You are here: Journal
   
Get syndicated feeds from our Journal!  Add to Technorati Favorites
Hot Links
Read Me
HotQuant Portals

The Dead Hand Journal

06

The distance between railroad track rails is called the railroad gauge. The U.S. standard railroad gauge is 4 ft 8 ½ in. Now that’s an odd number. Why, you might ask, is the U.S. standard railroad gauge 4 ft 8 ½ in, instead of 5 ft or 4 ½ ft or 1 ½ meters? Why exactly 4 ft 8 ½ in?

The simple answer is we’ve always done it that way; that’s how they built them in England, and – for the most part – English engineers built the US Railroads.

Obviously, this just pushes the question. So why did the English use 4 ft 8 ½ in?

This one is also simple and complex. The first English rail lines were built by the same guys who built the pre-railroad tramways, and – you guessed it – that’s the gauge they used.

Okay…why?

Well…the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons. Care to guess the standard wagon wheel spacing back then in England?

We keep pushing the question; why this odd number: 4 ft 8 ½ in?

This answer is easy. The wheel ruts on many of the old, long-distance English roads were spaced at exactly 4 ft 8 ½ in. They were built by Imperial Rome throughout Europe and England for their legions, and the roads have been in use ever since. All Roman war chariots had a wheel spacing of 4 ft 8 ½ in. These heavy chariots driven by the thousands over all these roads heavily rutted them. And if anybody wished to use these roads, they were thus obliged to set their wheel spacing to 4 ft 8 ½ in, or chance losing several wheels along their trip.

And why exactly 4 ft 8 ½ in? Because that’s the minimum width for a battle rig pulled by two war horses – essentially the width of two horses behinds.

So the complicated part of the answer is that the United States standard railroad gauge of 4 ft 8 1/2 in is derived from the original specifications for an Imperial Roman war chariot.

 Now, in the words of the inimitable Paul Harvey: Here is the rest of the story...

The Space Shuttle is initially boosted during its launch phase by two large solid fuel rockets attached to the sides of the main fuel tank – the solid rocket boosters or SRBs. The SRBs are manufactured by Thiokol at their Utah factory. The designing engineers wanted to make the SRBs a bit fatter, but they had a problem.  

Thiokol had to ship the SRBs by train from their factory to the launch site. The railroad line passes through a mountain tunnel, and the SRBs had to pass through that tunnel. By design, that tunnel is just sufficiently wider than the track to accommodate a railroad car, and the railroad track width, as you now know, was determined by the wheel separation of an Imperial Roman war chariot.

Thus, a major design feature of what is arguably the world’s most advanced transportation system, the Space Shuttle, was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse’s ass.

Comments

Anonymous
# Anonymous
Tuesday, July 10, 2007 10:59 PM
Greetings Robert. A little friendly advice. If you're going to try to build a reputation as one who "debunks experts' lies" you probably don't want to plagiarize, on your byline, a boilerplate urban legend itself long since debunked:
http://www.snopes.com/history/american/gauge.htm

Have a nice day.

Kind Regards,
Richard
Anonymous
# Anonymous
Wednesday, July 11, 2007 6:30 AM
Plagiarism is a strong word, Richard, coming from someone who has trouble distinguishing between fact and fiction in economics, history, and politics, to mention areas where you have demonstrated foot-in-mouth in past discussions.

In the first place, the above article is not original with me, but came from unidentified sources on the Internet. I originally heard the story on the Paul Harvey "Rest of the Story" broadcast, but on investigation, I discovered that it did not originate with him either – it is in the Public Domain. Plagiarism is deliberately using another's material without giving credit to the author. Material in the Public Domain cannot be plagiarized.

In the second place, the so-called debunking of the "urban myth" of the story I related is, itself, very weak. The story I told is slightly tongue-in-cheek, told with a bit of humor and panache. It is not intended to be historically accurate, but rather, an interesting feed-back to times past and how they influence modern-day events in unexpected ways.

I regret you didn't get that point. Perhaps you should go back to your kool-aid (and please don't make an issue of my using this brand name).
Anonymous
# Anonymous
Wednesday, July 11, 2007 1:43 PM
Thank you for the clarification Robert. You know, when there is a post with the byline "By Robert Williscroft" I think most people would conclude that the piece was purported to be written by Robert Williscroft. Hence the word plagiarize: "1. To use and pass off (the ideas or writings of another) as one's own. "

Your clarification cured that condition so you are now off the hook. However, you are quite wrong about the nature of plagiarism. For example, if I wrote on my blog:

"Die Gedanken sind frei, wer kann sie erraten,
sie fliegen vorbei wie nächtliche Schatten.
Kein Mensch kann sie wissen, kein Jäger erschießen
mit Pulver und Blei: Die Gedanken sind frei!"

under my byline, I would be committing plagiarism, despite the fact that this wonderful German poem is in the public domain and whose author is unknown. It's not my work nonetheless and I would be wrong to pass it off as such.

Kind Regards,
Richard

Post Comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Most Popular Articles
Cool Windows Resource Kit Utility: cleanspl.exe by Jason Williscroft (Tuesday, February 06, 2007)
v: 9012 | c: 0Article Rating
E-Bomb: The Ultimate Terrorist Weapon by Robert Williscroft (Thursday, December 28, 2006)
v: 3795 | c: 2Article Rating
Global Warming Deniers – Part 1 – Statistics needed by Robert Williscroft (Wednesday, February 07, 2007)
v: 3704 | c: 5Article Rating
Fair Winds, Megan McClung by Jason Williscroft (Monday, December 11, 2006)
v: 3369 | c: 0Article Rating
Digg Censors The Dead Hand Over Climate Change! by Jason Williscroft (Saturday, March 31, 2007)
v: 3120 | c: 1Article Rating
The Chicken Little Agenda: Debunking "Experts’" Lies
Categories
Authors
Archive