Streetcar track gauge - broad, standard, or narrow?

G'day Myrtone,

I post as MattAustin on Railpage Australia, and I follow this forum.

People have spoken of the possibility of reactivating buried tram/streetcar/trolley tracks for modern use, but it's rarely feasible. The main factors which make it unfeasible are;
1) Corrosion of tracks after cessation of surface and burying under tar.
2) Rot of roadbed/sleepers since closure.
3) Damage caused by the heavy traffic over the buried track for years.
4) Worn out state of the track itself of most systems at the time of closure.
5) Subsequent resurfacing leaving tracks a good six inches or more below the surface. One example of this is Christchurch, New Zealand, and it would require the entire road surface to be lowered.
6) Chunks of track cut out to build/repair utilities such as water or gas lines.
7) Old tracks may not go where current traffic would dictate the route be.
8) Old tracks not of a weight and profile suitable for modern vehicles.
9) Special work often removed - in some places, remember the scrap drives of WW2.

I could go on. It's a well-known fact that in many fields it is far cheaper, sensible and worthwhile to make something new rather than try to fix something worn out. I've sought out (a personal hobby of mine) remaining sections of track from systems closed half a century ago or more, and there really aren't that many.

Cheers,
Matt

OK folks.

Let's consider the *original* purpose of Pennsylvania streetcar guage.

It has the property of *not* being interoperable with the Pennsylvania Rail Road, which had business reasons for that and enough political clout at the time the streetcar systems started.

Within the European Union there are a large number of metre gauge systems, and thus a market for standardised metre gauge cars. There have been some extensions of metre gauge systems. One good example is Gent in Belgium where a new line has been built in the last 20 years. In northern France there is a system in Lille. I don't think there is any need for change of gauge of these existing systems.

However, if it is desired to run tram-trains as in several German cities then the gauge has to change. But it's expensive to do so.

It would be mad for any new system in the US to be any gauge but Standard. But existing non-standard systems probably should continue, unless like in Germany it is desired to run over heavy rail tracks.

I am not sure what happens in Spain. Probably new systems will be standard, as there is an aspiration to change the mainline rail system (if the economic crisis ever ends). The Basque system of course is Metre gauge, all along the north coast. It is natural for tram systems there to share that gauge. Irish trams used to be Irish gauge but I think the new system in Dublin is standard.

Passenger wrote:OK folks.

Let's consider the *original* purpose of Pennsylvania streetcar guage.

It has the property of *not* being interoperable with the Pennsylvania Rail Road, which had business reasons for that and enough political clout at the time the streetcar systems started.

That's another possibility I keep forgetting, that it wasn't the city folks who didn't want the railroad coming down their quiet streets, or the trolley executives who wanted to discourage the mighty PRR from giving them lots of money to buy their company, but more so the PRR that didn't want the relatively undercapitalized streetcar companies from being able to steal the railroad's freight business. That might help explain why the further from Pennsylvania you go the less likely it was for trolleys ever to have been standard gauge, the Pennsylvania Railroad's political influence might not have been as strong in those places. But I often like to think the PRR was just as powerful in New Jersey, yet I don't remember any broad gauge trolley line there.

Welcome, Jollygreenslugg!

I concur, regarding track deterioration. Some cities have been able to pull it off (Philadelphia reactivated several lines, and San Francisco has done the same to some extent), but those tend to be exceptions. We've been finding miles of former TCRT track in St. Paul, MN, built to a high standard but buried under three to six inches of asphalt. None of it was really usable, due to heavy corrosion and rotted crossties (sleepers) from water infiltration, so the entire network has had to be rebuilt.

george matthews wrote:Within the European Union there are a large number of metre gauge systems, and thus a market for standardised metre gauge cars. There have been some extensions of metre gauge systems. One good example is Gent in Belgium where a new line has been built in the last 20 years. In northern France there is a system in Lille. I don't think there is any need for change of gauge of these existing systems.

Yes I realise that, yet some metre gauge systems (such as those of Stuttgart and Essen) did convert to standard gauge. The tramway network of Sophia (the only one is Bulgaria) was built entirely to an unusual gauge slighty wider than 1 metre until 1987, when they too began converting to standard, a second line was converted 8 years later, but their gauge conversion programme has since stalled.

