Streetcar track gauge - broad, standard, or narrow?

I don't know whether Bilbao used any old track, but probably not, yet they chose to build to the same gauge as they had before. Please check you facts, where did you get that information from? Is there any reason they couldn't just change their order? The extra cost of broad gauge rolling stock would only be marignal in case of light tramway vehicles and the benefits are as follows:

*Gauge is the same as the previous Cinicinatti system and the current systems in Pittsburgh and Phillidelphia allowing for joist venture orders and easy transfer of rolling stock.
*More space between the wheels enable a wider ailse and/or reduced constraints on bogie movement.

It's the rail-profile, not gauge that determines the wheel design, gauge determines the spacing between the wheels. Bogie design is exactly the same apart from wheel track. I'm trying the spread same lateral thinking like Tonyp does on railpage.

CComMack wrote:Your counterfactual is meaningless; we live in a world where, in terms of the environment they are building in, there is no difference whether Cincinnati had previously had a PA trolley gauge system, a standard gauge system, or no previous system whatsoever; there is no usable remnant of any of Cincinnati's trolleys, and they must build from scratch on "greenfield" alignments. Therefore, Cincinnati's engineers have a fiduciary duty to the city to not add unnecessary expense to the streetcar system, and should therefore build to standard gauge. Cincinnati has no responsibility to Pittsburgh or Philadelphia, nor should it.

But you end up in a sutiation where low floor trams in Cincinnati have less space available between the wheels than will low floor streetcars in Philladepia ( when they introduce them there) all becasue they tore up their previous sytem and put in a new one.

CComMack wrote:I'm baffled why an Australian, who has to personally deal with the crippling of that nation's rail industry due to breaks-of-gauge, would wish that on anyone else. Also, you are aware that Cincinnati and Philadelphia are as far apart geographically as Melbourne and Sydney, right?

Heavy Rail is different in this respect, the tramway network of one city is physically separate from another unless there is either conurbation, or there is an interurban line between those two cities which is unlikety if they are geographically as far apart as Cicinatti and Philladelphia. If some European cities such as Stuttgart and Chemitz can regauge why not Pittsburgh or Philladelphia, they obviously prefer their wider gauge, and will continue do so when they introduce low floor rolling stock.
I bet all those same who say that standard gauge is preferable would not be convinced on the merits of a unidirectional tram, but Tonyp and European tram operators he has contacted are. I'm trying to spread lateral thinking here, as I have done elsewhere, and Tonyp has done on railpage.

EDIT:Also, if the extisting unused tracks are in the middle of the road but you want them on the side couldn't you just relocate them rather than laying new ones.

Also the tramway network of Valancina, also in Spain only opened in 1994 and it is also metre gauge.

Myrtone wrote:IBut you end up in a sutiation where low floor trams in Cincinnati have less space available between the wheels than will low floor streetcars in Philladepia ( when they introduce them there) all becasue they tore up their previous sytem and put in a new one. Also, if the extisting unused tracks are in the middle of the road but you want them on the side couldn't you just relocate them rather than laying new ones.

Hello, wake up! Those old streetcar tracks in Cincinnati have been abandoned and mostly torn up since 1951, over 60 years ago! The last streetcar ran in Cincinnati in 1951. Most of those tracks, if not all, have already been torn up. They aren't there to be reused.

You also must consider what size rail they were. MATA found 90 pound tracks under McKinney Avenue in Dallas, a common weight track for single streetcar operations. Most modern streetcars, especially those with multiple sections, require 115 pound tracks. It's possible that any tracks found under Cincinnati streets will not be heavy enough for their new streetcars.

Additionally, Cincinnati's new streetcar line is receiving FTA "New Starts" funding. That source of federal funds is for brand new transit services, not for refurbishing old lines. Reusing the old tracks under the streets would mean losing this funding source, which is 50% of what is needed.

Every reason you have found to use broad gauge tracks has been shot down. When are you going to give up this argument? Probably old abandoned tracks wrong size, old tracks - if they're still there - under the wrong lanes, if they are used loose 50% of the capital funds, and the new streetcars being built and already bought are standard gauge.

