A standard streetcar width?

I was thinking North American sourced. The Siemens and CAF cars aren't being assembled here as far as I know because they're ordered in such low quantities.

I don't see much of an argument for transit agencies to do consortium ordering, especially if they go with a design-build-operate model that more or less locks in the operator's standards.

9 ft seems to be a practical max limit if you go with NACTO's recommended 10' traffic lane for urban streets.

As noted, joint venture orders are a way for rolling stock to be ordered in larger quantities perhaps resulting in more light rail stock assembled in North America. But such things do need to be organized.

So the idea is to go with NACTO's recommendations of lane widths for suburban streets, keeping in mind that rail vehicle drivers do not need to steer, and use the practical limit to determine the required light rail platform clearances, platform buffers being fitted to the doors of anything narrower than that limit, regardless of where they are built to operate.
The idea is to ensure that no light rail vehicle, streetcars included, is too wide for any of North America's light rail platforms.

But it is not actually forcing a standard body width, just platform clearance. Narrow vehicles could still dwell at the same platforms if fitted with platform buffers at the doors. I understand there are other factors that drive streetcar specification but does that have something to do with different operators going for different widths?
There may well be a benefit to ensuring that no streetcar in the United States or Canada (or maybe even Mexico) is too wide for any platforms, I mentioned joint venture orders, loaning vehicles from other operators and even purchase of used rolling stock by non-heritage operators if it is too new for museums but another operator would still like to replace them.

EDIT: If narrow streetcars are used, platform buffers at the doors and platform edges further from the tracks may also make it quite simple to deploy wider vehicles later on if other clearances also allow them.

Seems like you're trying to solve for a problem that's not really a problem.

Just based off perception, 9 ft seems to be the working average for a tram or streetcar in North America. Anything bigger than that won't fit in a normal traffic lane with any margin of safety, and anything narrower than that is going to be unevenly balanced and possibly top heavy on a 4' 8.5" /1435 mm loading gauge.

From an economy of scale perspective, joint ordering isn't going to make a difference unless you're talking about 75 to 100 cars. You would need to reequip just about every streetcar system in the country to get to that.

Sent from my SM-S911U using Tapatalk

Here's a list of streetcar operators in the USA and the vehicles they use today!

SunLink in Tucson, AZ using United Streetcar 200s
Metro Streetcar in Little Rock, AR using Birney replicas by Gomaco Trolley Company.
San Francisco Cable Car streetcars in San Francisco, CA using cable cars manufactured in 1878
San Francisco Heritage Streetcars in San Francisco, CA using PCC streetcars manufactured in 1936 by either St. Louis Car or Pullman.
Fort Collins Municipal Railway in Fort Collins, CO using a Birney manufactured by American Car Company in 1921.
DC Streetcar in Washington DC, using United Streetcars models based upon Skoda 10T
TECO Line Streetcar in Tampa, FL using Birney replicas by Gomaco Trolley Company.
Atlanta Streetcar in Atlanta, GA using Siemens S70.
New Orleans streetcars in New Orleans, LA using Perley Thomas manufactured in local shops in 1921, and new replicas using Brookville Equipment trucks.
MBTA's Ashmont–Mattapan High-Speed Line in Boston, MA using PCC streetcars manufactured by Pullman in 1929.
Q-Line in Detroit, MI using Liberty streetcars manufactured by Brookville Equipment.
KC Streetcar in Kansas City, MO using CAF Urbos 3.
Loop Trolley in Saint Louis, MO using Brill-replicas by Gomaco Trolley Company.
CityLynx Gold Line in Charolette, NC using Siemens S70.
Bell Connector in Cincinnati, OH using CAF Urbos 3.
El Reno Heritage Express in El Reno, OK using J.G. Brill Strafford Car manufactured in 1924.
OKC Streetcar in Oklahoma City, OK using Liberty streetcars manufactured by Brookville Equipment.
Portland Streetcar in Portland, OR using various manufacturers including Škoda, Inekon, and United Streetcar.
SEPTA subway–surface trolley lines in Philadelphia, PA using Kawasaki Type K
MATA Trolley in Memphis, TN using refurbished Porto, Portugal and Melbourne, Australia W2-class cars.
El Paso Streetcar in El Paso, TX using refurbished PCC streetcars by Brookville Equipment.
Dallas Streetcar in Dallas, TX using Liberty streetcars manufactured by Brookville Equipment.
M-Line Trolley in Dallas, TX using various heritage manufactured streetcars including J. G. Brill Company, St. Louis Car Company, Melbourne W2, American Car Company, and Brussels-built Westinghouse PCC.
S Line in Salt Lake City, UT using Siemens S70.
Seattle Streetcar in Seattle, WA using Inekon Trio-12, and CAF Urbos.
T Link in Tacoma, WA using Škoda 10 T, and Brookville Liberty.
Kenosha Electric Railway in Kenosha, WI using refurbished PCC streetcars manufactured by St. Louis Car.
The Hop in Milwaukee, WI using Liberty streetcars manufactured by Brookville Equipment.

As anyone should easily see, there is a wide variety of ages, replicas, new, trams from different countries, and different manufacturers for any national standard to arise. Back during FDR's Presidential term, PCC was pushed as a national standard. It never became one. None ever will, imho.

