Talk:Loading gauge/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Untitled

Surely the structure gauge has to be greater than the loading gauge, right? Otherwise, the trains would not fit in the tunnel! Andrew pmk 19:21, 30 June 2005 (UTC)

What loading gauge is the new construction for the Channel Tunnel links? I recall, when the West Coast Main Line between London and Glasgow was being electrified, that a lot of bridges over the railway had to be altered to give clearance for the overhead cables. Is that worth a comment or cross-reference, something like "additional clearance is needed for overhead electrification." Dave Bell 30 Septermber 2005 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.1.165 (talk) 16:14, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Could somebody include metric values for international readers ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.172.252.93 (talk) 10:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistent dimensions

The article currently gives inconsistent measurements for the European gauge: "By contrast the European (Berne) loading gauge is usually 10′-2″ (3150 mm) wide by 10′-5″ (3175 mm) rising to 14'-6″ (4280 mm) in the centre." The measurement I have emphasised cannot be correct in both metric and imperial values, since 14'6" is 4420mm, not 4280mm, which is 14'0.5". Since I don't know which is correct, I'm pointing out the error here. -- AJR | Talk 02:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

diagram?

How about adding a diagram similar to this one[1] outlining the size of trains instead of planes? --Soylentyellow 20:15, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Smallest loading gauge is LU tube lines?

"The smallest standard gauge loading gauge is that of the London Underground's tube lines."

Really? Isn't the Glasgow Subway even smaller? I could have sworn that the Budapest Metro Line 1 is also smaller than the deep Tube lines. ProhibitOnions 16:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

The Glasgow Subway uses a narrow guage of four feet, so it's not standard gauge. It looks like Budapest's M1 is standard gauge, according to EUROUT Kft (who rebuilt it in 1995). However, I can find no reference to its loading gauge. The tunnels of the M1 appear to have a square cross-section, whilst LU deep-level tunnels are approximately circular - which suggests tighter gauge on the LU lines. Kesmet 00:45, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I recall having read somewhere that the Budapest M1 "underground trams" have always had to be low-floor - in the original generation, the underframes were cranked to accommodate the bogies, with sitting-height cabinets for driver and technical equipment on top. /83.253.48.125 (talk) 15:35, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Restaurant Cars

Restaurant cars can be a challenge if the loading gauge is on the narrow side.

Consider a car selling foodstuffs to passengers. Width might be needed for:

wall on one side
cupboards, stoves, etc.
circulation space for crew moving from one end of the retail area to another
standing space for crew while selling
counter and display space
standing space for customers while buying
circulation space for other passengers moving along train
wall on other side.

In the US, this might add up to 10' 6". In the UK this might add up to 8' 6".

Sitting cars do not have this problem, since as many seats as will fit across the car, with or without a corridor, works quite happily, with wider seats in first class and narrower seats in economy class. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tabletop (talk • contribs) 08:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Units

This is quite clearly not a US-specific article, so would anyone mind if I put SI measurements first, as per the Manual of Style? I'll do the comparative diagram of loading gauges that Soylentyellow requests if that helps! Peter Barber (talk) 12:06, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

(Oppose) Having just had another look, 99% of the measurements would have been initially determined in imperial measurements (eg '8 feet'). Quoting the metric measurements first could imply an erroneous level of precision. The 99% I mention are (mainly) related to US and UK measurements and hence are quite appropriate to be displayed in the current form: imperial (metric).

EdJogg (talk) 12:40, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

general cleanup

I have given this article a pretty heavy edit session. It has a number of long-standing tags relating to missing citations and style. I have tried to make it more business-like promoting the key information about current standards to the start of the article and putting other less essential and incited information into a section at the end titled 'other information'. I have also deleted information which could be considered as trivial. PeterEastern (talk) 23:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

removal of 'copy edit' banner

The article is now very much cleaner than when the banner was added. There is still work to be done for sure, but I don't think the copy-edit banner is still appropriate so I have removed it. PeterEastern (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

United Kingdom or Great Britain?

