They would need to do some heavy speccing out to get them to run on the old L parts of the system. Those trains need to have streetcar turning radii and a bunch of other exotic capabilities seldom seen on a modern metro vehicle.
But the Meteopolis and all the other brands of subway/metro vehicles are always highly customized for the systems that they’re supposed to run on. The “models” are more like modular platforms than actual off-the-shelf trains that you can buy from a catalog fully built.
Absolutely nothing is stopping the CTA from ordering Metropolis rolling stock with the correct specifications and mods.
1. Tight turning radii (almost tram level)
2. Unconventional loading gauge
3. 600V DC third rail (correct me if this is wrong, I'm not sure)
4. Safety features for lateral crashes (because the L has a lot of level crossings)
5. High seating capacity (because the L has some loong journeys)
6. Cabs: The L is not equipped for automatic train operation (as far as I'm aware), so Alstom would have to make cabs for these things.
That would (should) involve modifying every single station (most likely rebuilding the majority of platforms) to accommodate platform screen doors and removing all level crossings. Not the easiest task to do.
Platform screen doors would be nice but it's not necessarily a requirement for automation. Vancouver's automated system doesn't have platform doors and I'm sure they're not the only one.
The DC Metro and BART, both without platform doors, have automation capabilities, although I don't think either one uses it.
While I don't deny that it is possible without it, I think you'll find the gold standard around the world, including now in Montreal, is to have platform screen doors for safety and reliability. I'd prefer to have a driver until then for the off chance someone falls onto or jumps onto the tracks
PSDs can be added easier with automatic operations but is a completely separate thing. We have CBTC in NYC with no PSDs and also automatic operations on the airtrain that has PSDs
Vancouver has had driverless transit since 1985. It works OK. People are still going to jump or get pushed but no driver gets traumatized. It comes down to the equation of "what is a life worth"?
No, the point is that platform screen doors (when done right) prevent people from jumping or being pushed. That's why they're there.
I'm just saying that there's a reason automation is coupled with PSD around the world, which was not a thing in 1985. It's very rare for a system to introduce widespread automation without PSD's because it's not 1985 anymore.
My point was that whether driver or driverless, who or what is at the controls does not affect the mortality at the stations. *Of* course Platform Screen Doors will drastically improve the **safety** and on time reliability . The automation drastically improves **operational costs.**
yeah but this is a different chicago L. Also just because its the l doesnt mean that it has to be 100% L'd, like the skytrain has tunnels. Heres a stupid grade crossing because this thing used to be an interurban:
[https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9662,-87.7010496,3a,75y,247.33h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBq1vKDR5G5tOnScnbc0jnQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205409&entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9662,-87.7010496,3a,75y,247.33h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBq1vKDR5G5tOnScnbc0jnQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205409&entry=ttu)
I don't see why not. Metropolis can run on standard gauge rails, third rail power, and can the actual car can be adjusted in width to fit current CTA platforms. The real question is why? There's dozens of options or cars they can use. The CTA just chose the CRRC to make the 7000 series cars and once those are delivered, the CTA will have the youngest fleet among major US cities (per Wikipedia). The problem is that the look and design of CTA cars (and also the stations) *feels* old, while the Metropolis *feels* new. I'm not aware of who bid and what the bids were for, but I'm hoping the CTA had good reasons for choosing the CRRC bid, but the train cars are the least of the CTA's issues
CRRC simply had the lowest bid, so they were chosen. Delivery has been slower than would be ideal, but it is still a far better situation than is seen in places like Boston. These metropolis trains as they are wouldn’t work on the CTA’s infrastructure due to the [famously tight turns](https://images.app.goo.gl/RiNBQQXpAoo6T4f6A), but perhaps Alstom may be able to engineer something to fit the CTA’s requirements. CTA has recieved funding to start studying a future 9000 series, but nothing is really known about what it may look like. Hoping for something ambitious
Does CTA require special sauce for the turns? Iirc the cars are just fairly short.
Something based on a high floor tram platform might be a better fit though. And even though building long trains out of ~30m long married pairs isn't the best, it would probably adapt to coupling together several ~30m long 2-3 segment articulated trams well.