Also, three are three survining instances of the PTG in the states, if Cincinnati, Baltimore and Columbus were to abopt that gauge on their new systems, then surely there would be a market for standardised Pennsylvania trolley gauge rolling stock.

george matthews wrote:It would be mad for any new system in the US to be any gauge but Standard. But existing non-standard systems probably should continue, unless like in Germany it is desired to run over heavy rail tracks.

It's called lateral thinking, if you build a new system to the Pennsylvania trolley gauge, you are buliding it to the same gauge as three other systems that have shown no intent of converting to standard gauge, while (in case of low floor trams) you have more space between the wheels. In Cincinatti's case, you would also be building to the same gauge as their previous system.

george matthews wrote:I am not sure what happens in Spain. Probably new systems will be standard, as there is an aspiration to change the mainline rail system (if the economic crisis ever ends). The Basque system of course is Metre gauge, all along the north coast. It is natural for tram systems there to share that gauge. Irish trams used to be Irish gauge but I think the new system in Dublin is standard.

Standard gauge was chosen to reduce the cost of (Alstom) rolling stock. Alstom is one of those western manufacturers that is reluctant to do (comparatively) small orders, and so you may not neccesarily get your desired specification. A non-standard gauge would add less to the cost of you were to choose Skoda.

Myrtone wrote:

george matthews wrote:Within the European Union there are a large number of metre gauge systems, and thus a market for standardised metre gauge cars. There have been some extensions of metre gauge systems. One good example is Gent in Belgium where a new line has been built in the last 20 years. In northern France there is a system in Lille. I don't think there is any need for change of gauge of these existing systems.

...Also, there are three survining instances of the PTG in the states, if Cincinnati, Baltimore and Columbus were to abopt that gauge on their new systems, then surely there would be a market for standardised Pennsylvania trolley gauge rolling stock.

george matthews wrote:It would be mad for any new system in the US to be any gauge but Standard. But existing non-standard systems probably should continue, unless like in Germany it is desired to run over heavy rail tracks.

It's called lateral thinking, if you build a new system to the Pennsylvania trolley gauge, you are buliding it to the same gauge as three other systems that have shown no intent of converting to standard gauge, while (in case of low floor trams) you have more space between the wheels. In Cincinatti's case, you would also be building to the same gauge as their previous system.

I don't see significant gains for Cincinnati should they opt for Penna Trolley Gauge - the system that would benefit the most, and the only other system that could conceivably order such a car, is SEPTA. Cincinnati would be obliged to pay for the design process to create a wide-aisle broad-gauge streetcar (whether through Skoda Works, CAF, or another group), which Philadelphia could then take advantage of having available.

Regarding other current or former Penna Trolley Gauge systems, New Orleans has not expressed interest in acquiring or operating low-floor cars for its existing lines. Several posters have pointed out the impossibility of using low-floor cars in Pittsburgh. Baltimore has already built a system to standard gauge, and it would be silly to not allow for the possibility that some streetcar and LRV lines would overlap. Finally, I have no idea about any streetcar proposals in Columbus - that is a wild card, but would depend on the availability of rolling stock.

The more likely outcome is that if Philadelphia ever buys low-floor cars, they'll just get a car designed for standard gauge and use wider trucks. I know it won't provide a wider aisle between trucks, but the width of the body as a whole is not contingent on a single part of the aisle. Handicapped riders tend to stay closer to the doors anyway, so it seems to me to be a non-issue.

mtuandrew wrote: I don't see significant gains for Cincinnati should they opt for Penna Trolley Gauge - the system that would benefit the most, and the only other system that could conceivably order such a car, is SEPTA. Cincinnati would be obliged to pay for the design process to create a wide-aisle broad-gauge streetcar (whether through Skoda Works, CAF, or another group), which Philadelphia could then take advantage of having available.

But how much extra would it cost. Do you also not see any significant gains for Cincinnatti if they were to readopt unidirectional running?

mtuandrew wrote:Regarding other current or former Penna Trolley Gauge systems, New Orleans has not expressed interest in acquiring or operating low-floor cars for its existing lines. Several posters have pointed out the impossibility of using low-floor cars in Pittsburgh. Baltimore has already built a system to standard gauge, and it would be silly to not allow for the possibility that some streetcar and LRV lines would overlap. Finally, I have no idea about any streetcar proposals in Columbus - that is a wild card, but would depend on the availability of rolling stock.

