Speed

[Robert E. Rathke]

Thanks for mentioning the TTC sign, Bill.  There are other signs in
Toronto that I like, specifically the signs in the downtown parks that
read, Please walk on the grass."

Bob 10/20
                                       -------------------------------
The 21st Century starts on January 1, 2001.  Just a reminder.

On Wed, 20 Oct 1999 16:44:37 -0400 "Vigrass, Bill"
<billvigrass at hillintl.com> writes:
>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/
>> 

___________________________________________________________________
Get the Internet just the way you want it.
Free software, free e-mail, and free Internet access for a month!
Try Juno Web: http://dl.www.juno.com/dynoget/tagj.