I urgently need the definition of “light rail”. I can’t get the whole thing from the glossary for some reason. I seem to recall it in the magazine in the past year or so. Can someone please help?
Scott Powers
I don’t have a defination for you, but if I remember correctly, it has ti do with the FRA buff standards. If less that 800,000 lbs buff, it is light and the equipment can be built much lighter (like European equipment) and there can be NO PHYSICAL CONNECTION to a real railroad. If there is that connection then the equipment must meet all FRA standards and then become “heavy”.
I realize the above is not just what you are looking for, but perhaps it will help.
i dont know the definition, but every light-rail discussion i have read was about mass rail transit… it likely excludes freight service, and may limit the miles of r-o-w from the primary hub…
i wonder if interurbans would be considered light rail today… units were of a passenger car design, the distance covered could be a hundred + miles, and there was a small section for freight storage… they probably had a weight limit of 80-125lbs… many lines operated multi-unit sets…
any thoughts?
CabForward/EngineBackward: interurbans WERE regulated common carriers of light construction that were connected to the freight system in many cases…
Light Rail Transit: An electric RAILWAY constructed in a street or private right of way to transport passengers in an urban environment. Operations generally consist of trolleys or light rail vehicles - Dictionary of Railway Track Terms/ Simmons Boardman 1990
Transportation Research Board Definition:
Light Rail Transit (LRT) is a metropolitan electric railway system characterized by its ability to operate single cars or short trains along exclusive rights of way at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways, or occasionally, in streets, and to board and discharge passengers at track or car-floor level…
http://www.ggw.org/rrtc/info/lightrail.html
Freight Railroaders Daffynition: Expensive Toy Train
muddchickencoop,
you’re 99.9% right… one system near houston, tx, operated with transit bus frames using diesel engines that were converted to operate only on rail 1948-61… from late 20s-1948, it was electric… it was the last interurban system that was started in america…
the electric units did haul freight… after conversion to diesel bus frames, only passengers were transported…
a city transit system that operated in houston used std. gauge, which is odd… most cities that prefer no r.r. freight pass thru their downtown due to the noise and damage to street surfaces…
this allowed the interurban to use another system’s trackage for a terminus and turn-around point…
Ahem - Gentlemen, if I may interrupt with a question.
They want to build a light rail from Lincoln to Omaha - Lincoln being the home as I understand it. Can this only be electric? Mileage would be about 60 miles.
Jen
I haven’t heard of non-electric light rail systems; I suspect that any vehicle that contains an engine strong enough to propel itself would be too heavy for light rail.
I don’t know, Sis…that Omaha-Lincoln proposal sounds a little strange to me. Sixty miles might be doable for a light-rail line, but I’m visualizing light rail as something that makes fairly frequent stops, and doesn’t really offer a speed advantage, except perhaps during rush hours. I’m sure there are places to stop between Omaha and Lincoln, and don’t doubt that a transit route could be justified. But I’d suspect that it might be better served by non-electrified commuter rail, using equipment like the new Colorado Railcar vehicle. Electrification is expensive, and if you’re building a right-of-way anyway, I’d build it so it could handle heavier, faster stuff.
Head Mookie In Charge:
No, they don’t have to be electric. Common terminology is “Commuter Rail”. If you have seen Colorado/ Rader Railcar’s DMU demonstrator. (The red & yellow updated RDC with crash protection) The obsession with electric railcars means a heck of a lot of cash spent on catenary. (Fairy Tale #1 that it’s less polluting really means all that you are doing is moving the point source of the emissions + Fairy Tale # 2 that the electricity leaving the power station is the same amount of electricty that gets to the electric motor off the catenary theory creates the myth that light rail HAS to be electric.)
Add that to the non-railroad trained engineers and consultants singing the virtues of electric light rail and you have the messed-up transportation circus-world we’re in currently.
Off of the battered old soapbox.
thank you -
I know they are batting this around and the paper always says “light rail” - but it sounds very expensive and I can’t imagine it would be well thought out - as is par for the course in at least Lincoln. We have had so many great ideas that we got into up to our necks and then dropped them, so while I think it is a nice idea, just not for us. Don’t think we will get people off I-80 to ride it.
Mookie
Mookie — There was, once and maybe still is, a steam line (read freight rialroad) that runs directly from Omaha to Lincoln, and my memory wants to say CBQ (read BNSF). If that is the case, the costs would be very much lower using that line with AMTK equipment. The TALGO would fit right in. They are used here on the AMTRAK Cascades and they are right fine trains.
I have seen light rail defined as the child of a streetcar mother and a rapid transit father. Equipment is usually a modern streetcar-type design with MU capabilities and the trackage is usually a private right-of-way with occasional street running. Most new light rail construction looks like rapid transit on a smaller budget since you have ground level station platforms, catenary instead of third rail and 1-to-3 car trains.
Guys,
The Colorado Railcar DMU is NOT a light rail vehicle.
Light rail systems are not built into conventional railroads standards, just like rapid transit, but it requires fewer investments to achieve a slightly smaller capacity. In general terms, it is possible to spend about half of what is needed for rapid transit to get a 20% smaller capacity.
To reduce investment, lower access platforms are used, and many lines are built at street level.