Don't you think New Orleans may consider that sometime. Baltimore has already built a heavy grade LRT to standard gauge, but heavy LRT is more standardised than classic style tramway. Dual gauge track is possible and so Penna Trolley Gauge and standard gauge rolling stock can share tracks.

mtuandrew wrote:The more likely outcome is that if Philadelphia ever buys low-floor cars, they'll just get a car designed for standard gauge and use wider trucks. I know it won't provide a wider aisle between trucks, but the width of the body as a whole is not contingent on a single part of the aisle. Handicapped riders tend to stay closer to the doors anyway, so it seems to me to be a non-issue.

In that case they may as well adopt standard gauge for new extensions with dual gauge track where the new vehicles share tracks with the old, existing lines would later be changed to standard gauge. This is what Stuttgart did during conversion of their metre gauge tramways into standard gauge Stadtbahns. If they are going to keep their existing gauges, they may as well tack advantage of it when they have low floor trams. So there is a case for Cincinnati choosing this gauge too.

myrtone, you insist that you practice lateral thinking, but your thought process seems to be more horizontal than lateral. Lateral thinking is defined by an intersection of imagination and logic, but you seem purely grounded in a nostalgic fantasy of restoring what you (and I) believe should not have been torn up in the first place. The importance of restoring streetcar systems to America is not the superficial form of the prior century, but restoring the function, changing form as necessity to conform with the new realities and technologies of our modern era. Standard gauge makes sense as any practical benefits of Pennsylvania gauge are marginal at best, and represent a huge jump in cost for the procuring of equipment. Also, standard gauge allows one to take advantage of freight trackage for future expansion, such as the RiverLINE in NJ, which shares the Amboy Secondary with Conrail. Also, unlike Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Cincinnati is not continuing use of a legacy system nor reusing parts of it, but starting from scratch. Conformity in and of itself is not bad if it does not involve any compromise away from ideal and saves a lot of $$$. Lateral thinking is about thinking expansively; take that to heart and expand past your own aesthetic preferences and support of difference for difference's sake.

M&Eman wrote:myrtone, you insist that you practice lateral thinking, but your thought process seems to be more horizontal than lateral. Lateral thinking is defined by an intersection of imagination and logic, but you seem purely grounded in a nostalgic fantasy of restoring what you (and I) believe should not have been torn up in the first place. The importance of restoring streetcar systems to America is not the superficial form of the prior century, but restoring the function, changing form as necessity to conform with the new realities and technologies of our modern era. Standard gauge makes sense as any practical benefits of Pennsylvania gauge are marginal at best, and represent a huge jump in cost for the procuring of equipment. Also, standard gauge allows one to take advantage of freight trackage for future expansion, such as the RiverLINE in NJ, which shares the Amboy Secondary with Conrail. Also, unlike Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, Cincinnati is not continuing use of a legacy system nor reusing parts of it, but starting from scratch. Conformity in and of itself is not bad if it does not involve any compromise away from ideal and saves a lot of $$$. Lateral thinking is about thinking expansively; take that to heart and expand past your own aesthetic preferences and support of difference for difference's sake.

It is not just nostelgia actually, a wider gauge provides more space between the wheels. It would be inconsistant to change form for the new systems but lot legacy systems, most people just blidley accept that incosistancy, just as many opertators of many existing unidirectional tramway networks show no intention on converting to bidirectional running, yet almost all new build systems are bidirecitonal. If you think standard gauge substantialy reduces cost, then there is a case for legacy systems to change gauge, particularly if only one or two lines survive. Only a small portion of Philladelphia's trolley network survives, it's not nearly as large as that of Melbourne or even Toronto. So maybe there is a case for them to build new lines to standard gauge providing dual gauge track where new rolling stock share track with the old, similar to what Stuttgart did. Many people here just take both these inconsistancies for granted, but I'm not taking either of them for granted. Many new tram and LRT systems have been opened since 1978 and it so happens that almost all are standard gauge, it's this more than anything else that makes it seem strange for anyone to consider a non-standard gauge for a new build system, it gets cloaked up in other language, such as it's cheaper, no though one seems to claim that the embodied energy or standard gauge rolling stock is any lower. Are most of you lateral thinkers, if not than what makes you think you can tell?
Is there anyone here who agrees with either considering non-standard gauges for new systems or regauging legacy systems Stuttgart style?

EDIT: You say that standard gauge reduces the cost (and possibly embodied) energy of rolling stock, I'm saying yes it can but not neccesarily, some manufacturers may be more open to customisation than others.

