Re: Numerical Mysteries

Philip,

I have wondered about Strasburg being 4’-9”-gage. I just assumed that it was a left over artifact of the gage wars of the 1800s, and it was never changed because standard gage equipment could run on it just like with the old compromise wheels used for accommodating multiple gages that were similar in size. In other words, the wider gage was close enough to standard gage that there was no reason to convert it. But I was only thinking about Strasburg RR. Are you saying that the entire PRR was built to 4’9” gage?

Above, I suggested that, with railroads in general, track might have been built to a wider nominal gage than the rolling stock and locomotives in order to ease operation though extensive, tight curvature. Even with this suggestion, I had not considered that it might be the explanation of the Strasburg RR 4’-9” gage.

Is there documentation that the PRR built nominal 4’-9” gage track for this purpose of easing operation through tight curvature? If so, I know of no other instance of this method of building a track with a wider nominal gage than the equipment. Or was the PRR built to 4’-9” gage in the pre-standard gage era in order to accommodate a variety of interchange equipment built to gages near standard gage?

This case of the J&L steel mill railroad is the only other instance I know of that suggests that the track and equipment were built to differing nominal gages. And if that is the case, it is only my assumption that the reason was for better running through the curves.