Why didn't Brunel settle for 7 feet?

[Spitfire2865]

 There was a network of 6’ Gauge lines in the US (mostly in New York State)

I thought the American broad gauge was used in the South, not North.  Hell, the American Civil War was as much about ripping up and relaying railroads as it was about the fighting.  

[brianusa]

Perhaps Brunel should have stuck with ships!

 

Brian.

[Jol Wilkinson]

He joined the Protofour Society who eschewed any measurement which couldn't be complicated to two decimal points, so he added the quarter of an inch.

 

Mike.

Tin hat at the ready.

No, he founded the British Society of Engineers Who Can't Measure Properly, who were later influential in creating 00 gauge.

 

Wasn't Brunel the founding member of the P4 society

No, but he was responsible for the BGS.

 

Those who saw the BBC News piece this morning on the Brunel Museum in Bristol would also know how he has conned the meedja and educationalists into believing he was a great engineer, rather than the greatest Victorian self publicist. To quote from the Museum website "

 

"Called Being Brunel, the £7.2m (US$10.1m, €8.2m) museum explore the life of the man who is known as one of the greatest minds in the history of engineering, hailed as the “genius who built Britain”.

 

Clearly written by someone who thinks that Britain stops north of Watford, Brunel is still conning people.

 

[K14]

More importantly, he was a FRENCH ( descent ) engineer and 7'0¼’’ is - within tolerance - exactly 2.14 metre ................................................ don'ask me why he should have wanted 2.14m though !

 

One theory I've heard was that IKB started with a blank canvas, & being rather good at maths & geometry chose pi (π) as a starting point.

 

πm = 3.14 (10ft 3-5/8in), which is perhaps a bit too broad, but π–1m = 2.14 could be regarded as just broad enough.

[kevinlms]

Because he was obsessed with being regarded as a genius so he couldn't do anything so mundane as picking a gauge which had been used for carts. chariots etc. His reasoning was a wider gauge would lead to greater stability and allow higher speeds. Sadly, despite being a genius, he didn't realise that railways would be interconnected so the Great Western would in places come into contact with standard gauge railways and that there would be a need for through working. This mistake cost the GWR a lot of money.

It also lead to a war with the LNWR, who went to a great deal of trouble to keep the GWR (with its broad gauge). out of places like Birmingham (Curzon Street or New Street). The last thing they wanted was a change of change station, due to the sheer inconvenience of such a facility.

[JimC]

Track gauge apart though, Brunel was certainly correct in his belief that the Stephenson's loading gauge was far too small, and the british railways have been paying the penalty ever since and still are. One of the bad effects of the grouping was the adoption of lowest common denominator loading gauges: I believe the Scots lines at least had been somewhat more sensible with appreciably large loading gauges than the GWR, whose slightly larger loading gauge can have had very little to do with the broad gauge.

 

I've always been bemused by the notorious engravings of transfers- I've never understood why changing trains between two narrow gauge passenger trains should be any worse than broad gauge and narrow gauge, and I've heard it said the disruption was at least partially staged. Freight, on the other hand, was quite another matter.

[PatB]

I tend to think that Brunel's broad gauge was one of those cases where a technically superior but expensive and minority solution lost out to a cheaper and more widespread "good enough" approach. That's the free market for you.

 

As for not envisaging the interconnection of railways, Brunel was hardly alone in this, although he was the most prominent and allowed to continue furthest before it was recognised as a commercial error.

 

And I say that as a compatriot of the Stephenson who regards Brunel as a bit of a Johnny Come Lately in the railway engineering field .

[DCB]

Its a good job railways were started in the 19th century.

 

Just imagine aproposal for a 300 tonne machine 300 metres long travelling at 200km/h guided by two steel rails exactly1.43 metres apart over a distance of up to 600 miles with "Safety Rings" almost 30mm larger than the wheels to keep the wheels in line with the guide rails being promoted in  2018.   Stopping distance? Oh a mile or so give or take.

 

I expect the gauge varied a bit more than 1/4" when laid by inexperienced labour using rudimentary tools, screwing into wooden sleepers, often with inside keyed chairs they would have been lucky to keep within 1/2"

 

Brunel was a genius but across a number of fields, His father was a pioneer of tunnelling and mass production.   Oop north George Stephenson developed a very good safety lamp for mines and with, Robert Stephenson and Booth developed the modern steam loco but it was Henry Booth who suggested the breakthrough multi tube boiler  for which Stephensons are famous with their Rocket, probably named after its unstable rocking motion imparted by the inclined cylinders. It wasn't until Stephensons retro fitted the beast with a blast pipe after seeing Sans Pareil's arrangement that Rock-it actually started to perform as intended

 

Brunel's vision was the Intercity Railway between England's Premier city and one of a number of aspirants to the no 2 position, added to which he showed the way to Transatlantic Ocean Liners and produced the hardware to facilitate the laying of the Transatlantic Telephone cables ultimately the more important development for England, the Empire and the world than the Stephenson's endeavours..