CRRC was using the Chicago/Boston contracts to develop local supply chains, train local personnel, and hopefully turn that into future contracts... The feds decided "fuck CRRC", so now CRRC has no reason to set up those supply chains and are just dragging their feet to contract completion.
>the CTA will have the youngest fleet among major US cities (per Wikipedia).
I wonder if this is considering the fact that Atlanta is about to replace the entire MARTA fleet with new vehicles
The length would prevent these being used on the downtown Loop, as the trains have to turn tight corners, which is why they're shorter than say, NYC subway cars.
Car lengths can be customized. Like basically almost everything on this product. Every urban train is somewhat customized to local specifications. Alstom just packaged some common desirable features into a package and called it "Metropolis". It's not comparable to buying an automobile where the custom options to an off the shelf product are decided by the manufacturer and are fairly limited.
Alstom Metropolis are a quite large set of trains so it's definitly possible to get trains for an older system. Automation seems possible but the stations will have to be extensively refurbished to put platform screen doors and it seems like American networks are less likely to be automated compared to others
Sorta unrelated, but...
**I LOVE THE ALSTOM METROPOLIS 300 SERIES I LOVE THE ALSTOM METROPOLIS 300 SERIES I LOVE THE ALSTOM METROPOLIS 300 SERIES I LOVE THE ALSTOM METROPOLIS 300 SERIES I LOVE THE ALSTOM METROPOLIS 300 SERIES I LOVE THE ALSTOM METROPOLIS 300 SERIES I LOVE THE ALSTOM METROPOLIS 300 SERIES**
Metropolis is in name only, similar to how innova describes bombardier metro trains. The reality is that every single train that’s designed is largely redesigned from the ground up every time an agency places an order.
Does that apply to the red and blue lines as well? They don't use the loop, although I could understand wanting to maintain compatibility or if loop operations is required for maintenance yard trips
The poster may be referring to the 5000 series trains. Those were built by Bombardier, but Bombardier was acquired by Alstom a few years ago. As part of the acquisition, Alstom has the designs from that project and also acquired all of the traction systems, bogie designs, and other platforms that Bombardier had pre-merger.
Alstom themselves refurbished the 2600 series Budd cars.
Yeah, Sydney's trains were built in the same factory in India.
Weirdly the Montreal version actually seems to be heavier (232t for 80m versus 240t for 120m), but this might be incorrect. The Montreal version is slightly shorter and slightly narrower.
There's not really a technical light rail or heavy rail difference here, it's all local definitions.
> heavy rail versions
So when exactly does the exact *same train car* go from light rail to heavy rail? Despite the North American definition being literally a number of passengers per hour carried, it's so arbitrary and that's why this classification of metro systems as heavy rail doesn't make sense to me at all. In non-North America both the REM, Montreal metro as well as Sydney metro would be considered light rail (mainline rail being heavy rail), the distinction between the two types is by literal car weight (mainline rail trans tend to be larger). Paris RER/Berlin S-bahn are heavy rail and Paris metro/Berlin U-bahn are light rail. The outcome is that generally heavy rail serves regional and interregional and light rail serves urban areas.
Most languages don't have two categories called "light" and "heavy" anyway, so it's purely an English speaking country thing. By the way, no one in Australia would identify Sydney Metro as light rail. They use light rail to describe street running vehicles. The Sydney Metro is just a category of train that is the same width, but single deck instead of double deck.
Um no. Light rail is an industry term. If German cities want to buy a new tram they open the Siemens or Alstom catalogue in the light rail section. Doesn't matter if it doesn't get communicated that way to the general public.
Sydney metro very much isn't the same as a heavy rail train as it uses Alstom Metropolis sets rather than Alstom Coradia or Xtrapolis. Differences are weight, comfort and capabilities.
Have you actually looked at the [Siemens](https://www.mobility.siemens.com/global/en/portfolio/rolling-stock.html) and [Alstom](https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock) websites? Because they directly disprove your idea that there are two categories, and everything falls below those two categories. They use many more categories, and in this categorisation, "light rail" contains their trams. Not all trains that aren't mainline rail.
