I live in Portland OR (beautiful city [:)] ) In the past, I have looked at Tri-mets new MAX projects as an impressive system (still do). I’ve made jokes that we are trying to rival the light-rail system of Cicago, the L. But am I correct in the L being a light rail, or is it something else?
If not, then what is the L considered, if not a light rail.
And is the MAX at all comparable to the L in anyway?
It’s “EL” as in elevated, and I might be wrong but I believe it is heavy rail.
While “El” is the usual term elsewhere in the country, in Chicago it’s officially the “L”. You are correct about it being heavy rail, though. The subway cars are short because of the tight curves, but they certainly are not light rail cars!
Chicago has L trains that run underground.
New York has Subway Trains that happen to run on elevated structures.
The Chicago L structures of a much lighter construction than NYC Dual Contracts structures. NYC used to have the same lighter weight structures as Chicago, most have long since been torn down, the last true el to go was the Third Avenue EL in the Bronx.
Chicago L trains are much lighter and shorter than NYCT subway trains, yet when you speak of “Heavy Rail” vs “Light Rail” both subways are classified as “Heavy Rail” The kicker is that the equipment used on these transit systems are not built to FRA standards with regard to collision strength etc. They cannot run in service on FRA railroads without certain waivers and other controls.
Light Rail is more like street cars that may run on exclusive ROWs.
ROAR
I would prefer to believe that most urban light rail systems are trying to rival Portland’s Tri-Met system. It’s very impressive. Clean, modern and efficient.
CC