Transport Tycoon Forums

I found a video online of a train hauling intermodal containers in what appears to be (from a web search) a 1,067 mm-wide track. What is the narrowest railway gauge that can or is actually used to haul containers? Can, for example, track with 600 mm gauge safely transport intermodal containers? Do narrow gauge trains derail often because of the instability compared with 1,435 mm gauge or broader?

Thanks.

I believe it's more from whether they're employed nationally, such that intermodal freighting becomes viable.

So far I guess the only slightly narrower one would be the metre gauge (1000 mm). Cape gauge (1067 mm) is the standard in Japan, and also in my home country. Metre gauge AFAIK is standard in Malaysia, and probably other countries but I'm not sure how much. I've seen containers on them, so I guess those are the smallest, unless there's some other country with extensive networks of gauge smaller than metre.

Technically what limits what dimension can you carry is the loading gauge, not track gauge. For instance, despite the same standard gauge used, trains in the US and perhaps in Europe (continent) can have double-stacked containers, yet in the UK it's a snug fit for even one stack.

I had seen 760mm Sibiu local CFR railway used for containers.

McZapkie wrote:I had seen 760mm Sibiu local CFR railway used for containers.

They've been converted to standard gauge since ?

YNM wrote:

McZapkie wrote:I had seen 760mm Sibiu local CFR railway used for containers.

They've been converted to standard gauge since ?

No, they are abandoned now (maybe used for tourist trains). There were rather small containers, 20' or similar, unfortunately I have no photos, I lost my camera due to issues with Securitate.

Thanks for the answers.

Note: I know about loading gauge, but I assume that a narrow enough track gauge would also be a limiting factor because of the unstability and risk of derailment.

marioxcc wrote:Thanks for the answers.

Note: I know about loading gauge, but I assume that a narrow enough track gauge would also be a limiting factor because of the unstability and risk of derailment.

At some extreme, yes, but rail cars are actually more resilient to toppling over than you might expect, especially due to the flanges on the wheels. Trains are generally not likely to tip when taking a curve - the banking of the track is more to reduce lateral loading on the tracked (and increase passenger comfort) than to prevent a rail car tipping like an overloaded truck.

I've never seen standard containers on 600mm track, but I am sure it would be workable if sensibly built and operated.

McZapkie wrote:No, they are abandoned now (maybe used for tourist trains). There were rather small containers, 20' or similar, unfortunately I have no photos, I lost my camera due to issues with Securitate.

Interesting, that's an info not on the .net .

Do you remember where they were ? Maybe on a map ?

supermop wrote:

marioxcc wrote:Thanks for the answers.

Note: I know about loading gauge, but I assume that a narrow enough track gauge would also be a limiting factor because of the unstability and risk of derailment.

At some extreme, yes, but rail cars are actually more resilient to toppling over than you might expect, especially due to the flanges on the wheels. Trains are generally not likely to tip when taking a curve - the banking of the track is more to reduce lateral loading on the tracked (and increase passenger comfort) than to prevent a rail car tipping like an overloaded truck.

I've never seen standard containers on 600mm track, but I am sure it would be workable if sensibly built and operated.

Flanges don't have anything to do with toppling, they only have to do with following the rails itself. Some steam locomotive wheels are intentionally left "blind" (without flanges) to increase turning radius (efectively turning only a handful into "bogies").

But yeah, I can see that it could be quite problematic. 600 mm would be very narrow, and I guess the structure/loading gauge would usually not allow such.

Yep flanges should never be in contact with the rails - when they are they make that awful screeching sound you hear on tight radius bends

In Japan the cape gauge allows for containers to be transported. But not 600mm rails. 600mm seems extremely narrow, it would be impossible to carry containers with that. For passenger / tourist lines though, the narrowest gauge is 380mm.

I'd have said a big issue is length rather than loading gauge although that will be a factor. The only reason for adopting really narrow gauges is for a tighter raid turn, hence why many mountain railways are narrow gauge. Tight turns don't give you much space for having a 40ft container on one of your freight wagons before it no longer hours round a bend.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG9AiIrP7yw
I love the narrow trains of the Americas , a load of videos can be found on the tube .As to the Question I think it depends on the cargo you want to transport .
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eaton_Hall_Railway
Sir Arthur Percival Heywood,a great pioneer of the narrow gauge , his first experiments were with 9 inch gauge ,this proved unsuccessful and settled on 15 in / 381 mm gauge .
The Heywood radiating axle locomotives could pass very tight curves by a special axle arrangement.I think the tightest curve was 25 foot .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f54OSRMetxA

Standard gauge trucks on roll on roll off thingys on indifferent 600mm? gauge track .

On this evidence, I think hauling (short, 40ft?) containers may be possible.

Just not up the Festiniog Railway.

Edit: the comments section says 750mm gauge.

Further edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean_ ... ding_gauge

Arch9enius wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f54OSRMetxA

Standard gauge trucks on roll on roll off thingys on indifferent 600mm? gauge track .

On this evidence, I think hauling (short, 40ft?) containers may be possible.

Just not up the Festiniog Railway.

Edit: the comments section says 750mm gauge.

Further edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean_ ... ding_gauge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcNFJAhWDJY

What do you call the thingys ?

I know those german/austrian/swiss logging cars can also be used for ISO containers...

