Talk:Light rail/Archive 1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Origin of term light rail

I did it! I did it! I found the origin of light rail. It was invented in 1972 by the UMTA. It was derived from the German term stadtbahn rather then the British term light railway. The bafflegab on light railways now goes the way of the dodo (except for a polite nod in its direction, of course) RockyMtnGuy 23:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Unheadered junk at top

Does the author have permission to post this? [1], [2] --maveric149

Yes, as far as I know 1. http://www.rinbad.demon.co.uk/ca_rail.htm -- from their FAQ

Copyright policy?

Copyright © 1992-2000. The copyright of the pages on this site belongs to us, but you may make copies for personal use. If you reproduce any of the material in any electronic or paper publication whether for profit or otherwise, please acknowledge the source as Rinbad.

2. The data is public data from National Transit Database, APTA (an association of public agencies) copied it themselves and formatted it in html, which was copied and cited, does that formatting matter? Their statement: Copyright© 2001, American Public Transportation Association; All Rights Reserved. Permission to use, copy and distribute documents and related graphics from this World Wide Web server ("Server") is granted provided that (1) the above copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear; (2) use of documents and related graphics available from this Server is for informational and non-commercial purposes only; (3) no documents or related graphics available from this Server are modified in any way, and; (4) no graphics available from this Server are used, copied or distributed separate from accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by the American Public Transportation Association. The American Public Transportation Association shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including but not limited to direct, indirect, or consequential damages, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this Server or links provided from this Server to other servers or websites.

--DavidLevinson

Just as I thought -- these conditions are not compatible with the GNU FDL. The above notice can be deleted by anyone any time a wiki and no provision of the FDL can prevent commercial redistribution. Attribution on a wiki is also not possible. The material needs to be either extensively rewritten or removed. --maveric149

I have no problem in principle with rewriting LRT article (Rinbad piece), but "Wikipedia and Nupedia's use of the GFDL began in January, 2001, and has won the project the support of Richard Stallman of the FSF. See [1]. It has long been the understanding of Wikipedia principals (Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger at least) that, as in the case of Nupedia (see [2] and [3]), links back to original Wikipedia articles would be required from anyone who used Wikipedia articles. (Jimbo confirms that Stallman agreed that the license permits this. [4]) Wikipedia principals have, recently, finally gotten around to making this requirement explicit for Wikipedia (as it has been for Nupedia), which has caused some controversy. (See the Wikipedia-L archives and /Talk.)"

So if Wikipedia's GFDL allows it to insist that others links back to it, it is quite inconsistent to not allow other licenses to require that Wikipedia refer back to it. I realize that since anyone can edit, anyone can delete notice, but that seems an implementation problem, that Wikipedia may face if another Wiki type site cites its articles. (Rinbad clearly just wants acknowledgment, and implicitly allows profit distribution).

I suspect APTA is blowing smoke about their copyright, but I am still plowing through National Transit Database to find the original table. I agree there is a problem with not allowing commercial reproduction if their copyright is valid. But if it is public data than the point is moot.

--DavidLevinson

As I thought, APTA took the data from: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/NTDData.nsf/2000+TOC/Table20/$File/t20_32.html (or equivalent tables in previous years) The National Transit Database Table 20 and basically deleted all the lines not dealing with LRT (and a few redundant columns) to create the specific table.

Is that copyrightable?

Can I take someone else's data and remove some and get a new copyright? Can I change a font and get a new copyright?

--DavidLevinson

Nope -- making those types of changes along with any changes that are not a complete rewrite are called "derivitive works" and are covered by the original copyright (no new copyright was formed since the terms of the original copyright cannot be followed by this wiki or be re-licensed under the GNU FDL). So the list has to be removed and the stub for this article has to be rewritten. You can use the same information in the rewrite - but it must be said in a different way and presented in a way that does not substantially reflect the creative work of the original author. If you don't get around to this, I will provide a rewritten definition that I prepared for work (also based in part on the definition you provided but rewritten to conform to copyright law).

Also, even if the the original info for the table was from the FTA (thus in the public domain) APTA modified and added to it. Their modifications and choice of additions (even if they were also PD) is under automatic copyright protection in the US. The table in the / page is exactly the same as the one linked anyway - so providing an external link to it has the same effect. I will go ahead and remove the content from the / page and add the page to page titles to be deleted for a final review by another administrator. We are all learning here, so I hope this does not cause undue hard feelings. :)--maveric149

My questions were rhetorical and aimed at APTA not wikipedia. APTA modified the FTA public domain table by deleting rows, thus creating a derivative work, and then claimed copyright on it. (Its like copying part of a phone book, but only numbers beginning with '9'). Since you agreed with my point that this is invalid, APTA does *not* have a copyright on the table -- regardless of what they claim.

WRT the LRT article (not the table), the rules RINBAD put forth a definition looks a lot like copyleft to me, simply asking for notification of original source. I noted earlier, that wikipedia asks for exactly the same thing in its redistribution.

ALSO AS A SIDE MATTER - There probably should be some integration of the Tram and Light rail articles, Trolley and Street car already redirect.

--DavidLevinson

Their choice on what to delete and include in their own table is a copyrightable derivitive work -- and the "FTA" tables are obviously formatted differently in HTML and come from a .com domain, which in combination with the lack of an obvious copyright renunciation, places great doubt on their public domain status. The table that was inputed into wikipedia was very obvously a minor HTML port of the exact APTA table and not the "FTA" table. --maveric149

AFAIK Tram and Light Rail are not the same thing. Eg, the Docklands Light Railway in London. A quick google search (results below) confirms that it would be more accurate to say Tram is a type of light rail which runs on roadways.

It seems this article needs replacing anyway. I'll look into it some more and get back to it. -- Tarquin

"Tram" seems to mean more different things than "subway" (which is either a form of urban railroad, or a pedestrian underpass). Consider the "tram" up Victoria Peak in Hong Kong (an old funicular railway) and the "Roosevelt Island Tramway" in New York City (a cable car system). Vicki Rosenzweig

The Dayton System looks more like an electric bus than a light rail since it doesn't actually have rails. --DavidLevinson

would that then be a "trolleybus", if it has power from overhead lines? There's also "guided buses", which use a rail of some sort (or optical markers) but run with a normal diesel engine. The emerging consensus seems to be that far from being synonyms, "tram" and "light rail" are two different things which overlap in modern trams which are built with light rail technology. The Tram article seems to explain it well. -- Tarquin

I added an article on electric trolleybus, including a list of North American cities which still have such systems (including Dayton). The LRT and Tram articles still need fixing. --DavidLevinson

Hey, cool, you got to it before I did. Which is a good thing - it means I've got paying work! :-) -- Marj Tiefert

Great rewrite, AdamW! I'm trying to remember something I read about the tram / light rail difference: it's something to do with operation and the way the vehicle is driven. Light rail, like railways, have signs & lights which dictate the driver's behaviour; trams, like buses, don't. I'll see if I can dig it up. -- Tarquin 22:32 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)

And then you have hybrid systems like in Sacramento, California where the light-rail train operates like a tram (that is, the train shares right-of-way with automobiles) in the central city but like a traditional light rail system in the extensive suburbs (with its own right-of-way and only the occasional R/R crossing). But the vehicles there are most definitely light rail vehicles and not trams. There could be a better discussion on the distinction here - to most people there really isn't much, if any difference between the two systems/vehicle technologies. --mav 07:33 May 14, 2003 (UTC)

BTW, the photo on this page looks a hell of a lot like a tram to me (short, single vehicle on what looks like a city street) and not a light rail vehicle operating in a light rail system (that is yet anther distinction we should make). --mav

Yep. Clearly a tram. But then tram is a form of light rail, so I guess that's OK. Ideally, a heavier example might be clearer though. Tannin

I have just such a photo of a 3 car bifurcated light-rail train at a station on a pedestrian mall. But it is at work and hasn't been downsized or cropped yet. --mav

In Greece trolley is .... electric bus. Really stupid. The vehicle is not a trolley but trolley bus (also trackless trolley or trolleybus), look up Wikipedia entry on trolleybus and delete Greece nonesense.

"Light rail is a particular class of railway that" yeah, what about narrow gauge rail and how does it differ? How does a passenger train running on narrow gauge track differ from the so called light train and what is the definition of lightness. Narrow gauge rail is as legitimate (although not as sexy a) term as "light rail."

Could we get a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages for light rails / trams vs other transportation systems? (Buses, Subway, Monorail, etc.) --Weyoun6 18:47, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Light rail is NOT the same as narrow gauge. Some light rail systems are standard guage (1435 mm) (some may even be wider!).

In the British Isles, Light Railways were defined as railways using, literally, "light" rail. That is, the rails had a lower weight per linear yard than the normal rail network. Because of this the speed and weight of trains was restricted. Some of the "light railways" built in the late 19th C and early 20th C (usually in remote areas which didn't justify "heavy" rail) were narrow gauge: others standard.