While it's true Cincinnati had Pennsylvania gauge tracks in it city's streets a long time ago, I would like to point out that just three major US cities used it, and that hundreds of other American cities did not. It wasn't a popular gauge back then. While it is still in use by two Pennsylvania cities, not every transit line in those two cities use it today. Even they see the value of Standard gauge tracks.

electricron wrote:Hello, wake up! Those old streetcar tracks in Cincinnati have been abandoned and mostly torn up since 1951, over 60 years ago! The last streetcar ran in Cincinnati in 1951. Most of those tracks, if not all, have already been torn up. They aren't there to be reused.

I've seen a photo of some old streetcar tracks that haven't even been paved over.

electricron wrote:You also must consider what size rail they were. MATA found 90 pound tracks under McKinney Avenue in Dallas, a common weight track for single streetcar operations. Most modern streetcars, especially those with multiple sections, require 115 pound tracks. It's possible that any tracks found under Cincinnati streets will not be heavy enough for their new streetcars.

Your comments may be vaild for heavy LRVs, but classic style trams such as the Skoda ForCity will surely cope.

electricron wrote:Every reason you have found to use broad gauge tracks has been shot down. When are you going to give up this argument? Probably old abandoned tracks wrong size, old tracks - if they're still there - under the wrong lanes, if they are used loose 50% of the capital funds, and the new streetcars being built and already bought are standard gauge.

On that hasn't is the wide ailse space available with broad gauge bogies. And no, if I'm trying to spread lateral thinking, I don't give up that easily, especially if I expect someone (yet to comment) to be on my side. Would you shoot down every reason I've found that newcomers to LRT should consider unidirectional rolling stock?

electricron wrote:While it's true Cincinnati had Pennsylvania gauge tracks in it city's streets a long time ago, I would like to point out that just three major US cities used it, and that hundreds of other American cities did not. It wasn't a popular gauge back then. While it is still in use by two Pennsylvania cities, not every transit line in those two cities use it today. Even they see the value of Standard gauge tracks.

So, why did Cincinatti choose that gauge in the first place? Baltimore had a similar gauge. Were most US systems built to standard gauge?

Where are the standard gauge lines in Pittsbugh and Philladelphia? If even they see the "value" of standard gauge tracks, why don't they convert their existing systems to standard gauge, tramway regauging has happened before in Europe.

EDIT:Two things, one is that no one has given any indication as to how much (at least in the short term) an "oddball" gauge would add to the costs. Also the BART (heavy metro) is broad gauge even though it was built in the 1970s and even then, standard gauge would surely have offered more vendor choices, especially with heavy rail.

Myrtone wrote:Please check you facts, where did you get that information from?

Facts? Before making that claim you need to check your posts and footnote everything to provide your sources.

It seems that your posts are filled with OPINION. Your personal preference for non-standard gauge. And now you demand facts?

The difference between Pennsylvania gauge and Standard gauge is six inches, 5' 2.5" vs. 4' 8.5". I definitely agree that the extra six inches would help in terms of wheelchair access to an entirely low-floor design. However, taking advantage of such a wide gauge in a low-floor car would require an entirely new design of carbody and truck, unsuited for use anywhere else on the continent. Neither Pittsburgh's CAF or Siemens cars, nor Philadelphia's Kawasakis or PCCs, are low floor. Since both Pennsylvania cities have portions of their lines with high platforms where a low-floor car would be unusable, Cincinnati would only be able to share design costs with New Orleans - and that city has chosen to use heritage-style cars. It appears to me that the future of Pennsylvania gauge cars does not include low floor designs, at least not low-floor cars with significant width advantages over standard gauge cars.

Though if we were to follow your argument further, Myrtone, why not expand the gauge even more? The Irish (and Australian) broad gauge of 5' 3" could give an extra half inch. India broad gauge is 5' 6" - perhaps Cincinnati could adopt that, and be assured of plenty of wheelchair room? The old Erie broad gauge of 6' would be even roomier, and since the Erie served Cincinnati at one point there IS precedent of a sort. Perhaps Cincinnati could even use Brunel's old 7' 1/4" gauge!

mtuandrew wrote:The difference between Pennsylvania gauge and Standard gauge is six inches, 5' 2.5" vs. 4' 8.5". I definitely agree that the extra six inches would help in terms of wheelchair access to an entirely low-floor design. However, taking advantage of such a wide gauge in a low-floor car would require an entirely new design of carbody and truck, unsuited for use anywhere else on the continent.