Theoretically, they can be diesel, but the fact is that almost every light rail vehicle is electric by now.
kenneo- first you have to get some level of ridership. Let the DMU’s build the ridership before spending bucks on a Talgo set. Either is still big time cheaper than the electric option. Have seen the aftermath of wrecked SPV’s ans an RDC at the test track at Pueblo (not pretty) and the concern is more the sideswipe and the truck/train issues. That DMU must be incredibly tough to meet the certification criteria. The politician and the non railroad “transportation engineers” (i.e.-rubber tired untrained dummies) jump on the electrified bandwagon either out of stupidity or because they see the costs as a way of preserving their beloved busses. (it’s Firestone/GM vs. Pacific Electric all over again, and somewhat underhandedly - doesn’t help when you have politicians in Cincinnati calling rail transit as “choo-choo’s” (morons!)…)
The CBQ line is just a slight bit busy. Better trying to revive the remains of the OLB interurban route.
Everybody keeps refering to electrifeing as always so expensive. But if the line is short enough and traffic is dense enough it can be cheaper on the long run.
Q: What about heavily used subway trains of 6 or more cars in larger cities, is that still light rail. In New York they sometimes move trains of 30 or40 subway cars long when transfering equipement, no passengers. And (this might be silly) but is there a “medium rail”?
CBQ, BN BNSF & AMTRAK - yes that line still runs thru LIncoln up to Omaha. They are talking a separate line, I believe and making the route a little different than that one. The one that Amtrak runs on is also used by BNSF to switch the local elevators.
Jen
dear 440cuin,
no transportation system for moving people by rail has ever made money, period.
the big r.rs. used freight revenue to offset the money lost on pass. service… that is a clue… if the pennsy, n.y. central and santa fe couldn’t make $$ on their system, how could anyone else? the n.y. subway is 100 + years old… they have never made a profit… if there was a way, wouldn’t they have found it by now?
there may be differences between lite rail, commuter rail, rail mass transit in terms of eqpt. used or traffic hauled… there are common aspects: they only carry pass., they usually are tailored to move people in large cities, within the city or to suburbs… they are heavily subsidized private systems, or govt.-owned… fares do not put in more than 30% of the cost of running it… the rest is help thru direct taxes or govt. assistance, usually a comb. of state-federal… the amount of traffic carried or miles served do not help reduce the system’s deficit… fares are raised to keep the system from going into deeper red ink… improvements and extensions to service can only be realized by more money from govt… the same with employee pay… raises and better benefits have to come from more govt. $$…
finding a way to make a pass. rail system profitable is like building a perpetual-motion machine… people dream of it, tinker with it… a few actually try to build one… it always ends the same: making it work requires a lot more energy than the system supplies on its own…
fgrcl & 440:
The whole underlying issue is relative cost. For what Ms. Mookie was angling at, it’s building 60 MILES of “light rail”. The dreamers keep pushing it, egged on by the politicos who have zilch for grey matter. The obsession with electrifying a 60 mile line kills the project faster than it was conceived. The concept of “commuter rail” was broached as a solution for what 'da Mookster was asking about. It works every bit as well as LRT without the exorbitant associated costs. Except the electric solution and the miles of catenary spaghetti is left in the toy box for later. Even the public sector wants a shorter term return on investment. My soap box is now in splinters, think I’ll just go home (you’re welcome to keep the ball, er…umm…electric toy train)…
ps… Robin Williams got it right with: “Reality,…what a concept!”
I was talking about the cost of lightrail, not profit. I don’t thimk any passenger transportation as a whole realy ever makes a profit. Transpotation costs $$, period. Even the auto industry, owners don’t often make a profit off their cars, they just get use out of them. The governments don’t make any profit off owning and maintaining the roads and hiways, that’s why they collect taxes and fees. Only the manufacturers make profit in building cars but for everyone else it’s just costs.
A Lincoln to Omaha rail line would be better off with commuter rail. Now if Omaha wanted to build a few short rail lines 5 to 6 miles outside its city center, light rail would be preferred.
Dallas’ DART has built light rail and commuter rail lines. The light rail lines usually have a stop every mile or two, whereas a commuter rail line could go 10 miles before a stop. Read about DART here:
However Mudchicken is right. Light rail, commuter rail, city transit agencies that run buses all over America don’t earn a profit, they are all subsidized. At the moment the only national bus company isn’t earning a profit either, nor are most of the large airlines. In fact the only two airlines earning a profit are Southwest and AirTran. AirTran has a hub in Orlando, Florida, and its only two flights to DFW go to Orlando. AirTran does not fly Dallas to Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York City. AirTran is obviously CHERRY PICKING a route to serve Orlando ONLY!
Whereas Southwest is the king of the short haul airlines, cherry picking its routes too, but in a different way. Southwest has chosen to fly into smaller airports in many cases than fly into the major airports. For example, Southwest does not fly into Los Angeles’ LAX, Chicago’s O’Hare, or New York City’s JFK and LaGuardia, nor does Southwest fly into Newark’s Airport either.
Comparing Southwest as a major airline such as American, United, Delta, Continental, and Northwest is misleading. While Southwest averages hauling 8 million passenger miles daily, American and United fly 80 million passenger miles daily. The difference is 10-1.
Time and again, the taxpayers have chosen to have a public transit service. In many cities its just a bus system, but lately the taxpayers have chosen light and commuter rail systems too. Why? Traffic gridlock on their urban freeways and highways. Any EXPENSIVE expansion and widening of their urban freeways end up in another gridlock pract