Currently light rail is used as a catch-all phrase for various tram, streetcar and metro systems that don't use the more expensive "heavy rail" technology. It can include street running or grade-separated systems.

However, the whole "tram", "streetcar", "subway", "metro" nomenclature issue is a minefield.

Exile 20:01, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Does anyone know why Dublin's Luas is specially mentioned under 'Unusual Variations'? To the best of my knowledge it's a fairly straightforward modern tram system. --David Arthur

Is it really true that the Docklands Light Railway wouldn't normally be considered a light railway? The trains cope with much sharper curves and steeper gradients than conventional rail would. --Adam Woodcraft 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The DLR certainly has light-rail type characteristics, but it's definitely very close to the dividing line; the Tyne and Wear Metro runs articulated trains of a similar length at lower frequencies and with level crossings, but never gets called 'light rail' because it's the heaviest service around. From a user's point of view, there's very little difference between the DLR and any other metro system.

but its title is still Docklands Light Railway, whatever the "dividing line" might be!!! Peter Shearan 10:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is a good - although brief - summary of what the Light Railway Act of 1896 was all about here. It doesn't just talk about the weight of vehicles; it also has to do with the fact that the line itself can be built in a less constrictive way - which is precisely why Colonel Stephens was able to build the railways he did - few bridges, lots of level crossings etc. I fear that this article tries to cope with the term as it is used world-wide, and then when it comes to the individual countries that is too sweeeping a statement. Google actually gives Japan as its early matches!! Peter Shearan 10:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

An anonymous user that added some rather specific information to the "disadvantages" section which I removed because they were not NPOV and really not disadvantages of Light Rail vs other mass transit, but mass transit vs roads. The citation was from an article about a specific case in the US, not relevant here. The debate over the value of mass transit is real and is discussed else where in wikipedia. protohiro 22:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

^^^^^ Yet, under 'advantages' you refer to a specific implementation in London, England... That should be removed also, then. Sometimes specific instances highlight concrete advantages and disadvantages, rather than resorting to abstractions. Comparing to roads (or walking or biking or kayaking for that matter) is perfectly relevant since they are modes of transit. Comparing light rail to heavy rail in the 'advantages' area is like saying rotten milk tastes really good compared to rotten hamburger. Sounds like you are editorializing a little bit.

ok, but you see what you have written is not universaly accepted as fact, its opinion. So you could put in the article as "opponents of light rail say" but what you have written is not NPOV. Many people would disagree with the statement:

Modern metropolitan areas are far too dispersed in residential and employment locations for any mass transit facility to be able to remove a significant percentage of drivers from automobiles. Generally, transit is able to provide service that competes in time and convenience with the automobile only to a single downtown area in each metropolitan area.

. That means it isn't NPOV. If you want a section that says "arguments against light rail" or something like that, I would be ok with that, but I don't think you are talking about specific disadvantages to light rail, rather you are arguing against mass transit in general. The london example is refering to an advantage of light rail vs other mass transit, not light rail vs everything else. Also may I suggest you register with wikipedia, it will be helpful. protohiro 17:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

In the section "Criticisms of light rail, and responses to them" could there be a less charged term used than "far right-wingers"? If economic or political conservatives are those being described, then it would be better to use such a term.

--- I removed the list of opponents at the end of the first paragraph. The discussion of the specific objections seems sufficient to me.

NPOV cost section

The comments made in this section are obviously written by a pro-light rail enthusiast. "the notion that they are a waste of government money when compared with the ostensibly self-financing highway system is specious and is usually made for ideological/political reasons so as to push the interests of the pro-highway lobby" is a partisan statement if ever I heard one. "despite the enormous social costs of continued highway dependence" is another. I agree with the statements made, but this section has a definite slant. Benandorsqueaks 12:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps the section could be broken up into the arguments for and against light rail being cost effective (i.e. many pro-railers hold that highways incur large social costs and ..., while those opposed argue that...).66.240.10.170 04:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)loodog

I have reworded the cost effectiveness article to be more NPOV. I will remove the neutrality flag if there are no objections.Loodog 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Light rail definition

While the definition of light rail may or may not have traditionally referred to tram or streetcars which are not completely seperated in the US, it is commonly employed nowadays to describe any rapid transit system which is fairly light including completely seperated systems such as those based on the Bombardier Advanced Rapid Transit. Indeed it appears in the UK and other European countries, trams are normally not considered light rail. As such, I think it's silly for us to describe the numerous completely seperated, rapid but light systems such as the, KL LRT, Singapore LRT, Docklands Light Railway and various other systems commonly referred to as light rail as mislabellings. They are called light rail, and I suspect many people using them (definetely being from KL, I can say I think of the KL LRT as light rail) would consider them light rail, not mislabellings. Indeed advocates of light rail commonly refer to these kind of completely seperated systems when they are talking about light rail. See this page for example [3]. In NZ too, when people refer to light rail, they are usually referring these kinds of completely seperated, fairly frequent rapid people mover systems. There was a definite bias in this article and in other articles against calling these completely seperated systems light rail and I have attempted to remove this bias and make it clear that many people would consider these systems as light rail not mislabellings. I may not have done a superb job but I think it's better then it was before where it appeared to suggest that a completely seperate system wasn't really light rail just a mislabelling. Hope we can agree that it is not NPOV to try to claim these systems are not light rail Nil Einne 14:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps the section could be broken up into the arguments for and against light rail being cost effective.67.92.28.66 15:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)loodog

Yes, this completely ignores that revenue from fuel taxes on vehicles often outstrips the money spent on highways, vs the appalling contribution fares make to operating light rail services. However, as different cities and countries have different environments, it is better to argue both sides - in essence light rail is a cheap and nasty way of doing proper rail transit, when dedicated busway systems would be cheaper. Nowhere in the new world has introducing light rail ever been commercially viable - but plenty of highways are (with tolls).

The previous poster in this section did not sign.--Will 02:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Bad image layout

I really like the way the stack of images down the right side of the page looks, but unfortunately, it seems to confuse the layout software. Take a look at Image:LightRailScreenShot.png; notice the four [edit] tags in a row, with the rule drawn right through them. I don't imagine that's what was intended. The browser was Safari, and it only happens with certain window widths. -- RoySmith (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Light rail definition part 2

The article is in need of another rewrite to clarify the definition(s) of light rail. It says one thing in the intro, and different things in the "attempting to define" section. Someone with a good understanding should weigh in. Perhaps one improvement might be to separate the UK/continent/USA uses. One paragraph state that the US preference is for the 2nd type (separate right of way), but the American Public Transportation Association defines light rail as primarily having no separate right-of-way. -Help! --Blainster 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

US-centric

I have removed the US-centric tag from the article. While there is a section regarding Criticisms, which does indeed deal largely with the US, this is due to the specific issues there; these criticisms (ie, bus or private car is better, cheaper, etc) are less common in other countries, where the arguments against light rail tend only to deal with upfront cost, not a philosophical objection to it. (Not always, but enough to make the US-centric tag unwarranted.) ProhibitOnions 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Especially the "spatial mismatch" argument appears very US-centric to me. It may be partly true in the US, but in Europe it's complete nonsense. European cities are much more densely populated than American cities. As a result, I have never heard someone claim that there are too few people in a part of a city for light rail. This may be an issue in rural communities near the cities (is there a translation for the German "Zersiedelung"?), but not in the cities themselves.--Qualle (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, feel free to put the tag back in. However, I have heard this argument in terms of declining population in Frankfurt (Oder) and elsewhere, and many western European cities did remove their tram systems in the past for some of these reasons. Regards, ProhibitOnions 14:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but wasn't Frankfurt(Oder) a tram project? Regarding the removal of many tram systems in the 50s, 60s and 70s: AFAIK the dominant argument was creating an automobile-compatible city: The cities were so densely populated that the space available to traffic was limited. When automobile traffic grew, more space for cars was needed, so trams were closed down. In larger cities, metros or light rail systems with tunnels in the city center were built instead. --Qualle (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about the arguments in European cities, but in the U.S. the arguments were made more in rhetorical terms: "trolleys are antiquated," "the public wants to ride on rubber," "you can't stop progress," and so on. There were complaints that streetcars got in the way of autos but frankly these arguments are rather asinine: if a higher-capacity form of transportation is in conflict with a lower-capacity form of transportation, getting rid of the higher-capacity form does not make much sense. -- Cecropia 18:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

They are asinine if the higher-capacity is actually used to full capacity and not heavily subsidized.--Rotten 21:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I edited the section and removed the tag, to make it clear (as others have pointed out) that the arguments in it are in response to conditions which, if not peculiar to the U.S., loom larger there than most other places. It would be nice if others could do some country-centric comment for countries that also have unique opponents, if any. -- Cecropia 19:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It still seems a bit US-centric to me, and I suggest having a specific article dealing with that US issue. Perhaps a link to "Light Rail in the USA", with all the US-centric arguments, would be appropriate.--66.167.115.102 12:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