First of all, bogie design is exacly the same apart from wheel track. The carbody design is exactly the same apart from wider spacing between the podiums.

mtuandrew wrote:Neither Pittsburgh's CAF or Siemens cars, nor Philadelphia's Kawasakis or PCCs, are low floor. Since both Pennsylvania cities have portions of their lines with high platforms where a low-floor car would be unusable, Cincinnati would only be able to share design costs with New Orleans - and that city has chosen to use heritage-style cars. It appears to me that the future of Pennsylvania gauge cars does not include low floor designs, at least not low-floor cars with significant width advantages over standard gauge cars.

It depends on which lines you are talking about, the "city" lines in Philladelphia don't have any high-platform stops, do they? If both Pennsylvanian cities retain their special gauge and gauges wider than standard have previously been used elsewhere in North America, wouldn't it be interresting the look into the possibility of adopting wider than standard gauges on new systems?

mtuandrew wrote:Though if we were to follow your argument further, Myrtone, why not expand the gauge even more? The Irish (and Australian) broad gauge of 5' 3" could give an extra half inch. India broad gauge is 5' 6" - perhaps Cincinnati could adopt that, and be assured of plenty of wheelchair room? The old Erie broad gauge of 6' would be even roomier, and since the Erie served Cincinnati at one point there IS precedent of a sort. Perhaps Cincinnati could even use Brunel's old 7' 1/4" gauge!

That's if we follow just one part of it. What matters is the track gauge relative to the body width, let's say the tram is 2.6 metres wide and has 2+2 seating. In that case, 5'2.5 would already be wider than the aisle so allowing for some bogie movement. reducing lateral bearing forces on curves.
Don't forget that Bilbao and Valencia chose metre gauge for their new second generation tramways. Bilbao, chose to readopt the same gauge as their previous system, and because their railways are bulit to that gauge, yet as far as I know, their system was completely new. As a lateral thinker, I can see some logic, that other's don't, if returning trams to a city that had them before, in building the new system to that same gauge, especilally if that gauge is either standard, or a wider gauge that is still in use elsewhere. And I'm probably not the only one who sees things this way as Bilbao chose the same gauge as their previous sytem, and as far as I know Valancina did too. The Eskişehir Tramway in Turkey was also bulit quite recently and it too is metre gauge possibly because they had it before.
For an anolgy, the previous Cincinatti system was also unidirectional, and neither Philladelphia nor Toronto have shown any intention of converting their legacy systems to bi-directional running, yet as far as I know, Cincinnati planers have not even considered unidirectional running. We've discussed the merits of unidirectional vs. bidirectional before, I put a link above.
Also the previous Cincinnati system used twin trolleypole overhead, still used today on trolleybuses. Would have they converted to single wire overhead if they had survived? If we reintroduced twin trolleypole overhead today, overhead wires could be shared with trolleybuses if they also return as noted in this discussion.

Myrtone wrote: I've seen a photo of some old streetcar tracks that haven't even been paved over.

Your comments may be vaild for heavy LRVs, but classic style trams such as the Skoda ForCity will surely cope.

So, why did Cincinatti choose that gauge in the first place? Baltimore had a similar gauge. Were most US systems built to standard gauge?

Were the tracks in center lanes or curb lanes?

They're buying 3 section modern heavy streetcars built by CAF.
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/noncms/pro ... erings.pdf

The tracks were originally laid during the horse drawn era, before electric powered streetcars existed. Cincinnati has steep hills requiring two horses to pull their streetcars. Wider gauge kept their hoofs off the tracks. When the streetcars were electrified, they did not spend the money to re-gauge the tracks.

Cheaper usually wins unless you have a specific requirement. Your argument for wider aisle near the wheel hubs is poor.


I

Myrtone wrote: I wonder how many of those cities had their previous systems built to standard gauge. Was the previous Portland system standard gauge? Note that Bilbao, in the Spanish Basque country, recently built all new and yet they chose metre gauge, presumably because their previous system was also metre gauge, also it matches the gauge of their metro.