Guess those are the smallest so far then.

piratescooby wrote:

Arch9enius wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f54OSRMetxA

Standard gauge trucks on roll on roll off thingys on indifferent 600mm? gauge track .

On this evidence, I think hauling (short, 40ft?) containers may be possible.

Just not up the Festiniog Railway.

Edit: the comments section says 750mm gauge.

Further edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrean_ ... ding_gauge

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YcNFJAhWDJY

What do you call the thingys ?

Damn clever.

{edit}: Transporters.

And after some further rooting around ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vF4V94zQLSk

http://mrt-news.blogspot.co.uk/2016/04/new-coach.html

http://www.farrail.net/pages/touren-eng ... a-2010.php

So I think 950mm is the smallest gauge that ISO containers have been seriously carried on, but 2ft / 600mm is indeed possible, with an empty container.

Comng back to this conversation after a couple of years, I came to the conclusion (well, pulled out my arse) that about 6' across would be the maximum practicable load that could be run at any speed on 2'/600mm track. This being three times the track gauge. ISO containers being 8' across would have to be run slowly, on good quality permanent way, e.g. the Welsh Highland line. Also, there's no guarentee the shipper would have loaded the things evenly.

However, as if to shoot this down, here's some ISO boxes on flatcars running on what appears to be a sugar cane railway in Queensland. With the proviso that one appears to be on departmental service, and the other a storage box that doesn't leave the railway.

https://model-railroad-hobbyist.com/node/25730
https://maroochyshiretramways.wordpress ... sel-fleet/

Following up, here's some snippets frm Wikipedia:

Festiniog Railway
Main article: Festiniog Railway

gauge = 597 mm (1 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
width (brakevan mirrors) = 6 feet 10 inches (2.08 m).[51]
width (brakevan body) = 6 feet 0 inches (1.83 m).
height = 5 feet 7.5 inches (1.715 m).
length = (carriage) 36 feet 0 inches (10.97 m).[52]

Lynton and Barnstaple Railway
Main article: Lynton and Barnstaple Railway

gauge = 597 mm (1 ft 11 1⁄2 in)
Lyn locomotive over headstocks
length = 23 ft 6 in (7.16 m)
width = 7 ft 2 in (2.18 m)
height = 8 ft 11 in (2.72 m)
Passenger
length = 39 ft 6 in (12.04 m)
width = 6 ft (1.83 m) wide,
width over steps = 7 ft 4 in (2.24 m)
height = 8 ft 7 in (2.62 m)

several standard gauge 73 class locomotives of the NSWR, which are 9 feet 3 inches (2.82 m) wide, have been converted for use on 610 mm (2 ft) cane tramways, where there are no narrow bridges, tunnels or track centres to cause trouble.

Arch9enius wrote: ↑08 Mar 2020 23:10ISO containers being 8' across would have to be run slowly, on good quality permanent way, e.g. the Welsh Highland line. Also, there's no guarentee the shipper would have loaded the things evenly.

There are actually half-height containers. I imagine they'd help reduce the height of the CoG so it'd be less likely to tip over.

There are quarter-length containers (5 ft), which I imagine if you were to put them on the side rather than standing the full 8 ft height it can result in lower CoG.

[+] Spoiler

Half height containers, usually for offshore use


Quarter-length (Quadcon) containers used by US Navy

Honestly the real limit to narrow rail gauge haulage is when it comes to curves. You have a limit on how long the cars can be (the tighter the curve radius, the shorter the cars, the shorter the containers); you have a limit on how tilted the tracks are (superelevation); you have a limit on the maximum speed of the line given curve radius and track tilt/superelevation.

Surprisingly, the limit on CoG height doesn't actually come from when the train is in motion, but rather from when it's stationary at the curve itself, as you want to ensure that the CoG is still between the two sides of the wheels. There is a limit that's caused by whether the cars would start to derail outwards, however this is usually a deliberately chosen value as a proportion of the actual required superelevation for balance (usually called cant deficiency), usually from Network Rail/BR it's 1/3 or 1/4 of the equilibrium value. Many railroads actually do limit loading by specifying the CoG height, for instance AAR gives that the maximum CoG for loading in a closed car to be 98 inches (2489.2 mm) off the top of the rail, regardless of the loaded goods and the load configuration.

[+] Spoiler

CoG_illust.png (104.53 KiB) Viewed 6473 times

2-Figure3-1.png (9.23 KiB) Viewed 11495 times

While the first was about CoG vibration and the second is about outside overturning, inside overturning is possible if your CoG location is inside of the inside rail flange point, as then there isn't anything to hold back the car from overturning just from gravity.

So honestly the question of how small of a base support distance you need depends a lot on the way you're loading your car - not so much the width of your load (although the higher your load is the higher the CoG would likely be).

6' x 9' containers or swapbodies might help keep a hypotheyical 2'/600mm gauge railway relevant for freight moving I guess. But as for turning a 5' high container on its' side, I can only imagine the noise if, for example, it was full of beer bottles.

A further note on carrying std gauge wagons on lesser gauges - a transporter wagon is basically a length of Stephenson (for example) gauge track long enough to carry a standard boxvan on 2'6" bogies. A light railway that was partially standard and partially 2'6" gauge was the sole user of these in the UK. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWZbZGGnE6E The devices in the other video I posted are called rollblocks and are more flexible regarding the length of wagon.