This is a great idea. Anyone up for it? ProhibitOnions ^(T) 15:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I finally bit the bullet and did it. You will find all the spatially mismatched text and other US-centric stuff (plus the Canadian info) at Light rail in North America.RockyMtnGuy 19:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

PRT is not LRT

"Personal Rapid Transit" doesn't belong in this article...it is just a concept and it does not run on rails. I have never heard of PRT referred to as LRT. Most PRT advocates campaign against LRT.[4][5] Avidor 11:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I would say that most PRT ideas run on rails. Lightweight rails in fact. Most of the time they're called "guideways" or "tracks". But yea, PRT is never refered to as LRT. Fresheneesz 10:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say "most PRT advocates" promote PRT as a more efficient alternative to LRT, which can be cheaper to install and may provide faster service to a wider geographic region. Do you consider this "campaigning against"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.171.180.101 (talk • contribs)

Merge "Light Railways"

Suggest merging Light railway into Light rail. Essentially the same, I believe. "Light Railway" does have some distinguishing information about th UK; perhaps a seperate article about "Light Rail (United Kingdom)" should be established. CPAScott 15:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Tend to agree, though "light railway" does have a specific legal meaning in the UK from 1896 that is not specifically related to the current use of the term "light rail". ProhibitOnions ^(T) 15:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that the two articles not be moved. A review of the two articles seem to show the terms mean different things. Light railways seems to refer to (mostly) abandonned passenger rail lines in the United Kingdom, while light rail seems to refer to several overlapping categories of (mostly) new passenger rail service, including trolleys, streetcars, trams, and interurbans, but does not seems to include high capacity subway systems or commuter rail systems. In fact, it appears, from the article, that light railways may fall category of commuter rail. WVhybrid 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I would also oppose the merge - a light railway can refer to small railways used for hauling goods, like the sugar cane trains in Northern Queensland in Australia (of which there are a lot). It is certainly not restricted to light rail passenger transport. (JROBBO 04:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

I concur with WYhybrid and JROBBO - don't merge. These are differing terms for different modes of rail transport and to merge the articles would only needlessly confuse the reader. Disambig links at the tops of the articles would be a better solution. Skabat169 13:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As a public transport agency professional and a technical consultant to the Light Rail Now Project (http://www.lightrailnow.org), I would recommend that the terms not be merged. Light rail/light rail transit - i.e., predominantly surface-routed light-capacity electric railways, consistent with the definitions from TRB and APTA - and light railways (a much larger group, including various self-propelled railway services) - are similar but not synonymous. Basically, LRT can be considered a "light railway", but not all light railways are LRT. The Light Rail Now Project applies the term light railway to projects/services such as Ottawa's O-Train, New Jersey Transit's RiverLine, North County Transit District's Sprinter, and Capital Metro's Urban Commuter Rail - all of which use self-propelled rolling stock. However, these are not "light rail" or LRT, despite their agencies' own self-description in some instances. Light rail/LRT as a term has basically substituted for and surplanted the older term "electric street railway" (which seemed to encompass both urban streetcars and larger, faster suburban and interurban rolling stock).

70.112.251.134 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)L. Henry, technical consultant, Light Rail Now Project

Doing some research, I discovered that the origin of the term light rail is not the British term light railway but the German term Stadtbahn, literally city rail. The Americans modified it to light rail. RockyMtnGuy 19:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Citation in Paragraph entitled Spatial Mismatch

For the citation in this sentence... "The busiest United States light rail system achieves 25 million passenger boardings per year[citation needed], only half that of the London Docklands Light Rail system."

It appears as though there are several cities which transport more than 25 million people yearly using a light rail system. This article mentions that boston does 189,000 daily. http://www.highbeam.com/library/docFree.asp?DOCID=1G1:11874080

It also says that Philidelphia does more than 44 million.

According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), there were 5 light rail systems in the US with more than 25 :million passenger boardings per year.

APTA's 2004 boardings shows:

Boston - 59.7 million
San Francisco - 44.8 million
Los Angelos - 35.9 million
Portland - 30.2 million
San Diego - 28.8 million

American Public Transporation Association - Light Rail Statistics web page

Please note that these numbers are for light rail only. For instance, the Red Lines of LA and Boston are not included.

WVhybrid 04:39, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

On browsing the statistics, it appears that you are right - the unreferenced factiod in the article is incorrect. San Diego is actually only the fifth busiest light rail system in the US, and some of the busiest are approaching the ridership of Docklands Light Rail. (Although, I think Calgary is still the busiest LRT system in North America, since its ridership has doubled since the highbeam article.)

People have to be careful about where they get their statistics on US transportation. Some people do not seem to be above fudging the facts in order to claim that building $14 billion freeways that drop 12 ton ceiling tiles on cars is rational and cost effective, speaking of Boston's transportion system. RockyMtnGuy 07:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd be willing to help build a table with light rail usage, based on good references like the APTA. But I'm not familiar with Canadain and European data sources. If anyone has verified sources, please post here, and then we can try to build a reliable table. Thanks WVhybrid 22:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I put up a table of the most popular light rail systems in North America based mostly on APTA numbers. Unfortunately APTA numbers are a bit flakey because some data arrives late and they don't update their tables. (They say they'll have complete 2004 numbers by 2007, whoopee!) Part of the problem is that cities like Boston and Toronto run large light rail systems, but consider them just side shows to their rapid transit and commuter rail systems. Calgary is easy to get numbers for because it's been so successful, but the numbers are changing fast because most of Canada's oil industry is headquartered there and it's going nuts due to the oil price increases of 2004-2006. I don't have sources for European systems. RockyMtnGuy 15:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Found a formatting error under Section 5.1

See the image below. I am using Firefox 1.5.0.4 with no extensions installed.

--Will 06:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

This happens in other articles too, due to images floating on the right and the [edit] links having nowhere to go. Might want to check out the bugzilla to see if the issue has been reported. lensovet 06:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it. At least for Foxfire and MS Explorer. Any problems with other browers? WVhybrid 05:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you explain what happened? Should I delete the image?--Will 05:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like when you put a stack of images in a column, it upsets the wiki software that inserts the "edit" buttons. So I used a bit of HTML formating code I found in a row of userboxes on someones User page. (I was using the same code for my own User page.) You can see the two lines of code I used to bracket the Image references by looking at the history. Apparently the formating realigns the wiki page so the edit buttons make sense. As for deleting your message, is that what folks usually do? I'm pretty new at all of this. I'd suggest leaving it so folks can learn what can go wrong. I'm really not at HTML and wiki'ism, so personally, I like to see examples of how things are done. WVhybrid 05:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

signal control of operations

What does signal control of operations mean? Ken 15:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Terribly late answer (I just came to this page earlier today for the first time): Presumably it refers to the control of train movements with signals, usually color-light signals, as opposed to operation on sight. Operation on sight can be compared to the way you drive a car on a freeway/expressway/interstate/motorway/pick your term: There are no traffic signals telling you what to do; you simply avoid collisions with the cars around you. Of course operating on sight in a public street, with intersections, is more difficult than driving on a freeway. I should note that when a train operates in a public street without railway signals, it still is usually expected to obey the traffic signals intended for automobile drivers, but this is not "signal control of operations" because the signals are not specifically intended for the trains. --Tkynerd 15:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Often in Wikipedia articles just get longer and more repetitive over time as people add information. I'm going through making the article more concise again. Some statements made seem a bit WP:POV to an outsider and there are very few secondary sources referenced in-line. If anyone thinks I've deleted some important information, please check you have find a reliable source for it. Stephen B Streater 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

OK - 5kB shorter. I'll see if I can add some good cites inline. Stephen B Streater 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for doing this. So many Wikipedia articles need a good copy editing like this. --Jfruh (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Capacity of Light Rail Transit

I've just qualified the 20,000 pph quote to indicate that it relies on exclusive ROW. As far as I've read, there are some hard limitations on the train size and headway for LRT operating in a non-exclusive ROW, and I believe the 20,000 pph quote only applies to exclusive ROW (though I'm not an expert, just an enthusiast, so I could be wrong about this. :-))

I've also requested a citation for the 100,000pph quote for heavy rail.

I'll probably be working on this page for the next few weeks, mainly adding {fact} tags where I feel they are needed, but also some copy-edit-type stuff like Stephen already worked on (the previous language was a little too promotional, I think). My previous Wikipedia undertaking (at the PRT pages) was extremely contentious, so I'm hoping to have a better editing experience here. :-) A Transportation Enthusiast 04:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Calgary Transit, with which I am familiar, is running Siemens SD160's, which carry 160 passengers, in three car trains, at 2.5 minute headways, at grade in a downtown transit mall mixed with buses and controlled by traffic lights. Maximum capacity is 3x160x(60/2.5) = 11,520 pph per track. They're pushing this limit pretty hard (peak traffic is 17,000 pph on two tracks), so they're buying 33 new SD160's and lengthening the platforms for four car trains. On two minute headways this will give them a practical capacity of 19,200 passengers per hour per track. The theoretical capacity of this system is 5x160x(60/1.5) = 32,000 passengers per hour per track, but I think that before they reach that they should build a subway.