Most rail systems of any kind in the US, streetcar, heavy rail etc..., including Portland's previous system I believe, are 4ft 8 1/2. The ones that aren't 4ft 8 1/2 inches are the exceptions, and I expect that's also the case in the rest of the world. I expect a close second would be meter gauge, and in your Bilbao example I'm sure the metro already being meter gauge figured more prominently in their decision than any nostalgia for their previous system. Matching gauge with their metro means it's easier for the 2 systems to share shop facilities. That's not without historical precedent, Philadelphia in the early 1940's towed decrepit 1918 vintage "Hog Island" streetcars from a street track connection at the far end of the 3rd rail powered Market Frankford elevated to the 69th St shops for a major overhaul which they couldn't easily do at any of their streetcar shops. And today the 2 suburban light 5ft 2 1/4 rail lines share the 69th St shops with the equally 5ft 2 1/4 Market Frankford line, while the 4ft 8 1/2 Upper Darby-Norristown line still has its own separate 72nd St shops just a few blocks away.

Myrtone wrote: And as I said before, with low floor rolling stock wider gauge provides more room between the wheels for an aisle.

your meter gauge Bilbao example looks like it's rather low floor, may we call this another coffin in the nail of any cost-benefit advantage of wider gauge for low floor cars?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bilba ... an_403.jpg

Myrtone wrote: Also, in Cincinatti's case, choosing the same gauge as the previous system keeps you in line with Pittsburgh and Phillidelpiha just like the previous Cincintatti system.

What is the reason why Cincinatti should keep in line with Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, or its prior system?

Myrtone wrote: Some European tramway networks have been regauged, for exmaple Stuttgart formerly had a metre gauge tramway network, but it has now been converted into a standard gauge stadtbahn. Trams in Chemitz, East Germany, used to run 925 mm but changed to standard gauge.

And is this a coffin in the nail of anyone who might want to build a non-standard gauge line? Your examples are of installations that decided to use standard gauge. Why didn't they convert to 5ft 2 1/4 instead?

Myrtone wrote: If some European cities such as Stuttgart and Chemitz can regauge why not Pittsburgh or Philladelphia, they obviously prefer their wider gauge, and will continue do so when they introduce low floor rolling stock.

You're expressing opinion as fact. How do you know that Pittsburgh or Philadelphia PREFER the wider gauge? I think they instead tolerate it, and would prefer standard gauge. And your examples are cities that converted wider, if Pittsburgh or Philly were to follow their example they'd convert wider as well, like in mtuandrew's suggestion below.

Myrtone wrote: So, why did Cincinatti choose that gauge in the first place? Baltimore had a similar gauge. Were most US systems built to standard gauge?

Yes, most US systems were standard gauge.
I don't know why Cincinatti, Baltimore or New Orleans chose Pennsylvania Broad Gauge. I had long remembered many knowledgeable folks telling me that Pennsylvania government decreed in the 1890's that to get a streetcar charter you had to agree to build 5ft 2 1/4, in order to make it difficult for railroads to send their freight trains down city streets. I had also heard it was the other way around, that streetcar executives pushed for a law in order to make it harder for the powerful Pennsylvania Railroad to take over their companies. Google's usually my friend, but she doesn't immediately give me any any evidence to explain why so much 5ft 2 1/4 got concentrated in Pennsylvania.

electricron wrote:While it's true Cincinnati had Pennsylvania gauge tracks in it city's streets a long time ago, I would like to point out that just three major US cities used it, and that hundreds of other American cities did not. It wasn't a popular gauge back then. While it is still in use by two Pennsylvania cities, not every transit line in those two cities use it today. Even they see the value of Standard gauge tracks.

As I mentioned above, I think they tolerate it. Perhaps you mean they don't see any value in changing?

Myrtone wrote: Where are the standard gauge lines in Pittsbugh and Philladelphia?

All of Pittsburg's light rail lines are 5ft 2 1/4. They have some street running. The 2 exceptions might be the funiculars, Duquesne Incline and Monongahela Incline, which don't have any street running.
All of Philadelphia's light rail lines are also 5ft 2 1/4, as is, as I mentioned above, the Market Frankford subway-elevated. The 4ft 8 1/2 transit lines have no street running: Broad-Ridge, Lindenwold, and the aforementioned Norristown line.

Myrtone wrote: If even they see the "value" of standard gauge tracks, why don't they convert their existing systems to standard gauge, tramway regauging has happened before in Europe.

More mention of standard gauge. Again I don't think you're helping your suggestion that Cincinatti build its new system non-standard.

mtuandrew wrote: The difference between Pennsylvania gauge and Standard gauge is six inches, 5' 2.5" vs. 4' 8.5". I definitely agree that the extra six inches would help in terms of wheelchair access to an entirely low-floor design.

