Well lower capacity is why it is called light rail. Frequency however has nothing to do with anything.I know. I would consider WMATA a heavy-rail system. It seemed to me that ALC was making the all-too-common mistake of confusing heavy rail with commuter/regional/inter-city/long-distance rail. Too many people make it. I actually sat through a presentation by someone who was extoling the wonderful virtues of light-rail over heavy-rail. You know, things like greater frequency and much higher capacity.
WMATA Red Line Collision
- Thread starter jackal
- Start date
Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:
Spokker
Lead Service Attendant
- Joined
- Aug 3, 2008
- Messages
- 294
Light rail can be hard to classify. It's sort of one of those things where you know it when you see it.
In my neck of the woods there is a light rail line that is fully grade separated and a light rail line with sections that are street running, subway running and on an aerial. Versatility seems to be its strongest virtue.
In my neck of the woods there is a light rail line that is fully grade separated and a light rail line with sections that are street running, subway running and on an aerial. Versatility seems to be its strongest virtue.
George Harris
Engineer
At one point in time, the "heavy rail" - "light rail" meant exactly that. The high volume subway systems like NYC used a heavier rail section, in their case, the 100 lb/yd 100ARA-B section, and light rail systems, such as street cars amd interurbams used much lighter weight rail, frequently 75 lb/yd or less, all the way down to 56 lb/yd. The exception being in streets, the rail section sometimes/freqently had a built in flangeway. This sort of stuff is called "girder rail" in this country and "grooved rail" in Europe. One of the most common of these weighted 128 lb/yd.
Last edited by a moderator:
