Found this on the internet and it explains it so well. Railroad tracks. This is fascinating. Be sure to read the final paragraph; your understanding of it will depend on the earlier part of the content. The US standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That's an exceedingly odd number. Why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England , and English expatriates built the US railroads. Why did the English build them like that? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used. Why did 'they' use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing. Why did the wagons have that particular odd wheel spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England , because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts. So who built those old rutted roads? Imperial Rome built the first long distance roads in Europe (and England ) for their legions. The roads have been used ever since. And the ruts in the roads? Roman war chariots formed the initial ruts, which everyone else had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels. Since the chariots were made for Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing. Therefore the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot.. Bureaucracies live forever. So the next time you are handed a specification/ procedure/process and wonder 'What horse's ass came up with it?', you may be exactly right. Imperial Roman army chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the rear ends of two war horses. Now, the twist to the story: When you see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two big booster rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank. These are solid rocket boosters, or SRB's. The SRB's are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah . The engineers who designed the SRB's would have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRB's had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory happens to run through a tunnel in the mountains, and the SRB's had to fit through that tunnel. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track, as you now know, is about as wide as two horses' behinds. So, a major Space Shuttle design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's ass. And you thought being a horse's ass wasn't important? Ancient horse's asses control almost everything... and CURRENT Horses Asses are controlling everything else. So our gauge is 2 horse asses : 160 = 9 mm. :tb-biggrin: Regards. Ron.
The original gauge was 4'8" even. The extra half inch was added because when the drivers for the first locomotive were ordered for the track, they forgot about the flanges (1/4" each side). It was cheaper to re-gauge the couple of miles of wooden strap rail track instead of telling the owners they had messed up. The problem with the solid rocket motors wasn't the size, but the length. The external tank was made along the gulf coast, and sent already assembled by barge. The solid rockets, having to be sent by rail, needed to fit in nuclear missile carrying rail cars (yep, that's what they make at the plant in Utah) and hence needed the now-infamous O rings when assembled. They aren't really needed if the rocket was built and shipped in one piece. The head of the NASA appropriations committee was from Utah, so they had to make due with this horrible mess. Was the shuttle a good idea? At first. After the CIA made it bigger to fit the spy satellites then in vogue, it was a pig. Should have been taken out and shot a lot sooner, but the International Space Station (a make-work program for Russian nuclear scientists who otherwise would have gone to work for Al Queida) needed it to continue. If you want to thank anyone for 4' 8 1/2" becoming the standard, thank General Sherman!
Not so fast gentlemen. Take a look at this explanation from snopes.com: http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.asp Pretty much none of that note that circles the Internet is true. (How many of you have friends who say, "I know you like trains; this is so cool!" Terry
Whats to say 'Snopes' is correct? Just because THEY say its false...doesnt make it so. Some people can convince other people of anything...and 'Snopes' is no different. I read their stuff with an open mind...usually. I take most of their 'debunking' with a grain of salt...:tb-wink: JMO .
I have read many thing on Snopes that stretch things one way or another but in this case, I have also read accounts at other sources that come to the same conclusions as they do but using different evidence. There are a number of noted railroad historians who find it interesting but not necessarily accurate.
"I have also read accounts at other sources..." Do you have those 'other sources" available...I would be interested in reading them ...thnxs "...who find it interesting but not necessarily accurate." Seems that leaves it open that it COULD in fact be accurate. Someone 'embellishing' on a fact for the purposes of making the story more humorous or interesting...doesnt mean its no longer the truth. JMO...thnxs Even 'Snopes' seems to have made statements regarding the validity...then in the same breath...recanted. I didnt see anywhere where they said it was an outright falsehood... In fact...'Snopes' starts off saying " This is one of those items that-although wrong in many of it's details-isnt exactly false in an overall sense and is perhaps more fairly labeled as 'true, but for trivial and unremarkable reasons." thnxs :tb-wink: .
I wish I could remember where I saw the other accounts but they were probably on some of the Yahoo email groups. Those emails have long been deleted. One line of "evidence" I recall dealt with the variable rail gauges, loading gauges (overall clearance dimensions of locomotives and rolling stock) and what the compromises were for broad gauge and narrow gauge and how after much trial and error, the now standard 4' 8 1/2" was settled upon. It was not a nice linear progression as the article in question would have you believe. I don't remember all the details. Another had to do with the building of the original British rail wagons used for hauling coal and that they were constructed totally different from a carriage used on a road. And that the did not even use "jigs" for either. These were all oppinions of course, but given by people I personally found to be knowledgeable and credible.
Or maybe we should re-gauge our tracks, to avoid calling up the manufacturer to notify them of their mistake!*rotfl*