I think the 5' 2.5" is on Philly's 2 suburban lines, and perhaps Pittsburg. Philly's city streetcar lines are 5' 2.25", confirmed in the early 1980's when they tested a heritage suburban car on city streets. Besides deeper flanged wheels, which worked better in private right of way than they did in street running girder rail, the car's trucks were a bit too tight for the city street tracks.
Yes it would help, but I don't see how the cost justifies the benefit. Somebody also posted, rightly so, that we don't need the whole car to be WIDE low floor. We can get good accesibility with low floor between the trucks, passage over the trucks CAN be just fine even with a stair or 2, or a passage narrower than the rest of the carbody.

mtuandrew wrote: Since both Pennsylvania cities have portions of their lines with high platforms where a low-floor car would be unusable, Cincinnati would only be able to share design costs with New Orleans - and that city has chosen to use heritage-style cars. It appears to me that the future of Pennsylvania gauge cars does not include low floor designs, at least not low-floor cars with significant width advantages over standard gauge cars.

Most of Pittsburg's light rail stations are high platform. The only low level boarding is in the street running section in Dormont, unless they also put low platforms into the rebuilt Overbrook line. The Allentown line also had street running, sadly the truthipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_Line ... tsburgh%29 says they stopped that line a year ago.
NONE of Philadelphia's light rail lines have any high platforms. Are you perhaps trying to include the all high platform Norristown line, which many consider a light rail line, when you say 'portions with high platforms'? For many other reasons, 3rd rail for example, it's unlikely that the Norristown line would ever share equipment with the light rail lines, although historically traditional trolley pole, street loading capable interurbans (Lehigh Valley Transit) operated on it.

Myrtone wrote: EDIT:Two things, one is that no one has given any indication as to how much (at least in the short term) an "oddball" gauge would add to the costs. Also the BART (heavy metro) is broad gauge even though it was built in the 1970s and even then, standard gauge would surely have offered more vendor choices, especially with heavy rail.

mtuandrew wrote: Though if we were to follow your argument further, Myrtone, why not expand the gauge even more? The Irish (and Australian) broad gauge of 5' 3" could give an extra half inch. India broad gauge is 5' 6" - perhaps Cincinnati could adopt that, and be assured of plenty of wheelchair room? The old Erie broad gauge of 6' would be even roomier, and since the Erie served Cincinnati at one point there IS precedent of a sort. Perhaps Cincinnati could even use Brunel's old 7' 1/4" gauge!

You beat me to it. Yeah Mr Tone, wider should be better for your all low floor trolley.

Patrick Boylan wrote:Most rail systems of any kind in the US, streetcar, heavy rail etc..., including Portland's previous system I believe, are 4ft 8 1/2. The ones that aren't 4ft 8 1/2 inches are the exceptions, and I expect that's also the case in the rest of the world.

Not in the former USSR, their standard gauges are 4'11 5⁄6 in and 5'. In fact the Riga tramway is built to the soviet gauge and the Prague system standard. Yet the Prague and Riga versions are the same design apart from the bogies and that Prague version have all wheel powered and the Riga versions have six out of eight axles motored. By terminology in the former Sovient countries, gauges narrower than 4'11 5/6 in are narrow gauge.

Patrick Boylan wrote:I expect a close second would be meter gauge, and in your Bilbao example I'm sure the metro already being meter gauge figured more prominently in their decision than any nostalgia for their previous system. Matching gauge with their metro means it's easier for the 2 systems to share shop facilities. That's not without historical precedent, Philadelphia in the early 1940's towed decrepit 1918 vintage "Hog Island" streetcars from a street track connection at the far end of the 3rd rail powered Market Frankford elevated to the 69th St shops for a major overhaul which they couldn't easily do at any of their streetcar shops. And today the 2 suburban light 5ft 2 1/4 rail lines share the 69th St shops with the equally 5ft 2 1/4 Market Frankford line, while the 4ft 8 1/2 Upper Darby-Norristown line still has its own separate 72nd St shops just a few blocks away.

I don't know whether their trams share shop facillites with the metro and I don't know how generally common that is in European cites. It's possible that metre gauge is preffered because it's less intrusive and more inline with the narrowness of the streets.