[LMS2968]

It wasn't until Stephensons retro fitted the beast with a blast pipe after seeing Sans Pareil's arrangement that Rock-it actually started to perform as intended

Don't start that one again! Rocket was fitted with a blast pipe for each cylinder before it reached Rainhill, as was its predecessor, Lancashire Witch. There are letters still extant from Robert Stephenson saying that, after running tests at Killingworth Colliery, Rocket returned to the works and Robert experimented with different sizes of blastpipe to gain the highest vacuum. This was done via pipe from the smokebox, or whatever you want to call it, into a glass tube with its lower end immersed in water; the higher the vacuum, the higher the water rose in the tube. It was in this form that Rocket successfully ran the Trials, the only competitor to do so. Later it was found that combining the exhausts into a single pipe improved things further, but that was after Rainhill.

 

The blastpipe had been around since Richard Trevithick's engine at Pen-y-Darren a quarter of a century before Rainhill. Richard described it in writing, so destroying any possibility of patenting it. The theory by 1829 was well known. By 1829 slightly over 30 locomotives had been built, almost half of them by the Stephensons. To suggest that they stole the blastpipe idea from Timothy Hacworth is on a par to suggesting they also stole the idea of the wheel from him.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Its a good job railways were started in the 19th century.

 

Just imagine aproposal for a 300 tonne machine 300 metres long travelling at 200km/h guided by two steel rails exactly1.43 metres apart over a distance of up to 600 miles with "Safety Rings" almost 30mm larger than the wheels to keep the wheels in line with the guide rails being promoted in  2018.   Stopping distance? Oh a mile or so give or take.

 

I expect the gauge varied a bit more than 1/4" when laid by inexperienced labour using rudimentary tools, screwing into wooden sleepers, often with inside keyed chairs they would have been lucky to keep within 1/2"

 

Brunel was a genius but across a number of fields, His father was a pioneer of tunnelling and mass production.   Oop north George Stephenson developed a very good safety lamp for mines and with, Robert Stephenson and Booth developed the modern steam loco but it was Henry Booth who suggested the breakthrough multi tube boiler  for which Stephensons are famous with their Rocket, probably named after its unstable rocking motion imparted by the inclined cylinders. It wasn't until Stephensons retro fitted the beast with a blast pipe after seeing Sans Pareil's arrangement that Rock-it actually started to perform as intended

 

Brunel's vision was the Intercity Railway between England's Premier city and one of a number of aspirants to the no 2 position, added to which he showed the way to Transatlantic Ocean Liners and produced the hardware to facilitate the laying of the Transatlantic Telephone cables ultimately the more important development for England, the Empire and the world than the Stephenson's endeavours..

 

David,

 

the issue I have with Brunel and his reputation is that he is now effectively seen as only GB's only Victorian engineer. His work was varied and while he had some great successes, his failures, which were considerable. are overlooked or explained away. He was a strong self publicist, possibly because he had to create a public image to raise the funding and support for his various projects. Some of his successes have seen him branded by historians and journalist as a genius, but that is rather overstating the case and dismissive of his peers. Did he design Box Hill Tunnel so it aligned with the rising sun on his birthday? A happy coincidence or evidence or great vanity? The "hardware" for laying the Trans Atlantic cables could also be seen as something of a failure, an ill thought out launch facility, an ill fated maiden voyage with a boiler(?) explosion, sails that would catch fire if set when under steam power, ran as a passenger ship for only three years and then never on her intended route to the east, etc. Ill conceived is the polite way to see it, yet Brunel's fans present it as a great achievement.

 

Other Victorian engineers are more often remembered for their failures, something we British seem to prefer rather than applauding success. F W Webb is remembered more often for his unsuccessful attempts at compounding, not for developing Crewe into a leading manufacturing facility, or the  cost effectiveness and longevity of many of his other locos. Thomas Bouch, known for the Tay Bridge disaster, also intruded the first RoRo train ferry, helped develop the caisson and had other engineering successes, but isn't remembered for them.

No doubt other are remembered in the same, rather negative, way.

 

A close friend has two children of primary school age and his wife is a teacher. The only Victorian engineer ever mentioned is Brunel, whose work was restricted to London and the south. And therein lies my annoyance,  successes applauded, failures overlooked and singled out at the expense of other innovative engineers of the time. We live in a celebrity driven culture and of all the Victorian engineers, he fits the bill but it gives a distorted impression of GB's engineering heritage. And, at a time when the nation would benefit of more engineers, how many young people are put off by that photograph of him?

