Speed

[Jim Holland]

Greetings!

John Swindler wrote:

> The discussion about Broadway operation in Beechview leads to speculation
> about the following:
> 
> - So what exactly is a "light rail" line???

	Some great observations, John, to really make one pause and think!

	This discussion has come up in a number of places.  At first *blush*
light rail seems to refer to tonnage.  Railroads are heavy rail -
streetcar lines are light rail - BART, MARTA, etc are somewhere in
between.
	But this is *not an entirely correct* assumption according to the
following definition:

	Parkinson & Fisher's North American Public Transportation Glossary
has 		the following entry as a definition of light rail:

	transit system, light rail (LRT) - as defined by the TRB Subcommittee 	
on Light Rail Transit, "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." 		Derived from the British
Light Railways Act of the last century 		which permitted construction of
unfenced railways to "lighter" 		standards than mainline railways.
Reintroduced as light rapid 		transit in the 1960s with the above
meaning. Rapid 		transliterated into rail as it crossed the Atlantic a
decade 		later. Light refers to lighter and less expensive 	
infrastructure, the light rail vehicles themselves often 		weighing more
per passenger space than heavy rail cars!

> - And how is it different from a "streetcar" line???  Or a "tram" or
> "trolley" line???

> - Is it the vehicle or the right-of-way - or both that define a light rail
> line???  Or something else???

	It seems that it is mostly the infrastructure that defines a light rail
system.

	Remember that after WW2 as the car became more popular, it was quite
unpopular to have streetcars.  Streetcars were disliked, ridiculed,
laughed at,  . . . . . . . [fill in the blanks].

	With the realization that some kind of rail transportation was needed
in the cities (by the late 60s into the 70s) one wouldn't be able to use
the term streetcar because of all the negative press that had been given
to that term.  So the term *light rail vehicle* was introduced.

	Strictly by the above definition, the old 42 DORMONT could be
considered light rail.  It could discharge passengers at track level, it
had much exclusive right of way, a tunnel, and some street running.  And
even with the use of downtown city streets, there is little difference
in time between the old streetcar lines and the modern lrv to get from
SHJ to downtown and back!

	And again, by the above definition, the lrv line thru Beechview,
Dormont, Mt. Lebanon to Castle Shannon and on to SHV is also light rail.

	A-N-D  the old PCC as well as the Peter Witt as well as the PRCo
low-floor cars as well as the Philly Nearside as well as . . . . . (you
fill in the blanks) could also be considered light rail vehicles because
many of them performed on lines to fulfill the above definition.  Many
today would want to dispute that but that would seem to be from personal
prejudice.

	But in the end, and especially in Pittsburgh, while the route is
different than PRCo routes, it is still serving the same identical
destinations over the same old PRCo prw (with the exception of the
little leg into SHV) and still serving the very same  OLD  PURPOSE  -- 
CARRYING  PEOPLE  FROM  POINT  'A'  TO  POINT  'B.'  The modern lrv
ain't doin nuttin different than the old streetcars - they just give it
a souped up name - just psyching the public!

	I think it is unfair to compare the Beechview line to the Norristown
line; the former starts in downtown and goes into the suburbs while the
latter starts in the suburbs and goes much further into the suburbs. 
The said suburbs in Pittsburgh are much more dense than the suburbs
surrounding the Norristown line.  The Norristown line is much more grade
separated all the way and the two lines are totally different.  Those at
the Museum know Paul Vassallo and about 1970 he had said that is was
very uncommon to have people walk along the tracks on the Norristown
line; he could not say it didn't happen, but that it was very uncommon.

> - Have you considered that the Duewag U-2 car is not a light rail vehicle?
> It's a "Stadtbahn" (or city railway) car from Frankfurt, (W.) Germany.  (And
> therein might lie some of the problems with Broadway.)

> There's a story that Ed Tennyson (Deputy Sec. at PennDOT during 1970s) likes
> to tell.  Gov. Shapp once asked him "what is this 'light rail' thing?"  Ed
> asked the governor if he had ever used the Shaker Heights line when he went
> to college in Cleveland?  When Gov. Shapp said "Yes, and it was good
> transportation", Ed replied, "well, that's what light rail is!"

> And maybe that's what the 42S line through Beechview - isn't.  It's still a
> streetcar line (operating in mixed traffic), and will always be one.  It's
> just not worth the cost to upgrade to eliminate mixed traffic.  And it would
> also be less accessible to local residents.  Instead, perhaps Pittsburgh has
> always had a light rail alignment through Overbrook.  And what PAT does with
> it remains to be seen.
> 
> Just some random thoughts.

James B. Holland
------- -- ---------
        Pittsburgh Railways Company (PRCo), June of 1949 -- June of 1953
    To e-mail *off-list,* please click here: mailto:pghpcc at pacbell.net
N.M.R.A.  Life member #2190; http://www.mcs.net:80/~weyand/nmra/