The 'British' loading gauge section was renamed as United Kingdom, however Network Rail only claim to cover 'Britains's railways[2] and so does not cover Northern Ireland. Also, Ireland is on the separate Irish gauge so it seems very unlikely that they use the W loading gauges. I suggest the correct title for the section is actually Great Britain and I will change the title back again unless someone points out that I have this wrong.PeterEastern (talk) 07:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Resolved on 20th MayPeterEastern (talk) 05:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Loading gauges by country.

In the diagram on the right, the black lines are the structure gauge.

The coloured lines are the loading gauge of ISO container standing on the deck of a flat wagon.

The loading gauge has to be smaller than the structure gauge, including an allowance for dynamic movement of the train.

Of the three sizes of ISO container, only the smallest appears to fit, due the small size of the structure gauge and its tunnels.

BTW, tunnels are round, while the structure gauge is made of straight lines for the ease of measurement.

Jane's World Railways in some editions has similar drawings of the loading gauges of some countries.

Tabletop (talk) 06:14, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

wider carbody

French people want wider carbody than UIC profile. 121.102.47.39 (talk) 08:23, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Expert input please

This article relates to a very technical subject, appears to have significant inconsistencies and still relies on many non-official sources for key information. For example:-

Should the UIC gauges be referred to as A,B, C etc, or as GA, GB, GC? If so then I assume that B+ and GB+ are the same (which makes sense since the channel tunnel links England and France). Or did the TSI use new names for the same specifications. Should we use TSI terms now? Is the UIC still the definitive reference for non-EU countries?
Gauges are referred to as both UIC and IUC - which is correct? or are they interchangable? Should we agree on one term and acknowledge the other one once?
In the UK section there is a reference to gauge W6a, however recent Network Rail documents seem to refer to the W6 gauge and not mention W6a. Has W6a been deprecated in favour of W6?PeterEastern (talk) 05:55, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I assume that only the French-based UIC is correct, the others are most probably typos. // UIC and TSI gauges are a clear match but the definitions differ - the measures in the TSI documents are given in the kinematic gauge envelope (using names GA,GB,GC) which has generally some 50mm extra than the UIC physical measures (that were knowm as A,B,C). So yes, I assume they changed the designation scheme as to avoid confusion when it comes down to the millimeter - but as far as one is talking about a structure gauge built to Gauge X one can use it interchangeably. And, may be the IUC has the kinematic gauge definitions as well but they were uncommon until the TSI used it as the only way to express their rolling stock specifications? Guidod (talk) 23:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Any people want wider carbody, especially French people. 121.102.47.39 (talk) 09:55, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Double decker commuter trains

as used (at least) on the Paris and Milan suburban railways, even though [presumably] they don't need a special loading guage where used. We ought to cover these explicitly. Obviously a pic is almost a prerequisite, as soon as someone can get one. Anything on Commons for French or Italian railways? --John Maynard Friedman (talk) 19:16, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

How about Voiture État à 2 étages? Tim PF (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

See the German article on de:Doppelstockwagen (bilevel rail cars) - those trains are very common in German regional transport as well as some suburban railways (especially if normal DBAG Class 425 is not sufficient anymore). Guidod (talk) 07:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Double deckers are not just on local trains. Netherlands and Switzerland both have double decker inter-cities as well as locals. I have added a picture of a Swiss IC2000. Also, when the LGV Rhin-Rhône open in December, there will be double-decker TGV's running from Paris to Switzerland. Most European gauges support double-deckers, except in Britain. Though a double-decker TGV could now reach London St. Pancras via HS1. TiffaF (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Out of Date

Modern analysis is based on allowing for the movement and rolling/twisting of vehicles. This means the size depends upon the stiffness of springing etc. So the article should also discuss Kinetic Envelopes and the relevant standards 81.2.110.250 (talk) 22:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

UIC 505-1?