 

Jol

[kevinlms]

Track gauge apart though, Brunel was certainly correct in his belief that the Stephenson's loading gauge was far too small, and the british railways have been paying the penalty ever since and still are. One of the bad effects of the grouping was the adoption of lowest common denominator loading gauges: I believe the Scots lines at least had been somewhat more sensible with appreciably large loading gauges than the GWR, whose slightly larger loading gauge can have had very little to do with the broad gauge.

 

I've always been bemused by the notorious engravings of transfers- I've never understood why changing trains between two narrow gauge passenger trains should be any worse than broad gauge and narrow gauge, and I've heard it said the disruption was at least partially staged. Freight, on the other hand, was quite another matter.

The Broad Gauge had only a few extra inches, in width above platforms & a small amount in height, so hardly significant. For over 2ft difference in track gauge, the implication is that the trains were much larger, they simply weren't as the wagons & coaches, were mostly within the wheel back to back.

 

Were the Scottish railways any bigger loading gauge wise? After Grouping in 1923, some LNWR locos were modified to reduce the height of cabs etc to enable use there, so they were smaller, not larger.

 

As for moving passengers & goods between gauges, well why would anyone want to create that as a feature?

 

Sure the structure gauge ought to have been larger, but hindsight is wonderful!

[Zomboid]

Brunel is definitely the face of Victorian engineering, partly I suspect because he worked mainly in the south (i.e. London) and had his photo taken.

I've never seen a photograph of Stephenson, or Telford or anyone else from that era, though some may exist I doubt they have a backdrop of huge chains... The fact that he's well known for a ships and the Clifton bridge as well as the GWR helps him too.

 

Sadly for Bouch, the Tay Bridge is the kind of career defining mistake you just don't get over, at least in a public sense.

 

It does irritate slightly that even the most mundane thing that Brunel did becomes sacred just because of his name.

[Trog]

I tend to think that Brunel's broad gauge was one of those cases where a technically superior but expensive and minority solution lost out to a cheaper and more widespread "good enough" approach. That's the free market for you.

 

 

 

Standard Gauge is apparently near the sweet spot for carrying the most load on the least infrastructure, with the cost per unit load tending to increase as you move the gauge narrower or wider than that. So even ignoring the problems of break of gauge, broad gauge was probably a waste of money and resources.

 

Also I wonder if the extra quarter inch on broad gauge track was just regularizing for new work and maintenance the gauge to which track laid at 7'-0" widened under traffic, if the wheel clearances were as has been suggested insufficient. 

Edited March 24, 2018 by Trog

[John_Hughes]

Can I also point out that Brunel was a brilliant maritime engineer, a fact which is often forgotten when talking about his railways and bridges.

[Jol Wilkinson]

Can I also point out that Brunel was a brilliant maritime engineer, a fact which is often forgotten when talking about his railways and bridges.

 

He designed three ships, and while he incorporated some new features, they also benefitted from adopting other peoples idea such as the iron hull and screw propulsion on Gt Britain. So he may have been a brilliant absorber of other ideas and good at combining them under his name. 

 

His ship building career is rarely overlooked and often quoted as part of his "genius", a misplaced accolade.

[Zomboid]

He designed three ships, and while he incorporated some new features, they also benefitted from adopting other peoples idea such as the iron hull and screw propulsion on Gt Britain. So he may have been a brilliant absorber of other ideas and good at combining them under his name.

 

He was the Apple of his time.

[PenrithBeacon]

Going back several posts, Henry Booth did not suggest the multitube boiler. Its origins go back into the 18th Century when a friend of Watts (I cant' remember his name, sorry) suggested it to him. Booth was a tireless self promoter and was generally disliked because of it. The Stephensons, in their correspondence, make clear their views of him.

 

Shortly before the design of 'Rocket' was started two patents for the practical application of a multitube boiler appeared. One was British the other was French. I can't remember now the name of the British patentee but the Marc Seguin was the author of the French one. Seguin is an interesting man, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Seguin . He was a customer of Robert Stephenson having bought some of the earlier RS engines, but there is no record that I've ever seen of RS actually adopting Seguin's patent, but having said that there is a record of both GS and RS writing to each other about it in letters between the two. It is likely that RS took the concept (concepts aren't patentable) of the multitube boiler and made is own design that was different to both patents and applied this to 'Rocket'.

