Speed

[Vigrass, Bill]

Yes, the TRB definition is correct.  I was - am - a member and was on the
committee when the names were developed.  I did not directly contribute to
it. And yes there was a feeling that a new name was necessary for the
reasons you stated.  Streetcars were "obsolete, old fashioned, etc." and
often the press used jerk, jolt, rattled, etc. when describing them, even
when such words did not apply.  I think they did some of it in the articles
on the demise of the Drake shuttle.  

And yes, it was derived from Ye Olden British "Light Railway Act" of the
latter 19th century.  Only it is different!

John Swindler asked "What exactly is Light Rail?".  He hit the nail on the
head.  It is NOT EXACTLY anything!  It is a variety of options.

Harold Geissenheimer said at an APTA or TRB meeting that "Light Rail is a
state of mind" and I like that.  It is a railway that is not grade
separated, is usually electric, but not always, and can run in mixed traffic
as well as on private right of way.  

I often have to remind people that Light Rail Vehicles are not LIGHT.  Most
weigh 90,000 lbs or more (on 6 axles or 8).  Even Professional Planners with
whom I have worked just assumed that Light Rail Vehicles are lighter than
Rapid Transit cars, which usually they are not.  If that seems confusing, it
is.

Some writers identify PATCO as light rail and I have given up arguing about
it since it serves my purpose.  It implies that it is cheaper, less
intrusive, etc.
The news writers are thinking of a Railroad (i.e., Conrail, CSX, NS), and in
that context, PATCO is lighter.  The TRB definitions are for use within the
planning and engineering community. This can include the more knowledgable
railfans who often know more about rail technology than some professionals.


Tom Parkinson's book is probably the most complete glossary on the subject
that is available today.  I found only one error in it.  

PAT combines several kinds of r-o-w on its route, and this is entirely
proper for Light Rail.  Sacramento does it even more so.  

I still like it when I go to Toronto and see signs :To Streetcars.  They
don't mess around.  With that happy thought, I'll sign off.

Bill Vigrass.  Member, APTA, TRB, LRTA (LRTL), NHRS (PHL and WJ Chs.), CERA,
ERA and not to forget the best of them all, East Penn Traction Club!.    


> ----------
> From: 	Jim Holland[SMTP:pghpcc at pacbell.net]
> Reply To: 	pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Sent: 	Wednesday, October 20, 1999 4:01 PM
> To: 	pittsburgh-railways at dementia.org
> Subject: 	Re: Speed
> 
> 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/
>