light rail definition

[Kathi Kube]

Mudchicken, I think you're my new best buddy.

I'd never heard of bananas, but they sure are, aren't they? Yikes! There was a lot of chatter in the Milwaukee area a few years ago considering LRT. The anti-LRT hoard came out in force and the idea was dropped. In truth, we don't have bad enough traffic problems to warrant an additional tax—yet. But that's more an issue of city planners doing such a poor job in Milwaukee that too many companies left downtown for the suburbs—or left the state altogether. We'll have to see what the future holds around here.

I just realized you're in the Denver-La Junta area. There's been talk around there about relocating a freight line and putting commuter rail in that corridor. Do you know anything more about that?

As for the company leasing out RDCs, I'd not heard about that either. But it does sound very interesting. Could you email me off-line and provide some more details? ([e-mail]) I'd appreciate it!

Take care!
Kathi

[mudchicken]

Kathy:

I share your enthusiasm for rail transit, BUT I get annoyed with the folks that think it has to be electric or nothing. There would be more rail transit out there if the money wasted on electric transit and environmental impact statements found its way into more tangible assets like track and R/W. We are cursed by the "dynamic" transportation planning process - Let's go back to old static planning and start building (NIMBY's and BANANA's be damned!).

The DMU is a bridge to a more logical LRT or Commuter Rail solution. Get the ridership and then throw the money at the high dollar catenary solution. Nobody seems to remember the "transportation" side of the equation. (John Kneiling would have had a field day with the subject! The nitwit "transportation Engineers" need a good dressing down in the Professional Iconoclast style.) As a side note, there is a firm out there that does nothing but lease out its small fleet of old Budd RDC's (10-12, I think) to start-up operations. Trains should look into a story there sometime (there has to be some tall tales in that operation!)

Mudchicken


NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard
BANANA= Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything (really beware of the "green" ones! - totally uninformed, unreasonable, illogical nutcase ones)
RDC= Rail Diesel Car
DMU=Diesel Multiple Unit
LRT= Light Rail Transportation

[mudchicken]

Kathy:

I share your enthusiasm for rail transit, BUT I get annoyed with the folks that think it has to be electric or nothing. There would be more rail transit out there if the money wasted on electric transit and environmental impact statements found its way into more tangible assets like track and R/W. We are cursed by the "dynamic" transportation planning process - Let's go back to old static planning and start building (NIMBY's and BANANA's be damned!).

The DMU is a bridge to a more logical LRT or Commuter Rail solution. Get the ridership and then throw the money at the high dollar catenary solution. Nobody seems to remember the "transportation" side of the equation. (John Kneiling would have had a field day with the subject! The nitwit "transportation Engineers" need a good dressing down in the Professional Iconoclast style.) As a side note, there is a firm out there that does nothing but lease out its small fleet of old Budd RDC's (10-12, I think) to start-up operations. Trains should look into a story there sometime (there has to be some tall tales in that operation!)

Mudchicken


NIMBY = Not In My Back Yard
BANANA= Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anything (really beware of the "green" ones! - totally uninformed, unreasonable, illogical nutcase ones)
RDC= Rail Diesel Car
DMU=Diesel Multiple Unit
LRT= Light Rail Transportation

[Kathi Kube]

I'd be very surprised, indeed, if any current transit agency added DMUs to their existing fleet. Think of how much more that would cost it in terms of training and supplies just for regular scheduled maintenance. And I'm pretty sure Houston Metro, the next transit agency to begin entirely new rail service, had ordered its rolling stock before Colorado Railcar came out with its prototype vehicle.

Personally, I'm waiting to see what Triangle Transit Authority in North Carolina does when it's ready to purchase cars. And there are two communities in Oregon that plan to connect into Tri-Met. They should be ready to buy its rolling stock in the next six months to a year or so.

Other authorities are curious to see what happens, but I don't think anyone wants to be the first to write up a full contract until the DMUs have logged serious track time.