There is a discrepancy between this article and the corresponding German and French ones. This article talks about UIC A, B, B+ and C. In the next paragraph it talks about European gauges GA, GB, GB1, GB2, GB+, GC and GI3. This article includes the diagram (right) showing German Gauges G1 and G2, without an explanation as to what they are. The German article Lichtraumprofil (which is not restricted to railways, it also talks about loading gauges on roads) explains that G1 is the same as UIC 505-1, and is the international standard, G2 being the larger German standard.

But there is another pair of articles, Interoperabilität im Schienenverkehr (interoperability in Rail Traffic) and Interopérabilité ferroviaire which has a very informative table giving which countries' railways are built to UIC 505-1 (e.g. France), < UIC 505-1 (GB), between UIC 505-1 and G2 EBO, G2 EBO (e.g. Germany) or ≥ G2 EBO.

Since these 2 articles disagree, I suggest this article needs attention from an expert, who can add the data from the German article. TiffaF (talk) 15:31, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Germany

Sais: "In Germany and other central European countries the railway systems are built to UIC C gauges," does this apply also to former West Germany? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Meerwind7 (talk • contribs) 00:52, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

The history of rail transport in Germany has seen the nationalization of railways in the 19. century and the establishment of common standards in the German Customs Union settling on a larger loading gauge than in France. Guidod (talk) 15:13, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Use of outdated and unrepresentative materials

The use of CSX as a source for North America is a very poor one. Of all the class I's, it is the one that has made the least progress and made the least efforts to update its network loading gauge. As such using it as the reference for North American standards would be like using the London Tube's loading gauge as the default reference for all of Europe. Furthermore, most of the increases in loading gauge in North America have not come as a result of doublestacks. They were started back in the 1950s and 1960s in response to piggyback and trilevel autoracks well before the dawn of the doublestack era in the mid-1980s. 58.141.84.124 (talk) 07:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Clarity required, please

I am no expert in this subject but I am keen to understand and gain a level of appreciation.

However, the following section within the Introduction is ambiguous: “The loading gauge is maximum size of rolling stock which is distinct from the structure gauge which is minimum size of bridges and tunnels which must be larger to allow for engineering tolerances and car motion. The difference between the two is called the clearance. The terms dynamic envelope or kinematic envelope - which include factors such as suspension travel, overhang on curves (at both ends and middle) and lateral motion on the track - are sometimes used in place of loading gauge.[citation needed]"”

My reading of this paragraph says that the structure gauge is for bridges and tunnels, etc and is larger than the loading gauge in order to allow for tolerances and car motion. It then says (albeit with a missing citation) that loading gauge is sometimes interchangeably used with dynamic envelope or kinematic envelope. But these two include the effects of overhang, throws and motion whereas loading gauge is “the maximum size of rolling stock” and no specific mention is made of the effects of motion. In other words… Loading gauge + clearance = dynamic envelope = kinematic envelope

Is this a true statement?

Further ambiguity occurs later on (and others have already picked up on this) in the ‘European standards’ section of ‘Standard loading gauges for standard track gauge lines’, gauges GA, GB, GC and GB+ are mentioned but then there is a picture with gauges G1 and G2. What are these? And what are GB1, GB2 and GI3 which are all bulleted but undefined in this section 212.250.79.37 (talk) 09:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'll try to explain it as best I can without overcomplicating or oversimplifying it to much. Terminology in this subject is indeed a bit ambiguous.

The term loading gauge can refer either to the envelope which defines the maximum size for rolling stock and it's load (there are still a lot of other terms for this, with slightly different meanings, for example, there is a maximum construction gauge, an effective construction gauge, a vehicle gauge and the gates used to check if a load is within the envelope is also called loading gauge) or the reference profile from which all the other gauges and/or envelopes, including the structure gauge, are calculated. There are three method's for these calculations, namely static, kinematic and dynamic. Static gauging is an old and relatively simple method, that does not actually calculate most movements but uses fixed clearances to ensure that all vehicle movements are within the limits. In most cases these clearances are much larger then the actual movement of the vehicle, which means that taking into account other factors would result in a more of effective use of the available space. This is what the kinematic gauging method does and therefore it is a bit larger than a static gauge with the same name. Dynamic gauging is a different method, which I do not understand sufficiently to explain. It's intend is to maximize the available space, though it is more work, which is probably why it is not used very often. Most loading gauges are defined by two of these methods (usually static and kinematic, sometimes static and dynamic). However, comparing different reference profiles is still very difficult, because the exact rules for each gauge tend to be slightly different. As a comparison, the height of static (reference profiles) UIC G2, UIC GC and SE-A (Swedish) are 4,650 m, kinematic G2 is 4,680 m, while kinematic GC is 4,700 m and dynamic SE-A/SEa is 4,790 m.

