A standard streetcar width?

I checked that Modern Streetcar Vehicle Guideline and it does mention what it calls door threshold extensions for narrower vehicles to bridge wider gaps. According to the guideline, the European vehicle market has three standard widths, these being 7'6.5'', 7'10.5, and 8'8.3.
It also claims the majority of streetcar systems could be served by the latter two widths. But given that all of these could also run on lines with sufficient clearance for nine foot vehicles, should the European vehicle market really dictate what vehicle widths are used in the land of larger sizes, that is continental Canada and continental US states, or should North America only models be offered in a different range of standard widths, all sufficient for 2+2 seating and up to nine feet, like the widest PCCs?

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 8:57 pm No, I fully grasp what you're trying to address. I just don't agree that it's a pressing issue. Most commuters and I'd guess all motorized wheelchairs can traverse a 6-8" gap.

You might have heard the phrase 'Mind the gap'...

...or 'Watch the gap'.

Platform buffers are a way of bridging gaps like this.

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 8:57 pmHow many of those narrower cars are running on 1435mm track gauge vs. meter gauge?

Quite a lot of European streetcars even on standard gauge track are quite narrow. Going by interior photos I have seen, it is the narrow standard gauge ones that have 2+1 seating, and meter gauge ones often have just 1+1 seating.

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 8:57 pmStandardizing clearances absolutely will drive standardizing vehicle size, no matter how you want to argue otherwise, and some manufacturers won't want to bother changing their offerings to serve a relatively tiny market for the OEM's.

Standardizing vehicle size is still different from standardizing on one type of vehicle, such as PCCs. As for standardizing on sufficient platform clearance to allow the maximum practical streetcar width, this alone will not drive standardization of body width.

Just because there is enough clearance for nine foot vehicles does not mean narrower vehicles (say 8'8.3) are technically/structurally non-compliant. It is about keeping open future options, particularly in terms of planning new systems.
If enough North American systems are built with enough clearance for nine foot vehicles, then maybe it might be worthwhile for those manufacturing rolling stock to offer that width among the 8'8.3 width and there would be a market for standardized nine foot wide rolling stock.
But certain using any vehicles narrower than all standard widths should be discouraged, especially in the land of larger sizes. But using something a little wider is a different matter so a width of nine feet should not be discouraged and allowing for that maybe should be considered when planning new systems.

If, say Metro Transit were to use 9' LRVs (same width as the Twin Cities rapid transit PCCs) instead of 8'8.3'' ones it actually has, it would still be able to lease narrower vehicles from other operators and still use ones bought second hand from others.

Manufacturers of those narrower vehicles do not need to change their offerings to fit greater clearances apart from adding platform buffers to the doors, which seems to be quite a simple modification. It is nowhere on the order of something like changing track gauge.
Remember, increasing clearances could be done a little at a time, not an option when changing between just any two track gauges. Increasing clearances is more like migrating from trolley-pole to pantograph current collection which has also been done around the world and done a little at a time.

Benefits to the maximum practical streetcar width, in addition to 2+2 seating, include longer entrance ramps and better trucks for low floor vehicles.

west point wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:11 pm One reason for common widths and boarding will occur in LAX during the 2028 Olympics. LA could be able to borrow some cars from other agencies if the cars were compatible. Unless mistaken that will not happen.

Just remember that L.A could maybe borrow narrower LRVs, they would just need quite a simple modification for L.A's platforms. Being narrower than the standard width does not make them incompatible.

The point here is that a standard platform clearance does not require a standard vehicle width, it just requires vehicles narrower than the maximum width the platforms allow to have platform buffers at the doors.

It is possible to get 8'8.3 vehicles and still have enough clearance for the full nine feet. It is not like building to an uncommon track gauge like was done with the BART. Wider clearances should not make a fleet renewal more expensive like the BARTs various technical standards including track gauge do.