You should read the references to the article, particularily the TRB report Rail Transit Capacity which mentions the Japanese high capacity line, and Calgary's C-Train - Effective Capital Utilization which says "Peak hour travel by LRT entering the downtown is equivalent to the capacity of about 16 free flow traffic lanes". RockyMtnGuy 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, RMG. Actually, I tried to read the TRB report a few days ago, but the link to the online (PDF) version was dead. It seems to be working now, so I'll take a look. A Transportation Enthusiast 20:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe the TRB server was down a few days ago, but it's probably back up. Here's a link to the Calgary Transit Reports, Studies and Surveys page Note particularly the Downtown LRT Feasibility Study. They currently are running 11,300 peak passengers per hour in one direction (3,400 in the other) in the downtown transit mall. They expect to grow to 27,200 peak passengers in one direction, which they theoretically could do on the existing tracks, but they think it would be smarter to split the lines and run half of them on another set of tracks. They might have to do it sooner than they expect - they've always underestimated growth in the past. RockyMtnGuy 23:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the Calgary link. I'll do some reading on it. A Transportation Enthusiast 02:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems that need fixing

This article has a number of problems that need fixing. This is not only a potentially "good" article, it could be a "great" article - but that will take a good deal of work.

Because this article is obviously the product of several contributors, I am not willing to make unilaterial edits. Instead, I'll spell out the deficiencies, and perhaps we can tackle these one step at a time.

The "introductory" section needs to be shortened substantially. Much of this information belongs in "defining light rail" and other sections.

In general - and with specific reference to the definition - this article appears to be extremely U.S.-centric (although parts appear rather "UK-centric").

Duly noted and acted upon. Since this article was flagged as too long, I split the article and moved the US-centric (and Canadian) material off into the new Light rail in North America article. I also moved some of the text out of the header and into the Definition section. RockyMtnGuy 03:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion to combine the "light railway" and "light rail (transit)" categories tends to suggest "U.S.-centricity." Low-cost local railways did exist in the U.S., but they were not called "light railways" ("short lines," "narrow gauge"). However, the railways built in the UK under the 1896 Light Railways Act, the Decauville railways of France and its colonies, the German feldbahnen and so forth had little in common with "light rail transit." Combining the articles, despite the similarity of terminology in English, is difficult to justify.

It is not possible to give a single definition of "light rail" that fits all lines in all countries because practices - and laws - vary considerably. This fact needs to be emphasized in the article.

For example: in Japan, the principal legal distinction between "railway" and "tramway" is that the latter may be built within the alignment of a public road. All subway systems in Japan were built under railway concessions ("licenses") - except Osaka's, which was built under a tramway concession. (Looks like any other Japanese subway, but the legal distinction remains.)

A better and more useful approach than the article now has would start with a look at equivalent terms used in other languages (. . . and the Tram article . . .). This is as simple as going down the "in other languages" list. For example, the German term Stadtbahn, the French Métro léger, and so forth.

Note in particular that the Germans do not classify all surviving electric tramway lines as "Stadtbahn" - and the French do not classify their new urban tramway lines as "Métro léger" (light metro). However, the (U.S.) Federal Transit Administration does not distinguish between "light rail" and "tramway" (or "streetcar"); urban electric railways are either "heavy rail" or "light rail."

For various reasons including use of high platforms at stations, high traffic levels and scarcity (or absence) of street track, the Los Angeles and St. Louis "light rail" systems could be described as "light metros." But this term is not widely used in the U.S.

The (U.S.) Transportation Research Board (TRB) has an explicit and comprehensive definition of "light rail" that was purpose-drafted to establish the distinctions between "light rail" (LRT) and "other modes."

(TRB is a division of the National Research Council, which is one of the "National Academies," these in turn may be described as nonprofit research organizations chartered by Congress to advise the U.S. federal government.)

The TRB definition:

Light Rail Transit 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.

A colleague elaborates as follows:

The people who prepared this definition were cognizant of - and several were, indeed, enthusiasts of - the city street railways, suburban trolley lines and intercity interurbans that sprouted up after about 1890 and most of which unfortunately disappeared before the era of public ownership of transit could rescue them. However, the definers wanted to assert a certain set of characteristics to distinguish LRT as a "modern" application that had grown from the historic tramway (street railway) technology:

metropolitan - city and suburbs, not intercity (or "interurban").

electric - not diesel, steam or whatever

railway - conventional steel wheels and rails, not one or more concrete beams or some kind of gadgetbahn.

single cars or short trains - flexible train consists that can be adjusted to various levels of demand, but not long trains like metro ("heavy rail," "rapid transit") or suburban railway ("commuter railroad").

exclusive rights of way at ground level, on aerial structures, in subways - locational flexibility, perhaps the key hallmark of LRT [a]

or, occasionally [b], in streets - street capable; completes locational flexibility and excludes all technologies that cannot run in street lanes shared with other traffic

board and discharge passengers at track or car floor level - somewhat cumbersome wording to accommodate the range of possibilities [c]

Notes:

[a] A 1975 booklet distributed at TRB's first National LRT Conference in 1974 included this sentence in explanatory text after the definition: "A light rail vehicle can be operating in the middle of a busy street at one moment and function as a high-speed rapid transit train moments later."

[b] As distinguished from "streetcars" running entirely or almost entirely in streets.

[c] "Rapid transit" style high platforms and high floor cars (level boarding), low platforms and high floor cars w/steps and lifts or high blocks, low platforms and low floor cars (level boarding again), or even no platforms w/step and lift loading from street pavement to high or low floor cars.

"LRT" is similar to the street tramway (streetcar) and "interurban" lines of the past, and was derived from these appplications - but is not "identical."

There do exist "fringe" categories in the U.S. There are "modern tramway" ("streetcar") lines (e.g. Portland, Tacoma). Some "LRT" systems have tramway characteristics, and some "tramway" systems have some "LRT" characteristics (e.g. the Philadelphia subway-surface lines).

Outside the U.S., the new French tramway systems are called "tramways" - labels such as light rail are not used. "Tram-train" refers to services which operate over suburban railway lines and use street tracks to reach town centers.

Note that no system in France proper that is described as "Métro léger," and that underground tramway segments in Belgium are called "prémétro ."

The Germans also distinguish between Stadtbahn and street tramway (strassenbahn) lines.

In Japan, number of busy suburban "railways" which are very much "heavy rail" in character - and even have track connections with metro (subway) lines for through working - were built as tramways and once bore strong resemblance to U.S. "interurbans." But, over the years, these lines were gradually upgraded with high platforms at stations, longer station platforms to permit longer trains, and so forth. There are a number of "provincial" electric railways that could be described as "LRT" (the American term "interurban" is not appropriate) - but, in Japan, "LRT" refers rather specifically to modern street tramway lines with features such as low-floor vehicles.

Perhaps there needs to be a "new" section: "Definition Problems," or "Light rail, Tramway or Heavy Rail," or something like that.

Very few modern light rail systems actually qualify as light railways in the original meaning of the term, referring instead to tramways.

This is very much a U.K.-centric observation. Almost the opposite is true in the U.S. (with the qualification that the term "light railway" is not well known).

Light rail traces its pedigree to street railways, whereas rapid transit (metro) technology evolved from steam commuter operations, such as were seen in London, New York City, and Chicago.

The second part of this sentence is very much U.S.-centric. "Steam commuter operations" did not give rise to most metros, nor to metro technology. Most of the world's metros are not compatible with the rolling stock and technology used on that city's (or country's) "railway" services. An important exception is Japan, where a number of metro lines were built for through working with connecting "railway" lines.

The Docklands Light Railway uses a standard third rail for its electrical power.

DLR is best described as a "light metro, worked by tramway-type stock." The current facility is not compatible with operation in streets. It is extremely unlikely that extensions with street track would be "grafted" onto the existing network.

Trams in Bordeaux, France use a special third-rail configuration where the power is only switched on beneath the trams, making it safe on city streets.

True for the time being (although removal and replacement with a conventional overhead contact system is being discussed). However, this system is "not" LRT or "metro leger" - it is a modern street tramway.

Several systems in Europe, as well as a few recently-opened systems in North America use diesel-powered trains, including the River LINE in New Jersey (opened in 2004), the O-Train in Ottawa (opened in 2001), and the upcoming SPRINTER in northern San Diego County, California (projected to be opened by late 2007).

"Diesel light rail" is a misnomer - and, by the TRB definition, a contradiction in terms.

"Several systems in Europe"? Where??

There are a handful of locations where modern diesel multiple unit (DMU) stock works over tramway tracks to reach town centers. But these operations are not described as "light rail."