Kathi

[Kathi Kube]

I'd be very surprised, indeed, if any current transit agency added DMUs to their existing fleet. Think of how much more that would cost it in terms of training and supplies just for regular scheduled maintenance. And I'm pretty sure Houston Metro, the next transit agency to begin entirely new rail service, had ordered its rolling stock before Colorado Railcar came out with its prototype vehicle.

Personally, I'm waiting to see what Triangle Transit Authority in North Carolina does when it's ready to purchase cars. And there are two communities in Oregon that plan to connect into Tri-Met. They should be ready to buy its rolling stock in the next six months to a year or so.

Other authorities are curious to see what happens, but I don't think anyone wants to be the first to write up a full contract until the DMUs have logged serious track time.

Kathi

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The lack of DMU sales by Colorado Railcar may not be too surprising. Budd made a similar attempt to follow up on the RDC with the SPV but sales were disappointing (only two US customers). The trend seems to be toward locomotive-hauled trains even under wires since NJ Transit and MARC appear to be buying electric locomotives instead of MU cars, although this may be to maintain flexibility in the coach fleet since both operators also have diesel-powered routes.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The lack of DMU sales by Colorado Railcar may not be too surprising. Budd made a similar attempt to follow up on the RDC with the SPV but sales were disappointing (only two US customers). The trend seems to be toward locomotive-hauled trains even under wires since NJ Transit and MARC appear to be buying electric locomotives instead of MU cars, although this may be to maintain flexibility in the coach fleet since both operators also have diesel-powered routes.

[Kathi Kube]

Hi, all.

According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), which is the lobbying body for public transit, light rail is defined as light-weight passenger rail cars traveling singly or in short two-car trains on a fixed right of way, usually not separated from on-street traffic for much of the way. Trains usually are electrically powered. (see note below)

Heavy rail—which includes metros, subways, rapid rail—usually has multiple-car trains on fixed, exclusive rights of way, is characterized by high speed and rapid acceleration, and often employs sophisticated signaling systems. (Meaning the operator is often there just to open and close doors.) If the system were modified and the operator no longer present, it would be considered an automated guideway.

Commuter rail operates between city centers and surrounding communities, most often on tracks that are part of the nation's railroad network. Commuter trains can be either electric or diesel, but typically have a locomotive on one end and a cab-car on the other. (This car is primarily configured like a passenger coach, but has controls inside so an engineer can operate it from either cab in push-pull operations.)

Because commuter rail operates on the general rail network, it falls under rules dictated by the Federal Railroad Administration. Rail transit, including light- and heavy-rail systems, is not governed by FRA regulations, although both receive funds administered through Federal Transit Administration. Also, engineers run commuter trains; operators move heavy- and light-rail trains.

However, these are pretty purist definitions. These days it is not uncommon to see light rail vehicles (LRVs) running exclusively on a separated right-of-way, as well as in a commuter rail service. And even though they're called heavy rail, these trains are significantly lighter weight than freight or commuter trains. Essentially, commuter trains need to conform to Passenger Rail Equipment Safety Standards (PRESS), which dictates buff strength, crumple zones, etc. Rail transit vehicles do not, which is primarily why they're lighter and why they must be kept separate from the general rail network. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean they have to be physically kept separate. Often, the separation is governed by time with passenger trains running during the day and freights at night.

Finally, as to the question of whether LRVs can be diesel. Yes, and more than theoretically. True, Colorado Railcar's DMU blurs the line between LRV and diesel. There's no denying that. It takes the best light rail transit and commuter rail have to offer and combines them. As a result, it's FRA compliant and can pull several cars like a commuter train, but is significantly cheaper to operate than a locomotive-pulled train. (At least, according to their promotional materials. We've yet to see an agency put that claim to the test in revenue service.)

Further, Colorado Railcar isn't the first to put diesel propulsion in a vehicle that otherwise is more typical of light rail. Most LRVs are electrical multiple units (EMUs), such as Dallas Area Rapid Transit, etc. But does anyone remember the old Budd cars? They were RDCs, or rail diesel cars. DART still has some in its possession. And, although they went the way of street cars (also LRVs) around here, transit agencies overseas have been using DMUs for years. Often, the same companies that manufacture LRVs for use on US systems (such as Bombardier Transportation and Alstom Transport) have been building DMUs overseas for years. Until Colorado Railcar developed its design, there was no need to build them here because there was no demand. This probably was pretty wise, too, since Colorado Railcar has yet to actually have any of its vehicles put in revenue service. It's a major gamble to invest in and develop new railcar designs hoping people will buy them. But if agencies start buying the DMUs for their new services, maybe Colorado Railcar will get the last laugh.