Patrick Boylan wrote:your meter gauge Bilbao example looks like it's rather low floor, may we call this another coffin in the nail of any cost-benefit advantage of wider gauge for low floor cars?

Just remember this is a part high floor design with fixed centre bogies, and while hard to tell from the photos, I believe the Bilbao trams are quite narrow. If the Skoda ForCity (100% low floor with bogies pivoting at big angles) were wide enough for 2+2 seating as would be the case if built for the North American market, there would be more of an advantage to using a wider gauge.

Patrick Boylan wrote:What is the reason why Cincinatti should keep in line with Pittsburgh, Philadelphia, or its prior system?

Otherwise you would have a situtation where Philladephia is broad gauge and consequently has low floor trams with wider aisles because they kept their broad gauge system and Cicinnati has a narrower gauge and less space between wheel wells becasue they got rid of their system and put in a new one. Come on!

Patrick Boylan wrote:And is this a coffin in the nail of anyone who might want to build a non-standard gauge line? Your examples are of installations that decided to use standard gauge. Why didn't they convert to 5ft 2 1/4 instead?

Simple, as far as I know, tramway gauges wider than standard have no history in either Great Britain or on Mainland Western Europe, also European trams are on average narrower than North American ones.

Myrtone wrote: If some European cities such as Stuttgart and Chemitz can regauge why not Pittsburgh or Philladelphia, they obviously prefer their wider gauge, and will continue do so when they introduce low floor rolling stock.

You're expressing opinion as fact. How do you know that Pittsburgh or Philadelphia PREFER the wider gauge? I think they instead tolerate it, and would prefer standard gauge. And your examples are cities that converted wider, if Pittsburgh or Philly were to follow their example they'd convert wider as well, like in mtuandrew's suggestion below.[/quote]

These systems were built to non-standard gauge and then converted to standard. For an analogy, does Philladelpiha actually prefer looped unidirectional opeartion for their "city" lines or do they just tollerate it? The European operators that Tonyp has contacted do actually prefer, not just tollerate unidirecional looped systems.

Myrtone wrote: So, why did Cincinatti choose that gauge in the first place? Baltimore had a similar gauge. Were most US systems built to standard gauge?

Yes, most US systems were standard gauge.
I don't know why Cincinatti, Baltimore or New Orleans chose Pennsylvania Broad Gauge. I had long remembered many knowledgeable folks telling me that Pennsylvania government decreed in the 1890's that to get a streetcar charter you had to agree to build 5ft 2 1/4, in order to make it difficult for railroads to send their freight trains down city streets. I had also heard it was the other way around, that streetcar executives pushed for a law in order to make it harder for the powerful Pennsylvania Railroad to take over their companies. Google's usually my friend, but she doesn't immediately give me any any evidence to explain why so much 5ft 2 1/4 got concentrated in Pennsylvania.

Patrick Boylan wrote: All of Pittsburg's light rail lines are 5ft 2 1/4. They have some street running. The 2 exceptions might be the funiculars, Duquesne Incline and Monongahela Incline, which don't have any street running.
All of Philadelphia's light rail lines are also 5ft 2 1/4, as is, as I mentioned above, the Market Frankford subway-elevated. The 4ft 8 1/2 transit lines have no street running: Broad-Ridge, Lindenwold, and the aforementioned Norristown line.

Exactly, so, if they haven't converted and some European systems have, this suggests that Philladelpiha and Pittsburgh prefer to stick to their wider gauges.

Patrick Boylan wrote:

Myrtone wrote: If even they see the "value" of standard gauge tracks, why don't they convert their existing systems to standard gauge, tramway regauging has happened before in Europe.

More mention of standard gauge. Again I don't think you're helping your suggestion that Cincinatti build its new system non-standard.

If you think about it I am. Someone said that Pittsburgh and Philladelpiha don't convert just because it would cost too much for the benefits obtained, but many European systems have nevetheless been regauged.

mtuandrew wrote: The difference between Pennsylvania gauge and Standard gauge is six inches, 5' 2.5" vs. 4' 8.5". I definitely agree that the extra six inches would help in terms of wheelchair access to an entirely low-floor design.

