Talk:List of tram and light-rail transit systems

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] What about

What about the Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and MetroNorth? --Ed Poor

LIRR and MetroNorth (near New York City do not qualify as light rail. They are commuter railroads and are therefore heavy rail. 129.177.61.124 08:48, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Malaysia?

What about Malaysia, we have PUTRA LRT, STAR LRT, and Monorail?

If you know of a true Light-Rail system that should be listed but isn't, you know what to do: be bold! Make the change!
Atlant 11:16, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
If I am not wrong, they were removed because they are only "LRT"s by name. Putra and Star actually has capacities and rail guages comparable to full metro systems. The monorail might barely qualify, but again, its capacity is just unusually enormous.--Huaiwei 12:09, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
That is my belief too. Both PUTRA and STAR are already listed in the List of metro systems, so unless that is incorrect, they should not be listed here as well. Monorails are a different mode altogether and the KL Monorail is listed in the list in the Monorail article. (The KL Monorail is also listed under List of metro systems, which I think is an error). -- Chris j wood 14:32, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Not everything here is light rail

Removed Washington, DC from the list. METRO is a heavy rail, fully grade seperated metro. MARC is commuter heavy rail.

A lot of the stuff listed here is streetcar systems. Those should be broken off into their own list. --SPUI (talk) 18:32, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

How would you differentiate them? David Arthur 14:40, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
Probably by the vehicles. If it's not split, this should be renamed, though no one's succeeded in finding a term that describes both light rail and streetcar. --SPUI (talk) 15:09, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
How do you differentiate a light-rail vehicle from a streetcar, then? In many cases they refer to the same thing - the current model of streetcar used in Toronto is the 'Canadian Light Rail Vehicle', and for a more modern example, the Flexity Swift is used as 'light rail' in Minneapolis and as a tram (ie. streetcar) in London. Or do you consider 'light rail' to apply only to the more metro-style vehicles in places like Edmonton? David Arthur 20:50, May 14, 2005 (UTC)
It appears "tram" encompasses both light rail and streetcar (or a lot of the terminology used on the British articles is wrong). --SPUI (talk) 21:19, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
'Tram' certainly covers many of the systems which seem to be within your definition of 'light rail' - in Toronto at least, the same is true of the word 'streetcar', though U.S. planners don't seem to like using it for serious modern systems. There just isn't one overriding definition of 'light rail' that you can depend upon. David Arthur 22:53, May 14, 2005 (UTC)

---

Current usage (and this is from my personal experience in the industry) is that streetcars tend to operate in mixed traffic (in the same place as cars and responding to stop lights, etc.), and serve a circulatory role within a particular neighborhood/area. Light Rail tends to operate primarily in an exclusive lane, and are more oriented to distance travel. This "distance travel" v "circulator" function will be expressed, in part, by the distance between the stations. Light rail will often operate with stations an average of 1 mile apart. Streetcars will stop every couple of city blocks. Consequently, light rail systems have higher operating speeds. Another telling characteristic is that streetcars are almost never operated as trains (multiple cars with a single driver), preferring to increase capacity through an increase in frequency rather than increasing capacity by linking vehicles. I have a document right here in my hand entitled "Spokane Streetcar Feasibility Study" which has a list of characteristics which differentiates streetcars from light rail (plus explanation which I have omitted) written by an engineering company which has designed both:
  1. Streetcars are pedestrian and auto compatible;
  2. Streetcars fit well within urban environments;
  3. Streetcars generally operate as single cars and are not considered as high capacity transit;
  4. Streetcars are generally focused on serving distinations within a neighborhood versus just moving through it rapidly;
  5. Streetcar capital costs are higher than bus infrastructure but less than light rail.
Well, I guess I should have written that first.  :) Brian Sayrs 00:59, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

