Heavy/Light rail

[Peter Gl]

Could someone please explain the difference between 'Light' and 'Heavy' rail? For example, Manchesters Metrolink system is designated as 'Light' rail, yet it's first generation T68 vehicles weigh 45 tons, and, as a typical example, a Class 150 vehicle weighs 35.8 tons (From Wikipedia).

So it sure isn't the vehicle weights!?!

Pete

 

[gordonthemoron]

I thought it was more to do with speed limits

 

[northernrail]

Street Running , close stations, light rail is more of a bus service on rails if you get what i mean.

 

[PaulLothian]

I thought it was more to do with speed limits

... and signalling systems, tighter curvature of track, spacing of stations/halts, frequency of services...

 

[Urban Gateline]

light rail is more of a bus service on rails if you get what i mean.

Like a Pacer?

 

[WatcherZero]

Like a Pacer?

Exact opposite as a pacer cant turn a corner.

Essentially its not the weight of the vehicles themselves, while their sometimes lower, in the USA for example they can be 60 odd tons! Its the level of infrastructure, light rail uses cheaper 'lighter' infrastructure making its construction and running costs lower than heavy rail. Light rail is usually designed for high or very high frequency services with shorter vehicles which provides the same overall capacity as less frequent heavier vehicles and some people refer to it as 'Metro light'. Many light rail systems abroad were designed as metro precursors, you build up the lines and passenger numbers then later upgrade the system and move them underground into a true heavy metro, though in the UK its mostly the opposite where they were built because we couldnt afford to jump straight to a proper metro and downscoped the schemes.

 

[Drsatan]

Exact opposite as a pacer cant turn a corner.

Essentially its not the weight of the vehicles themselves, while their sometimes lower, in the USA for example they can be 60 odd tons! Its the level of infrastructure, light rail uses cheaper 'lighter' infrastructure making its construction and running costs lower than heavy rail. Light rail is usually designed for high or very high frequency services with shorter vehicles which provides the same overall capacity as less frequent heavier vehicles and some people refer to it as 'Metro light'. Many light rail systems abroad were designed as metro precursors, you build up the lines and passenger numbers then later upgrade the system and move them underground into a true heavy metro, though in the UK its mostly the opposite where they were built because we couldnt afford to jump straight to a proper metro and downscoped the schemes.

True, in the USA it's not uncommon to see long freight trains sharing space with cars and lorries: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ki3QCZhacHY . Hardly 'light rail' at all!

In Mainland Europe it's not uncommon either to see trams running through tunnels stopping at underground stations: this is so the line could be converted to a proper 'metro'.

 

[Peter Gl]

Thanks WatcherZero, that explains it very well.

Pete

 

[Old Timer]

There are actually four types of Railway to be factually correct, viz Heavy Haul, Mainline, Metro, and Light Rail.

In the UK the term Heavy Rail is used but in reality it should be Mainline.

Heavy Haul is the term applied to Railways that primarily carry freight traffic and are generally not used by passenger trains, although there are exceptions, e.g. certain Heavy Haul railways where a passenger service does run amongst the freight.

Heavy Haul trains will normally be measured in the 10s of thousands of tonne trailing weight, which will generally give you a train length of between 1 and 3 miles.

Heavy Haul rail will normally be something like TR155 (155lbs per yard compared to the UK UIC60 which is 121lbs per yard) TR155 and UIC rail is not compatible because the dimensions are very different.

Heavy Haul is a specialist occcupation insofar as Infrastructure is concerned and is a difficult field to enter without prior experience.

Light Rail is a troublesome area as there is no real agreed definition but in general within the International Infrastructure community it is regarded as including Trams/LRT systems with street running, and slow speed segregated lines roughly 50kmph or less. So Nottingham and Manchester would be Light Rail whereas LUL is Metro.

Metro systems are generally what we would regard as suburban railway system operating on their own lights using heavier built stock, with a proper signalling system.

Mainline rail pretty much covers everything else, but is principally High speed and long distance suburban routes.

 

[WatcherZero]

I think you mean 50mph not 50kph. Incidentally London Underground trains are also limited to 40-50mph except on the Metropolitan line which has 60mph running, with an average speed including stops of 20.5mph. The 2009 stock has a speed limiter of 55mph apparantly and 1995 stock has a 45mph cutout.

 

[142094]

Although most people refer to trams such as Metrolink and Sheffield Supertram as light rail, I still wouldn't use that term myself. Light rail to me means something that is segregated and has no on-street running like trams do, so the Tyne and Wear Metro is an obvious example.