Sorry 'bout the ultra-long post; I just really love transit. (I know. I'm kinda weird. But I like freight stuff, too, so it's OK.)

Have a nifty evening.
Kathi

[Kathi Kube]

Hi, all.

According to the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), which is the lobbying body for public transit, light rail is defined as light-weight passenger rail cars traveling singly or in short two-car trains on a fixed right of way, usually not separated from on-street traffic for much of the way. Trains usually are electrically powered. (see note below)

Heavy rail—which includes metros, subways, rapid rail—usually has multiple-car trains on fixed, exclusive rights of way, is characterized by high speed and rapid acceleration, and often employs sophisticated signaling systems. (Meaning the operator is often there just to open and close doors.) If the system were modified and the operator no longer present, it would be considered an automated guideway.

Commuter rail operates between city centers and surrounding communities, most often on tracks that are part of the nation's railroad network. Commuter trains can be either electric or diesel, but typically have a locomotive on one end and a cab-car on the other. (This car is primarily configured like a passenger coach, but has controls inside so an engineer can operate it from either cab in push-pull operations.)

Because commuter rail operates on the general rail network, it falls under rules dictated by the Federal Railroad Administration. Rail transit, including light- and heavy-rail systems, is not governed by FRA regulations, although both receive funds administered through Federal Transit Administration. Also, engineers run commuter trains; operators move heavy- and light-rail trains.

However, these are pretty purist definitions. These days it is not uncommon to see light rail vehicles (LRVs) running exclusively on a separated right-of-way, as well as in a commuter rail service. And even though they're called heavy rail, these trains are significantly lighter weight than freight or commuter trains. Essentially, commuter trains need to conform to Passenger Rail Equipment Safety Standards (PRESS), which dictates buff strength, crumple zones, etc. Rail transit vehicles do not, which is primarily why they're lighter and why they must be kept separate from the general rail network. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean they have to be physically kept separate. Often, the separation is governed by time with passenger trains running during the day and freights at night.

Finally, as to the question of whether LRVs can be diesel. Yes, and more than theoretically. True, Colorado Railcar's DMU blurs the line between LRV and diesel. There's no denying that. It takes the best light rail transit and commuter rail have to offer and combines them. As a result, it's FRA compliant and can pull several cars like a commuter train, but is significantly cheaper to operate than a locomotive-pulled train. (At least, according to their promotional materials. We've yet to see an agency put that claim to the test in revenue service.)

Further, Colorado Railcar isn't the first to put diesel propulsion in a vehicle that otherwise is more typical of light rail. Most LRVs are electrical multiple units (EMUs), such as Dallas Area Rapid Transit, etc. But does anyone remember the old Budd cars? They were RDCs, or rail diesel cars. DART still has some in its possession. And, although they went the way of street cars (also LRVs) around here, transit agencies overseas have been using DMUs for years. Often, the same companies that manufacture LRVs for use on US systems (such as Bombardier Transportation and Alstom Transport) have been building DMUs overseas for years. Until Colorado Railcar developed its design, there was no need to build them here because there was no demand. This probably was pretty wise, too, since Colorado Railcar has yet to actually have any of its vehicles put in revenue service. It's a major gamble to invest in and develop new railcar designs hoping people will buy them. But if agencies start buying the DMUs for their new services, maybe Colorado Railcar will get the last laugh.

Sorry 'bout the ultra-long post; I just really love transit. (I know. I'm kinda weird. But I like freight stuff, too, so it's OK.)