 

Concerning blastpipes. It really comes down to what you think of as a blastpipe. Early exhausts where simple tubes, but even in these simple exhaust pipes it was possible to see puffs of smoke and steam and an associated brightening of the fire. Crucially, this was caused by the action of the pistons not by anything happening in the exhaust pipe. The critical thing about a blast pipe (and this distinguishes it from an exhaust pipe) is that a restriction orifice is placed within the pipe and this has the effect of sharpening the fire so aiding combustion. Timothy Hackworth was the first engineer to have this insight, Trewithick's claim should be discarded, there is no record that I'm aware of which shows a Trewithick engine with this device

 

'Rocket' didn't have a blast pipe as described above at the beginning of the Rainhill trials, the loco was modified afterwards to have one and the source for that is R.U. Rastrick's notebooks, Rastrick being one of the judges at the trials. His notebooks are preserved in the library of Goldsmith's College.

 

I hope that clears a few things up.

[JimC]

The Broad Gauge had only a few extra inches, in width above platforms & a small amount in height, so hardly significant. 

Quite a few extra inches.

 

The GWR broad gauge was

11ft 6 across the vehicle, 11ft 8in at the eaves and 15ft at the centre

 

The SDR and B&E were

11ft 0 across the vehicle, 10ft 10 at the eaves and  14ft 9 at the centre

 

I've seen a drawing showing an average Scots loading gauge pre grouping as being 

9ft 0 across the vehicle, 11ft at the eaves and 13ft 6in at the centre

 

I think a contemporary UK loading gauge is about

9ft 3 across the vehicle, 10ft 9 at the eaves and 13ft in the centre

 

Obviously as things have worked out its height at the eaves that has turned out to be critical, but the extra width of the broad gauge would have given appreciably more room for containers, which are of course relatively narrow, as would the extra height of the Scots lines.

Edited March 24, 2018 by JimC

[Enterprisingwestern]

 

Other Victorian engineers are more often remembered for their failures, something we British seem to prefer rather than applauding success. F W Webb is remembered more often for his unsuccessful attempts at compounding, not for developing Crewe into a leading manufacturing facility, or the  cost effectiveness and longevity of many of his other locos. Thomas Bouch, known for the Tay Bridge disaster, also intruded the first RoRo train ferry, helped develop the caisson and had other engineering successes, but isn't remembered for them.

No doubt other are remembered in the same, rather negative, way.

 

 

A definite British malaise in pretty much the same way that England footballers are only remembered for their penalty misses.

 

Mike.

[Coach bogie]

I went to a lecture, many years ago, and it was argued the reason for 7ft was so larger boilers would fit between the driving wheels, rather than on top, increasing stability.

 

Mike Wiltshire

[jjb1970]

Can I also point out that Brunel was a brilliant maritime engineer, a fact which is often forgotten when talking about his railways and bridges.

In terms of naval architecture William Froude left an immeasurably greater legacy to naval architecture than Brunel. Froude was known to Brunel and was one of the great Victorian engineers yet is all but forgotten today.

[JimC]

 

This isn't very well drawn, but here are some reasonable approximations of loading gauges.

W6A is, I think the basic gauge on British railways.

You can see that fundamentally the GWR gauge wasn't much different.

Red is an 1875 Broad gauge loading gauge. These did vary - the Bristol and Exeter and South Devon lines were built to a smaller gauge than the GWR. 

The thin gray lines are various modern European loading gauges

Its obvious that the marginally larger GWR loading gauge was not as popular myth would have it, much to do with the Broad gauge. Hardly surprising as probably the majority of the GWR route mileage never had broad gauge track.

The broad gauge loading gauge, as can be seen, is basically the same sort of size as  the European gauges. It does have the same problem of low eaves to suit arched bridges.

Edited March 24, 2018 by JimC

[John_Miles]

IMHO Joseph Locke was a much better engineer than Brunel. His schemes were relatively cheap, done to budget and on time. He is almost forgotten today because he didn't have huge and expensive failures. He was also an excellent tenor.

[RJS1977]

It’s like the “narrow gauge” thing. 2’ gauge to 2’ 3” doesn’t sound like much of a step-up, and generally speaking, the early experiments of 2’ 3” and 2’ 4” Gauge (derived from early legal restrictions) weren’t persevered with; but look at some of the things running on 2’ 6” or 750mm Gauge compared to 2’ or 60cm. Some early Welsh foundry lines used 2’ 8” (Fletcher Jennings built at least one loco to this gauge) but that seems to be another “intermediate” gauge that was abandoned in favour of 3’

 

Strangely a lot of 'narrow gauge' railways are 1'11 1/2" or 1'11 3/4" - just a little bit below the round figure - clearly these weren't 'knocked out' for wheel clearances!

[sir douglas]

the ffestiniog 1' 11 1/2" came from back when the rails were originally measured over their centres of 2ft instead of the inner edges as we do since then