EDIT: According to this page, Sacramento light rail rolling stock appears to be the widest light rail vehicles operating in North America, if not the world, at a width of 8'9, from Light Rail Now. Also check out the new trains for the Tyne and Wear Metro over in Northern England, these have exactly the gap filling feature I mentioned. They leave no gap between the kerb and the floor no matter how narrower the vehicles are than the maximum width that would fit next to those platforms.
Vehicles fitted with them could all share the same platforms, even if their widths differ.

I know there are streetcar and light rail systems with more than one type of vehicle, but are there any (non-heritage) ones where vehicles that are different widths share the same tracks?

Myrtone wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:29 pm I checked that Modern Streetcar Vehicle Guideline and it does mention what it calls door threshold extensions for narrower vehicles to bridge wider gaps. According to the guideline, the European vehicle market has three standard widths, these being 7'6.5'', 7'10.5, and 8'8.3.
It also claims the majority of streetcar systems could be served by the latter two widths. But given that all of these could also run on lines with sufficient clearance for nine foot vehicles, should the European vehicle market really dictate what vehicle widths are used in the land of larger sizes, that is continental Canada and continental US states, or should North America only models be offered in a different range of standard widths, all sufficient for 2+2 seating and up to nine feet, like the widest PCCs?

Your original post calls out cost reduction as a primary reason to have this standard, and the APTA guidelines call out using existing standard widths to reduce costs, so there are two mutually exclusive solutions to controlling rolling stock procurement costs (yours and APTAs). Unless you can show that creating a new standard is cheaper than using existing standard sizes, I'd assume APTA has the better solution to the problem of controlling costs given that they know the costs.

In all of this, you've ignored the fact that there are standards in US federal regulation, enforceable in most states by any citizen though civil lawsuit, for the maximum distance between a car and a platform, maximum height difference between a car and platform, and how variance from those should be dealt with all with the aim of improving mobility for those with disabilities.

Until you can demonstrate that your proposed standards actually reduce costs (based on actual costs) and won't conflict with existing standards, it seems your idea only drives up rolling stock acquisition costs for streetcar operators as creating a standard for which no existing design is available and making every car builder redesign their offerings will only drive up costs.

While it is generally true that commoditization drives down prices, and you seem to be proposing that dictating the width of a streetcar is an act of commoditization, there was a successful act of commoditization in streetcar design by the Electric Railway Presidents' Conference Committee that resulted in a standard design that did drive down costs and was manufactured by multiple companies with mostly interchangeable components also from multiple companies, and as discussed earlier, didn't specify a width because that was not a cost driver in acquiring or using streetcars.

The last time there was a standardized design for street cars was in the '70's and they were the Boeing LRV's and were a disaster. Just ask Boston and San Francisco. Hopefully in 50 years a rail company is used and we learned from those mistakes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Standa ... il_Vehicle

RandallW wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 6:44 amYour original post calls out cost reduction as a primary reason to have this standard, and the APTA guidelines call out using existing standard widths to reduce costs, so there are two mutually exclusive solutions to controlling rolling stock procurement costs (yours and APTAs). Unless you can show that creating a new standard is cheaper than using existing standard sizes, I'd assume APTA has the better solution to the problem of controlling costs given that they know the costs.

No, I referred specifically to the added cost of customization, which would be reduced by larger orders, not to simply to reduction of the base price. I did not mean that creating a new standard is cheaper than using existing standard but indeed, a really large order could reduce the cost of operators agreeing on a new standard.
Also, it seems that report is inaccurate about streetcar and light rail widths, I noted Sacramento has 8'9''.

I also noted that this standard for platform clearance would make it easier for an operator to order new vehicles wider than their existing fleet.

RandallW wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 6:44 amIn all of this, you've ignored the fact that there are standards in US federal regulation, enforceable in most states by any citizen though civil lawsuit, for the maximum distance between a car and a platform, maximum height difference between a car and platform, and how variance from those should be dealt with all with the aim of improving mobility for those with disabilities.

While I expect there would be standards about distance between the floor and the platform, I did not know about these standards in federal regulation. But would a wider gap be allowed if platform buffers are fitted to the doors?

