[44 North]

I’m trying to stress that ALRT / Light Metros / VAL / MCS (or whatever names is used) does not have to use LIM, or any proprietary technology owned by one manufacturer. The system can use the same third rail or overhead power source and motors as conventional LRT. LIM is not specific to Light Metros, nor are Light Metros specific to LIM.

If I'm not mistaken, the differences between standard LRT and Light Metro systems seems mostly to do with the vehicle's safety requirements / ability to operate in traffic. Other than that, they're very similar. The underground portion of the Crosstown would be a Light Metro, as would the S(L)RT.

 

[CDL.TO]

The TTC streetcar network certainly isn't proprietary. Their unique combination of requirements is not their property. The word "proprietary" has nothing to do with being unique, it refers to ownership.

--

Light Metro is a great concept. Such systems often offer lower capital capital costs through the use of smaller vehicles, with higher frequencies being used to provide the capacity. These days a large percentage of new metro systems (and new lines which are independent from existing lines) is light metro.

The DLR in London is an interesting example of a non-proprietary light metro system. For example, the original signalling system was designed by GEC-General Signal and General Railway Signal. When they needed to upgrade their signalling system to increase capacity and frequency, they were able to hire Alcatel (their Canadian division, IIRC) to do the work. Also, their rolling stock has been built by three different companies. What still blows me away to this day is that the original DLR system cost £77million. Crudely using an inflation calculator and currency converter, that's about $370 million for a 13km fully grade-separated system, vehicles included!

Actually, the yellow LRT in the photo above is a former DLR train. So that LRV has operated both on both third rail and with a pantograph!

--

(Whether or not LIM is a great idea is far more questionable.)

 

[Forgotten]

Schabas is one of the few supporters of ALRT / light RT / light metro / ICTS / medium-capacity systems...(i.e subway-like transit, but done affordably). Which I tend to support. So I’ll give him credit for that. But agreed, his noncompliance on the DRL front is simply absurd.

Selling it has been Michael's entire life and it has lined his pockets for 50 years! What do you think he's doing now? Fill his piggy bank first, build subways last. Barnum would certainly be amused at how he's suckered so many people.

 

[ehlow]

I’m trying to stress that ALRT / Light Metros / VAL / MCS (or whatever names is used) does not have to use LIM, or any proprietary technology owned by one manufacturer. The system can use the same third rail or overhead power source and motors as conventional LRT. LIM is not specific to Light Metros, nor are Light Metros specific to LIM.

If I'm not mistaken, the differences between standard LRT and Light Metro systems seems mostly to do with the vehicle's safety requirements / ability to operate in traffic. Other than that, they're very similar. The underground portion of the Crosstown would be a Light Metro, as would the S(L)RT.

As long as it's not too light , meaning, the vehicles aren't fixed to be too small given the ridership projections.

Eglinton Crosstown at 90 m trains should be more than enough capacity. In the future they can do open gangway like the new subway trains if necessary.

Ottawa's new line could be considered light metro under that definition. 50m light rail vehicles in 2 car trains, so 100m.

 

[officedweller]

Whats wrong with Line 3? It has the highest reliability of any of the lines in the TTC

http://www.thestar.com/news/city_ha...lect-of-scarborough-rt-is-shameful-james.html

“Notwithstanding criticisms and misinformation over the years, the Scarborough RT has been the single most-reliable service operated by the TTC.”
...

The only thing wrong with Line 3 is that it was spearheaded by the Province,
which overruled a bunch of TTC honchos, who have never forgotten it and hold a grudge to this day
- and the fight won't end until they either die or the SRT is shut down.

 

[TheTigerMaster]

The only thing wrong with Line 3 is that it was spearheaded by the Province,
which overruled a bunch of TTC honchos, who have never forgotten it and hold a grudge to this day

I'd hold a grudge too if I were them. The TTC originally made the right decision to base Line 3 on LRT. Provincial bureaucrats stepped in, demanding that the TTC use ICTS, or they'd pull funding, because they needed somebody to be the guinea pig for the technology.

