This reply below is incorrect.
It is a re-hash of an assumption put forth by others (it's posted on various
websites claiming the Brits did this).
However, it is incorrect. The British engineers did not "measure"
differently than we do - The plateways and railways measured from the guide
edge, just as we do today. To measure from the non-bearing side would be
utterly useless - you must know the size between the two bearing sides. No
one should believe an engineer, just because he is British, doesn't know how
to measure something.
George himself called his railway 4 foot 8 inch. What the new legend (which
you refer to) is actually referring to is the measurement of plateways and
railways with the guide edge (wheel flange or raised surface) being to the
outside. They also tried railways with double flanges by the way.
George Stepehenson called his railway 4 foot 8 inch, well documented, and
not lost to history.
Anyone that cares can go to any large library and find the British
engineering books of 1820-1850 and read it for themselves. But, you're
right - it is not lost to history, the documents are out there for those
that care to look.
Anyone that cares to see my abridged coverage of standard gauge that I have
been studying for years, please visit the website -
http://www.railwaygauge.info
Gabe
----- Original Message -----
> Just why the Darlington Collery line was originally built to 4'
> 8-1/2" is of course totally lost to history.
>
> The reason isn't as lost in history as you might think.
>The Darlington had what they called a 5 foot guage.
>The difference was that the British measured the "gauge"
>from the outside edge of the rail heads. We (here in the US)
> measure the gauge on the inside edges. With that said, the
>combined width of the rail head at that time was 3.5 inches
> or 1.75" per rail.
|