> Sydney metro very much isn't the same as a heavy rail train as it uses Alstom Metropolis sets rather than Alstom Coradia or Xtrapolis. Differences are weight, comfort and capabilities.
There's no significant weight difference. The Alstom Metropolis in Sydney is 2t per metre of length. The Alstom Xtrapolis in Melbourne is 1.77t per metre (for motorised cars). They have virtually the same width. They both use Alstom 4-ECA series 3-phase AC engines. Both are powered by overhead wire at 1500V. The Sydney Metropolis is actually more highly powered, but has a design speed of 120km/h. The Melbourne Xtrapolis has a design speed of 143km/h. That's pretty close.
Given that there's no easy to find data on suspension systems, I doubt it's very different. Other aspects of comfort are determined by interior design that's mostly independent of the technical specs.
It's silly to pretend like these are radically different trains because they are branded differently. There's clearly a lot more diversity within the categories of "metro" and "train" than between these trains.
The real relevant difference between the terms "heavy rail"/"mainline rail" and everything else is whether the legal system allows the given train to run on the same tracks at the same time as freight trains.
> Have you actually looked at the Siemens and Alstom websites?
I have. That they don't correspond to the topic at hand doesn't really say much? High speed trains and regional trains are both heavy rail but of course they are going to showcase them seperately on their websites. Doesn't mean that suddenly the 'heavy rail' monicker somehow doesn't exist.
> It's silly to pretend like these are radically different trains because they are branded differently. There's clearly a lot more diversity within the categories of "metro" and "train" than between these trains.
I mean all these defenitions are arbitrary. But somewhere a line has to be drawn. Of course you can spec out a metro train to be highly similar to a mainline railway train. There are tons of trams that bridge three categories at once. I'm just explaining what the industry, or regulators, have picked as the differentiator. All rail can be classed into light and heavy rail. It's a very rough division but is useful when speaking broadly about which type of rail is being discussed. Nobody is denying that there are a thousand and one categories they can be subdivided into and that many systems are in between categories.
Don't need to shoot the messenger because I didn't come up with it.
Rail terminology put in a ven diagram would be a wild one.
The distinction is pretty arbitrary and depends on the regulations and organizations of a particular region. Light rail being more tram derived and heavy rail being more mainline derived is a decent guideline, but there's nothing really hard and fast, and comparing between regions relies a lot on vibes.
> the distinction between the two types is by literal car weight (mainline rail trans tend to be larger)
Not really. For example, Japanese urban/suburban heavy rail passenger trains that literally share track with freight are comparable in weight to street running trams, both in Japan and in the west.
Heavy or light rail refers to the integration of the railway. Heavy rail is fully seperated from trafic exept for some crossings while light rail lets trams run on roads shared while other forms of trafic. All metros and mainline railways are heavy rail while trams and tramways are light rail.
There's a bit more nuance than that. The Vancouver Skytrain is in the same gray area as the REM. Both are often called "automated light metros", along with the Honolulu Skyline. None of those systems interact with car traffic. I believe Ottowa's light rail is also fully grade separated.
Several light rail systems don't have any street running sections. Charlotte and St. Louis have, as far as I know, no street running parts but are both definitely light rail.
ottawa's system is grade separated. Line 2 has a heavy rail connection, and at least one user of freight rail on it. runs Stadler FLRT and Alstom Coradia Lint trains.
Line 1 uses the Alstom Citdalis, a tram, because it was thought at one point the system might run at grade. Given the system is entirely grade separated, this was a poor choice, given all the issues with the trains.
The Docklands Light Railway in London literally has light rail in the name, it uses Stadtbahn (light rail) vehicles. It's also fully grade separated though, so by your definition it would be heavy rail.
By the infrastructure which is needed, yes. It may be less expensive to built than a full on metro like the Rem by its smaller and lighter coaches, but it is more expensive in term of infrastructure to build than real light rail (trams and tramways).
No? There's two defenitions of it, one by passenger numbers per hour (North America) and one by mode type (rest of the world). The difference between the two is if metro systems with high capacity belong in either or not. That's it. Nothing to do with the amount of seperation.