RandallW wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 6:44 amUntil you can demonstrate that your proposed standards actually reduce costs (based on actual costs) and won't conflict with existing standards, it seems your idea only drives up rolling stock acquisition costs for streetcar operators as creating a standard for which no existing design is available and making every car builder redesign their offerings will only drive up costs.

Look, I noted that increasing clearances other than platform clearances won't make every streetcar builder redesign their rolling stock, only allow them to do so. Even increasing platform clearances won't, apart from the addition of some sort of gap filler, already being used in some places, like on Newcastle-upon-Tyne's light rail. Don't you get it?
Also, it is my understanding that at least some manufacturers do offer any width the client wants between the minimum practical width and the maximum practical width.

RandallW wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 6:44 amWhile it is generally true that commoditization drives down prices, and you seem to be proposing that dictating the width of a streetcar is an act of commoditization, there was a successful act of commoditization in streetcar design by the Electric Railway Presidents' Conference Committee that resulted in a standard design that did drive down costs and was manufactured by multiple companies with mostly interchangeable components also from multiple companies, and as discussed earlier, didn't specify a width because that was not a cost driver in acquiring or using streetcars.

Standard rail vehicle designs, as I understand them, don't actually specify a width, this is chosen by the client, even today. Customization of widths happens even on newbuild systems. No rail vehicle is as close to off-the-shelf as personal transport like automobiles and bikes.

Those Boeing LRVs were only ever ordered once, as a joint venture order between just two operators. This hardly seems like a standard design.

EDIT: It turns out that nine feet is just six inches wider than the maximum permitted width for a large road vehicle, which buses are.

Myrtone wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 8:38 am

RandallW wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 6:44 amYour original post calls out cost reduction as a primary reason to have this standard, and the APTA guidelines call out using existing standard widths to reduce costs, so there are two mutually exclusive solutions to controlling rolling stock procurement costs (yours and APTAs). Unless you can show that creating a new standard is cheaper than using existing standard sizes, I'd assume APTA has the better solution to the problem of controlling costs given that they know the costs.

No, I referred specifically to the added cost of customization, which would be reduced by larger orders, not to simply to reduction of the base price. I did not mean that creating a new standard is cheaper than using existing standard but indeed, a really large order could reduce the cost of operators agreeing on a new standard.
Also, it seems that report is inaccurate about streetcar and light rail widths, I noted Sacramento has 8'9''.

I also noted that this standard for platform clearance would make it easier for an operator to order new vehicles wider than their existing fleet.

RandallW wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 6:44 amIn all of this, you've ignored the fact that there are standards in US federal regulation, enforceable in most states by any citizen though civil lawsuit, for the maximum distance between a car and a platform, maximum height difference between a car and platform, and how variance from those should be dealt with all with the aim of improving mobility for those with disabilities.

While I expect there would be standards about distance between the floor and the platform, I did not know about these standards in federal regulation. But would a wider gap be allowed if platform buffers are fitted to the doors?

RandallW wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 6:44 amUntil you can demonstrate that your proposed standards actually reduce costs (based on actual costs) and won't conflict with existing standards, it seems your idea only drives up rolling stock acquisition costs for streetcar operators as creating a standard for which no existing design is available and making every car builder redesign their offerings will only drive up costs.

Look, I noted that increasing clearances other than platform clearances won't make every streetcar builder redesign their rolling stock, only allow them to do so. Even increasing platform clearances won't, apart from the addition of some sort of gap filler, already being used in some places, like on Newcastle-upon-Tyne's light rail. Don't you get it?
Also, it is my understanding that at least some manufacturers do offer any width the client wants between the minimum practical width and the maximum practical width.

RandallW wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 6:44 amWhile it is generally true that commoditization drives down prices, and you seem to be proposing that dictating the width of a streetcar is an act of commoditization, there was a successful act of commoditization in streetcar design by the Electric Railway Presidents' Conference Committee that resulted in a standard design that did drive down costs and was manufactured by multiple companies with mostly interchangeable components also from multiple companies, and as discussed earlier, didn't specify a width because that was not a cost driver in acquiring or using streetcars.