That definition does seem to reflect how the terms are used now and in the United States, but they don’t have any particular bearing on usage elsewhere in the world, or usage in North America prior to the disappearance of streetcars from many cities. To return to Toronto as an example, streetcars ran on reserved rights-of-way in the 1920s, and as multiple-unit trains until the 1960s, but no-one ever thought that either caused them to stop being streetcars. More recently, when those in charge tried to marked the new reserved-lane Spadina line as ‘light rail’, that only caused confusion; to most people’s eyes, it remained quite clearly a streetcar. As for serving ‘a particular neighbourhood’ in a ‘circulatory role’, the 501 Queen route runs nearly 25 km, almost as far as the Bloor-Danforth subway. David Arthur 15:00, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, and that's why I said "Currently."  :) The term that people use to describe a system is a marketing consideration, not an engineering one. This is why I couch my comments with "tend" and "more oriented" because it's entirely up to the community in question. For instance, in Spokane, the term "trolley" was the term used by the engineer until the Downtown Spokane Partnership objected, saying that they didn't want a trolley, they wanted a streetcar. These are not engineering distinctions, so the engineers just stopped calling it that. With Toronto, there's a continuity of terms which is understandable. Perhaps the approach we're looking for is to talk about fixed guideway systems (which is an engineering term, and easily defined), and then talk about different types and styles, the names of which are community-specific. Brian Sayrs 15:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
And what to do with the Metrotram system in Volgograd for example, where tram (streetcar) is used underground with stations constructed with all metro standards?--Nixer 15:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
That's a light-rail system, as it's separated from traffic through a central tunnel; Volgograd is a fairly unusual system, comparable in some ways to the light metros of places like Düsseldorf (on-street tram system in the outer suburbs, turning into underground railway in the center).
The problem here is there's a certain amount of overlap between the terms a) light rail and b) tram/streetcar/trolley/tramway. Single-unit running isn't a defining characteristic of trams; most European and Japanese tram systems run multiple units if required. The main criterion is segregation of the track; while light rail can, and usually does, run on streets for part of its route, it tends to be segregated from other traffic elsewhere for faster running. A tram/trolley/streetcar, on the other hand, runs (almost) entirely on public roadways.
In this sense, light rail was (in many cases) devised to produce a system with capacity approaching that of a subway system but at a lower cost. By using on-street running in central areas it runs more slowly but avoids the expense of tunneling (and has the benefits of being more visible and accessible); outside such areas segregated rail lines are preferred, but the system is flexible enough so that tunnels, bridges, or further on-street running can be used as required. Power usually comes from overhead lines (however, there are a couple of diesel light-rail systems), whereas heavy rail (subways, etc) can be powered by a third rail instead (although many also use overhead lines).  ProhibitOnions  (T) 22:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of historic systems

I just created a Wellington tramway system article, describing the tram network that existed in Wellington, New Zealand, up until the 1950s. However, this page doesn't seem to include former light rail systems, and I can't seem to find any page that does. Is there anywhere for such things to be listed? If there isn't, is it worth creating one? (I suspect it would be rather long). -- Vardion 05:38, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

See List of town tramway systems.

[edit] Updates

Little Rock, Arkansas' system was duplicated under both heritage streetcar and Light Rail, the Light Rail reference was removed. The Charlotte, North Carolina system was moved from proposed to existing due to its pending opening, and the Atlanta, Georgia heritage streetcar system was marked proposed. --Kardous 23:19, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You know what would make me happy?

A list of light rail systems in the US ranked by ridership. With a title of something like:

Busiest Light Rail systems in the United States

--Loodog 04:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Consensus method" - and deletions

Assuming that this list is what it says - a "List of light-rail transit systems" - might we use the "consensus method" to determine what belongs on this list - and what does not ?

A handy "rule of thumb" with reference to certain systems is to ask whether the line, as built, is compatible with "in-street" operation. If it isn't, then it isn't "light rail." Re. Manila, the Yellow Line of the Light Rail Transit System (LRT-1) and Metro Rail (MRT-3) are in principle compatible with in-street operation - but the Purple Line of the LRT system (LRT-3) is not.

1.) Street tramways, even modern street tramways, are not necessarily "light rail" and should not automatically be "categorized" as such (although the U.S. Federal Transit Administration, among others, does this).

2.) "Heriage tramways" should be spun off into a separate article. They are not "light rail" (although some "heritage" operations are associated with light rail, as in San Jose).

3.) The various automated guideway transit (AGT) and monorail lines should not get listed here (except perhaps with redirect links). They are not "light rail" - although the label is sometimes applied.

4.) Deletions I suggest, and why:

Asia Mainland China

--Anshan: This was a conventional street tramway (operation now suspended), although one with significant amount of reserved track.

India

--Kolkata: This is a conventional street tramway.

Japan

--All EXCEPT Hiroshima, Kitakyushu, Toyama Light Rail, and possibly Fujisawa - Enoshima Electric Railway.