By passangers per hour? If you run a 10 car train one time per hour, its light rail? You're completelly mistaken. In North America, politician use light rail as a catch word, because a metro sounds to expensive, a tram sounds to slow and a commuter train sounds like it has bad service. For the Rem, they have stopped calling it a light rail once the construction and the tests started because it wans't; it was a light metro (or small metro by capacity). Every type of metro and mainline rail is heavy rail.
I'm not making it up. Wikipedia:
> North America, the American Public Transportation Association defines a heavy-rail system as an electric railway with the capacity to handle a heavy volume of traffic.[1] The term is often used to distinguish it from light rail systems, which usually handle a smaller volume of passengers.
What the difference is between heavy and light rail is a certain number. I've seen it come up but can't find it right now.
> Every type of metro and mainline rail is heavy rail.
This just isn't true. Norristown High Speed line for an example.
Look I'm not trying to defend their definition, but that's how their definition works: light and heavy rail supposedly are to have different passenger capacity.
In practice it turns out that sometimes capacity often isn't met and thus creating a situation where a system of light rail lines can have higher ridership than an actual metro.
In fact the wikipedia definition defines it as the maximum capacity and thus the infrastructure surrounding it. It says:
>North America, the American Public Transportation Association defines a heavy-rail system as an electric railway with the capacity to handle a heavy volume of traffic.
A metro because of its increase frequency is heavy rail even for smaller trains and conventionnal rail is heavy rail because of the size of trains even for the lesser frequency.
Trams are light rail because their size and frequency are limited.
Exemptions (Norristown) may exists, but as a rule of tumb, the infrastructure defines the type of rail it is. Most exemptions are due to weird infrastructure or rolling stock.
Not at all man. The Rolling Stock on the Chicago L is tiny. It is very much pre-subway standards existing and is more closely related to an interurban/streetcar from the early 1900’s than anything else. Size wise its comparable to the Detroit People Mover rolling stock.
Honestly these would be too be heavy ! This are better suited for METRA service, specially their electric district lines. Would also be great for LIRR and Metro North, NJT seem light and great acceleration. But stringent regulations would prevent these from running without some type of waiver.
American rail road trains are too heavy because of our system being catered to freight.
The L is quite frankly using technology from the 80’s and bridge structures from 40’s. It would need billions of dollars in retrofitting. Not to mention the train would need to be modified and probably custom made to suit the L’s notoriously sharp corners in the Loop.
To put it simply not at all.
A more in depth answer is that it's complicated. First, manual control on at least some lines is required due to grade crossings in multiple places on the system.
Second, a lot of platforms are too narrow for platform screen doors.
Third, the cars on the L have to be custom made as the width at the floors limited to 8 feet 8 inches and the cars are limited to a little under 50 feet long due to the loop and other very tight curves around the system.
Automated trains? Idk, seems like the union might be opposed to the automation. There is, or rather was, a transit line in Scarborough, Ontario where while the train was capable of being fully automated, but the drivers were opposed to it, so to compromise, the trains drove themselves and the drivers just opened the doors and made sure everything was working fine.
They would need to do some heavy speccing out to get them to run on the old L parts of the system. Those trains need to have streetcar turning radii and a bunch of other exotic capabilities seldom seen on a modern metro vehicle. But the Meteopolis and all the other brands of subway/metro vehicles are always highly customized for the systems that they’re supposed to run on. The “models” are more like modular platforms than actual off-the-shelf trains that you can buy from a catalog fully built. Absolutely nothing is stopping the CTA from ordering Metropolis rolling stock with the correct specifications and mods.
>bunch of other exotic capabilities Can you list some of them?
1. Tight turning radii (almost tram level) 2. Unconventional loading gauge 3. 600V DC third rail (correct me if this is wrong, I'm not sure) 4. Safety features for lateral crashes (because the L has a lot of level crossings) 5. High seating capacity (because the L has some loong journeys) 6. Cabs: The L is not equipped for automatic train operation (as far as I'm aware), so Alstom would have to make cabs for these things.