Modern European DMU stock - which operates over many secondary and branch lines in Germany and other countries - cannot be used for "general" operation in the U.S. European rolling stock is not built to the "crashworthiness" standard established by the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and so cannot operate over tracks on which FTA had jurisdiction without special arrangements. These consist typically of "time separations" - that is, rules that govern the hours when freight trains may use the tracks.

Misnomer though it is, the term "diesel light rail" label has come into use in the U.S. for reasons outlined above. It is also used in Ottawa (below).

Diesel operations are chosen in corridors where lower ridership is expected (and thus do not justify the expense of the electric power infrastructure) or which have an "interurban" nature with stations spaced relatively far apart (electric power provides greater acceleration, making it essential for operations with closely-spaced stations).

This passage is mere boilerplate. In the U.S., the choice for diesel traction on the lines mentioned was "budget driven." That is, diesel traction was selected in order to minimize initial capital cost, without reference to the higher operating expense (and slower commercial speed) that would result (relative operating costs have also been ignored, or postulated as "identical," which is a polite fiction). The Ottawa "O-Train" operation is an explicit demonstration. Ldemery 07:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And they ignored the fact that diesel light rail is unpopular with passengers and nearby residents because of the air pollution and noise from the diesel engines. RockyMtnGuy 14:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems that need fixing - "Defining"

Defining light rail

This section needs extensive rewriting. It is much too U.S.-centric, the emphasis on "light" v. "heavy" is neither informative nor appropriate, and it muddles rather than clarifies the distinction among light rail, tramway (or streetcar), metro (or heavy rail, or subway) and "regional rail" (or commuter rail).

England and America are two worlds separated by a common language. What is called a tramway in Britain is called a streetcar or trolley in the United States. In the U.S., a tramway is generally a cablecar system suspended from towers, or a track for mine carts. Naturally there's some confusion about definitions. RockyMtnGuy 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, so let's take the opportunity to clarify. Ldemery 03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Duly clarified. RockyMtnGuy 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There was a suggestion that the U.S. specific information be moved to a new article called "Light Rail in the USA". Someone should do that. RockyMtnGuy 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but I presume that you do not intend that the section "Criticisms of light rail in the U.S., and responses to them" should be "spun off" while retaining the section titled "The Canadian experience." Do you envision a separate article for each country (or group of countries) ? Ldemery 03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the choice is between reducing the size of the section or pulling it off into a separate article of its own (i.e. a few paragraphs followed by see Light Rail in the USA). Germany already has its own article on Stadtbahn. I don't think Canada justifies one. RockyMtnGuy 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I changed my mind. I split the article and put the U.S. and Canadian information into a new Light rail in North America article. I also co-opted the Stadtbahn article as Light rail in Germany. RockyMtnGuy 03:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

A good place to start would be the "TRB" definition above. It does not "fit" all "light rail" lines in "all" countries - but it does emphasize flexibility:

single cars or short trains.
full separation ("exclusive right-of-way" in U.S. parlance), continuous or not (i.e. with level crossings, aka grade crossings), or occasionally in streets [in mixed traffic].
loading and unloading of passengers at ground ("track") or car floor level.

This flexibility is not characteristic of the other rail-transit modes listed above.

Note also the inherent emphasis on separation ("exclusive right of way"), and consider an obvious but unstated characteristic: high commercial speed relative to modes that operate in mixed traffic.

This would be a good place to insert a brief outline of what "separation" is and how it can be provided.

The most difficult distinction to draw is that between light rail and streetcar or tram systems.

Nonsense. This is very much the U.S. (and perhaps the U.K.) POV. Other countries (outside of the English-speaking world) do not have the same "difficulty."

Unless they happen to speak English as a native tongue. Then they have a serious problem with definitions. RockyMtnGuy 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Once again: let's take the opportunity to clarify. Ldemery 03:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Duly done. RockyMtnGuy 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Note the characteristic "inflexibility" of the other rail modes:

Regional rail (commuter rail):

Requires full separation, continuous or not. Cannot operate in streets in mixed traffic (although there are "historic" examples of this).

Metro (heavy rail):

Requires full and continuous separation, because of third-rail current collection, "typical" of many metro systems but by no means a "standard" - and also because of the high frequency of train operation that is "typical" of metros.

Requires trains of significant length because of traffic volumes, and also as a matter of economic practicality. The cost of providing "full and continuous" separation is high. The marginal savings from building stations for "single cars and short trains" is insignificant.

(Again, there are "historic" examples of "metro" operations that had level crossings - and a very few examples of metro-type rolling stock operating in streets. There is also an example of a metro built originally for short (2-car) trains - Lisboa.)

Requires car-floor-level platforms (because of traffic volumes.)

(Again, there are a very few "historic" examples of ground-level loading with metro-type stock).

Tramway (streetcar)

Requires single cars (two-axle, four-axle or articulated), or trains short enough not to cause conflicts with street traffic (because of operation in mixed traffic).

"Classic" tramways were dominated by passengers who traveled short distances. Stops were frequent, and vehicles were therefore designed for high acceleration, not high top speed. ("Classic" U.S. rolling stock could attain perhaps 50 km/h (30 mph), and "classic" European stock could probably attain less.)

Extensive separation was not pursued because of cost - but also because, given a fully separated alignment, classic tramway vehicles and operating practices were relatively ineffective compared to metro vehicles and practices. For example: metros and light-rail lines achieve far greater labor productivity that lines operated "tramway" (streetcar) style: with a large number of relatively small and slow vehicles.

"Classic" tramways required ground-level loading because the large platforms required for car-floor-level loading presented unacceptably large obstacles to "other" street traffic.

It is therefore quite easy to distinguish between "light rail" and "tramways" - classic and modern.

The new French tramways are just that - tramways - because all (operating) examples have been built for single cars. The vehicles might be capable of operation in trains - but the platforms are not built long enough to permit this. In addition, these lines are very much "urban" in character, not "city to suburb."

(I'll note in addition that these lines carry very large volumes of short-distance travel. This traffic pattern is not typical of U.S. rail transit systems - except those with some "tramway" characteristics.)

The American Public Transportation Authority (APTA) in its Glossary of Transit Terminology defines light rail as: "An electric railway with a 'light volume' traffic capacity compared to heavy rail.

This fact is of interest for historic reasons, but definitions based on "light capacity" and "heavy capacity" (or: "the passenger loads which it can carry") are not very useful today, for reasons I will discuss below. This needs to be "moved down."

In similar fashion, it is of interest for technical reasons to note that the term "light rail" does not refer to the mass (weight) of the vehicles nor the rails with reference to "heavy rail." But this too needs to be "moved down."

It is imprecise, misleading and sometimes even incorrect to state that

Light rail is appropriate where the level of commuters is light - unlike the New York Subway and London Underground.

Conventional rail technologies including high-speed, freight, commuter/regional, and metro/subway are considered to be "heavy rail"

Pray tell, by whom?

Certainly not by anyone whose first language is not English, which means "in most of the world."

Yes, but the language of the article is English, mostly written by native English speakers. RockyMtnGuy 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but what do you see as the "scope" of this article? Why not a broad international "overview"? That is one of the ingredients of a "great" article, which I believe this could become. Ldemery 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, but someone has to write it, and my experience is limited to Canada, the U.S. and Britain. Okay, maybe a little in Norway and Peru, but I've never ridden the rails in Germany, France, or Japan. RockyMtnGuy 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

This needs to be rewritten and "moved down."

People movers and personal rapid transit are even "lighter," at least in terms of capacity. Monorails are a separate technology, which has been more successful in a theme park environment than in a commuter transit role.

These modes need to be moved "way down." To the end of the section, with the tag "see also:" and links to other articles.

There is a significant amount of overlap between [light rail and tramway] technologies . . .

This is true, but needs to be moved to the "history" section.

. . . many of the same vehicles can be used for either [light rail and tramway] . . .

This is actually less true than many people believe. For technical reasons including wheel and rail profile, vehicle dimensions, operations control systems and so forth, sharing of tracks by "light rail" and "tramway" vehicles generally requires specific design and engineering. There are systems where all vehicles can operate "anywhere," but there are also cities where "light rail" vehicles cannot operate on "tramway" tracks, and vice versa.

Tramway (streetcar) systems use special wheels and tracks to operate in the street, but you can change the wheels on the trains. Some grade-separated light rail systems use streetcar wheels and tracks because it can reduce the risk of derailment. RockyMtnGuy 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Special," huh? Yeah, I suppose this term is appropriate today in the "good ol' USA," merry olde England and Canada, where urban rail transport might be described as "scarce." It's true that "street tramway" ("street railway") vehicles used different wheel profiles than "railway" ("railroad") vehicles. Good, reliable information on the nature of this difference and where it occurs is one topic for a prospective "technology" section. Note also that "railway" track/wheel standards vary significantly between countries - another topic for a "technology" section.Ldemery 03:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I think track/wheel standards are rather standard between countries (except Spain and Russia). What I noticed is that streetcar tracks have an extra flangeway or guard rail on the inside (whereas conventional railway tracks have none). This keeps them from derailing in the street. However, I'm not up to a technical article on railway wheel/track design. RockyMtnGuy 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

. . . and it is common to classify streetcars/trams as a subtype of light rail rather than as a distinct type of transportation.

