Impact of Panama Canal Widening on U.S. Highways?

[mightyace]

^^^

AFAIK Spain still has the wider gauge as well.

I've seen some photos of facilities on the Spanish/French border and on the Russian border where passenger trains get their trucks exchanged for ones of the proper gauge.  (I don't remember where right now.)

Of course, this is a slow procedure, but border crossing procedures can be slow as well.

[Chris]

Yes, Spain has a wider gauge for regular trains, but I believe their high speed rail is normal gauge. There are gauge-changes on the Polish-Belarusian border in Brest. A friend of mine just went to Moscow by train a while ago, they changed gauge at Brest, it takes about 1 hour to change the wheels, and of course some additional time to travel from Fort Europe to Mother Russia.

[J N Winkler]

Yes, Spain has a wider gauge for regular trains, but I believe their high speed rail is normal gauge.

Spain and Portugal both use Iberian gauge (1668 mm) for regular services, but Spain at least uses UIC gauge (1435 mm) for líneas de alta velocidad.  There are instances of LAV upgrades (a typical scenario being upgrade of a tunnel approach to a station) which feature three-rail systems allowing use both of broad-gauge and standard-gauge wheelsets, and there are also facilities for changing out bogies on the move.  The thriller movie Transsiberian shows a stationary wheelset change on the Manchurian border.

I've seen some photos of facilities on the Spanish/French border and on the Russian border where passenger trains get their trucks exchanged for ones of the proper gauge.  (I don't remember where right now.)

Portbou?  Hendaye?

Since Spanish and French high-speed rail have the same gauge now, my understanding is that the main issue in running high-speed trains between Spain and France has to do with interoperability of the electrical apparatus (different voltages).  I have heard of plans for Barcelona-Paris and Barcelona-Marseilles via Perpignan, but I don't know if high-speed services are now running in those corridors.

Of course, this is a slow procedure, but border crossing procedures can be slow as well.

On the Russian border, where you go to the gulag if your papers and bribes aren't in order, yes definitely.  But with France and Spain in Schengen that consideration has more or less vanished from the Pyrenees with the exception of Andorra (not in Schengen so you have to be stamped in and out).

[english si]

Ireland (the island) uses a broad gauge as well, but given there's no interaction with normal gauge lines, it's fine. Only the trams and planned metro in Dublin use standard gauge, and they won't interact.

I can't remember when all the lines in England became standard gauge, but we weren't bad at interactions between the two - I think a lot of it was laying down a third rail, creating mixed gauge track though (parts of the Underground used to have it). There would have been a few change the wheels jobs, though, and they would have been fairly quick.

[mightyace]

Portbou?  Hendaye?

Since Spanish and French high-speed rail have the same gauge now, my understanding is that the main issue in running high-speed trains between Spain and France has to do with interoperability of the electrical apparatus (different voltages).  I have heard of plans for Barcelona-Paris and Barcelona-Marseilles via Perpignan, but I don't know if high-speed services are now running in those corridors.

I'm pretty sure that if I had it right it was conventional and not high speed rail.  In the near future, I'll try and Google this and see what I can find.

[mgk920]

I am also aware of some trainsets that have convert-on-the-fly dual-gauge wheelsets on routes that cross between France and Spain and possibly between central Europe and Russian broad gauge.

Speaking of dual-gauge track, the INSIDIOUS thing with the 85 mm difference between standard gauge and Russian broad gauge is that the difference is too small to easily create dual-gauge track by laying a third running rail and too great to allow the equipment to run directly - such dual-gauge track must have four running rails (imagining how much easier transcontinental commerce would be now in Eurasia had the Russians used 1435 mm instead of 1520 mm  ).

Also, IIRC, track gauge was standardized in the UK in the late 18th Century, the last of the originally 2140 mm broad gauge (that's a smidgen over seven feet for the Luddites in the crowd) of the old British Great Western Railway was converted to 1435 mm in 1892.

The USA was mostly converted to 1435 mm by the late 19th Century, although a network of narrow-gauge common-carrier lines operated in the mountains of Colorado and modern-day northern New Mexico until the mid-20th Century.

Mike

[mightyace]

(imagining how much easier transcontinental commerce would be now in Eurasia had the Russians used 1435 mm instead of 1520 mm  ).

Well, I think the real reason was Russian paranoia.  Given that the Germans invaded twice in the first half of the twentieth century plus the many foreign armies on Russian/Soviet soil during their civil war, they had a reason to be paranoid.

And, if I'm not mistaken, the gauge difference did have a negative effect on the Nazi invasion in WWII in the realm of supply.

I don't know if the Russians are still that paranoid to use that as a reason to keep their broad gauge.  But, I doubt they have the money to do the conversion even if they wanted to.

