Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

beachedwhale1945 t1_iyjubbg wrote

Reply to comment by CyborgElephant in TIL that the southern United States converted all 11,500+ miles of its railroads from broad gauge (5 ft/1.524 m) to nearly-standard gauge (4 ft 9 in/​1.448 m) in just 36 hours, starting on May 31, 1886 by 1859

Even if it does, that’s only viable if the train regularly has to go from one gauge to another. If you sent a train from the US to Brazil, its better to completely change out the bogies than to have a system you don’t need that could fail and cause a crash and thus must be maintained.

6

ibw0trr t1_iykerhg wrote

>If you sent a train from the US to Brazil, its better to completely change out the bogies

Or... You could containerize things into standard 40' long boxes and transload them to another train or to a big boat.

0

beachedwhale1945 t1_iymisw4 wrote

The question was about moving the train itself, not the cargo said train may be carrying. For my part in this discussion, the train could be empty or loaded to the brim. In my head I was thinking the engine/cars were cargo on a ship and unloading them via a crane in some port like Rio for use on the Brazilian rail system.

1

CyborgElephant t1_iyjustj wrote

Did you downvote me? I don’t know anything about trains. In my head I wondered if they had this, and they do. The solution exists, so not sure why it would be “a system you don’t need”, and why it would fail. If any train can go on any track, dynamically, then the size of the tracks don’t matter.

−4

beachedwhale1945 t1_iymiddw wrote

>Did you downvote me?

I generally don't downvote anyone except in extremely rare circumstances. Not considering maintenance or why universal solutions are not needed in all cases are commonplace and not worth my downvote. I use these as teaching points, encouraging you to think about something in a different way.

1