M&Eman wrote: any practical benefits of Pennsylvania gauge are marginal at best, and represent a huge jump in cost for the procuring of equipment.

Myrtone wrote: EDIT: You say that standard gauge reduces the cost (and possibly embodied) energy of rolling stock, I'm saying yes it can but not neccesarily, some manufacturers may be more open to customisation than others.

I don't see where M&Eman said anything about energy of rolling stock, please point out where does he say anything other than that a non-standard gauge increases procurement costs?
Please also give an example where has customization reduced costs?

He didn't say anything about embodied energy I only mentioned it because energy need to manfacture and construct is not something normally taken into consideration, generally things that caost more to manafacture also have more energy embodied. I get the impression that others don't understand my points because they themselves don't think outside the square. I just don't think that standard gauge neccesarily reduces cost. I have given three examples of new bulid tramways where metre gauge was chosen for no apparant reason. If those planning the new system have not even cosidered any "oddball" gauge they may not know haw much it would add to the cost (not just monetary cost but all cost, including energy consumption).

If Pittsburgh and/or Philladelphia showed an intention of converting to standard gauge I would sigh with those who say Cicinnati should go standard, but they haven't so I call that inconsistant. It is widely accepted that new build systems should be standard and that legacy systems shoud keep their oddball gauges. And I have given evidence that these propositions are inconsitant, such as three tramway networks in Germany that have been regauged (in Stuttgart, Essen and Chemitz), and three new build metre gauge tramways (in Bilbao, Valancina and Eskişehir).
I have given an analogy that most have strangely ingored, that most new build systems are bidirectional yet legacy systems that are unidirectional are desitned to remain unidirectional. As it happens, I vehemently disagree with changing form for dubious reasons, both for legacy systems, and new bulid systems where trams had run before. And this includes reasons that are widely accepted by among those who appear to believe the media and industry spokespeople.

EDIT:And given that standard gauge does allow taking advantage of freight trackage for future expansion which in some cases may be a reason to convert existing systems to standard gauge. Is there any freight trackage in Cincinnati that could be used for future expansion? The Cincinnati and Lake Eirie railroad was standard gauge, these makes it possible that the previous Cincinnati system wolud have been regagued had it survived. Though that interurban was closed in the 1930s.

Also I never used the gauge of the previous Cinicnnati system as the sole basis for claiming that it is worth considering on the new system as well, I was simultaniously taking into account that three surviving system still have it and show no intent of converting and the extra space between the wheels gained from a wider gauge.

Myrtone wrote: I get the impression that others don't understand my points because they themselves don't think outside the square.

I hope you could also acknowledge that others don't understand your points because you might not explain them well.

Myrtone wrote: generally things that caost more to manafacture also have more energy embodied... If those planning the new system have not even cosidered any "oddball" gauge they may not know haw much it would add to the cost (not just monetary cost but all cost, including energy consumption).

I agree that generally things that cost more also have more energy embodied. We don't know that those planning the new system have not considered oddball gauges, but IF the oddball gauge costs more then it probably also embodied more energy consumption. I don't see where you've made any convincing argument that creating the new system in the oddball gauge is somehow going to DECREASE cost, the closest I've seen you mention is that it MIGHT allow low floor cars to have more aisle space.
By the way, that seems to imply that the manufacturer customized not only the wheel gauge, but also the carbody size. Surely having a low floor car whose aisles take advantage of wide gauge means the manufacturer CANNOT put that carbody on standard gauge trucks. Surely that must add considerable cost, for very little gain, since as others have mentioned regardless of track gauge a partial low floor car can have reasonably generously wide areas between the trucks.

Myrtone wrote: I just don't think that standard gauge neccesarily reduces cost.

I agree, but I believe non-standard gauge will probably increase cost, and will give probably not give enough advantage to justify the cost. In fact the only advantages I can think of are low marginal benefit low-floor width you've mentioned, and the ability to share equipment with other similarly gauged systems, and as others have mentioned it's probably better for Cincinatti to be able to share with the larger standard gauge world than for them to share with broad gauge Pittsburgh, Philly and New Orleans

Myrtone wrote: I have given three examples of new bulid tramways where metre gauge was chosen for no apparant reason.

Doesn't this mean you should perhaps try to find out what their reason was? Instead you seem to be trying to use this to justify that another new build system, Cincinatti, should be non-standard.