[J N Winkler]

I don't know if the Russians are still that paranoid to use that as a reason to keep their broad gauge.  But, I doubt they have the money to do the conversion even if they wanted to.

I don't think they have the money either, and there is no bottom to Russian paranoia.

[english si]

I'm pretty sure that if I had it right it was conventional and not high speed rail.  In the near future, I'll try and Google this and see what I can find.

http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/maps.php has the same voltage for high speed rail networks.

Also, IIRC, track gauge was standardized in the UK in the late 18th Century, the last of the originally 2140 mm broad gauge (that's a smidgen over seven feet for the Luddites in the crowd)

Broad Gauge was defined as 7'1/4" and that just happens to be 2140mm (likewise Standard Gauge was very definitely defined in Imperial then redefined in metric later). Luddites were skilled workers angry that machines worked buy unskilled workers had taken their jobs. You think Imperial is for backwards yokels and seem angry that it's used - does that not make you a Luddite?

Oh, wait, you slavish use the metric system - the sole promotion of which that isn't totalitarian "we must all be identical" is that it is "easier". Bang goes 'skilled'. I work in both - Imperial is easier for many things - expressing quantities like 2140mm in a much easier-to-grasp-quickly way, for instance, but Metric also has it's uses.

Getting back on the topic where we've drifted towards, it's interesting to note that the ex-Broad Gauge Great Western, and the ex-European Gauge Metropolitan Line and Great Central (standard gauge track spacing, more space for the train) run wider trains than the rest of the network on parts of them. The commuter trains operated by Chiltern (which uses GC and GW infrastructure) and FirstGreatWestern are a little bit wider than other trains. A stock (being retired after 50 years) on the Met line are wider still (just) and taller - I think they even beat the Eurostars by a smidge.

[Brandon]

One *BIG* problem with using the Trans-Siberian Railroad is that Russian railroads are 100% incompatible with those of both China and central and western Europe.  The track gauge is 1520 mm in Russia and the rest of the former Soviet Union and 1435 mm (standard gauge) in China and central and western Europe (a difference of 85 mm) and they use incompatible coupling standards.

IIRC, isn't the difference in track gauge somewhat of a Cold War relic?  In other words, wasn't the difference by design in order to frustrate  a theoretical  overwhelming "blitzkrieg" advance by invading forces of another nation?  Also, I think at one time Spain intentionally had a wider track gauge than the other EU nations; is that still the case?

It's even older than the Cold War.  Russia adopted a 5ft track gauge early on while most of Europe and North America adopted 4ft 8-1/2in as standard.

[mightyace]

Since this thread was last "bumped," I stumbled upon my August 2010 issue of Trains Magazine that has a column on pages 8 and 9: "Canal widening means opportunity"

Some excerpts:

Post-expansion, freight will stay on ships longer and dock closer to ... the eastern half of the country

But, traffic patterns won't change radically after the canal's expansion.  Import traffic began to shift from west coast to east coast shortly after 9/11.

But, not every eastern port will be able to accommodate the larger shops ... Only the ports in Baltimore and Norfolk meet all those [clearance and draft] requirements.

That's [ports in the east] still relatively small compared to LA/Long Beach ... But the ports and western railroads had capacity issues before the recession.

What will matter most to the makeup of US intermodal traffic isn't which ports can accommodate which ships where.  "You won't see double-digit growth unless you see a double-digit change in household formation," Mahon says.  That would happen only with a change in immigration policay either millions of new households setting up or shutting the borders entirely.  Without this change, consumers will continue to consume as they have for years.

[Grzrd]

Budget realities are severely impairing harbor dredging plans of Savannah and Charleston, S.C.:

http://www.southernpoliticalreport.com/storylink_222_1847.aspx

Towards the end of the linked article, the author provides a link to an article about China investing in a Colombian railroad "dry canal" that might usurp some of the benefits of a larger Panama Canal for the U.S. and its ports (and, to stay on topic, U.S. traffic patterns  ). I'm having difficulty from the article itself understanding why that might be the case.  Any easy-to-understand explanations would be welcome.

[mightyace]

I agree.  I think if traffic just shifted from the Panama Canal to the Chinese - Columbian Railroad, it would be a non-issue here.  If anything, it could help smaller ports as some of the ships on the Atlantic side might be (relatively) smaller vessels.

[Scott5114]

I agree.  I think if traffic just shifted from the Panama Canal to the Chinese - Columbian Railroad, it would be a non-issue here.  If anything, it could help smaller ports as some of the ships on the Atlantic side might be (relatively) smaller vessels.

Well, theoretically, the reason one would use the Colombian railroad would be because your boat is too big for the Canal. If it was small enough to fit in the Canal, the unloading and reloading would make using the railroad a more expensive alternative.