Then the issue of the all the different names. The names Berne gauge, PPI, RIV T1-1, G1 (optionally with the prefix UIC-, TSI- or EBO-) and UIC 505-1 all refer to the same reference profile (the first three only to the static one, the others can also refer the kinematic profile). The next one in the list is UIC A, which is the same as RIV T1-2 or static UIC/TSI GA. The same goes for UIC B, but not for UIC C, which oddly enough refers to static (EBO) G2 and not to UIC/TSI GC. Then GB+, which is an old name for (UIC/TSI) GB1, it's used when extending the structure gauge in order to accommodate transport of swap bodies and trailers on trains (o.a. Modalohr). GB2 is slightly different than GB1, to my knowledge is it not actually used in practice. And the last one you mentioned is GI3, my best guess is that that should be GIC3, which is the kinematic reference profile from 0 to 400 mm from top of rail for rolling highway-wagons. There is also GIS1 (static)/GIC1 (kinematic) for wagons that can and GIS2/GIC2 for wagons that can not be shunted using a hump.

I hope this answers more questions than it raises. The information above stems from my contributions to the Dutch article on this subject ("Omgrenzingsprofiel".). The main sources I used are listed below, they make for some quite interesting reading material on this subject.

Joenit (talk) 18:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

An error on the loading gauge diagram

There is an error on this diagram AAR "plate" loading gauge diagrams compared to UIC (pdf & Autocad) . According to CAR and LOCOMOTIVE CYCLOPEDIA, A SIMMONS BOARDMAN PUBLICATION, Plate D is a graph and not a loading gauge outline. Peter Horn User talk 21:11, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Make that any edition of Car and locomotive cyclopedia of American practice and Railway Line Clearances and Car Dimensions Including Weight Limitations of Railroads in the United States, Canada, Mexico and Cuba. I own the 1970 edition of the former and used to own a copy of the latter until it mysteriously disappeared on me. An edition of either publication must not be of a vintage that does not yet even show AAR Plate C. Unfortunately these reference works are not available at public libraries but are confined to the offices of railways, shippers or rolling stock manufacturers. Peter Horn User talk 16:59, 21 November 2012 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 14:01, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This reference/Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia Of American Practice may help. Peter Horn User talk 01:18, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

See also Talk:Loading gauge#An error below. Peter Horn User talk 01:18, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

A possibly useful source

This pdf-file ^{[dead link]} is in Swedish but consists mostly diagrams and tables. It seems to be a translation from some whitepaper in German if someone want to find that instead. The document seems to contain all loading restrictions in the standard gauge european network with Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq plus the Spanish and Portuguese broad gauge systems as of 2005-09-12. Steinberger (talk) 19:49, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

As the link have died: The document again. Steinberger (talk) 12:30, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

'Other information'

This content is not sourced and probably of minor relevance to this article. I have moved it to the talk page for future reference and possible re-inclusion in parts PeterEastern (talk) 03:33, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

