Nostalgia & History > Early BART car

Boxy looking test car. That's how it all began. Ironic, the test track ran where the old interurbans of the Sacramento Northern once ran between Walnut Creek-Concord, Calif.

---

Always wondered how they came up with the track guage of 5 feet. Seems to have been based on how many Consultants you can fit between the Tracks. Or maybe somebody just lost their golf ball.

Seems to me that the wide guage on BART had something to do with handling and the ride. A wider train can also fit more people more comfortably. There's no reason for it to be standard guage since BART will never be connected to the rest of the world's rail network. Seems like 4' 8.5" is kinda oddball itself, but there's actually a reason for that too...

http://www.watervalley.net/users/caseyjones/guage.htm

So it's not how many consultants you can fit between the tracks, but rather how many horses back ends.

-Dan

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Always wondered how they came up with the track
> guage of 5 feet. Seems to have been based on how
> many Consultants you can fit between the Tracks.
> Or maybe somebody just lost their golf ball.

Methinks the local transit situation would have been very interesting, very different had BART used US standard guage. Quite a bit of discussion/speculation/rationalization about CalTrain and BART routes have fallen apart because of the guage, but that's one of those open-ended speculation topics.
I support the Conspriracy Theorists on this one. Not really sure what the conspiracy was about... but that just proves it.
Great photo, big part of the Bay Area contemporary growth.

TCnR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Always wondered how they came up with the track
> guage of 5 feet. Seems to have been based on how
> many Consultants you can fit between the Tracks.
> Or maybe somebody just lost their golf ball.


Actually, 5-ft, 6-in., isn't it?

stash Wrote:
> -----

> > Or maybe somebody just lost their ...track guage.

>
> Actually, 5-ft, 6-in., isn't it?


Oops, 5 ft is the Russian Guage, wrong nuerons. BART has some other wierd guage, no offense intended.

danf Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Seems to me that the wide guage on BART had
> something to do with handling and the ride. A
> wider train can also fit more people more
> comfortably. There's no reason for it to be
> standard guage since BART will never be connected
> to the rest of the world's rail network. Seems
> like 4' 8.5" is kinda oddball itself, but there's
> actually a reason for that too...
>
> http://www.watervalley.net/users/caseyjones/guage.
> htm
>
> So it's not how many consultants you can fit
> between the tracks, but rather how many horses
> back ends.
>
> -Dan
>

Unfortunately, the story about the origin of standard gauge is an urban legend that shows up on this site every so often and needs to be debunked just as often. Maybe the best discussion is at http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.htm

My understanding: their early study showed that these light-weight aluminum cars on standard railroad track could be unsteady at high speeds in strong side wind situations. But 5 foot six track gauge would provide ample stability. And I like the resultant wide interiors.

Almost correct. When BART was originally planned, it was supposed to have a line running north from "The City" over the Golden Gate Bridge. The engineering consultants (Parsons- Brinckerhoff-Tudor-Bechtel, or "PBTB") determined that standard-gauge trains would not be able to maintain the specified 75 mph speed over the bridge in the winds of a "hundred-year storm" (that is, a storm bad enough that it occurs, on average, only once in 100 years). So, instead of simply allowing for reduced max. speeds over the bridge when and if wind speed exceeded a certain limit, the BART board deemed it necessary to adopt the 5'6" gauge -- so that trains could maintain max speed under all conditions on a line that ended up never being built, because the counties concerned voted down the sales tax, and refused to join BART...

Interesting. I wasn't aware of the G.G.Bridge angle. I'm trying to get a mental image of being on a BART train crossing the bridge at 75 mph with a wind howling, and even the long span maybe swaying a little. Scary.

BobB Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> danf Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Seems to me that the wide guage on BART had
> > something to do with handling and the ride.
> A
> > wider train can also fit more people more
> > comfortably. There's no reason for it to be
> > standard guage since BART will never be
> connected
> > to the rest of the world's rail network.
> Seems
> > like 4' 8.5" is kinda oddball itself, but
> there's
> > actually a reason for that too...
> >
> >
> <7022>http://www.watervalley.net/users/caseyjones/
> guage.</7022>
> > htm
> >
> > So it's not how many consultants you can fit
> > between the tracks, but rather how many
> horses
> > back ends.
> >
> > -Dan
> >
>
> Unfortunately, the story about the origin of
> standard gauge is an urban legend that shows up on
> this site every so often and needs to be debunked
> just as often. Maybe the best discussion is at
> http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.htm
>
>
Too bad, because I wanted to ask what the difference was between consultants and horse's....oh, never mind.