Standard rail vehicle designs, as I understand them, don't actually specify a width, this is chosen by the client, even today. Customization of widths happens even on newbuild systems. No rail vehicle is as close to off-the-shelf as personal transport like automobiles and bikes.

Those Boeing LRVs were only ever ordered once, as a joint venture order between just two operators. This hardly seems like a standard design.

I never said anything about the Boeing LRVs. I was referring to the cars designed by the Electric Railway Presidents' Conference Committee which are commonly referred to as PCC cars.

The standards I was referring to are the standards set under the Americans with Disabilities Act and are referred to in the APTA guides you claim to have read.

Show us the proposition with real values instead of empty assertions and then we can discuss that, but until you do so, you are failing to show that your proposed standard has value.

I was the one to bring up Boeing and they were supposed to be the new standard but were so poor that San Francisco and Boston were the only orders.

RandallW wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 9:08 am The standards I was referring to are the standards set under the Americans with Disabilities Act and are referred to in the APTA guides you claim to have read.

No, I said I checked those guides, not that I read even most of them, they are quite long.

RandallW wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 9:08 amShow us the proposition with real values instead of empty assertions and then we can discuss that, but until you do so, you are failing to show that your proposed standard has value.

The proposal is quite simple, standardize the platform clearance and fit anything narrower than the maximum practical streetcar width with sliding steps. I looked at the report a little more and it mentions a maximum permissible horizontal gap, this being similar on both sides of the Atlantic. But depending on how 'gap' is defined, a sliding step would allow narrower vehicles, relative to the platform offset, to meet the required maximum gap.

The important point in this thread is that that platform offset does not have to be determined by vehicle width if the vehicles have some sort of gap filler. So the idea is to simply base the platform offset on the maximum practical streetcar width and fit those gap fillers to anything narrower. This allows them to share platforms with wider vehicles and therefore makes it easier to move vehicles between different operators.

Myrtone wrote: ↑Tue Feb 13, 2024 10:00 am The proposal is quite simple, standardize the platform clearance and fit anything narrower than the maximum practical streetcar width with sliding steps. I looked at the report a little more and it mentions a maximum permissible horizontal gap, this being similar on both sides of the Atlantic. But depending on how 'gap' is defined, a sliding step would allow narrower vehicles, relative to the platform offset, to meet the required maximum gap.

The important point in this thread is that that platform offset does not have to be determined by vehicle width if the vehicles have some sort of gap filler. So the idea is to simply base the platform offset on the maximum practical streetcar width and fit those gap fillers to anything narrower. This allows them to share platforms with wider vehicles and therefore makes it easier to move vehicles between different operators.

Even if you can get all the operators to agree to a single width (gap) measurement for level boarding, you still have to get them to agree to a single floor or platform height measurement for level boarding to work. Streetcars come in many variations with different floor heights requiring different platform heights.

Your interface between floor and platform lives in a 3D world, not a 2D one.

Many streetcars in the USA are based on very old designs, hence the word "replicas" used many times in my list of operators in the USA. Replica meaning a brand new streetcar built to a very old design.

Seriously... for the purposes of discussion here we should probably just dispense with the word "streetcar" to describe what are really "trams" unless they're really legacy or replica streetcars...

electricron wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 5:49 am Even if you can get all the operators to agree to a single width (gap) measurement for level boarding, you still have to get them to agree to a single floor or platform height measurement for level boarding to work. Streetcars come in many variations with different floor heights requiring different platform heights.

There is a standard for low floor vehicles ranging between 12-14 inches, that is their entrance height and the range of platform heights they need is about the same, per the A.D.A not permitting a step height of more than five eights of an inch.
Note that this refers to the entrance height, which is often but not always the floor height. Stepless aisle low floor models with pivoting trucks (discussed in another thread) have slightly higher interior floors but they have entrance ramps behind their doors and their entrance heights are still the same as nearly all other types also considered low floor. These smooth transitions in floor height are why they can be considered 95-100% low floor.

electricron wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 5:49 amMany streetcars in the USA are based on very old designs, hence the word "replicas" used many times in my list of operators in the USA. Replica meaning a brand new streetcar built to a very old design.

