Should we continue to stick to one gauge for rail transit in the US?

[Anonymous]

Narrow gauge transit is used in Lisbon and I feel that it couold be used here.
3 foot or even 2 foot trams could have less of a foot print and take up less real estate. On the other hand Wide gauge of 5-6 feet could mean shorter trains and more capasity. Yes I know we have 4 foot gauge bcuase the Romans built them that way but since there is little interchange with the outside world gauge variations could work on captive railroads

[dldance]

BART already uses a wide gauge in the SF bay area - however that measn that most everything they buy has to be customized in some way at higher cost.

dd

[Anonymous]

Philidelphia Trolley cars are a Diffrent gauge too I hear..

[tree68]

There are several "standard" gauges in use, 56.5" being the norm, with several others quite common for specific applications - the big thing is whether it's worth the extra expense to have equipment specially built. BART apparently feels that it is.

If you are designing something from the ground up, you can build it with any gauge you want. You just have to remember that if you want to add more equipment later, it also has to be specially built (a la BART). If possible, it would be better to use a standard gauge, like 4' 8.5", so you can take advantage of existing equipment that might suit your needs later.

[dldance]

DMU's are a good example of the transit options that exist with standard gauge. They are catalog items from suppliers on 3 different continents - so a bid process is acutally competitive.

dd

[PNWRMNM]

I think BART is the exception that proves the rule. When BART was built trains were very "out". Almost no one involved in it had any railroad experience. They had an airplane builder build the cars, fiasco. They had a company with almost no rail signal expertise build an advanced traffic control system, fiasco. The wider gauge as sid to be chosen for stability at high speed, but they do not go over 70 MPH. I doubt they can demonstrate any enginnering advantage to it, particularly since Japenese Bullet trains and France's TGV operate at much higher speed on standard gauge track. All they did way force themselves to puy nonstandard axles. They probably cost double what Amtrack's cost.

It really doesn't matter though since the taxpayers are paying for it anyway. Who cares about cost effectiveness and proven technology when you are reinventing the wheel but will not admit it is a wheel??

Mac

[Modelcar]

...In general I imagine the 4' 8.5" serves well....We had other gauges in the past...mostly smaller and settled on what we have now. Seems to me to stick with what we have and keep it compatable with most other systems is correct approach....As stated above, parts, etc....

[CopCarSS]

I don't know about the rest of the country, but I like 3' between my rails when I'm communting. You know...all that commuting I do between Chama and Antonito, Georgetown and Silver Plume and Durango and Silverton. [^][8D][:P][:D][(-D]

[dehusman]

Many of the odd gauges for commuter/trolley lines in the US were built that way to stop the steam roads from operating freight trains on the trolley lines. Other than that there isn't really any significnt savings to going to a different gauge and considerable expense in custom made equipment.

Dave H.

[Anonymous]

Like the commercial states, "...wider is better." If you're going to build a rail system from scratch, and if you don't need any compatibility with standard gauge systems, you gotta go wider!

Okay, most of you are using the gauge question in reference to transit, which has no real market based cost/benefit analysis upon which to rely. So if you ask the question in terms of freight, then it takes on a whole new analysis. The concerns of specialized equipment needs for wider gauges are legit, the question that arises then is can the benefits of an increased load factor per train length make up for the increased equipment costs?

Consider an 8' gauge for a moment. That's roughly twice as wide as Standard Gauge. With standard gauge, we get about a 10.5' revenue width, a little more than twice the width of the track gauge. With an 8' gauge, you can expect a 16' + wide revenue width for your transport vehicles. That's the ability to put two ISO containers side by side, or a "quad stack" - two wide and two high. Now you've doubled the revenue loads per train length, or to put it another way, you now have one train where you once needed two. Then the question is if the cost savings of running one train vs two, and the doubling of revenue loads per train length, can make up for the increased equipment costs.

Of course, you can also go "Super Train" style and run double wide equipment on two parallel sets of standard gauge tracks. At least then you can use standard axle and bogie sets on the double wide equipment.

[dldance]

Another thing to consider is the width of people. Two people sitting side by side on each side of an aisle that is wide enough to allow people to pass results in a car width of between 8 and 10 feet.

It is hard to put a car of that width on narrower gauge and retain the stability needed for higher speeds. I know that the Colorado roads had 10 foot widths on 3 foot rails but they also had a top speed of about 20 mph. Not sufficient for transit operations.

And wider widths do not gain much unless you either go 3 + 3 or 2 + 4 + 2 -- and you know how comforable airplanes are!

dd

[M636C]

Here's a message from Australia: we have three gauges in common use, and the broad gauge is no better than the standard gauge. The narrow gauge is more limited but the real estate occupied is effectively the same by all three gauges. All a different gauge does for you is cost more. Trust me on this, I know!

Peter

[miniwyo]

Standard gauge works, Why change what works so well?