Have a nifty evening.
Kathi

[Mookie]

Don - Lincoln isn't there yet. Omaha may be getting close, but I ride the bus in Lincoln a lot. Sometimes, I am the only one on the bus going home - about 5 miles. Nice limo, but kind of ridiculous. People here don't support the busses and I can see why. They don't run on time - you can't ride to town and make a connection to get to another place away from town, you wait an hour for a connection, and you can't just run out, jump into a bus and make stops on the way home to shop.

We are convenience oriented and want things in a hurry. Until someone takes many hours to get from point A to point B in Lincoln, this just isn't going to work. We are only about 250k right now. Not nearly big enough.

I have the feeling you would have to do a commuter rail from our old depot, which is the west part of town and most of town is east, north and south and then go to around old Union Depot in Omaha and wonder how you are going to get from there to where the actual businesses are - west and south of Omaha.

We aren't very good at getting our act together past the point of "well, we have a commuter rail." Of course, no one rides it, cuz they don't work at the depot or wherever they would get off the train. From past experience with governments, they won't be convenient and they will be expensive to build and ride! Still too much wide open space here in the area. And if they can't make the local bus system work, I don't hold out much hope for any transit.

Jen

[Mookie]

Don - Lincoln isn't there yet. Omaha may be getting close, but I ride the bus in Lincoln a lot. Sometimes, I am the only one on the bus going home - about 5 miles. Nice limo, but kind of ridiculous. People here don't support the busses and I can see why. They don't run on time - you can't ride to town and make a connection to get to another place away from town, you wait an hour for a connection, and you can't just run out, jump into a bus and make stops on the way home to shop.

We are convenience oriented and want things in a hurry. Until someone takes many hours to get from point A to point B in Lincoln, this just isn't going to work. We are only about 250k right now. Not nearly big enough.

I have the feeling you would have to do a commuter rail from our old depot, which is the west part of town and most of town is east, north and south and then go to around old Union Depot in Omaha and wonder how you are going to get from there to where the actual businesses are - west and south of Omaha.

We aren't very good at getting our act together past the point of "well, we have a commuter rail." Of course, no one rides it, cuz they don't work at the depot or wherever they would get off the train. From past experience with governments, they won't be convenient and they will be expensive to build and ride! Still too much wide open space here in the area. And if they can't make the local bus system work, I don't hold out much hope for any transit.

Jen

[Anonymous]

A Lincoln to Omaha rail line would be better off with commuter rail. Now if Omaha wanted to build a few short rail lines 5 to 6 miles outside its city center, light rail would be preferred.

Dallas' DART has built light rail and commuter rail lines. The light rail lines usually have a stop every mile or two, whereas a commuter rail line could go 10 miles before a stop. Read about DART here:

http://www.dart.org

However Mudchicken is right. Light rail, commuter rail, city transit agencies that run buses all over America don't earn a profit, they are all subsidized. At the moment the only national bus company isn't earning a profit either, nor are most of the large airlines. In fact the only two airlines earning a profit are Southwest and AirTran. AirTran has a hub in Orlando, Florida, and its only two flights to DFW go to Orlando. AirTran does not fly Dallas to Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York City. AirTran is obviously CHERRY PICKING a route to serve Orlando ONLY!

Whereas Southwest is the king of the short haul airlines, cherry picking its routes too, but in a different way. Southwest has chosen to fly into smaller airports in many cases than fly into the major airports. For example, Southwest does not fly into Los Angeles' LAX, Chicago's O'Hare, or New York City's JFK and LaGuardia, nor does Southwest fly into Newark's Airport either.

Comparing Southwest as a major airline such as American, United, Delta, Continental, and Northwest is misleading. While Southwest averages hauling 8 million passenger miles daily, American and United fly 80 million passenger miles daily. The difference is 10-1.


Time and again, the taxpayers have chosen to have a public transit service. In many cities its just a bus system, but lately the taxpayers have chosen light and commuter rail systems too. Why? Traffic gridlock on their urban freeways and highways. Any EXPENSIVE expansion and widening of their urban freeways end up in another gridlock practically the day the EXPENSIVE widened freeway opens.

The polls say time and again that over 70% want rail options, including high speed rail at the national level.....no matter what the costs!