 

[WatcherZero]

Many light rails have to deal with level crossings like the T&W, its generally accepted Metrolink is a hybrid system with different parts both tramway and light rail (Bury -Altrincham the only interaction with vehicles is a level crossing and a couple of hundred metres shared with buses whereas half the Eccles line runs down a dual carriageway in a shared lane between 30 and 40mph once it leaves the quays), in France for example the two types may be part of the same network but would tend to be different lines. The only pure tramway in this country is Blackpool though even that is receiving more segregation in its current complete track renewal program.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The only pure tramway in this country is Blackpool though even that is receiving more segregation in its current complete track renewal program.

Is there still such a thing as a weight per metre/yard specification for rail used on train and tramway track systems. I am a complete novice with regard to engineering matters, but this matter did occur in the historical records that I once read about.

 

[WatcherZero]

In the UK in lightrail terms theres no standardisation, all the systems are bespoke tailored to existing conditions e.g. Manchester reusing the existing rail track and Sheffield hillly. Along side the predicted passenger numbers and train lengths e.g most didnt specify the ability to couple in service.

 

[Old Timer]

Is there still such a thing as a weight per metre/yard specification for rail used on train and tramway track systems. I am a complete novice with regard to engineering matters, but this matter did occur in the historical records that I once read about.

There is a particular design of tram rail for street running, otherwise the rail section used is relative to the axle weight and the annual tonnage of the line.

http://www.bathtram.org/tfb/tLR55.htm

By the way, this is an interesting site for those interested
http://citytransport.info/Trams01.htm

 

[WatcherZero]

The LR55 has been developed by Trampower, a quite prolific if unsucessful rail engineering company. Far as I know its only used in a small trial section in Sheffield.

 

[Old Timer]

The LR55 has been developed by Trampower, a quite prolific if unsucessful rail engineering company. Far as I know its only used in a small trial section in Sheffield.

Somewhat of a downbeat comment on a couple of very clever chaps.

 

[WatcherZero]

Isnt it the British way? create loads of inventions and fail at profiting from them?
perhaps ive just got used to their divorce from reality in press releases and actual action. Parry on the other hand I had almost written them off but now I am very impressed with their ability to capitalise on IP.

 

[Old Timer]

Isnt it the British way? create loads of inventions and fail at profiting from them?
perhaps ive just got used to their divorce from reality in press releases and actual action. Parry on the other hand I had almost written them off but now I am very impressed with their ability to capitalise on IP.

I know Lewis Lesley and I find him a very clever guy and have enormous respect for him.

Sometimes it may seem that things that guys like these propose are quite impossible or practically unsound, but then this of course was the view taken on many things such as flight, parachutes, travel to the moon, the bouncing bomb, and as you say the Parry People Mover, which was mocked for a long time and is now suddenly thought of in a different light.

The Lancaster bomber was developed from an original design specification that did not work and was produced without authority and indeed with some very strong resistance by Civil Servants in the Air Ministry. The Tank was developed in a not dissimilar way. Experience would appear to suggest that one should do the exact opposite of what these people direct, and indeed maybe we should just dispense with them as they seem to be "blockers" to progress - as can be seen with DfT even now.

Stalin used to shoot Civil, Servants from time to time "pour le encourage des autres"

What is needed is support from those of us who are experienced in the practicalities to assist in the transition from the academic to the construct.

I am really disappointed that they have not been able to move things forward because they have some very innovative designs and concepts. It does take individuals who are prepared to look beyond the immediate impression and see the potential. It is our inability as a Country to do this now that has led to our demise.

 

[Nonsense]

I know Lewis Lesley and I find him a very clever guy and have enormous respect for him.

Sometimes it may seem that things that guys like these propose are quite impossible or practically unsound, but then this of course was the view taken on many things such as flight, parachutes, travel to the moon, the bouncing bomb, and as you say the Parry People Mover, which was mocked for a long time and is now suddenly thought of in a different light.

The Lancaster bomber was developed from an original design specification that did not work and was produced without authority and indeed with some very strong resistance by Civil Servants in the Air Ministry. The Tank was developed in a not dissimilar way. Experience would appear to suggest that one should do the exact opposite of what these people direct, and indeed maybe we should just dispense with them as they seem to be "blockers" to progress - as can be seen with DfT even now.

Stalin used to shoot Civil, Servants from time to time "pour le encourage des autres"

What is needed is support from those of us who are experienced in the practicalities to assist in the transition from the academic to the construct.

I am really disappointed that they have not been able to move things forward because they have some very innovative designs and concepts. It does take individuals who are prepared to look beyond the immediate impression and see the potential. It is our inability as a Country to do this now that has led to our demise.

^This