The smallest loading gauge (for a railway of standard gauge track) is that of the London Underground's deep tube lines.^{[citation needed]} Loading gauges in the North America tend to be larger that in Europe. The Russian (including Finnish and ex-Soviet) and the Chinese loading gauges are also very large.^{[citation needed]} The largest loading gauge is that of the Channel Tunnel between Great Britain and France.^{[citation needed]}
Not all railways were built to standard (generous) loading gauges. Many narrow gauge railways also have a very small loading gauge in order to keep construction costs low. But Cape gauge railways in New Zealand and South Africa have a similar loading gauge to Great Britain, and some British Railways Mark 2 carriages have been re-bogied to run on New Zealand Railways.
The choice of loading gauge represented a significant engineering decision to trade construction and maintenance costs against train size (and thus capacity), and also led to some unusual solutions to problems, including the Fairlie locomotives.
Additional height restrictions apply to the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) which can not even handle the 15 ft 1 in height, to the Metro-North Railroad and to Amtrak's Northeast Corridor.
Amtrak's Northeast Corridor, especially Pennsylvania Station which Amtrak owns, but shares with the LIRR, can not handle the higher double-deckers, but can handle 14 ft 6 in (4,420 mm) high "split level" cars.
On the Metro-North Railroad and the Long Island Rail Road (including Pennsylvania Station) the 10 inches (254 mm) high, above top of rail, safety cover decreases the structure gauge and in turn the loading gauge from top of rail to 11 inches (279.4 mm) above top of rail as measured on a 20° curve, which means a radius of 287.94 ft (87.764 m). These dimensions apply only to third rail electrified North American commuter lines that are used by main line passenger trains and freight trains as well. See also "Additional infrastructure restrictions" in Disadvantages of third rail. The loading gauge of the Mount Royal Tunnel in Montreal is also restricted ^[1].

References

^ Dufour, Marc. "CoupeTunnelDouble" (GIF). La ligne de banlieue Montréal - Deux-Montagnes & le réseau ferré de banlieue. Retrieved 2008-05-13.

The smallest loading gauge for a railway of the 1676 gauge track is Delhi Metro. Which is 3,250 mm wide and 4,140 mm high.
Indian Railways (including Pakistan Railways) also 1676 gauge track have very large loading gauge. 3,660 mm wide and 5,300 mm high for passenger traffic.
The Russian (including Finnish and ex-Soviet) loading gauges are also very large. Same loading gauge as the Indian (including Pakistani), 3,660 mm wide and 5,300 mm high for passenger traffic, on the 1520 gauge track compare the 1676 gauge track.

220.210.143.190 (talk) 10:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

See also AAR "plate" loading gauge diagrams compared to UIC (pdf & Autocad) Peter Horn User talk 14:15, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Image from the Dutch Wiki

From the Dutch Wiki

Template to check if the load falls within the loading gauge

Peter Horn User talk 22:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

mm, not m

No way are railroad cars "4,280 m" high. That's either European use of a comma as a decimal point or "mm" was meant. John Nagle (talk) 21:25, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Fixed --Cavrdg (talk) 07:13, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Network Rail updated documents

Can someone please update the UK section with the GE/RT8073 standard document at https://www.rssb.co.uk/rgs/standards/gert8073%20iss%203.pdf (Issue 3 is the current one) that is the definitive RSSB document for loading gauges (which Network Rail as the infrastructure manager in the UK has to comply with). Ultimately it is *this* document that is definitive, not Network Rail's references and consultations. 2001:630:50:D019:F9CF:598B:F631:EA4E (talk) 10:59, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Out of Gauge

This section states that the platform "was hit by an in-gauge train", but that is incorrect. Although https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/56128eb1e5274a0367000006/R172015_151007_Moston.pdf states: "Horizontal offsets between the down platform at Moston and the adjacent track were less than required by modern design standards.", it also states that "The freight train struck the platform structure because spigots intended to secure containers to a wagon, were projecting beyond the permitted width of the wagon. My bold. Chris.Bristol (talk) 14:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Add safety section

Add a safety section about personnel in narrow tunnels with approaching train. Jidanni (talk) 19:53, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Festiniog error

The article has

height = 5 feet 7.5 inches (1.715 m).