Myrtone wrote: If Pittsburgh and/or Philladelphia showed an intention of converting to standard gauge I would sigh with those who say Cicinnati should go standard, but they haven't so I call that inconsistant.

Again, as others have mentioned, Cincinatti is not converting an old broad gauge system to standard. Cincinatti is building a new standard gauge system, they also coincidentally had, and abandoned decades ago, but I don't see why that should have any bearing on their decisions today.
Also Philadelphia has in a way been converting to standard gauge. All of their rail lines built after 1928 have been standard gauge, Broad St, Ridge Ave, Lindenwold, Riverline. Their broad gauge system has contracted.

Myrtone wrote: It is widely accepted that new build systems should be standard and that legacy systems shoud keep their oddball gauges.

and please put me in that camp. If you're going to build new then I think you need to have good reasons for not going standard. If you've got something in place already, you've got to have good reasons - benefits that exceed the cost - for changing.

Myrtone wrote: And I have given evidence that these propositions are inconsitant, such as three tramway networks in Germany that have been regauged (in Stuttgart, Essen and Chemitz),

but you said they converted to standard, which, as I mentioned already, I don't think justifies regauging or building new nonstandard.

Myrtone wrote: and three new build metre gauge tramways (in Bilbao, Valancina and Eskişehir).

see what I said above, can you try to find out what their reason was, and see if that can help justify your idea that anyone should build new Pennsylvania Broad Gauge?

Myrtone wrote: I have given an analogy that most have strangely ingored, that most new build systems are bidirectional yet legacy systems that are unidirectional are desitned to remain unidirectional.

Legacy systems Boston, Newark, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, San Francisco converted from unidirectional to bidirectional. New system Leonard's M&O, subsequently Tandy in Fort Worth opened with unidirectional ex Washington DC PCC's, then converted them to bidirectional.

Myrtone,

Is there anything that could be said to convince you to accept standard gauge? If there isn't then I don't see a reason to try.

It seems that you're stuck in a rut where the ONLY solution for Cincinnati is the one you want. When people offer valid reasons to stick with standard gauge you either reject their reasoning or come up with more excuses why you believe the choice of another gauge would be better. Is there no chance of accepting standard gauge?

Nostalgia for a system that is long gone and does not need to be interoperable is not a valid reason. Look at the city (any city) as if it never had any street car service at all and explain why something other than standard gauge *must* be used. Otherwise, accept that in this century the standard for entirely new systems (Which Cincinnati is) is not to be stuck in a one hundred year old box.

Welcome to 2012.

I wouldn't say that Mr. Tone rejects their reasoning or comes up with more excuses, it's more like he repeats all his prior stated reasons, acknowledging very little other peoples' comments on his reasons, and once in a while comes up with new non-sequitors.
Examples:

Cincinatti's old system was PA Broad Gauge, and if they had retained that old system then they would not today consider anything other than broad gauge. I consider that non-sequitor, since I don't see how the long abandoned old system should have anything to do with the new system.

Other cities have converted TO standard gauge or have built new meter gauge, which in my mind is a form of standardization.
I don't see why either of these means anyone should build new to a non-standard gauge. I also can't think of any examples where someone has recently converted FROM standard to anything else, and the only example of building new non-standard is BART, and there's been plenty of discussion elsewhere that questions BART's wisdom in picking that gauge.

There are 3 other North American cities that have PA Broad Gauge. I don't see how that's a reason to make Cincinatti decide not to follow the dozen and a half and we hope growing number of cities that retained legacy or built new standard gauge.

Broad gauge will allow 100% low floor cars to have wider aisles. Besides the fact that there are very few North American low floor installations, and I'm pretty sure no 100% low floor, I don't believe those narrow aisles on standard gauge low floor cars are the calamity one might conclude from myrtone's repetition.

The most recent non-sequitor is his mention that current unidirectional operations aren't going to convert to bidirectional.

He also sometimes bemoans that decision makers aren't looking at the whole cost of picking standard gauge, but does not acknowledge any of the costs of picking non-standard gauge, instead he mentions only a few questionable benefits.

Having complained about myrtone's style, and dog in the manger stubbornness I want to make it clear that although I don't agree with his opinion I will, as mentioned several times in other cases, defend to his death his right to express it. I just wish he'd spell Philadelphia correctly a few times and refrain from expressing fact as opinion.