[Anonymous]

A Lincoln to Omaha rail line would be better off with commuter rail. Now if Omaha wanted to build a few short rail lines 5 to 6 miles outside its city center, light rail would be preferred.

Dallas' DART has built light rail and commuter rail lines. The light rail lines usually have a stop every mile or two, whereas a commuter rail line could go 10 miles before a stop. Read about DART here:

http://www.dart.org

However Mudchicken is right. Light rail, commuter rail, city transit agencies that run buses all over America don't earn a profit, they are all subsidized. At the moment the only national bus company isn't earning a profit either, nor are most of the large airlines. In fact the only two airlines earning a profit are Southwest and AirTran. AirTran has a hub in Orlando, Florida, and its only two flights to DFW go to Orlando. AirTran does not fly Dallas to Los Angeles, Chicago, or New York City. AirTran is obviously CHERRY PICKING a route to serve Orlando ONLY!

Whereas Southwest is the king of the short haul airlines, cherry picking its routes too, but in a different way. Southwest has chosen to fly into smaller airports in many cases than fly into the major airports. For example, Southwest does not fly into Los Angeles' LAX, Chicago's O'Hare, or New York City's JFK and LaGuardia, nor does Southwest fly into Newark's Airport either.

Comparing Southwest as a major airline such as American, United, Delta, Continental, and Northwest is misleading. While Southwest averages hauling 8 million passenger miles daily, American and United fly 80 million passenger miles daily. The difference is 10-1.


Time and again, the taxpayers have chosen to have a public transit service. In many cities its just a bus system, but lately the taxpayers have chosen light and commuter rail systems too. Why? Traffic gridlock on their urban freeways and highways. Any EXPENSIVE expansion and widening of their urban freeways end up in another gridlock practically the day the EXPENSIVE widened freeway opens.

The polls say time and again that over 70% want rail options, including high speed rail at the national level.....no matter what the costs!

[TH&B]

I was talking about the cost of lightrail, not profit. I don't thimk any passenger transportation as a whole realy ever makes a profit. Transpotation costs $$, period. Even the auto industry, owners don't often make a profit off their cars, they just get use out of them. The governments don't make any profit off owning and maintaining the roads and hiways, that's why they collect taxes and fees. Only the manufacturers make profit in building cars but for everyone else it's just costs.

[TH&B]

I was talking about the cost of lightrail, not profit. I don't thimk any passenger transportation as a whole realy ever makes a profit. Transpotation costs $$, period. Even the auto industry, owners don't often make a profit off their cars, they just get use out of them. The governments don't make any profit off owning and maintaining the roads and hiways, that's why they collect taxes and fees. Only the manufacturers make profit in building cars but for everyone else it's just costs.

[mudchicken]

fgrcl & 440:

The whole underlying issue is relative cost. For what Ms. Mookie was angling at, it's building 60 MILES of "light rail". The dreamers keep pushing it, egged on by the politicos who have zilch for grey matter. The obsession with electrifying a 60 mile line kills the project faster than it was conceived. The concept of "commuter rail" was broached as a solution for what 'da Mookster was asking about. It works every bit as well as LRT without the exorbitant associated costs. Except the electric solution and the miles of catenary spaghetti is left in the toy box for later. Even the public sector wants a shorter term return on investment. My soap box is now in splinters, think I'll just go home (you're welcome to keep the ball, er..umm..electric toy train)......

ps... Robin Williams got it right with: "Reality,...what a concept!"

[mudchicken]

fgrcl & 440:

The whole underlying issue is relative cost. For what Ms. Mookie was angling at, it's building 60 MILES of "light rail". The dreamers keep pushing it, egged on by the politicos who have zilch for grey matter. The obsession with electrifying a 60 mile line kills the project faster than it was conceived. The concept of "commuter rail" was broached as a solution for what 'da Mookster was asking about. It works every bit as well as LRT without the exorbitant associated costs. Except the electric solution and the miles of catenary spaghetti is left in the toy box for later. Even the public sector wants a shorter term return on investment. My soap box is now in splinters, think I'll just go home (you're welcome to keep the ball, er..umm..electric toy train)......

ps... Robin Williams got it right with: "Reality,...what a concept!"