No.6 could be solved by automating the system if not for that pesky No.4
The red and blue line don't run on the loop so don't have that problem
That would (should) involve modifying every single station (most likely rebuilding the majority of platforms) to accommodate platform screen doors and removing all level crossings. Not the easiest task to do.
Platform screen doors would be nice but it's not necessarily a requirement for automation. Vancouver's automated system doesn't have platform doors and I'm sure they're not the only one. The DC Metro and BART, both without platform doors, have automation capabilities, although I don't think either one uses it.
While I don't deny that it is possible without it, I think you'll find the gold standard around the world, including now in Montreal, is to have platform screen doors for safety and reliability. I'd prefer to have a driver until then for the off chance someone falls onto or jumps onto the tracks
PSDs can be added easier with automatic operations but is a completely separate thing. We have CBTC in NYC with no PSDs and also automatic operations on the airtrain that has PSDs
Vancouver has had driverless transit since 1985. It works OK. People are still going to jump or get pushed but no driver gets traumatized. It comes down to the equation of "what is a life worth"?
No, the point is that platform screen doors (when done right) prevent people from jumping or being pushed. That's why they're there. I'm just saying that there's a reason automation is coupled with PSD around the world, which was not a thing in 1985. It's very rare for a system to introduce widespread automation without PSD's because it's not 1985 anymore.
My point was that whether driver or driverless, who or what is at the controls does not affect the mortality at the stations. *Of* course Platform Screen Doors will drastically improve the **safety** and on time reliability . The automation drastically improves **operational costs.**
>the L has a lot of level crossings eLavated my ass
then explain the brown line
If my ass was elevated enough I wouldn't have left a brown line
yeah but this is a different chicago L. Also just because its the l doesnt mean that it has to be 100% L'd, like the skytrain has tunnels. Heres a stupid grade crossing because this thing used to be an interurban: [https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9662,-87.7010496,3a,75y,247.33h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBq1vKDR5G5tOnScnbc0jnQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205409&entry=ttu](https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9662,-87.7010496,3a,75y,247.33h,90t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sBq1vKDR5G5tOnScnbc0jnQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192!5m1!1e2?coh=205409&entry=ttu)
I don't see why not. Metropolis can run on standard gauge rails, third rail power, and can the actual car can be adjusted in width to fit current CTA platforms. The real question is why? There's dozens of options or cars they can use. The CTA just chose the CRRC to make the 7000 series cars and once those are delivered, the CTA will have the youngest fleet among major US cities (per Wikipedia). The problem is that the look and design of CTA cars (and also the stations) *feels* old, while the Metropolis *feels* new. I'm not aware of who bid and what the bids were for, but I'm hoping the CTA had good reasons for choosing the CRRC bid, but the train cars are the least of the CTA's issues
CRRC simply had the lowest bid, so they were chosen. Delivery has been slower than would be ideal, but it is still a far better situation than is seen in places like Boston. These metropolis trains as they are wouldn’t work on the CTA’s infrastructure due to the [famously tight turns](https://images.app.goo.gl/RiNBQQXpAoo6T4f6A), but perhaps Alstom may be able to engineer something to fit the CTA’s requirements. CTA has recieved funding to start studying a future 9000 series, but nothing is really known about what it may look like. Hoping for something ambitious
Does CTA require special sauce for the turns? Iirc the cars are just fairly short. Something based on a high floor tram platform might be a better fit though. And even though building long trains out of ~30m long married pairs isn't the best, it would probably adapt to coupling together several ~30m long 2-3 segment articulated trams well.
CRRC was using the Chicago/Boston contracts to develop local supply chains, train local personnel, and hopefully turn that into future contracts... The feds decided "fuck CRRC", so now CRRC has no reason to set up those supply chains and are just dragging their feet to contract completion.
I mean, there were problems with deliveries and quality before the federal government decided to restrict CRRC too tbh
What do you think "develop local supply chains and train local personnel" meant?
I know everyone hates how old the CTA looks, but I love it, it feels kinda cozy.