This is obviously incorrect. What is the truth? (ETA: somewhere about 9'6" - about 2.9m)

81.156.29.97 (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

5 feet 7.5 inches (1.715 m) is correct. Peter Horn User talk 22:43, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Language Spanish and others

Someone please add Spanish language Gálibo ferroviario Peter Horn User talk 14:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

es:Gálibo ferroviario Peter Horn User talk 14:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Peter Horn: See Help:Interlanguage links. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:46, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: I'm trying to add Gálibo ferroviario, but I get an error message telling me that it is already attached to d:Q904003 This means perhaps that things need to be sorted out. Peter Horn User talk 21:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It turns out to be messy, there are for example de:Fahrzeugbegrenzungslinie and de:Lichtraumprofil. Loading gauge links to the former and es:Gálibo ferroviario links to the latter. Peter Horn User talk 23:23, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It gets more interesting. structure gauge links to de:Lichtraumprofil!!! Things get lost in translation. Peter Horn User talk 23:42, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

@Redrose64: Other languages it:Sagoma limite, ca:Gàlib ferroviari and sv:Lastprofil. The first one I'm not sure where it belongs, the second and third one I failed to add to Loading gauge where they belong. Peter Horn User talk 22:12, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

pl:Skrajnia kolejowa needs also to be added to Loading gauge Peter Horn User talk 22:25, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I had a hunch and discovered pt:Gabarito ferroviario which also needs to be added to Loading gauge. Peter Horn User talk 22:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

it:Sagoma limite is back in Loading gauge Peter Horn User talk 23:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

An error

There is an error on AAR "plate" loading gauge diagrams compared to UIC (pdf & Autocad). AAR plate D is not an equipment outline but, according to Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia 1970, page 74, Plate D is a graph. Peter Horn User talk 19:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

See also Talk:Loading gauge#An error on the loading gauge diagram above. Peter Horn User talk 01:16, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

No reaction from anybody yet, least of all Mark Dufour. Peter Horn User talk 14:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The author of AAR "plate" loading gauge diagrams compared to UIC (pdf & Autocad) has so far not corrected his diagram. Can someone nudge him via his web site? Peter Horn User talk 22:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)

The bottom of Plate D is 23⁄4 in ATOR, The bottom of Plate D is 21⁄2 in ATOR. That is the difference. Peter Horn User talk 01:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

AAR Plate H

In Loading gauge#Freight the height of AAR Plate H is given as 20 ft 2 in (6.147 m). However I have seen intermodal containers that measure each 9 ft 1⁄2 in (2.756 m) high, making a total of two containers 18 ft 1 in (5.512 m). Thus the overall height of AAR Plate H is 20 ft 3 in (6.172 m) in that case. Peter Horn

Added File:Gabarit AAR Plate-H.png User talk 21:54, 14 July 2021 (UTC) Peter Horn User talk 01:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

This gives 20 ft 3 in (6.17 m) for Plate H "AAR Open Top Loading Rules Manual, Section 1, Appendix A, Preload Inspection Checklist and Equipment Plate Diagrams" (PDF). Association of American Railroads. Archived (PDF) from the original on 24 February 2021. Retrieved 24 February 2021. Peter Horn User talk 03:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Page numbers needed in the Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practice

@Peter Horn: Would you be able to find the pertinent page numbers in the Car and Locomotive Cyclopedia of American Practice for this article as you did at Boxcar? It is currently reference #29 as I write this, and is used in seven places throughout the article. Thanks! – voidxor 20:03, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

@Voidxor: For the 1970 edition, the pages 71 thru 74 inclusive. Peter Horn User talk 01:08, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Done Thanks again! – voidxor 16:25, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

Extract two diagrams

Hello,
Can someone extract the the "gabarit UIC dit Berne" and the "Gabarit britannique" Someone else has already extracted the other ones AAR "plate" loading gauge diagrams compared to UIC (pdf & Autocad) Peter Horn User talk 18:52, 13 November 2021 (UTC)

[1] Dufour, Marc. "CoupeTunnelDouble" (GIF). La ligne de banlieue Montréal - Deux-Montagnes & le réseau ferré de banlieue. Retrieved 2008-05-13.

[1]