Very much U.S.- (and perhaps U.K.-) centric. Not so in non-English-speaking countries.

Some U.S. light rail systems are operated very much like streetcars, so the distinction becomes difficult to make. RockyMtnGuy 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Which ones - save for those that "are" streetcar lines, but grouped together with all U.S. urban rail systems not classified as "heavy rail"?Ldemery 03:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I think the San Diego Trolley qualifies. However, the distinction between "streecar" and "light rail" is rather flexible. For instance, Toronto is investigation running streetcars in trains on some of its historic routes, because the passenger load is too heavy for single cars (30 second headways). And they're talking about running streetcars on their Scarborough line (which in European terms would be considered "light metro") because the LRV's are out of production and they can't get more, but they've got lots of streetcars. RockyMtnGuy 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The two general versions are: 1. The traditional type . . . and 2. A more modern variation . . .

This is a highly muddled section and needs a thorough rewrite.

Perhaps unwittingly, the writer has described contemporary tramway practice under "1. The traditional type." Absent some distinctive feature (e.g. train operation), this would be described as "modern tramway" in most countries, "LRT" in Japan, and "modern streetcar" in the U.S. (Note, however, that U.S. statistics would refer to "light rail.")

Under "2. A more modern variation," the writer has described, more or less, contemporary "light rail" practice - in the U.S. and a number of other countries.

At the highest degree of separation, it can be difficult to draw the line between light rail and metros. . .

Nonsense. Fully-separated line with level crossings - and vehicles compatible with operation in streets - are generally classified as "light rail." Examples include St. Louis.

Outside the U.S., lines with full and continuous separation, but with vehicles smaller than full-scale metro stock, are generally referred to as "light metros." This is true in particular when some feature precludes construction of a "branch" or "extension" with street track. London's Docklands Light Railway is sometimes described as "light rail," but its driverless operation precludes operation of its trains on streets.

The Wikipedia link to light metro leads to this article, so until someone writes a "light metro" article, light metro is light rail. RockyMtnGuy 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose so, but why not "spin off" a "light metro" article (as there is in French)? Ldemery 03:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, somebody (who's French is better than mine) could translate the "light metro" article into English. RockyMtnGuy 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

DLR would not be considered a full-scale metro regardless of the "contrast between it and the London Underground."

The Wuppertaler Schwebebahn is a monorail - a suspended monorail, but a monorail nonetheless. It "might" be considered a "light metro" if it were a conventional railway, but it is not.

An excellent illustration to emphasize what "is" light rail and what is "not" is the "Tyne and Wear Metro train" photo. This system bears significant resemblance to the German Stadtbahn systems and its vehicles were patterned after Stadtbahn stock. But note that the "Metrocars" are built for car floor level loading only. This would rule out in-street operation with stations (unless sufficient space could be found for platforms). Therefore, the Tyne and Wear system is appropriately described as a "light metro." This is not, by the way, a transport genre that includes street trams.

Increasingly, light rail is being used to describe any rapid transit system with a fairly lower frequency compared to heavier mass rapid systems such as the London Underground or the Mass Rapid Transit (Singapore).

Huh?

Service frequency has nothing to do with the distinction between "light rail" and "metro." Some light rail lines operate more-frequent service than some metro lines. This has the look of the "U.S. perspective." This needs to be clarified or deleted.

Many light rail systems — even fairly old ones — have a combination of the two, with both on road and off-road sections. In some countries (esp. in Europe), only the latter is described as light rail. In those places, trams running on mixed right of way are not regarded as light rail, but considered distinctly as streetcars or trams.

This practically reeks of the U.S. POV. Needs rewriting.

However, the requirement for saying that a rail line is "separated" can be quite minimal — sometimes just with concrete "buttons" to discourage automobile drivers from getting onto the tracks.

This is true, and also needs to be "moved up."

There is a significant difference in cost between these different classes of light rail transit. . . . There is a growing desire to push the Federal Transit Administration to help fund these startup lines as well.

This entire passage, right down to the (needed) citation, relates specifically to the U.S. Needs to be rewritten and moved - doesn't belong in the "definition" section.

Some systems, such as the AirTrain JFK in New York City and DLR in London and Kelana Jaya Line in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia have dispensed with the need for a driver.

These are not light rail, but light metro, although the AirTrain facility is best described as "automated guideway transit."

Ultra light rail schemes. . .

This is of interest, but needs to be moved elsewhere. Also, the passage needs to emphasize that such systems are not in commercial operation. Ldemery 04:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems that need fixing - "History"

This could be a great section of a great article - but that will take a lot of rewriting and changes to remove the U.S.-centric perspective and provide additional information.

A good place to start would be a single paragraph, describing what an "electric tramway" (streetcar) is, explaining that light rail evolved out of electric tramway (railway) technology - and referring to the "tramway" article for more details.

The existing second paragraph needs some rewriting but is a good "second step."

The third step would be a discussion of separation and a list of examples from the "classic tramway" era. This needs to have a less "parochial" perspective.

Factual quasi-errors need to be corrected. The "renaissance of light rail in North America" (. . . let's not forget that Mexico is in North America . . .) is often described as beginning with Boston's conversion of a former regional rail line to "light rail." They didn't use this label, but "light rail" it is.

True, Mexico is in North America, but I don't recall any light rail renaissance there.

The good citizens of Guadalajara and Monterrey, and at least some of Mexico City, might not agree. Ldemery 03:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, since Light rail in North America has been split off from the main article, anybody who knows anything about Mexican light rail (which would not be me) should feel free to contribute their wisdom to that article. RockyMtnGuy 03:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think Boston was something of a technological fiasco, from what I read. They eventually refused to accept many of the Boeing Vertol cars they ordered. Edmonton, Calgary and San Diego all ordered the same reliable Siemens-Duwag cars. RockyMtnGuy 05:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The conversion of the "Highland Branch" ("Riverside Line") from regional rail to LRT took place in 1959, long before the Boeing-Vertol cars were dreamed ("nightmared?") of. Not an entirely "new" system, true, but considered a "first of its kind" in the U.S. Ldemery 03:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

As I discovered, the term light rail was coined in 1972, so this might be considered to be a development which was ahead of its time. RockyMtnGuy 03:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The continued muddling of the distinction between "tramway" and "light rail" needs correction, and the rather disjointed treatment of developments in various countries needs to be improved.

The discussion of "rail gauge" should be moved to a prospective new section on "technical aspects." Ldemery 04:13, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The discussion seems to have arisen because somebody was confused about the distinction between "light rail" and "narrow gauge rail". RockyMtnGuy 05:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, but this still should be relocated - and rewritten. There are a lot of interesting facts about track gauge that are not well known. For example: "narrow" gauge actually provides a better ride quality under certain well-defined conditions. Ldemery 03:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting fact is that Toronto streetcars have a broad gauge because they designed it to allow horse cars to run on the inside of the streetcar rails. Then, when they built the subway, they designed the subway trains to the same broad gauge so they could mix streetcars and subway cars on the same lines (which they never did).

Narrow gauge has been used on low-budget railways because the trains can negotiate tighter curves, which saves money building track. However, most of them have either gone out of business or converted to standard gauge. Broad gauge has been used in certain countries because foreign invaders can't use their trains on your tracks. RockyMtnGuy 17:20, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems that need fixing - "Advantages"

This section could some rewriting and rearranging, but is otherwise reasonable - however:

The operating cost advantage of light rail "compared with buses" needs to be discussed.

The hardware generally operates more quietly than commuter rail or metro systems, and noise mitigation is easier to design.

This sentence needs clarification - and verification. Ldemery 04:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Problems that need fixing - "Disadvantages"

This section also needs rewriting and rearranging.

"Light rail tends to be safest when operating in dedicated rights-of-way with complete grade separations."

Non-sequiteur. "Dedicated rights of way with complete separation" is not "light rail." It's either "light metro" or "metro," or perhaps AGT or some other mode.

If you type "light metro" into Wikipedia you'll end up here at "light rail". So, we're claiming it as part of our territory. RockyMtnGuy 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

"Light rail trolleys are often heavier per passenger carried than heavy rail and monorail cars, because they are designed to survive collisions with automobiles.[verification needed] On the other hand, light rail vehicles tend to be more reliable and have longer service lives than the typical monorail vehicle, and the generally lower capital cost of construction usually offsets any weight disadvantage."

This paragraph emits a fragrant aroma; the requested verification is definitely needed.