I think the 5' 2.5" is on Philly's 2 suburban lines, and perhaps Pittsburg. Philly's city streetcar lines are 5' 2.25", confirmed in the early 1980's when they tested a heritage suburban car on city streets. Besides deeper flanged wheels, which worked better in private right of way than they did in street running girder rail, the car's trucks were a bit too tight for the city street tracks.
Yes it would help, but I don't see how the cost justifies the benefit. Somebody also posted, rightly so, that we don't need the whole car to be WIDE low floor. We can get good accesibility with low floor between the trucks, passage over the trucks CAN be just fine even with a stair or 2, or a passage narrower than the rest of the carbody.

Tonyp would despute this one, he says 100% low floor is more user friendly. That said, different cities hane different requirements.

mtuandrew wrote:Since both Pennsylvania cities have portions of their lines with high platforms where a low-floor car would be unusable, Cincinnati would only be able to share design costs with New Orleans - and that city has chosen to use heritage-style cars. It appears to me that the future of Pennsylvania gauge cars does not include low floor designs, at least not low-floor cars with significant width advantages over standard gauge cars.

Patrick Boylan wrote:NONE of Philadelphia's light rail lines have any high platforms. Are you perhaps trying to include the all high platform Norristown line, which many consider a light rail line, when you say 'portions with high platforms'? For many other reasons, 3rd rail for example, it's unlikely that the Norristown line would ever share equipment with the light rail lines, although historically traditional trolley pole, street loading capable interurbans (Lehigh Valley Transit) operated on it.

Exactly, so they will be in the market for low floor trams some time.

mtuandrew wrote: Though if we were to follow your argument further, Myrtone, why not expand the gauge even more? The Irish (and Australian) broad gauge of 5' 3" could give an extra half inch. India broad gauge is 5' 6" - perhaps Cincinnati could adopt that, and be assured of plenty of wheelchair room? The old Erie broad gauge of 6' would be even roomier, and since the Erie served Cincinnati at one point there IS precedent of a sort. Perhaps Cincinnati could even use Brunel's old 7' 1/4" gauge!

The Irish gauge differs from the Pennsylvania gauge by less than the width of the railheads, while the Pennsylvania trolley gauge differs from the standard gauge by more than that. An extra half inch is hardly anything compared to six. But I am puzzled as to why out tramways here in Melbourne are built to the international gauge (4'8 1/2) rather than the same gauge as our local railways, 5'3. We introduced electric trams in 1906, Victoria Railways chose broad gauge for the St. Kilda to Brighton line, yet all other tram companies chose the international gauge. Again it's important to consider the ratio of track gauge to body width. The Indian Broad gauge and especially Brunel's gauge were or are dedicated to heavy rail. Trams aren't usually wider than three yards, are they? BART trains are presumably much wider.

electricron wrote:Were the tracks in center lanes or curb lanes?

Why did they originally build the tracks in the centre, and why now do the want them at the curb.

electricron wrote:They're buying 3 section modern heavy streetcars built by CAF.
http://www.cincinnati-oh.gov/noncms/pro ... erings.pdf

This is indeed a heavy design, and quite a poor choice if you ask me. This is in fact a fixed boige design that's going to chew through curves, and Skoda ForCity of the same length would have only two sections on three bogies, spreading weight more evenly, and enabling lighter rails to be used. Skoda (according to Tony) is also more open to customisation of their designs than Western manufacturers.

electricron wrote:The tracks were originally laid during the horse drawn era, before electric powered streetcars existed. Cincinnati has steep hills requiring two horses to pull their streetcars. Wider gauge kept their hoofs off the tracks. When the streetcars were electrified, they did not spend the money to re-gauge the tracks.

Why didn't they have cable cars, also didn't they have inclines to send horsecars up and down hills?

electricron wrote:Cheaper usually wins unless you have a specific requirement. Your argument for wider aisle near the wheel hubs is poor.

But Tonyp would agree with it. He knows what's friendly to PT users. When the trams in Cincinnati were electricfied, standard gauge was not as wisdespread as today, was it?

Myrtone wrote: Why did they originally build the tracks in the centre, and why now do the want them at the curb.

This is indeed a heavy design, and quite a poor choice if you ask me. This is in fact a fixed boige design that's going to chew through curves, and Skoda ForCity of the same length would have only two sections on three bogies, spreading weight more evenly, and enabling lighter rails to be used. Skoda (according to Tony) is also more open to customisation of their designs than Western manufacturers.