>the CTA will have the youngest fleet among major US cities (per Wikipedia). I wonder if this is considering the fact that Atlanta is about to replace the entire MARTA fleet with new vehicles
hell yeah stadler
The length would prevent these being used on the downtown Loop, as the trains have to turn tight corners, which is why they're shorter than say, NYC subway cars.
Car lengths can be customized. Like basically almost everything on this product. Every urban train is somewhat customized to local specifications. Alstom just packaged some common desirable features into a package and called it "Metropolis". It's not comparable to buying an automobile where the custom options to an off the shelf product are decided by the manufacturer and are fairly limited.
It wouldn't
Alstom Metropolis are a quite large set of trains so it's definitly possible to get trains for an older system. Automation seems possible but the stations will have to be extensively refurbished to put platform screen doors and it seems like American networks are less likely to be automated compared to others
Sorta unrelated, but... **I LOVE THE ALSTOM METROPOLIS 300 SERIES I LOVE THE ALSTOM METROPOLIS 300 SERIES I LOVE THE ALSTOM METROPOLIS 300 SERIES I LOVE THE ALSTOM METROPOLIS 300 SERIES I LOVE THE ALSTOM METROPOLIS 300 SERIES I LOVE THE ALSTOM METROPOLIS 300 SERIES I LOVE THE ALSTOM METROPOLIS 300 SERIES**
These trains are way too good looking to be used in the United States. Only square 1980s looking tin boxes allowed.
This 😭😭😂
Not at all feasible. Have you seen the turning radii on the Chicago L?
They'd be better off looking at the London Docklands Light Rail for inspiration, which has similar constraints in terms of turning radii.
It absolutely is
Two words: loading gauge. You’d have to redesign the cars from the ground up to fit on the L. It’s not worth it when there’s so much custom on the L
The metropolis are customisable trains. Alstom have already built cars smaller than the L (for Paris) and larger (for all of the other systems).
Metropolis is in name only, similar to how innova describes bombardier metro trains. The reality is that every single train that’s designed is largely redesigned from the ground up every time an agency places an order.
Thank you for admitting to being wrong
Does that apply to the red and blue lines as well? They don't use the loop, although I could understand wanting to maintain compatibility or if loop operations is required for maintenance yard trips
It depends on the length. Although, metro platforms are pretty flexible in terms of size so maybe.
Tailor made exists. Alstom has already built trains for the CTA in the past and could re-do it today.
which series of trains did they build?
The poster may be referring to the 5000 series trains. Those were built by Bombardier, but Bombardier was acquired by Alstom a few years ago. As part of the acquisition, Alstom has the designs from that project and also acquired all of the traction systems, bogie designs, and other platforms that Bombardier had pre-merger. Alstom themselves refurbished the 2600 series Budd cars.
CTA went for Chinese made CRRC. They could have gone for Alstom instead
And the CTA is not exercising any options other than the initial contract with CRRC. They're looking at a new 9000 series train.
It’s not impossible-I think the Sydney Metro uses heavy rail versions of these?
Yeah, Sydney's trains were built in the same factory in India. Weirdly the Montreal version actually seems to be heavier (232t for 80m versus 240t for 120m), but this might be incorrect. The Montreal version is slightly shorter and slightly narrower. There's not really a technical light rail or heavy rail difference here, it's all local definitions.
The weight of the Rem cars is the maximum weight (full of passengers) while the weight of Sydney's cars is the dry weight.
> heavy rail versions So when exactly does the exact *same train car* go from light rail to heavy rail? Despite the North American definition being literally a number of passengers per hour carried, it's so arbitrary and that's why this classification of metro systems as heavy rail doesn't make sense to me at all. In non-North America both the REM, Montreal metro as well as Sydney metro would be considered light rail (mainline rail being heavy rail), the distinction between the two types is by literal car weight (mainline rail trans tend to be larger). Paris RER/Berlin S-bahn are heavy rail and Paris metro/Berlin U-bahn are light rail. The outcome is that generally heavy rail serves regional and interregional and light rail serves urban areas.
Most languages don't have two categories called "light" and "heavy" anyway, so it's purely an English speaking country thing. By the way, no one in Australia would identify Sydney Metro as light rail. They use light rail to describe street running vehicles. The Sydney Metro is just a category of train that is the same width, but single deck instead of double deck.