Since nobody verified it, I toasted the sentence about collisions with automobiles. Anybody who puts it back better cite references. RockyMtnGuy 04:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have never seen the phrase "light rail trolleys" used by anyone except light rail opponents in one U.S. city. (I have also seen the phrase "light rail train" used by opponents in another U.S. city.)

Furthermore, anyone who would write such a thing has obviously never witnessed a collision between an auto and a bus. I was once aboard a bus when this happened - the impact was little more than a slight bump, but the force of impact was sufficient to crumple a fender - and spin the car halfway around.

(Fortunately for the auto driver, who made an illegal left turn in front of the bus - and his passengers - the impact was a "glancing blow." The bus was traveling at perhaps 35 km/h (20 mph), at which speed a "direct hit" would have been much worse.)

I've been on a bus when it hit a car, and it was no big deal - on the bus. The car, however, got punted a considerable distance down the street. RockyMtnGuy 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Light rail vehicles are many times more massive than an auto. They do not have to be "designed to survive collisions with autos." They do, however, have to be designed to survive collisions with each other - as do metro and monorail vehicles.

I've seen a few collisions between LRV's and cars, and LRV's aren't designed to survive collisions with autos, they're designed to annihilate autos, which is why I put the "verfication required" tag on the line. RockyMtnGuy 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, and it's too bad that so many auto drivers seem blissfully unaware of this. On opening day of San Francisco's F Line extension to Fisherman's Wharf, I saw the aftermath of a collision between an auto and a historic streetcar - one from New Orleans (= slow acceleration, but sturdy). The crash occurred because the motorist made an illegal left turn across the tracks, in front of the car. Ldemery 03:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The issue of "crashworthiness standards" generates a great deal of debate among monorail enthusiasts PRT enthusiasts, and critics. Japan's Transport Ministry requires that all "trackbound" or "trackguided" vehicles be built to the same crashworthiness standards as conventional rail vehicles. Japanese monorail trains differ little in mass per meter of vehicle length from rail vehicles. But other countries - e.g. Malaysia - do not apply such standards, and so Malaysian monorail technology permits lower-cost construction of guideways and vehicles. All this is rather peripheral to light rail. The paragraph in question needs extensive rewriting or should be deleted.

Being a potential source of noise pollution, light rail can expose neighboring populations to adverse health effects of noise.[verification needed].

Verification definitely needed.

Nobody verified this sentence, so I toasted it, too. Same caveat - anybody who puts it back better cite references. RockyMtnGuy 04:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Prior to opening of one U.S. light rail line, opponents told tales about how dreadfully noisy the "trains" were going to be.

Then began the test operations - and television coverage of same, with remarks by commentators that the light rail trains were virtually noiseless compared to other street traffic.

Another place I put a verification required tag. It must be written by someone who hasn't heard an LRV in operation. RockyMtnGuy 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, good for you, but I think you'll find that some statements such as the one you tagged are purposeful "disinformation." Ldemery 03:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

True, but I try to be polite about such things. I don't always succeed, but I try. RockyMtnGuy 17:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Opponents then did an about-face, telling tales about how dreadfully unsafe it was to operate such large and silent vehicles on public streets.

LRVs actually have a better safety record on streets than buses, but they do make an awful mess when they actually hit a car. RockyMtnGuy 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know - there is probably research on this topic - what percent of collisions between LRVs and other vehicles are "not" the fault" of the other vehicle's driver. Ldemery 03:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

There is research on this topic, I should find it and link to it. However, as a result of an 1877 US court decision, any collision with a train at a level crossing is always the other vehicle's fault. Those were the good old days, when might made right. RockyMtnGuy 17:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

In short: this sentence reeks of U.S. POV, and needs to be clarified or deleted.

New Article: Light rail in North America

Because this article has been flagged as too long, North American specific text plus related discussion has been moved to Light rail in North America. RockyMtnGuy 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Good Article nomination has failed

The Good article nomination for Light rail/Archive 1 has failed, for the following reason:

There are no references listed, only external links. While it may be that these links were used as references, the reader has no way of knowing this. References are especially necessary in the discussion about costs. Also as a matter of formatting, the large line of rather large thumbnail images is a bit overwhelming. Slambo (Speak) 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Plus there's the issue of how light rail simply doesn't arouse the same passions in people (pro or con) as freeways do, which is why it's generally easier to find references for freeways (as I have done for that article). --Coolcaesar 22:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

External Links

I have removed the following link from the external links section of the site, feel free to re-instate: "A Common Sense Plan for a Dublin Metro" [6] On looking at the site's content it's just total pie in the sky and anyone with even a limited knowledge of Dublin transport infrastructure would recognise that - Cut-Paste 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Cut-Paste

Well, I don't have a limited knowledge of Dublin's transportation, but what are the "pie in the sky" aspects of the proposal?

The proposed plan doesn't seem that ambitious compared to, say, Oslo. It had two disconnected railway stations on opposite sides of the city, so they bored a tunnel through solid granite to connect them, and built an underground opera house in it just to show that they enjoy a challenge. Oslo is a smaller city than Dublin (and is 80% forest as they are fond of pointing out). Dublin is in the metro population range (1-2 million) where light rail makes the most sense. RockyMtnGuy 21:27, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I wanted to avoid going into detail but perhaps I should have.

No previous comprehensive study of Dublin's transport requirements, of which there are many, have made any recommendations similar to what is being proposed on the above link, though I admit this is insufficient reason to remove it. However, there are many sufficient reasons and they are as follows;

- The article opens with the question "What are the advantages of rail" as opposed to bus corridors and the like. It then outlines two advantages. The number one advantage outlined being energy efficiency but on the proviso that "stops are infrequent". Its argument against Dublin's Luas is that the stops on the Luas system are very frequent. However, even according to the main Wikipedia article on the subject one of the main characteristics of light rail is that stops are very frequent. This is an established precedent and for good reasons. Presumably there is a bias against light rail on this site in favour of heavy suburban rail, even though the two serve different functions.

The Wikipedia article defines two types of light rail: 1) the "traditional" model which has frequent stops, and 2) the "modern" variety, which has stations spaced further apart. In my experience, successful LRT systems have stations spaced very close together in the urban core (sometimes not much more than 200 metres apart), widening to two or three kilometres in the suburbs. It doesn't make a great difference in energy efficiency because the trains use regenerative braking and dump power back into the grid when they decelerate. It it can be difficult to distinguish between "modern" light rail and heavy rail, except in terms of construction costs.RockyMtnGuy 19:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The second main advantage of rail over road according the author is that they are more economical to tunnel underground in built-up areas because they take up less space. This point doesn't constitute a reason to put a light rail/tram system such as Luas underground even though it's being suggested that it is. It also ignores the main objective of Luas to reduce car dependency in the Dublin area by limiting car access to the city centre.

Light rail takes up less space underground because it only requires space for two tracks, but pushed to its limits can carry as many people as a 16-lane roadway. It is also easier to run underground because electric trains do not require extra ventillation to get rid of carbon monoxide and there is no chance of a disasterous tunnel fire from a collision spilling gasoline on the roadway. However, I do think the Dublin Metro proposal overemphasizes the idea of building tunnels. There look to be a lot of opportunities for cheaper at-grade construction in the pictures. RockyMtnGuy 19:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Both advantages strike me as totally absurd and I would have thought this would be the common perception.

-The author of above site appears of the impression that Dublin's Luas and proposed Metro are interchangeable with Dublin's suburban rail. There's no acknowledgement of the fact that Luas/Metro and Irish Rail operate on differing gauges.

It's entirely possible to build dual-gauge railways by using three parallel tracks instead of two, but most countries avoid it because it is more expensive than using a single standard gauge. An exception is Switzerland, where the cost of adding a third rail is insignificant compared to the costs of building railways in the Alps, and narrow gauge saves money. In Ireland, however, it opens the larger question of why the country is still using a non-standard gauge on its railways. RockyMtnGuy 19:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The guage of the national rail network is uniform and being an island means it isn't an issue, nor is it the case that there exists an intention to change to standard guage. Cut-Paste 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Cut-Paste

- The most laughable point of the article on the above site is the suggestion that part of the existing (and new) Luas infrastructure should be put underground to connect Dublin's two main intercity railway stations instead the Irish Rail proposal for an interconnector[7] via a different route. It suggests cut and cover as the method to tunnelling under Dublin's main river, the Liffey. How is this common sense??