Additionally, almost all are funded and operated with local money, with some Federal grants to get new lines running. Few Federal grants are provided to operators, private or public, for operations. Some are ran my volunteers, some by larger transit agencies. As long as most of the funding to subsidize them is local, local requirements will rule the roost.

Boston's MBTA is also using:
Kinki Sharyo type 7
Breda Type 8's
CAF type 9's
but the last time we tried to do this we got the Boeing's LRV's and that didn't go to well for San Francisco or Boston,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Standa ... il_Vehicle

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:35 am Seems like you're trying to solve for a problem that's not really a problem.

You don't seem to be getting the issue with level boarding I am trying to address. If, say, the platforms are only 4 feet from the centers of the tracks, then anything wider than 8 feet simply cannot pass them. But anything 8 feet wide can still pass platforms any further from the track.

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:35 amJust based off perception, 9 ft seems to be the working average for a tram or streetcar in North America. Anything bigger than that won't fit in a normal traffic lane with any margin of safety, and anything narrower than that is going to be unevenly balanced and possibly top heavy on a 4' 8.5" /1435 mm loading gauge.

But there are plenty of streetcars less than nine feet wide, especially in Europe. Are they all unevenly balanced and are any top heavy?
Widths can vary and if the platform clearances all are enough for the widest vehicles to pass them, then anything narrower needs some way to bridge the gap between the curb and the floor.

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:35 amFrom an economy of scale perspective, joint ordering isn't going to make a difference unless you're talking about 75 to 100 cars. You would need to reequip just about every streetcar system in the country to get to that.

Joint venture orders do happen elsewhere in the world. If multiple North American cities are simultaneously in the market for new streetcars, then this may be an opportunity to organize a joint venture order between them all.

Not disputing that 9 feet may well be the practical limit, however, rail vehicles do not require as much lateral space for their width as manually steered vehicles do.

electricron wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:58 am As anyone should easily see, there is a wide variety of ages, replicas, new, trams from different countries, and different manufacturers for any national standard to arise. Back during FDR's Presidential term, PCC was pushed as a national standard. It never became one. None ever will, imho.

However, some of the systems on the list are heritage ones and these do not require level boarding. The PCC was pushed as a standard model produced in four different widths, no standard width, let alone platform clearance, was pushed, right?

electricron wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 11:58 amAdditionally, almost all are funded and operated with local money, with some Federal grants to get new lines running. Few Federal grants are provided to operators, private or public, for operations. Some are ran my volunteers, some by larger transit agencies. As long as most of the funding to subsidize them is local, local requirements will rule the roost.

And if federally funded, then the Buy America requirements apply, and it may well be easier to meet them with an order large enough to justify U.S content.

Regarding the list of what Boston is using, do vehicle widths there vary or are they different types of the same width?

Standardizing platform clearances (with platform buffers fitted to any rolling stock other than the widest) is not pushing a standard vehicle model.

I think there's some "mission creep" involved here, as one of the original points was about cost reduction through joint orders. A big issue there is getting a number of operations to agree not only on dimensions and other specs but finding two or more of them who can get the funds in their respective budgets in the same year.

As to stability, Milan ordered new cars (a few decades ago now) which had to be wider than the existing standard to increase passenger capacity, and because of the closeness of track centers were built off-center with the right side of the car (they were unidirectional) extending entirely on the right, with the left side maintaining existing clearance for passing opposing cars on the adjacent track to the left; thus there was more weight on the right side of the car. Afaik they worked OK in service. (Presumably they designed the carbody to distribute the weight to compensate.)

As to Boston, should the date of the Mattapan PCCs be 1939 instead of 1929? (A minor detail, since it doesn't alter the point being made.)

MBTA PCCs currently are around 1944-1945 and were commonly known as wartime cars.

I was sure it couldn't have been 1929; I'm surprised they got government permission to build them during the war.

Also in Europe, and more recently, Dresden ordered wider streetcars than their existing fleet, but these are still the existing width at the platform height to fit existing platforms. Apparently modifying the platforms would require existing streetcars to be retrofitted with sliding steps and according to the linked article, too costly.
Building all platforms, say, in North America to allow for the maximum practical streetcar and light rail width and fitting those retractable things to all narrower light rail equipment (including streetcars) avoids the sort of body width customisations needed in Dresden and also allows wider trucks.

This is different from pushing one standard model, like those PCCs.

Myrtone wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 5:46 pm You don't seem to be getting the issue with level boarding I am trying to address. If, say, the platforms are only 4 feet from the centers of the tracks, then anything wider than 8 feet simply cannot pass them. But anything 8 feet wide can still pass platforms any further from the track.

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.

Myrtone wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 5:46 pm But there are plenty of streetcars less than nine feet wide, especially in Europe. Are they all unevenly balanced and are any top heavy?

How many of those narrower cars are running on 1435mm track gauge vs. meter gauge?

Myrtone wrote: ↑Mon Feb 12, 2024 5:46 pm Standardizing platform clearances (with platform buffers fitted to any rolling stock other than the widest) is not pushing a standard vehicle model.

Standardizing 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.

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.