The lines listed here are conventional street tramways, with few "light rail" characteristics ("reserved track" in itself - even 100 percent reserved track - does not determine whether an operation is "light rail").

Fukui Railway is not an "interurban streetcar" line. It is instead an electric light railway that enters central Fukui on a (relatively short) length of street track. This segment is "licensed" as a "tramway," while the remainder of the line is licensed as a "railway." Very much a borderline case. However, I can think of several other Japanese local railways that - except for the street track - are very similar. I would not want to label these as "light rail."

The Hiroshima suburban line (to Miyajima) is a borderline case. I would say this system has evolved into something reasonably described as "light rail."

The Enoshima Electric Railway is another borderline case - but it has more "railway" characteristics than Hiroshima does.

The Otsu lines were put there, I suspect, to drive people who think in rigid categories to distraction.

For several years, the Keishin Line has been worked by trains of KYOTO METRO cars (!). OK, they're "small-profile" metro cars, and the maximum train length is four cars - but metro cars they are. This line includes a relatively short segment of street track in Otsu - where you can see "subway" cars operating "down the street." Is this "light rail" ?

The "other" Otsu line, the "Ishiyama-Sakamoto Line," is not an "urban" tramway, but is licensed as a "tramway." It has a character similar to a number of electric local railways in Japan.

Malaysia

--Kuala Lumpur - Kelana Jaya Line and Ampang Line: Although called "light rail," these are better described as "light metros." They are not compatible with in-street operation (third-rail current collection, driverless operation).

North Korea

--Cheongjin and Pyongyang: These are conventional street tramways.

Africa Egypt

--Cairo trams and Alexandria trams: These are conventional street tramways.

Nigeria

--Calabar: Monorails are not "light rail," and are not compatible with "in-street" operation.


5.) Deletions I have made, and why:

Asia Mainland China

--Chongqing: This is a monorail, despite the "light rail" label used by (some) news sources.

--Tianjin, Wuhan: These are elevated metro lines (despite the "light rail" label used by (some) news sources)

India

--New Delhi - Delhi Metro: This is a full-scale metro system (which by no stretch of imagination is "light rail.")

Singapore

Singapore - Bukit Panjang LRT Line, Sengkang LRT Line and Punggol LRT Line: These are "Automated Guideway Transport" (AGT) systems (and by no stretch of imagination are compatible with "in-street" operation).

Europe Abkhazia

--New Athos: The New Athos Cave Railway is not "light rail" despite the small size of the vehicles, and is not compatible with in-street operation (some form of ground-level current collection).

Ldemery 19:06, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Europe

I suggest we distinguish between 1.) light rail, 2.) conventional street-based tramways, and 3.) electric light railways. This won't be "straightforward." Reserved track ("private right of way") and tunnels, by themselves, do not make a tramway system into "light rail." There are other important characteristics, in particular, operation of multiple-car trains by a single driver. However, this particular characteristic is also not sufficient - by itself - to make a tramway system into "light rail." In other words, it's a judgement call. I think we could proceed quite quickly if we accept this.

As stated before, I suggest that we not follow the practice of the U.S. Federal Transit Administration (among others) and label "all" operating tramways as "light rail."

One question that will need to be thrashed out: is the presense of city-center tram subways alone sufficient to make a tramway system into "light rail" ? (Well . . . maybe . . .)

Please note that "conventional street-based tramway" does not mean "run-down," "life-expired" or "old-fashioned."

Absent some compelling reason(s), I suggest that we resist the temptation to label "electric light railways" as "light rail." There are perhaps 50 (or more) lines in Japan that would then (arguably) be candidates for this list.

--Austria: By no stretch of imagination is the Gmunden tramway "light rail." Even the Graz and Innsbruck systems are "borderline" cases. On the other hand, Wien (and, as I recall, Linz) each have at least one line that has many, if not all, of the characteristics brought to mind by the term "light rail."

The other systems listed are "electric light railways."

--Belarus: Mazyr and Novopolotsk are described as "express tramways" and are therefore "borderline" cases. The others are conventional street-based tramways.

--Belgium: Here begins the fun (so to speak).

Ghent has a conventional street-based tramway. This is also true of Antwerp - except for those tunnels. Brussels is closer to the "borderline" - and its tramway tunnel system is significantly longer.

Charleroi is clearly "light rail" - but the Coastal Tram is a borderline case.