[cabforward]

dear 440cuin,

no transportation system for moving people by rail has ever made money, period.

the big r.rs. used freight revenue to offset the money lost on pass. service.. that is a clue.. if the pennsy, n.y. central and santa fe couldn't make $$ on their system, how could anyone else? the n.y. subway is 100 + years old.. they have never made a profit.. if there was a way, wouldn't they have found it by now?

there may be differences between lite rail, commuter rail, rail mass transit in terms of eqpt. used or traffic hauled.. there are common aspects: they only carry pass., they usually are tailored to move people in large cities, within the city or to suburbs.. they are heavily subsidized private systems, or govt.-owned.. fares do not put in more than 30% of the cost of running it.. the rest is help thru direct taxes or govt. assistance, usually a comb. of state-federal.. the amount of traffic carried or miles served do not help reduce the system's deficit.. fares are raised to keep the system from going into deeper red ink.. improvements and extensions to service can only be realized by more money from govt.. the same with employee pay.. raises and better benefits have to come from more govt. $$..

finding a way to make a pass. rail system profitable is like building a perpetual-motion machine.. people dream of it, tinker with it.. a few actually try to build one.. it always ends the same: making it work requires a lot more energy than the system supplies on its own..

[cabforward]

dear 440cuin,

no transportation system for moving people by rail has ever made money, period.

the big r.rs. used freight revenue to offset the money lost on pass. service.. that is a clue.. if the pennsy, n.y. central and santa fe couldn't make $$ on their system, how could anyone else? the n.y. subway is 100 + years old.. they have never made a profit.. if there was a way, wouldn't they have found it by now?

there may be differences between lite rail, commuter rail, rail mass transit in terms of eqpt. used or traffic hauled.. there are common aspects: they only carry pass., they usually are tailored to move people in large cities, within the city or to suburbs.. they are heavily subsidized private systems, or govt.-owned.. fares do not put in more than 30% of the cost of running it.. the rest is help thru direct taxes or govt. assistance, usually a comb. of state-federal.. the amount of traffic carried or miles served do not help reduce the system's deficit.. fares are raised to keep the system from going into deeper red ink.. improvements and extensions to service can only be realized by more money from govt.. the same with employee pay.. raises and better benefits have to come from more govt. $$..

finding a way to make a pass. rail system profitable is like building a perpetual-motion machine.. people dream of it, tinker with it.. a few actually try to build one.. it always ends the same: making it work requires a lot more energy than the system supplies on its own..

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

Mookie --- There was, once and maybe still is, a steam line (read freight rialroad) that runs directly from Omaha to Lincoln, and my memory wants to say CBQ (read BNSF). If that is the case, the costs would be very much lower using that line with AMTK equipment. The TALGO would fit right in. They are used here on the AMTRAK Cascades and they are right fine trains.

CBQ, BN BNSF & AMTRAK - yes that line still runs thru LIncoln up to Omaha. They are talking a separate line, I believe and making the route a little different than that one. The one that Amtrak runs on is also used by BNSF to switch the local elevators.

Jen

[Mookie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by kenneo

Mookie --- There was, once and maybe still is, a steam line (read freight rialroad) that runs directly from Omaha to Lincoln, and my memory wants to say CBQ (read BNSF). If that is the case, the costs would be very much lower using that line with AMTK equipment. The TALGO would fit right in. They are used here on the AMTRAK Cascades and they are right fine trains.

CBQ, BN BNSF & AMTRAK - yes that line still runs thru LIncoln up to Omaha. They are talking a separate line, I believe and making the route a little different than that one. The one that Amtrak runs on is also used by BNSF to switch the local elevators.

Jen

[TH&B]

Everybody keeps refering to electrifeing as always so expensive. But if the line is short enough and traffic is dense enough it can be cheaper on the long run.
Q: What about heavily used subway trains of 6 or more cars in larger cities, is that still light rail. In New York they sometimes move trains of 30 or40 subway cars long when transfering equipement, no passengers. And (this might be silly) but is there a "medium rail"?

