. if the gauge is defined imperial, it must be written (entered) here in imperial. And 2., if the article style is in metric, add parameter first=met. That would produce text 1,435 mm (4 ft 81⁄2 in), consistent in both ways. -DePiep (talk) 21:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I add: all my points made here, and their examples, here are symmetrical (metric and imperial units can be switched). When a source for a certain rail gauge (for a stock or track) is missing, one can start assuming the coutries metric at time of ordering. Then if that unit is not recognised ({{RailGauge}} returns your input text but does not show a converted value), their either: a. propose your new found gauge by source at {RG] talk, pointing to sources or b. use the other unit as a definition to enter. -DePiep (talk) 08:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Aaron-Tripel for the links to earlier discussions on the subject.

Common usage in Australian publications - internal railway documents and published books was always stating the imperial measurements, and long after the official introduction of metrical standards in the 1970s they were still being used. As always the need to show the local usage/nomenclature first - then the conversion into the other measurement within a template - as outlined by User:DePiep - seems the most sensible and obvious solution to the issue. satusuro 10:22, 20 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this sums it up. My take: For any track or rolling stock: 1. Write the rail gauge in units as defined by sources (ideal). 2. If no source exists, us the local temporal units (historically, that's imperial for AUS; new stuff after 1970 possible in metric). 3. If the article style prefers a specific unit, use |first=imp -or- |first=met in {{RailGauge}}; this graciously does not change the gauge definition you found.

Dave Rave, did all this help? -DePiep (talk) 12:46, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

a lot of talk about metric and Europe and foreign, for a rail page about Australia, totally hyperbole and useless. The links to discussion, didn't help. The final paragraph, pretty much what I wanted. It was built imperial, 'nuff sed. (Sigh) --Dave Rave (talk) 22:36, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. I'll keep this in mind and any next time try to be more condensed. -DePiep (talk) 10:04, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

is Fisherman Islands a break of gauge?

I question weather fisherman islands is actually a break of gauge. there is no transference of goods between gauges here. it is a dual gauge line, but they run straight from port to destination.

Pga1965 (talk) 10:42, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

early history and origins of the gauge muddle

I have done some work to expand the section on the origins of the gauge muddle, in particularly to draw on the scholarship of Mills. Given how significant the decisions between 1849 and 1853 were I think the level of detail given is justified. I also added reference to the context within the British Empire at the time. I think some further small amendments could be made to indicate the changing views of the development of railway technology in that period which saw the apparent technical benefits of broad gauge all but evaporate; this is I think a secondary consideration when that key to the history was the advice and understanding of the importance of a common gauge and the subsequent inability of the figures involved to bring this to fruition. Australia was not alone in this problem. Tjej (talk) 01:21, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Murray Basin project

Is Murray Basin project about rail standardisation? iamthinking2202 (please ping on reply if you would be so kind) 01:06, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Iamthinking2202: Yes. SCHolar44 (talk) 01:35, 29 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "Parliamentary". Rockhampton Bulletin and Central Queensland Advertiser (Qld. : 1861 - 1871). Qld.: National Library of Australia. 23 May 1871. p. 2. Retrieved 27 October 2013.

[1]