Probably a bit tight, I would say, Noel. 100% low-floor metre gauge cars
exist in Europe so it is obviously do-able. Without further searching to
confirm, I would imagine that the wheelchair etc areas would be close to the
doors, away from wheels, and the aisle spaces between the wheels would be
adequate for those on foot only.
In the case of tram-train vehicles, the requirement is for 100 kmh+
vehicles, which necessarily means 70% low-floor with larger wheel sizes. The
low floor areas would be between the trucks, so again no problems with the
narrower clearance between the wheels.
Needless to say, the OERM vehicles, including the PCCs, are high-floor and
so the gauge does not affect the internal layout.
Brent Efford
On 12/11/10 11:39 PM, "Noel Reed" noelreed10@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hello Brent & others,
>
> An artist's impression picture of a low floor tram operating on the water-side
> railway out of Wellington was published some months ago. I agree that low
> floor trams on 1435 mm or 1600 mm gauge track are quite common. If a low
> floor tram was built for 1067 mm gauge what would be the space dimension for
> passengers to walk through the car in the wheel area, especially with prams,
> strollers, walking frames, wheel-chairs and electric mobility vehicles ?
>
> Noel Reed.
>
>
>
> From:TramsDownUnder@... [mailto:TramsDownUnder@yahoogroups.com]
> On Behalf Of Brent Efford
> Sent: Friday, 12 November 2010 9:21 PM
> To:TramsDownUnder@...
> Subject: Re: [TramsDownUnder] Re: TRANS-ACTION BULLETIN 104 good advice from
> Prof Newman; the big study has started!
>
>
>
> 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@...
> mailto:tfairbairn%40juno.com > 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@...
>> mailto:TramsDownUnder%40yahoogroups.com , "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@...
>>> mailto:TramsDownUnder%40yahoogroups.com >
>>> >> 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
>> >
>> >
>> >
>
>
>
>
>