Cut-and-cover as applied to rivers usually means dredging a trench in the riverbed, sinking pre-fabricated tunnel sections in it, and connecting the sections together. It's a standard way of crossing where tunneling conditions are poor. I assume the author suggested it because Dublin's tunneling conditions are inferior to London's famous blue clay layer, for instance. However, light rail systems also have the option of using a bridge, because they can climb grades steep enough to climb out of a tunnel onto a bridge and back again. RockyMtnGuy 19:57, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The shortcomings of Dublin's more valid public transport plans aside, there are many established precedents and examples of best practice followed by these plans that the above article totally ignores. I could go on about them but I won't, I simply feel that the link if left on this Wikipedia entry would actually tarnish the contents of it by association since the site reads more like a blog than anything else. Cut-Paste 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Cut-Paste

There are some links of dubious quality on this and related articles. However, I don't know that this one is too far out to allow people to see. I don't have sufficient experience with Dublin to critique it, but on the surface it looks feasible. (And based on what I see on various sites, Dublin could use some outside-of-the-box thinking. What is inside the box doesn't look too rational.) RockyMtnGuy 21:07, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't my intention to argue the contents of the link, I accept your points even though I am still struck by how far fetched the site actually is. Mostly I take issue with the validity of it being included on this Wikipedia entry. As a suggestion I would say the other links of dubious quality should also be removed, in the above example the link I removed was removed because it read like a blog and Wikipedia entries are not suppose to link to blogs Cut-Paste 17:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)Cut-Paste

Beyond the validity of the linked document itself, it doesn't make self to have a proposal for a light rail system for the city of Dublin in the resources to the general Wikipedia article on light rail. Links should be about light rail as a concept, not to documents focused on specific systems, real, planned, or proposed. Otherwise the references section would become a godawful mess. --Jfruh (talk) 18:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Light rail in South America

To keep things consistent with the other sections in Light Rail around the World i think there should be a new page Light Rail in South America and only a introduction to that section included on this page. Also i think the section Argentina should be moved to Transportation in Argentina and links placed to that section similar to what has been done to Trams in Europe. This is to try and keep duplication to a minimum. L blue l 05:36, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

An example of this duplication can be found at Tram#Regional variations. L blue l 06:02, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi everyone, yes, what i would sugest is "Trams of Argentina" or "Trams of South America", very possible but it would take plenty of time to gather information and definatelly it should be totally separate from Transportation in Argentina since we're dealing with a very particular nitch, so don't kick me out yet.

I also have a question, wouldn't it be logical to fuse together Light rail and Trams together, it seams one is a British version and the other American, regards, JU.

By the way, I'm new in wikipedia so please bare with me as i learn Wikipedias Protocol ! 5 February 2007

Welcome to the Wiki, i just have one comment could you please sign your post with four tildes (~), like this: ~~~~.

Sadly there is to much variation between the definition of Light Rail and Trams for them to be merged but i believe some sections can be merged together to form new pages. A couple of example are, History and Development of Trams and Light Rail and Trams and Light Rail around the World. Also it may be possibly the merge of Pros and Cons of light rail and Tram System. I cant for see there being a problem with the first two examples but the third one there may be a problem so a discussion may be necessary for that merge. For now i will place a tags for these sections to be merged to see the response of other members.

Its great to hear you agree there should be a new section "Trams of Argentina" and i am not going to "kick you out" but i would appreciate the section being moved. L blue l 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

After reading both section Light Rail and Trams i have changed my views and believe it could be possible to merge the two but i doubt many people would agree with this and to archive this it could be done in stages with just some section being merged until it gets to a stage where it could be one single article. For specific information refering to Europe of America they can be placed in there respective sections Light Rail in America and Trams in Europe. L blue l 04:08, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, will merge Argentina data and create "Trams of Argentina", there's plenty of info for a nice separate short article, will have preliminary layout by next week. -- Ciudad jardin 20:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Light rail in different Regions

After attempting to add "Regional variations" above Light rail in Germany and Light rail in North America someone believed it was vandalism and reverted. I only changed it as i was about to add "Light rail in Australia" (which had now been added) and believed it would be better if there was a header for these Regional topics. I agree "Regional variations" was a bad choice of name but i still stand with my view there should be some sort of heading. Would "Light rail in different Regions" be more suitable? L blue l 02:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not here to do vandalism if you would so kindly look to see my history you would relies this. L blue l 03:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

It was apparently a misunderstanding of your intent, which is not an uncommon occurance around here. The section and its link looks fine. Now, if someone would be good enough to add a "Light rail in Britain" article, we would have enough to justify putting them all under a "Light rail in different regions" section. RockyMtnGuy 17:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, “Mea Culpa”, I reverted Light rail in Germany, was trying to organize. It's amazing the interest on this topic, lets all work together, I personally really enjoy the freedom of transporting myself “sans” one ton of metal and 100+ horses. -- Ciudad jardin 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC).

Consistency in image sizing

Hey guys, I've mest up trying to keep consistency in image sizing, Tram article has inconsistent px sizing (galleries are fine) and mostly thumb and while trying to standardize I've mest up and don't know how to revert, sorry, I'm new at this I believe Both articles should have same sizing images, 300px on Light rail seems also too big, like to know thoughts about this! -- Ciudad jardin 07:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I agree that the size of the images are to large. This was also mentioned in the Good Article nomination which can now be found at the start of the page. L blue l 10:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thumbnails are useless for me as I surf wikipedia, I'm not going to be enlarging every thumbnail to see what it's about, images should be a nice comfortable size like maybe 250 pixels accross maximum, (200 px vertical) so as i read article I may look at images without enlarging them. Galleries are fine for further image research!

I have unified consistency of images on “Regional variations” in Tram page, check it out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ciudad jardin (talk • contribs) 14:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

Image selection

I believe there is too many images of Trams and light metro style systems. These should be replace with more modern Light Rail Vehicle images. What are your thoughts?? L blue l 08:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, there are Trams on Light Rail page witch should be transferred to Trams page.

Images should include contemporary and also vintage trams if they are running presently. Moebiusuibeom 07:07, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Do we really need to Split Tram to Tram system

Please! this is really getting confusing

Do we need another Tram Page?

Do we really need to Split Tram?

Do we really need Two (2) Tram Articles!

Please read discussion about the merge on the light rail talk: “Merges with Light Rail / Fusion of Light Rail and Tram”

Talk:Light rail#Merges with Trams L blue l 02:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I think we may need professional help – Moebiusuibeom 16:08, 26 February 2007 (UTC) (ex Ciudad jardín / user info coming soon)

Please discuss this on Talk:Tram system. --NE2 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

National Differences in English

One of the sources of confusion on this topic is that everyone is using the same terms to mean different things. I would like to point out that the English speaking world consists of a number of different countries, separated by a common language.

Tram is a Britishism. It originally was a Scottish term for a coal mine cart, that was adapted to mean an electric street railway car. This definition never made it to North America (except for Canadian French). In Canadian English it still means a mine cart. However, in the U.S. it usually means an aerial cable car.
Trolley is an Americanism which meant the same thing as the Brits meant when they said Tram. This definition never even made it into Canada, where a trolley is a cart pushed by hand.
Streetcar is the generic North American term for an electric street railway car. This definition will work in both the U.S. and Canada. I don't know how it plays in Britain.
Light Rail was invented by the Americans in 1972 to describe a rapid rail transit system that cost less than the Bay Area Rapid Transit System. It was based on German Stadtbahn technology, and most of the North American systems use German designs. Interestingly, two of the first three implementations were in Canada rather than the U.S.
Light Railway is the equivalent British term to the American Light Rail concept, as in the Docklands Light Railway.

Just to provide an example of what we are dealing with, the city of Porland Oregon operates 1) a light rail system, 2) a streetcar system, and 3) an aerial tram system. The technology is completely different. The Portland MAX is a high-tech mini-metro system, the Portland Streetcar is a classic streetcar 10 inches narrower and 1/3 the lenght of the light rail trains, and the Portland Aerial Tram is an aerial cable car. RockyMtnGuy 04:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

So in a global perspective, what should we call the modern or traditional vehicles witch travel by rail trough city streets – Moebiusuibeom 21:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

In the North American context traditional electric street railway cars are variously called "heritage trolleys" or "vintage streetcars". Modern electric street railway cars are called "trolleys (U.S. only) or "streetcars" (U.S. and Canada) RockyMtnGuy 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

IMHO the difference is the level of separation from individual road traffic: Light rail tracks, while often in the middle of the road, are usually seperated from other traffic - not completely, but whereever reasonable. Light rail tracks may cross an intersection, but the majority of the line should be separated. Otherwise it's a tram. Of course, with all the "mays" and "shoulds" there is a significant gray area in between. --Qualle (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The term "tram" is not used by North America transit systems, except for aerial cable cars, which is a problem for this article since it seems to have been Britishized while I was away. Streetcars meet the technical definition of light rail vehicles, but are generally not recognized as such in North America. The key differences are that LRVs are bigger, faster, and often operate in multi-unit trains whereas streetcars are smaller, slower and only operate as single units. A number of North American cities operate both streetcar and LRT systems, but operate them as separate systems with incompatible vehicles. Some American cities attempt to operate LRVs as streetcars, but this leads to a lot of accidents because American drivers are not used to rail vehicles operating in the street. RockyMtnGuy 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

ULRT

Could we add a section about ultralight rail (The tiny cabin thingies)? It is relevant and more or less important. Alx xlA 01:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)