Long distance light rail

[blockss]

MODERATOR'S NOTE
I am honestly 'stretched' to find any relevance with Amtrak operations or services.

However, I will leave this open here "for a while' lest further discussion develop.
GBN

This is related to Amtrak operations because it could be run by Amtrak and supplement or replace routes where Amtrak lacks right of way.
Someone mentioned light rail is limited to 60MPH or less. This is not the case for the Maryland Light rail.
Noel. You might not like my ideas, but the ski trains in Vermont is another topic for another thread, which someone else brought up. If you haven't given up, we can discuss that there.

[Irish Chieftain]

There's still a big difference between the FRA and FTA. Amtrak would never operate light rail, because that is not the kind of operations they do.

Would you like to ride toilet-free, comfortable-seat-free LRVs over distances greater than 50 or 60 miles? Not me.

BTW, Maryland light rail (Baltimore) top speed is 52 mph.

[NRGeep]

What about Maglev long distance light rail? It certainly could go much faster than 60mph though the money to build it could be prohibitive at this stage.
In regards to "traditional" light rail technology: just because locally based light rail are not equipped with restrooms and snack bars etc dosn't mean that long distance light rail can't be built with such emenities. Bring back the "electroburgers"!

[blockss]

Would you like to ride toilet-free, comfortable-seat-free LRVs over distances greater than 50 or 60 miles? Not me.

Personally, I would fly over a long distance. However, I don't see why they can't install toilets, seats and beds and anything else of importance in a LRV.

BTW, Maryland light rail (Baltimore) top speed is 52 mph.

Unless my GPS was wrong, I've seen around 70. I'll assume the maximum speed is a function of the engine or electric motors and the rail in many places. Whatever the constraint is, a higher speed can be designed for a system that does not stop every couple of miles.

[MikeF]

However, I don't see why they can't install toilets, seats and beds and anything else of importance in a LRV.

I don't think you're clear on the definition of an LRV. Light rail, by definition, is a form of urban or suburban mass transit. Toilets are not typically provided on the equipment and sleeping accomodations are never included. What you're describing is simply electrified multiple-unit railroad equipment, which once operated on some interurban lines in the United States and is still quite prevalent in Europe. The trains are usually more efficient and less costly to operate than comparable diesel-powered equipment and would probably be more popular in the U.S. if the passenger trackage weren't wholly owned by freight haulers that already have an enormous investment in diesel equipment and facilities.

With regard to electrified long-distance trains sharing right-of-way with highway traffic -- the idea is preposterous, as would be building all new private trackage along highway rights-of-way. Why would anyone build new tracks for intercity passenger trains when the United States already has a vast and, in many places, under-used rail network?

[Irish Chieftain]

I don't see why they can't install toilets, seats and beds and anything else of importance in a LRV

I don't see why they ought to, since such accoutrements are already in place on FRA-rail passenger rolling stock. Riding a PCC car, a Siemens or Kinki-Sharyo over 100 miles is not a concept that really has credence.

[2nd trick op]

This is thrown out as a hypothesis, given complete freedom and anticipating that, as some have postulated, the East Coast and California Corridors are secure, but the Chicago-centered network just isn't working out.

So I'd propose one light rail corridor as a start; Milwaukee-Chicago Springfield. There are enough under-utilized rail lines in the area that something could be set up without imposing on the freight lines. If the CTA would co-operate, as it did with the North Shore, so much the better.

To cover some of the overhead, I'd try to recruit some sub-contract package traffic from the established couriers and delivery services. Fares would be kept low in view of the minimal amenities, and the governments involved could encourage its use as a "saftey net" for the carless.

Finally, note that this structure allows for easy expansion to Champaign, and if successful, Madison and possibly Peoria.

I don't have a problem with the unions coming along if they recognize, as they did with reincarnated short lines, that somewhat lower pay-rates and a more-flexible set of work rules have to apply when you're hustling for new business.

The point is simply this: successful alternatives are seldom legislated. Taking the longest view over time, any workable service has to be one that fills a market's wants

[MikeF]

So I'd propose one light rail corridor as a start; Milwaukee-Chicago Springfield. There are enough under-utilized rail lines in the area that something could be set up without imposing on the freight lines. If the CTA would co-operate, as it did with the North Shore, so much the better.

Hate to burst the bubble, but the CTA would not cooperate. The only reason North Shore and CA&E trains were ever allowed to run on CTA trackage is that they were all owned by Sam Insull in the '20s. By the '50s the CTA did not want the interurbans around anymore. And considering the number of trains the CTA runs today, combined with safety features such as block signals and ATC, it would be nearly impossible to fit a fleet of intercity trains into the 'L' schedule. Even if were possible to overcome all those adversities, the design constraints imposed by the 'L' (namely, the limitation of rolling stock to roughly 8 feet wide and 50 feet long) would preclude the construction of comfortable ADA-compliant intercity cars such as those proposed earlier.

Your idea is valid, but I don't see how it could work as "light rail." Build it as a high-speed electrified heavy rail corridor and it could have great potential.