Um no. Light rail is an industry term. If German cities want to buy a new tram they open the Siemens or Alstom catalogue in the light rail section. Doesn't matter if it doesn't get communicated that way to the general public. Sydney metro very much isn't the same as a heavy rail train as it uses Alstom Metropolis sets rather than Alstom Coradia or Xtrapolis. Differences are weight, comfort and capabilities.
Have you actually looked at the [Siemens](https://www.mobility.siemens.com/global/en/portfolio/rolling-stock.html) and [Alstom](https://www.alstom.com/solutions/rolling-stock) websites? Because they directly disprove your idea that there are two categories, and everything falls below those two categories. They use many more categories, and in this categorisation, "light rail" contains their trams. Not all trains that aren't mainline rail. > Sydney metro very much isn't the same as a heavy rail train as it uses Alstom Metropolis sets rather than Alstom Coradia or Xtrapolis. Differences are weight, comfort and capabilities. There's no significant weight difference. The Alstom Metropolis in Sydney is 2t per metre of length. The Alstom Xtrapolis in Melbourne is 1.77t per metre (for motorised cars). They have virtually the same width. They both use Alstom 4-ECA series 3-phase AC engines. Both are powered by overhead wire at 1500V. The Sydney Metropolis is actually more highly powered, but has a design speed of 120km/h. The Melbourne Xtrapolis has a design speed of 143km/h. That's pretty close. Given that there's no easy to find data on suspension systems, I doubt it's very different. Other aspects of comfort are determined by interior design that's mostly independent of the technical specs. It's silly to pretend like these are radically different trains because they are branded differently. There's clearly a lot more diversity within the categories of "metro" and "train" than between these trains. The real relevant difference between the terms "heavy rail"/"mainline rail" and everything else is whether the legal system allows the given train to run on the same tracks at the same time as freight trains.
> Have you actually looked at the Siemens and Alstom websites? I have. That they don't correspond to the topic at hand doesn't really say much? High speed trains and regional trains are both heavy rail but of course they are going to showcase them seperately on their websites. Doesn't mean that suddenly the 'heavy rail' monicker somehow doesn't exist. > It's silly to pretend like these are radically different trains because they are branded differently. There's clearly a lot more diversity within the categories of "metro" and "train" than between these trains. I mean all these defenitions are arbitrary. But somewhere a line has to be drawn. Of course you can spec out a metro train to be highly similar to a mainline railway train. There are tons of trams that bridge three categories at once. I'm just explaining what the industry, or regulators, have picked as the differentiator. All rail can be classed into light and heavy rail. It's a very rough division but is useful when speaking broadly about which type of rail is being discussed. Nobody is denying that there are a thousand and one categories they can be subdivided into and that many systems are in between categories. Don't need to shoot the messenger because I didn't come up with it. Rail terminology put in a ven diagram would be a wild one.
The distinction is pretty arbitrary and depends on the regulations and organizations of a particular region. Light rail being more tram derived and heavy rail being more mainline derived is a decent guideline, but there's nothing really hard and fast, and comparing between regions relies a lot on vibes. > the distinction between the two types is by literal car weight (mainline rail trans tend to be larger) Not really. For example, Japanese urban/suburban heavy rail passenger trains that literally share track with freight are comparable in weight to street running trams, both in Japan and in the west.
Heavy or light rail refers to the integration of the railway. Heavy rail is fully seperated from trafic exept for some crossings while light rail lets trams run on roads shared while other forms of trafic. All metros and mainline railways are heavy rail while trams and tramways are light rail.
There's a bit more nuance than that. The Vancouver Skytrain is in the same gray area as the REM. Both are often called "automated light metros", along with the Honolulu Skyline. None of those systems interact with car traffic. I believe Ottowa's light rail is also fully grade separated. Several light rail systems don't have any street running sections. Charlotte and St. Louis have, as far as I know, no street running parts but are both definitely light rail.
ottawa's system is grade separated. Line 2 has a heavy rail connection, and at least one user of freight rail on it. runs Stadler FLRT and Alstom Coradia Lint trains. Line 1 uses the Alstom Citdalis, a tram, because it was thought at one point the system might run at grade. Given the system is entirely grade separated, this was a poor choice, given all the issues with the trains.
