And they can be sampled regularly at the Orange Empire Railway Museum at
Perris, California. I was there in April last year and rode in a standard LA
Railway car which seemed wider than most standard gauge trams I have
experienced.

Add the huge experience of metre gauge in Europe and the extensive use of
1067 gauge for crush-load suburban service in Japan etc (and of course the
excellent systems in Perth and Brisbane) and it is quite fatuous to suggest
that our gauge isn't up to the demands of modern light rail service.

Where gauge conversions are made (e.g. Stuttgart) it is for reasons of
interoperability with a surrounding standard gauge network, not because the
gauge is inadequate for the task (for the same reason as some railway
branches were converted to standard gauge in WA). Where other systems don't
have that requirement (such as Freiburg and Zurich) they happily modernise
on the narrow gauge and are considered among the world's leading tram
systems.

Manufacturers like Bombardier and Siemens offer both metre and standard
gauge versions of their basic designs.

Brent Efford

On 12/11/10 2:21 PM, "tommie415" tfairbairn@...> wrote:

> Gday, ladies and lads:

>

> Indeed! Los Angeles, in the PCC era, had some that were 275 cm (9 feet) wide,

> and over 14 metres (46 feet) in length. Those PCCs operated over 1067 mm (42

> inch) gauge, and rode on type B-1 bogies that were built with outside frames,

> and in the US were found only in Los Angeles. They rode quite nicely with that

> arrangement.

>

> Cheers: Tom Fairbairn

> *************************

> --- InTramsDownUnder@..., "Mick Duncan" <kitbuny@...> wrote:

>>

>> Gday Mike / All

>>

>> There is nothing wrong with 3'6" for trams. With good track,they will ride

>> OK and can still have 8'8" wide bodies. Modern trucks should be readilly

>> available in 3'6", for a little bit extra.

>>

>> Cheers, Mick.

>>

>> ----- Original Message -----

>> From: "mike_johnson_melbourne" <mike.johnson@...>

>> To: TramsDownUnder@...>

>> Sent: Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:24 PM

>> Subject: [TramsDownUnder] Re: TRANS-ACTION BULLETIN 104 ­ good advice from

>> Prof Newman; the big study has started!

>>

>>

>>> Dudley Horscroft wrote:

>>>>

>>>> Pointless changing from 3' 6" to standard gauge - one of the most

>>>> important points about the 'tram-train' proposals are that they would run

>>>> on all the railway lines out of Wellington station, taking over the

>>>> stopping services for a fair way out.

>>>

>>>

>>> This is a gunzels' wet dream that will never happen. Wellington is getting

>>> a fleet of new EMUs and millions are being spent upgrading and extending

>>> the electric lines for heavy rail.

>>>

>>> The only line suitable for trams is Johnsonville which does not have to

>>> cross or join other lines -- it could enter the CBD from Thorndon Quay and

>>> is ideal to operate like Melbourne's tram 96. This is the proposal that

>>> has been studied in depth and recommended -- way back about 1993.

>>>

>>> The trams would need to be standard gauge for a better ride on street

>>> track (let alone rail track) and also to make them affordable as nobody

>>> builds 3'6" gauge trams.

>>>

>>> But as I said, even the Johnsonville conversion is unlikely in the medium

>>> future as the line has just enjoyed having millions spent on it to allow

>>> the Matangi and Ganz trains to operate there.

>>>

>>> mike

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>> ------------------------------------

>>>

>>> Yahoo! Groups Links

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>

>

>

>

> ------------------------------------

>

> Yahoo! Groups Links

>

>

>