--Bosnia-Herzegovina: Sarajevo has a conventional street-based tramway.

--Bulgaria: Sofia, same as above.

--Croatia: Osijek and Zagreb, same as above.

--Czech Republic: Of the systems here, only Prague has one or two lines that have many, but not "all," of the characteristics implied by the term "light rail.

--Estonia: Tallinn has a conventional street-based tramway.

--Finland: Helsinki has a conventional street-based tramway - although a very modern and highly-efficient one.

--France: The fun (so to speak) continues.

First, I have deleted Caen, CLermont-Ferrand and Nancy because by no stretch of imagination are these systems "light rail." ("Trams on tyres" maybe, but certainly not "light rail".)

Second: The new French tramways are not "light rail" because they lack certain "light rail" characteristics. For example: in 2003, all systems in operation had no provision for operation of anything but single cars (vehicles might have had couplers, but that's beside the point). If it's desired to list these among "light rail" systems, I'd suggest doing so in a separate section,

--Germany: More fun, At least the German term "Stadtbahn" gives a reasonable clue as to what might reasonably be labeled "light rail."

I would delete Baden-Baden, Heilbronn and Pforzheim because these do not have systems "separate" from Karlsruhe. (Heilbronn might go in as a footnote because it has a new section of street track used by the trains from Karlsruhe.)

Herne does not belong on this list for similar reasons.

Krefeld has a conventional street-based tramway.

Siegburg does not have a system "separate" from Bonn-Koln.

Kassell (. . . which I haven't visited in a long time . . .) is a borderline case.

Some of those "tram" cities have systems with "some" light-rail characteristics. Examples that pop out include Gelsenkirchen. Other than these, I'd suggest deleting everything under the "tram" heading.

--Hungary: With the qualified - and possible - exception of Budapest, all cities listed have conventional street-based tramways. The Budapest tram network (BKV) does not have "stand-out" LRT characteristics. The HEV suburban lines "might" be considered as "light rail" - but I don't think that's reasonable. No one would think to call them "light rail" if they were operated as part of the national rail network.

--Ireland: Dublin - Luas is another "judgement call." Photos suggest the lines are more "modern conventional tramway" than "light rail."

--Isle of Man: By no stretch of imagination doees the Douglas Horse Tram belong on this list. The other two do not really belong, either.

Italy: None of the systems listed are "unambigiuously" light rail. Genova has a "light metro." The Milano tramway system has one or two lines with many "light rail" characteristics, so this is a "borderline" case. The ther systems are either conventional street-based tramways (the one in Messina is nice and new), or electric light railways.

--Latvia: The three systems are conventional street-based tramways.

--Netherlands: Here, for once, there are no issues (!). All the systems listed are either unambiguously "light rail," or have some lines that are.

--Norway: Oslo "tramway" is not really "light rail." The western lines that could once be described as "light rail" have been rebuilt and incorporated into the metro (T-Bane) system. Trondheim is a borderline case that is a modern tramway, but not really "light rail."

--Poland: With the exception of the "Poznański Szybki Tramwaj," there's little here that is unambiguously "light rail." Most of the systems are (to very large extent) conventional street-based tramways.

--Portugal: Metro do Porto and Metro Sul do Tejo, yes. Lisboa, no,

--Romania: Same generally as Poland, except possibly for new extension(s) in Bucharest. Most of the systems in this country are, to very large extent, conventional street-based tramways.

--Russia: I would delete everything that was not (or did not have) an "express tramway" or "metrotram" line.

--Spain: Alicante, Sevilla and Valencia, yes.

Ldemery 20:04, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I would just like to comment on a few systems mentioned, in Paris both the T2 and the T4 run mainly on completely separate railway lines, making them similar to Stadtbahn. I think the Green Line of the Luas in Dublin would also fall into this category, not only is it mostly on separate railway tracks, it is also elevated above street level for a good part of its journey. Kitchenerite 15:50, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flags

The flags on this article seem to breach the guidance given at WP:MOSFLAG. They are un-needed here, I believe. -- Jza84 · (talk) 02:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they are useful. It is easier to find a particular country in the list if the flags are present. This use is also described at WP:MOSFLAG as appropriate: They can aid navigation in long lists or tables of countries as many readers can more quickly scan a series of flag icons due to the visual differences between flags. -- Kildor (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)