 

[44 North]

(Whether or not LIM is a great idea is far more questionable.)

Just to be clear I am in no way advocating LIM, or anything owned by Bombardier. And the quote I linked to from Schabas made it clear he’s also not fully supportive of using anything proprietary.

As well, my referencing the streetcar system (and use of quotation marks over the word 'proprietary') was in response to a statement that light metros are "entirely proprietary". That’s obviously not the case, just as Toronto's streetcars are not entirely proprietary. Sure, Bombardier offers LIM as an option with its Innovia; but aside from that there’s very little tying Bombardier (or any one company) to the light metro class.

Light Metro is a great concept. Such systems often offer lower capital capital costs through the use of smaller vehicles, with higher frequencies being used to provide the capacity.

Frankly, I don’t know why more people aren’t supportive of Light Metros. The SRT (and its rebuild) was to be a standalone line that by all definitions was a Light Metro - and many transit enthusiasts seemed to support it. But when the mode is discussed for anywhere other than the SRT, it’s as if Light Metros are a mistake.

As long as it's not too light , meaning, the vehicles aren't fixed to be too small given the ridership projections.

Eglinton Crosstown at 90 m trains should be more than enough capacity. In the future they can do open gangway like the new subway trains if necessary.

Ottawa's new line could be considered light metro under that definition. 50m light rail vehicles in 2 car trains, so 100m.

I guess there’s so much variability as to the meaning of "light". One way I look at it is not just the length of the vehicles, but the effort put into grade-separation. So mixed traffic is lightest, followed by in-median. But at the other end of the 'light' spectrum we’d have complete grade-separation, with proper stations instead of stops. This is where we get terms like Light Metro or Medium Capacity System.

But since half of the Crosstown isn’t grade-separated, it wouldn’t count as a Light Metro, and would thus be 'lighter' (at least IMO).

 

[nfitz]

But since half of the Crosstown isn’t grade-separated, it wouldn’t count as a Light Metro, and would thus be 'lighter' (at least IMO).

As there's no official definition of "Light Metro" I've ever seen other than by a bunch of self-appointed obsessive-compulsive WikiNazis (I'm not referring to anyone here BTW ...), it doesn't really matter if it counts as anything or not.

I suggest we simply call it the Eglinton line or Line 5. And the Sheppard East line or Line 7 - and let the the fanatics argue about it at WP:DRN.

 

[ehlow]

I guess there’s so much variability as to the meaning of "light". One way I look at it is not just the length of the vehicles, but the effort put into grade-separation. So mixed traffic is lightest, followed by in-median. But at the other end of the 'light' spectrum we’d have complete grade-separation, with proper stations instead of stops. This is where we get terms like Light Metro or Medium Capacity System.

But since half of the Crosstown isn’t grade-separated, it wouldn’t count as a Light Metro, and would thus be 'lighter' (at least IMO).

I agree. The Crosstown is an LRT.

I'm just saying, you could have a fully grade separated system but it's overwhelmed because the vehicles are just too small to handle the ridership.

One reasons "light metro" might be less common could be that if you're going to spend so much money fully grade separating, then you're probably going to do on routes with the highest ridership. In that case, you may as well go full-metro.

 

[44 North]

As there's no official definition of "Light Metro" I've ever seen other than by a bunch of self-appointed obsessive-compulsive WikiNazis (I'm not referring to anyone here BTW ...), it doesn't really matter if it counts as anything or not.

I suggest we simply call it the Eglinton line or Line 5. And the Sheppard East line or Line 7 - and let the the fanatics argue about it at WP:DRN.

If differentiating between services is a non-issue, and we're relying on official definitions, then why not call some of our streetcars "LRT"? They're apparently the same thing, so why not lump them in the same category as Finch, Sheppard, and Eglinton East?