Why didn't they have cable cars, also didn't they have inclines to send horsecars up and down hills?

But Tonyp would agree with it. He knows what's friendly to PT users. When the trams in Cincinnati were electricfied, standard gauge was not as wisdespread as today, was it?

I guess they wanted the fastest vehicles furthest away from pedestrians on the sidewalks beyond the curbs. Back then, streetcars were the fastest traffic, not the same as today.

CAF is an European corporation just like Skoda. Skoda builds most of their streetcars using standard gauge - obviously there's nothing wrong with Cincinnati wanting standard gauge streetcars today contrary to your opinion.

They could have had cable cars, but maybe the streetcar company in Cincinnati didn't want to mess with steam engines and cables, and preferred using horses. Or maybe the timing wasn't right; when the different technologies became available to when the streetcar company had the money available to upgrade.

Now you're being argumentative, didn't I already suggest they didn't want to re-gauge the tracks when they electrified was all about not spending the money to do so? As it was, they had to spend lots of money to hang catenary wires over the existing tracks and to buy new electric streetcars, which were expensive already. Why spend more changing the gauge of the tracks unnecessarily?

The only reason to spend more than absolutely necessary would be graft, either public or private. Maybe for kickbacks, maybe to contract with local businesses, maybe for bragging rights over another city. You know, the very same reasons why cities spend more than absolutely necessary today.

electricron wrote:I guess they wanted the fastest vehicles furthest away from pedestrians on the sidewalks beyond the curbs. Back then, streetcars were the fastest traffic, not the same as today.

But we still have tcark is the middle of the road here in Melbourne and so do Toronto and Philladelpia.

electricron wrote:CAF is an European corporation just like Skoda. Skoda builds most of their streetcars using standard gauge - obviously there's nothing wrong with Cincinnati wanting standard gauge streetcars today contrary to your opinion.

Skoda does build better on street trams. That CAF design is a fixed bogie low floor tram and all their pivoting bogie designs have part high floor. The Skoda ForCity has both 100% low floor and pivoting bogies. See this relavent discussion. But do note that Tony tends to compare manufacturers offerings by techincal comparsion, not in terms of the whole product.

electricron wrote:They could have had cable cars, but maybe the streetcar company in Cincinnati didn't want to mess with steam engines and cables, and preferred using horses. Or maybe the timing wasn't right; when the different technologies became available to when the streetcar company had the money available to upgrade.

What about the tram funiculars, simply called inclines?

electricron wrote:Now you're being argumentative, didn't I already suggest they didn't want to re-gauge the tracks when they electrified was all about not spending the money to do so? As it was, they had to spend lots of money to hang catenary wires over the existing tracks and to buy new electric streetcars, which were expensive already. Why spend more changing the gauge of the tracks unnecessarily?

You said that standard gauge rolling stock is more readily available but yet you say regauging was unnessesary. If standard gauge rolling stock is more readily available than there is a case for non-standard gauge tramways to be regauged as long as dual gauge track is feasible. Plenty of European tramways have been regauged. In fact Amsterdam did regauge their tramway network upon electrification, having originally been built to an unusual gauge slightly wider than standard.

Still no one gives any indication as to how more does non-standard gauge rolling stock cost. It's also unfortunate that no one on this forum knows as much about European tramways as does Tonyp.

Myrtone, I can understand your argument for buying Skoda's product instead of CAF - the idea of a fixed truck with non-steerable axles went out with the Birney car, in my opinion.

I also see the logic in specifying 100% low-floor cars to reduce accessibility barriers, though 70% low-floor has proven more than suitable for the most part. Even 100% high floor cars are still usable, given proper on-board ramps or lifts, or mini-high platforms. It's not inconceivable at all that Philadelphia will never have 100% low-floor streetcars for that reason, relying on 70% low-floor or 100% high-floor cars with lifts. As one who has helped replace trucks on an antique streetcar, there are no problems at all in changing out standard gauge trucks for narrow or broad gauge on a high-floor or 70% low-floor car - no body redesign necessary, as there would be for a 100% low-floor broad-gauge-specific streetcar.

Moderator's Note: Split the majority of this topic from the Cincinnati Streetcar thread.

Just to let you know that now this thread has been split and because Tonyp hasn't joined this forum, I have Crossposted on railpage.