[Anonymous]

A gauge other than standard gauge means you can't use standard engines or cars for maintenance (ballast trains for PROW, or materials.) I see no advantage what so ever in using a "custom gauge."
There are a number of examples where surface transit shares trackage with freight operators. There's no alternative to standard. If one went with narrow gauge under the pretext of less real estate used, you would have to carry narrow gauge passengers in skinny cars to make that viable. this would preclude my sizable aunt, Gina Lolla Silverman, from riding. A very wide car, say 15' wide, would need more doors to load and unload the extra folks. The guy stuck in the middle of such a car, during rush hour, would have quite the struggle exiting the car.

Mitch

[Anonymous]

Anyone know how the rubber-tired subway system used in Montreal has fared? I've riden it and it's very smooth and quiet compared to steel wheels on steel rails, but AFAIK it hasn't been used anywhere else.

[TH&B]

I'm a beleiver in narrow gauge, but the big advantage of standard gauge is that it is standard. So why mess with it?

Rail cars could easily be 12 feet wide and operate fine on 4' 8.5". It is a clearance issue, not a gauge issue.

California once had 12' wide comuter trains on standard gauge track.

South Africa runs huge (weight wise) freight trains on narrow gauge track. Japan runs a big passenger rail net on narrow gauge at high speeds in some cases capable of 140mph in tests but because of old alignments and tight curves theses speeds are not used regularly, but on good alignments such speeds are possible on narrow gauge.

Wide gauge s****. The Russians have it, so does the Spanish and Finish and to no advantage at all exept that they can't interchange with other railroads !

IF the USA had 4 foot even as the standard gauge would the loading gauge and weight realy have been different? The biggest issue would probably have been the size limit of traction motors.

But for public transit narrow gauge is cheaper and can be built with tighter curves, it would be worth considering sometimes.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain


Have wondered if freight gauge were wide enough to accomodate 20' boxes at 90 degrees to the flat car if there would be merit to doing that? (Looking at it as a system)

In theory, you could carry 20's that way on standard gauge if you have enough clearance, but not at speed. If you want to maximize speed and load factor for that idea, you would need up to 10' in gauge width, or go with the parallel twin set of standard gauge tracks.

The problem is that 20's make up only 20% at most of the containers being moved about the country. If your 20's are placed sideways, where are you going to put or stack the 40's and 53's? If you're going to design an ultrawide freight and passenger rail system from scratch, you need to do so in those markets with the most boxes and growth potential in order to justify the financial risk. The side by side container concept would be a better risk, e.g. a wide enough gauge to haul ISO and domestic containers side by side and stacked two high (the quad stack idea).

There is also some marketing potential for new products to move on a wider gauge that currently cannot move on traditional standard gauge clearances. How about manufactured homes, wide body aircraft such as the AC 330 (the seeming trend in future plane design), bigger generators, bigger turbines? What about shipping autos parked sideways instead of lengthwise? Many lumber mills take logs around 15' or so in length, with a wider gauge those logs could be stacked sideways, as could some dimensional lumber. The potential improvement in load factor is phenomenal.

For passenger services, think of the advantages of sleeping compartments with some actual elbow room. A dining car where the waiters don't have to constantly brush up against you in the aisle. A lounge car where one can actually fit a grand piano. A theatre car with an actual wide projection screen. Handicapped access would be vastly improved. People who currently don't give passenger rail a second thought would flock to the stations to experiene such a travel ideal.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
For passenger services, think of the advantages of sleeping compartments with some actual elbow room. A dining car where the waiters don't have to constantly brush up against you in the aisle. A lounge car where one can actually fit a grand piano. A theatre car with an actual wide projection screen. Handicapped access would be vastly improved. People who currently don't give passenger rail a second thought would flock to the stations to experiene such a travel ideal.

That's a phenomenal idea. And you're right. We've built trains 2 stories high, and now widen them out a bit. We saw this on the TV show "Super Train" in the '70s. There was some interest on the part of the public. Should the "double wide" passenger train come to pass the possibilities would be spectacular.

Mitch

[daveklepper]

Yes, use standard gauge unless a specific good reason demands a change.

[chateauricher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by up829
Anyone know how the rubber-tired subway system used in Montreal has fared? I've riden it and it's very smooth and quiet compared to steel wheels on steel rails, but AFAIK it hasn't been used anywhere else.

up829,

The Metro (as it is known) has been running very well since the first line opened on 14 Oct 1966. The Société de transport de Montréal (STM) is the agency in charge of public transit in Montreal.

Their trains were the first in the world to run on rubber tires, which are inflated with nitrogen. The rubber tires make climbing hills easier; as well as reduce noise and vibrations. The Metro runs on 4 lines serving 65 stations (soon to be increased to 68 as one line is in the process of being extended into the City of Laval, just north of Montreal). The maximum speed of a Metro train is 72km/h (43mph).

According to 1995 statistics, about 52% of the 1,230,000 passengers on the STM network take the Metro -- nearly 640,000 passengers on the average workday.

