http://world.nycsubway.org/perl/show?8520
above is a picture of a real light rail vehical on 2 foor track in Pourtigal..
Arguing in favor of narrow gauge light rail is
1.with the costs of light rail skyrockting this may be a good alternitive.
2.Yes Narrow gauge and Standard gauge can share the same track... There are a number of examples of gaunlet tracks were the narrow is laid within the standard gauge and ask ask any narrow gauge model railroad and he will tell you about this
3. Older Citys that have narrow streets like Pittsburgh and Portland ME can easly accmodate narrow gauge light rail...
4. A argument against NG light rail is made by State and County Highway engineers is the loss of Auto Lanes....Narrow Gauge negates that...
5. But...NG-LRVs would have to be longer to hold the same amount of people
6. And would have to meet crash standerds for Train-LRV and Truck- LRv Collsions
why do NG-LRVs have to be longer to hold the same amount of people? Are you assuming that just because the tracks are closer together that you have to have narrower carbodies?
The Circumvesuviano, Naples Italy and south, is reasonably narrow guage, looks to me like meter guage, 3ft or so, but I don't remember the cars being especially narrow.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
The arguments look quite similar to the arguments in the narrow-gauge craze of the late 19th century. In reply:
1. How is it a good alternative?
2. They can share one rail, turnouts, crossings, etc. in three-rail dual-gauge track add to complications and expenses.
3. Street lanes are the same width in any city.
4. Narrow-gauge still occupies the roadway. Anyway, the clearance diagram would be a better consideration of how much space would be used.
5. Greater length implies the complications of articulation, which would be required to get around street corners. Also, a narrower carbody would mean a narrower center aisle unless you're willing to go to 2-1 seating.
6. The same safety standards apply regardless of gauge.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: 3. Street lanes are the same width in any city.
I don't see how that's true. I haven't measured them, but I've been on some streets whose lanes I'm sure are different widths than others, as well as some streets that have different numbers of lanes than others.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote: 6. The same safety standards apply regardless of gauge.
one could argue that narrow guage could be less safe. For example narrow guage with a standard carbody would be more likely to tip over. Or narrow guage with a narrow carbody would be more difficult to evacuate passengers.
gardendance wrote:one could argue that narrow guage could be less safe. For example narrow guage with a standard carbody would be more likely to tip over. Or narrow guage with a narrow carbody would be more difficult to evacuate passengers.
gardendance wrote:The Circumvesuviano, Naples Italy and south, is reasonably narrow guage, looks to me like meter guage, 3ft or so, but I don't remember the cars being especially narrow.
95cm, or just over 3ft, to be precise.
Having some expernace with Maine Narrow Gauge in Portland...Centering of gravity ofthe cars was and in still is a issue. If one side of the cars are loaded with full weight adults and the other side with children the cars could tip over. MNG trains are so lightweight that a 12 year old child could push the cars around the yard... and adults push cars around the yard by hand all the time....
What I am thinking here is that many citys already have Blvds with Grassy Meduim strips that mya be too narrow for standard gauge but wide enough for 2 2 foot gauge trains. Pittsburgh PA has a lot of hills and narrow streets that a lighter weight narrow gauge tram system would be better suited for. Also were Rails to Trails have taken right of way the RTC people could be quited by sharing the right of way with a 2 foot light rail train and still have room left over for bikes.--- As far as equipment 2 foot trams could be built in house or by a number of musuems that restore trolleys and railroad cars already.. and well below the Million Doller per car that we are seeing now.
Eltraino4 wrote:The cars are lighter then standard gauge
and in real service in the 1920s never got ran more then 25 miles an hour if that.
Let us get some facts straight. In the USA there are only disadvantages and no advantages to using anything but standard gauge on a normal light rail system. Standard stuff, switches, ties, everything, costs less for standard than for anything else, including the mandatory Broad Gauge for BART, Pittsburgh, BaLTIMORE, Philadlephia, and New Orleans (all different by the way, although the PA systems are close enough for one trolley museum to handle both, 1/4-inch difference.)
The amount of space the light rail vehicles requipre on the street, the ability to go around sharp curves, and costs for bridges and tunnels, etc. all depend almost entirely on the body design of the light rail vehicle, its dimensions, number of trucks and motors and locations, and wieght, and the actual gauge is irrelevant. A typical Los Angels postwar narrow gauge PCC was wider than a Boston standard gauge PCC (by approximately six inches). A narrow gauge South African Blue Train sleeping car is wider than an IRT (New York City A Division) or CTA or PATH rapid transit car.
daveklepper wrote: although the PA systems are close enough for one trolley museum to handle both, 1/4-inch difference.)
although the PA systems are close enough for one trolley museum to handle both, 1/4-inch difference.)
I didn't know Pittsburgh was 1/4 inch off from Philly, or are you referring to Red Arrow Philly suburbs, which I believe is 1/4 inch off from Philly cities? Another difference is Red Arrow has bigger flanges, reflecting more open right of way vs street running girder rail with a flangeway.
As a child I had wondered about the legend that 4' 8" and 1/2# was based on Roman chariots. One explanation was similar to your idea that standard is better than non-standard. If your chariot, or wagon's wheels were the same width as others then you'd have a better time running in the wheel ruts the other guys left, so everybody kept trying to build horse drawn wagon wheels the same distance apart. Then when we started building strap rail roads the same wagonmaker also built the horsedrawn, and subsequently steam drawn, rail carriages.
Another reason was also related to ruts and horses. You wanted to make sure your horse, or team of side by side horses, had a decent footpath between the wheel ruts. Perhaps there are some of you guys who have heard this horse's rear end theory?
Rather late, but if we are considering Light Rail there's plenty of metre guage (about 3'3") in Switzerland and Germany. Switzerland historically mandated that trams (trolleys in US parlance) would be metre guage, in contrast to standard guage main line trains.
A good few, but not all German tram systems were metre guage and 1 (Braunschweig) was and still is 1.1 metres.
Most of these now have at least some low-floor trams.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:
Meter gauge is about right for a stability/width trade-off. The old Newfoundland Railway was 3'6" gauge, and had the advantage of 2-2 seating with an ability close to that of 3' lines to use tight curves in difficult terrain. It eventually died because as a common carrier it couldn't exchange with standard gauge without remounting standard gauge boxcars on 42" gauge trucks. That wouldn't be a problem with light rail.
David Whiteway
Dave, why are you stopping at 6 feet? If it's standard guage then the car can be wheels 4 feet 8 and a half inches apart and a few sticks between to hold them together.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.