If you feel Spadina, Harbourfront, and St Clair does differ from the FWLRT, SELRT, and Crosstown East – and that differentiating between them “counts†– then wouldn’t that make you just as much of a ‘self-appointed obsessive-compulsive fanatic’ (your words)?

***

On the topic of transit classification, I think in this situation it’s good to look to the Germans to see how they differentiate modes. There they have the U-bahn, S-Bahn, Stadtbahn (pre-metro), and Trams (Strassenbahn). If I were to categorize Transit City in such a way, using their definitions, I’d say the SRT is a U-Bahn; the Crosstown is a Stadtbhan; and the FWLRT and SELRT are Trams. SmartTrack naturally would be an S-Bahn.

I get that some think it's silly to classify systems in such a way. But many don't, and with good reason. Obviously a tram is not a subway.

 

[CDL.TO]

One reasons "light metro" might be less common could be that if you're going to spend so much money fully grade separating, then you're probably going to do on routes with the highest ridership. In that case, you may as well go full-metro.

For new independent systems built in the last couple of decades or currently under construction, light metro is quite common. (But yes, it depends on your definition.)

 

[ehlow]

If differentiating between services is a non-issue, and we're relying on official definitions, then why not call some of our streetcars "LRT"? They're apparently the same thing, so why not lump them in the same category as Finch, Sheppard, and Eglinton East?

If you feel Spadina, Harbourfront, and St Clair does differ from the FWLRT, SELRT, and Crosstown East – and that differentiating between them “counts” – then wouldn’t that make you just as much of a ‘self-appointed obsessive-compulsive fanatic’ (your words)?

***

On the topic of transit classification, I think in this situation it’s good to look to the Germans to see how they differentiate modes. There they have the U-bahn, S-Bahn, Stadtbahn (pre-metro), and Trams (Strassenbahn). If I were to categorize Transit City in such a way, using their definitions, I’d say the SRT is a U-Bahn; the Crosstown is a Stadtbhan; and the FWLRT and SELRT are Trams. SmartTrack naturally would be an S-Bahn.

I get that some think it's silly to classify systems in such a way. But many don't, and with good reason. Obviously a tram is not a subway.

There's differences but sometimes it's on a spectrum with shades of grey instead of discrete categories.

Personally I'd describe St Clair & Spadina as kind of "in-between" LRT and streetcars. It has LRT-like properties (it's own lane) and street-car like properties (it's slow with extremely close stops, you have to request stops, paying while entering). Once those two gets POP, all-door boarding, the new vehicles which are bigger, it nudges it a bit more towards the LRT side of the spectrum, but still not as good as the Finch LRT will be since it'll still be slower and less capacity.

Similarly, in terms of stop spacing, speed and capacity, at-grade LRT like Finch/Sheppard is in-between subways and buses/streetcars.

For new independent systems built in the last couple of decades or currently under construction, light metro is quite common. (But yes, it depends on your definition.)

It might be because I'm more familiar with North American transit, but it seems like LRT (mostly at-grade) is by far the most popular of new transit systems, much more than any light metro. (not including new streetcars in America, which I'm not a big fan of)

 

[nfitz]

If differentiating between services is a non-issue, and we're relying on official definitions, then why not call some of our streetcars "LRT"? They're apparently the same thing, so why not lump them in the same category as Finch, Sheppard, and Eglinton East?

Why not? TTC has referred to them as LRT from time to time, over the years. And has been calling the vehicles that use them, LRVs for decades. Go ahead - who'd ever care about a name ...

 

[CDL.TO]

It might be because I'm more familiar with North American transit, but it seems like LRT (mostly at-grade) is by far the most popular of new transit systems, much more than any light metro. (not including new streetcars in America, which I'm not a big fan of)

LRT is definitely still the most common due to the flexibility offered by the wide range of ways it can be implemented. But the growth of light metro in Europe and worldwide over the past couple of decades is an interesting trend.

 

[M II A II R II K]

How about classifying mass transit by how fast it can get you to where you're going, and how many people it can accommodate.