For more information ... http://www.stcum.qc.ca/

I don't know of any other commuter rail or subway system that uses rubber tires either. Hope this info helps.

[BR60103]

The Montreal Metro is similar to the original Metro in Paris. Some of their lines have rubber tires.
And don't those nitrogen filled tires burn beautifully when given the chance!

[daveklepper]

Be glad they don't have Hydrogen on board!

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Commercial airliners have grown in size because they are not constrained by a gauge. On the other hand, the advantages touted for an aprreciably wider track gauge could also accrue to a larger lane width for road transport. At any rate, gauge change is not a practical idea because it involves the change of a standard.

[tree68]

Re: putting two containers side by side.

The only thing constraining train length right now is physical plant - chiefly length of sidings. So, instead of spending billions for the capability to put two containers side by side, it's a lot cheaper, and easier, to stretch sidings, put in double track, etc, and use existing equipment for longer trains.

We're having trouble convincing people that anyone rides passenger trains now. What make anyone think that having a wider passenger car is going to be worth the cost?

I'd also have to ask what considerations have to be made for track curvature, etc, with a gauge like 8'. Erie ran some pretty "normal" track profiles with a 6' gauge, but 8' would be stretching it.

[oltmannd]

I think Mexico City has rubber tired subways, too.

I've always found the Montreal subways very noisy and never thought the ride was any better than any steel-wheel subway I've ridden. Never understood the reason for using rubber tires.

[dldance]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

I think Mexico City has rubber tired subways, too.

I've always found the Montreal subways very noisy and never thought the ride was any better than any steel-wheel subway I've ridden. Never understood the reason for using rubber tires.

I always thought the reason that Montreal had rubber tires is that Toronto had a conventional subway and Montreal wanted to be more like Paris thanToronto.

dd

[TH&B]

Hitler wanted super sized railways, in part because he didn't like the standard railways. Sevral very wide gauges were proposed so they could run luxery passenger trains and super coal trains of 10,000tons...... unheard of in Europe back then, still not a reality there but the US runs trains of that size on standard gauge. And the general public doesn't travel in that kind of luxury, so what is the point in wide gauge? There will be actualy less window seats to chosse from in wide body trains? YUK

12' wide cars or maye even wider could easily be handled at speed on standard gauge track with a good road bed. Just widen the loading gauge if needed, not the track gauge.

[daveklepper]

Good answers

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tree68

Re: putting two containers side by side.

The only thing constraining train length right now is physical plant - chiefly length of sidings. So, instead of spending billions for the capability to put two containers side by side, it's a lot cheaper, and easier, to stretch sidings, put in double track, etc, and use existing equipment for longer trains.

We're having trouble convincing people that anyone rides passenger trains now. What make anyone think that having a wider passenger car is going to be worth the cost?

I'd also have to ask what considerations have to be made for track curvature, etc, with a gauge like 8'. Erie ran some pretty "normal" track profiles with a 6' gauge, but 8' would be stretching it.

There's more constraining train length than just physical plant. There are logistical constraints as well as the laws of physics. How many intermodal terminals could handle three mile long trains, even if they double tracked everything? How about height constraints, you can go two boxes high right now, but can standard gauge handle boxes three high?

If we have a wide gauge that allows containers to be stacked three high and side by side (e.g. a six pack per platform), then a one mile long container train on wide gauge is the equivalent of a three mile long standard gauge container train. How many crossings are being blocked by that three mile long train?

Someone mentioned reduced acreage ROW needs for the narrower gauges. I would argue that on a per unit of revenue cargo basis, the wider gauge would be less intrusive on land use than the current standard guage.

Whether the wider gauge would attract more passengers, as an average Joe I do know that I like my elbow room, and as such am willing to pay for that privilege. Standard gauge passenger rail cars are a tight fit for human movement, not much better than one of Southwest's 727's or a Greyhound bus, ergo what is the advantage of standard gauge rail travel? If you're going to provide a service that people want and will use, then you need something that has distinct advantages over other travel modes. Passenger rail is never going to be as fast as air travel, and can never be as flexible as highway travel. Take a page from the water-borne passenger modes, and you will find the roomy amenities not available in the other modes. That's their selling point. If it works for ships and riverboats, it could also work for wide gauge rail. Even the air line industry is realizing a possible niche in going wider.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

I think Mexico City has rubber tired subways, too.

I've always found the Montreal subways very noisy and never thought the ride was any better than any steel-wheel subway I've ridden. Never understood the reason for using rubber tires.

I would guess they expected to spend a lot replacing tires vs. a lot less maintainence to the surface they run on but I wonder how that's actually worked out over time. There is noise from the tires, but it's a lot less intense than a Chicago train going around a curve. Of course who knows how well the CTA maintains the flange greasers.

We've been up there a number of times for the Canadien F1 race held out on the Island where the Expo was originally held and used the Metro to go there and all over the city at all hours of the day & night. My wife could never figure out how they can have more restaurants per capita than any other North American city, yet all the people seem to be slim.