[TH&B]

Everybody keeps refering to electrifeing as always so expensive. But if the line is short enough and traffic is dense enough it can be cheaper on the long run.
Q: What about heavily used subway trains of 6 or more cars in larger cities, is that still light rail. In New York they sometimes move trains of 30 or40 subway cars long when transfering equipement, no passengers. And (this might be silly) but is there a "medium rail"?

[mudchicken]

kenneo- first you have to get some level of ridership. Let the DMU's build the ridership before spending bucks on a Talgo set. Either is still big time cheaper than the electric option. Have seen the aftermath of wrecked SPV's ans an RDC at the test track at Pueblo (not pretty) and the concern is more the sideswipe and the truck/train issues. That DMU must be incredibly tough to meet the certification criteria. The politician and the non railroad "transportation engineers" (i.e.-rubber tired untrained dummies) jump on the electrified bandwagon either out of stupidity or because they see the costs as a way of preserving their beloved busses. (it's Firestone/GM vs. Pacific Electric all over again, and somewhat underhandedly - doesn't help when you have politicians in Cincinnati calling rail transit as "choo-choo's" (morons!)...........)

The CBQ line is just a slight bit busy. Better trying to revive the remains of the OLB interurban route.

[mudchicken]

kenneo- first you have to get some level of ridership. Let the DMU's build the ridership before spending bucks on a Talgo set. Either is still big time cheaper than the electric option. Have seen the aftermath of wrecked SPV's ans an RDC at the test track at Pueblo (not pretty) and the concern is more the sideswipe and the truck/train issues. That DMU must be incredibly tough to meet the certification criteria. The politician and the non railroad "transportation engineers" (i.e.-rubber tired untrained dummies) jump on the electrified bandwagon either out of stupidity or because they see the costs as a way of preserving their beloved busses. (it's Firestone/GM vs. Pacific Electric all over again, and somewhat underhandedly - doesn't help when you have politicians in Cincinnati calling rail transit as "choo-choo's" (morons!)...........)

The CBQ line is just a slight bit busy. Better trying to revive the remains of the OLB interurban route.

[Anonymous]

Guys,
The Colorado Railcar DMU is NOT a light rail vehicle.
Light rail systems are not built into conventional railroads standards, just like rapid transit, but it requires fewer investments to achieve a slightly smaller capacity. In general terms, it is possible to spend about half of what is needed for rapid transit to get a 20% smaller capacity.

To reduce investment, lower access platforms are used, and many lines are built at street level.

Theoretically, they can be diesel, but the fact is that almost every light rail vehicle is electric by now.

[Anonymous]

Guys,
The Colorado Railcar DMU is NOT a light rail vehicle.
Light rail systems are not built into conventional railroads standards, just like rapid transit, but it requires fewer investments to achieve a slightly smaller capacity. In general terms, it is possible to spend about half of what is needed for rapid transit to get a 20% smaller capacity.

To reduce investment, lower access platforms are used, and many lines are built at street level.

Theoretically, they can be diesel, but the fact is that almost every light rail vehicle is electric by now.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I have seen light rail defined as the child of a streetcar mother and a rapid transit father. Equipment is usually a modern streetcar-type design with MU capabilities and the trackage is usually a private right-of-way with occasional street running. Most new light rail construction looks like rapid transit on a smaller budget since you have ground level station platforms, catenary instead of third rail and 1-to-3 car trains.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I have seen light rail defined as the child of a streetcar mother and a rapid transit father. Equipment is usually a modern streetcar-type design with MU capabilities and the trackage is usually a private right-of-way with occasional street running. Most new light rail construction looks like rapid transit on a smaller budget since you have ground level station platforms, catenary instead of third rail and 1-to-3 car trains.

[kenneo]

Mookie --- There was, once and maybe still is, a steam line (read freight rialroad) that runs directly from Omaha to Lincoln, and my memory wants to say CBQ (read BNSF). If that is the case, the costs would be very much lower using that line with AMTK equipment. The TALGO would fit right in. They are used here on the AMTRAK Cascades and they are right fine trains.