[n2xjk]

Imagine populating the mid-west's vast interurban network at its peak with Eletroliner trainsets (not developed until much of the interurban network was already being dismantled). Makes you wonder how much more 'milage' interubans would have gotten, including a bigger footprint in the public's conscious.

[walt]

I suspect that, at least theoretically, the major impediment to the long distance Light Rail concept being proposed here, is the equipment itself. Some of the old interurbans that both Mr. Norman and I mentioned were probably some what "more" than today's Light Rail Systems
(particularly the North Shore Line, which, except for a small fleet of rather uncomfortable Cincinnati Car Co Curved Side Lightweight Cars, never gave in to the attraction during the depression of running light-weight equipment to save on power costs) using equipment which was much heavier than today's light rail vehicles. The Cincinnati & Lake Erie's "Red Devil" Cars, were both light weight and extremely fast, and were run over distances approaching 200 plus miles, yet, at high speeds were somewhat uncomfortable, having a tendancy for the rear ends to "whip" at high speeds. ( The P&W's Brill Bullet Cars, though vastly different in appearance, were almost identical electrically and mechanically to the "Devils", and riding on those cars which were run until 1990, would give one a good feel for what it was like to ride on a "Red Devil").

You probably could not sell the comfort level of most of today's LRV's as being anywhere near appropriate for long distance travel, though most of them are certainly adequate for urban transit use.

[n2xjk]

That's why I mentioned the Electroliner before...in terms of comfort it is a step above the fading interurbans of its day and above light rail (i.e., it has a cafe and lavatories). (I was lucky enough to ride the Electroliner at IRM before it was sidelined for the past several years due to motor problems.)

Realistically, with today's highway centric focus, I don't see how you'd rebuild something like the old interurban network. It would have to start at the most dense population centers and be a natural extension of existing light rail networks. For cities without light rail at all today, an even bigger obstacle.

[walt]

Cost would be a factor also---- With regard to the Electroliners, they, along with the three trains built for the IT circa 1949, are a perfect example of the type of equipment which would be a minimum requirement for long distance LRV type service. I had the pleasure of riding one of the Liners, in its Liberty Liner configuration, on the P&W ( now SEPTA Route 100) back in the late 1960's. VERY nice trains!

We should also keep in mind that most ( but not all) of the old interurbans were essentially rural operations. Though they did enter many of the large Midwestern cities, like Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, and the P.E. was centered in ( and contributed to the sprawl now suffered by) Los Angeles, in the East, they rarely actually entered the major cities, though some reached the suburbs. When the automobile became the primary means of tranportation for residents of rural areas, the interubans died, rather quickly, and in many such areas there is not even bus service where the interurbans used to run.

[russp]

Regarding the usage of highway / Interstate Highway rights of way for transit, you need only look to the West. Here in Denver, the widening of I-25 in southeast Denver included the building of a new light rail line along the west side of the freeway all the way out here to Lone Tree in Douglas County, with a center median spur to I-225 / Parker Road. (Much of the line is still u.c., but the RTD started running test trains from Bwy to University Blvd. last week). The build out of our light rail under the recently passed FasTracks tax increase will use more highway medians and side of the road rights of way. A plan to use I-70 as a right of way for a monorail from the airport west to Vail was recently reject by CO DOT.

As was pointed out above, Amtrak (and Metrolink) use a center median of I-10 just east of LA, and the new Gold Line LRT uses the median strip of I-210 from Pasadena to Sierra Madre. I know BART uses freeway medians for the lines to Pleasanton and Walnut Creek/Concord. I'm not sure if the San Jose LRT uses freeways, but I think Sacramento uses a small section of freeway running as does Portland.

When you consider the end to end length of some of the modern LRT systems, they begin to approach the size of some of the smaller interurbans. The present Denver system is 14 miles long.

[darksun23c]

Here in Boston, the Green Line Light Rail goes up to 12.6 miles terminal to terminal. This would be the longes routing possible, the D-Line from Riverside to Lechemere. And the D-line does run on dedicated right of way: the old Boston and Albany Highland Branch.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that NJT's River Line is a long distance light rail line. I mean, it's interurban, between Trenton and Philly, and it does run 34 miles. And from the pictures I saw on their website, they do look like large LRVs.

[Leo Sullivan]

Everyone in this thread is forgetting that if you look up 'Light Rail' from 80 years ago, you will find that it means a small locomotive and train, probably narrow gauge, on a roadside line with no amenities and, in Britain, one of the places they had 'light rail' the speed was legally limited to 25mph. In other words, "Light Rail' means what the promoters say it means.
In Karlsruhe, Germany, as many here know, "light rail" (now often called 'tram' there) has been extended over railway lines for considerable distance. This well tried and famously successful system, much imitated in Europe and elsewhere, is very much what I suspect is proposed above.
The real barrier to this sort of thing is the federal regulations regarding buffing strength. Maybe they could apply the same rules to highway and level the field for rail transport
LS