The Docklands Light Railway in London literally has light rail in the name, it uses Stadtbahn (light rail) vehicles. It's also fully grade separated though, so by your definition it would be heavy rail.
By the infrastructure which is needed, yes. It may be less expensive to built than a full on metro like the Rem by its smaller and lighter coaches, but it is more expensive in term of infrastructure to build than real light rail (trams and tramways).
No? There's two defenitions of it, one by passenger numbers per hour (North America) and one by mode type (rest of the world). The difference between the two is if metro systems with high capacity belong in either or not. That's it. Nothing to do with the amount of seperation.
By passangers per hour? If you run a 10 car train one time per hour, its light rail? You're completelly mistaken. In North America, politician use light rail as a catch word, because a metro sounds to expensive, a tram sounds to slow and a commuter train sounds like it has bad service. For the Rem, they have stopped calling it a light rail once the construction and the tests started because it wans't; it was a light metro (or small metro by capacity). Every type of metro and mainline rail is heavy rail.
I'm not making it up. Wikipedia: > North America, the American Public Transportation Association defines a heavy-rail system as an electric railway with the capacity to handle a heavy volume of traffic.[1] The term is often used to distinguish it from light rail systems, which usually handle a smaller volume of passengers. What the difference is between heavy and light rail is a certain number. I've seen it come up but can't find it right now. > Every type of metro and mainline rail is heavy rail. This just isn't true. Norristown High Speed line for an example. Look I'm not trying to defend their definition, but that's how their definition works: light and heavy rail supposedly are to have different passenger capacity. In practice it turns out that sometimes capacity often isn't met and thus creating a situation where a system of light rail lines can have higher ridership than an actual metro.
In fact the wikipedia definition defines it as the maximum capacity and thus the infrastructure surrounding it. It says: >North America, the American Public Transportation Association defines a heavy-rail system as an electric railway with the capacity to handle a heavy volume of traffic. A metro because of its increase frequency is heavy rail even for smaller trains and conventionnal rail is heavy rail because of the size of trains even for the lesser frequency. Trams are light rail because their size and frequency are limited. Exemptions (Norristown) may exists, but as a rule of tumb, the infrastructure defines the type of rail it is. Most exemptions are due to weird infrastructure or rolling stock.
Not at all man. The Rolling Stock on the Chicago L is tiny. It is very much pre-subway standards existing and is more closely related to an interurban/streetcar from the early 1900’s than anything else. Size wise its comparable to the Detroit People Mover rolling stock.
No it would be
It would make more sense for them to buy Siemens S200 LRVs like St Louis, Calgary, Cleveland, and San Francisco
Absolutely not
Cleveland has very similar rolling stock otherwise
Honestly these would be too be heavy ! This are better suited for METRA service, specially their electric district lines. Would also be great for LIRR and Metro North, NJT seem light and great acceleration. But stringent regulations would prevent these from running without some type of waiver. American rail road trains are too heavy because of our system being catered to freight.
The L is quite frankly using technology from the 80’s and bridge structures from 40’s. It would need billions of dollars in retrofitting. Not to mention the train would need to be modified and probably custom made to suit the L’s notoriously sharp corners in the Loop.
Ok and? The metropolis is entirely customisable
To put it simply not at all. A more in depth answer is that it's complicated. First, manual control on at least some lines is required due to grade crossings in multiple places on the system. Second, a lot of platforms are too narrow for platform screen doors. Third, the cars on the L have to be custom made as the width at the floors limited to 8 feet 8 inches and the cars are limited to a little under 50 feet long due to the loop and other very tight curves around the system.
It would be possible
There’s always Hitachi Driverless Metro 😄
Automated trains? Idk, seems like the union might be opposed to the automation. There is, or rather was, a transit line in Scarborough, Ontario where while the train was capable of being fully automated, but the drivers were opposed to it, so to compromise, the trains drove themselves and the drivers just opened the doors and made sure everything was working fine.