Okay, but those are heritage services. New vehicles built for transit use would either run on lines with high platform loading or, more commonly, would be low floor. I don't suppose disability discrimination legislation applies to museum services, meaning those who keeps things around for preservation.

Given that there is a low floor standard, which would apply to streetcar types systems like the Portland one, could they agree on lateral clearances allowing for the maximum streetcar width and fitting some sort of gap filler to anything narrower than that?
A good basis for the maximum streetcar width would be how much lateral clearance a rail vehicle of a given width needs (this being less than a road vehicle of equal width) combined the maximum width of a road vehicle that is not considered oversized.

eolesen wrote: ↑Wed Feb 14, 2024 8:28 pm Seriously... for the purposes of discussion here we should probably just dispense with the word "streetcar" to describe what are really "trams" unless they're really legacy or replica streetcars...

What about the ones in Portland and the new vehicles in downtown Toronto? Aren't they still called streetcars in North American English, which is what I am trying to use here.

If you're taking two or more steps up, it's a vintage streetcar. If you're taking less than two steps up, it's a tram.

I don't recall the source, but from memory, either the FRA or FTA admitted that there are almost no agencies who are in full compliance with every requirement of the ADA.

Having a standard of 5/8" is an example of the absolutely ludicrous rigidity that disability advocates managed to get put into legislation without any substantial discussion or pushback due to the optics of disagreeing with the disabled....

(For disclosure and to leave no doubt over personal biases... my adult daughter is permanently disabled since birth, and the disability advocate community is over-represented by some of the most difficult, inflexible and out-of-touch people I've ever encountered)

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 10:58 pm If you're taking two or more steps up, it's a vintage streetcar. If you're taking less than two steps up, it's a tram.

But the Portland and Toronto examples I gave are low floor and apparently still seem to be called streetcars in North American English.

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 10:58 pmI don't recall the source, but from memory, either the FRA or FTA admitted that there are almost no agencies who are in full compliance with every requirement of the ADA.

In that case, I do wonder if compliance with the equivalent is generally any better in Europe or even Canada. The UK's disability discrimination act requires destinations to be displayed in mixed case and all transit operators there seem to comply. They also require color-contrasted doors on rail transit vehicles and they don't seem to have a problem complying with that.

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 10:58 pmHaving a standard of 5/8" is an example of the absolutely ludicrous rigidity that disability advocates managed to get put into legislation without any substantial discussion or pushback due to the optics of disagreeing with the disabled....

I know your daughter might be permanently disabled but keep in mind that the breeziest comments on accessibility apparently come from fit, able-bodied people who have no mobility problems.
However, European legislation permits a step height of up to 2 inches.

There is no "might be permanently disabled". She -is- permanently disabled. I see daily what she's capable of.

2" is the average bad sidewalk downtown. Even our roads can't comply with a 5/8" tolerance when they're built, much less after a year or two of use.

eolesen wrote: ↑Fri Feb 16, 2024 12:07 am There is no "might be permanently disabled". She -is- permanently disabled. I see daily what she's capable of.

Sorry you misunderstood my words. I meant I acknowledge what you told me while noting something about comments on accessibility.

eolesen wrote: ↑Thu Feb 15, 2024 10:58 pm If you're taking two or more steps up, it's a vintage streetcar. If you're taking less than two steps up, it's a tram.

No. In North America trams are elevated and hanging from cables.
NYC's Roosevelt Island "tram" and the Portland, OR "tram" are two examples.

Streetcars, trolleys, and light rail terms are almost interchangeable in the USA. Not trams.
In Texas, interurbans and HSR trains are interchangeable, as long as they have catenaries above the tracks.