mfastx Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 heavy rail takes longer to start and stop. to say that it is much faster than light rail even if there are the same amount of stops is an outright lie. ?? I'd like to see a source on this. Heavy rail would travel at much faster speeds than light rail. It's well documented that the average speed of heavy rail is double that of light rail, even in places where stops are only about a quarter mile apart (New York, DC) EDIT: to be clear I am talking about heavy rail systems like the MARTA, BART, and DC Metro. NOT "commuter rail" which does indeed take longer to start and stop. Maybe that is what you are referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 Sounds like you're saying that its capacity is heavier than light rail which is fine....I don't consider that heavy rail though. different definitions Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted August 24, 2013 Share Posted August 24, 2013 edited Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 Sounds like you're saying that its capacity is heavier than light rail which is fine....I don't consider that heavy rail though. different definitions Well, us transportation geeks refer to systems like the ones I mentioned as heavy rail. Due to the fact that the rails are configured for heavier trains.. What you were referring to is commuter rail.. which is indeed "heavy rail," but it is not referred to as such in the transportation geek world. lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 Well, us transportation geeks refer to systems like the ones I mentioned as heavy rail. Due to the fact that the rails are configured for heavier trains.. What you were referring to is commuter rail.. which is indeed "heavy rail," but it is not referred to as such in the transportation geek world. lol Unfortunately, your status as a "transportation geek" did not assist you in getting the definition correct. APATA defines heavy and light rail as follows... Heavy Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metro, subway, rapid transit, or rapid rail) operating on an electric railway with the capacity for a heavy volume of traffic. It is characterized by high speed and rapid acceleration passenger rail cars operating singly or in multi-car trains on fixed rails; separate rights-of-way from which all other vehicular and foot traffic are excluded; sophisticated signaling, and high platform loading. Light Rail is a mode of transit service (also called streetcar, tramway, or trolley) operating passenger rail cars singly (or in short, usually two-car or three-car, trains) on fixed rails in right-of-way that is often separated from other traffic for part or much of the way. Light rail vehicles are typically driven electrically with power being drawn from an overhead electric line via a trolley or a pantograph; driven by an operator on board the vehicle; and may have either high platform loading or low level boarding using steps. http://www.apta.com/resources/statistics/Pages/glossary.aspx It is not the actual rail car that determines heavy or light rail, nor is it the speed capability of the rail car. The Siemens units used in Houston can reach 65 mph. It is the placement of the track that determines the designation.The weight of the trains has absolutely nothing to do with it, either. In fact, the Siemens units weigh over 100,000 pounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 Unfortunately, your status as a "transportation geek" did not assist you in getting the definition correct. APATA defines heavy and light rail as follows... Actually, the passages you quote don't refute his use of the term, they reinforce his use. He referred to BART and DC Metro as "heavy rail." They are both subways. Your quote specifically states "Heavy Rail is a mode of transit service (also called metro, subway..." Glad to see you two agreeing about something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
editor Posted August 25, 2013 Share Posted August 25, 2013 heavy rail takes longer to start and stop. to say that it is much faster than light rail even if there are the same amount of stops is an outright lie.Not an outright lie at all. If you're only thinking about tiny distances, then yes. But if your rail line goes more than a couple of miles the heavy rail can easily be faster than light rail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 Unfortunately, your status as a "transportation geek" did not assist you in getting the definition correct. APATA defines heavy and light rail as follows... Like Editor pointed out, I was using the APTA classifications. Heavy rail trains are usually 8-10 cars long while light rail is usually 2-3 cars long. Capacity is much higher and while our current fleet is capable of going 65 mph, it is very rare for light rail to travel that fast in service. Btw, our new cars will have a top speed of only 40 mph roughly. But it is great to agree on something! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 I'm not familiar with the details of the express bus service that was offered to IAH, but it seems questionable to me that increasing capacity (by use of heavy rail) on a route that was cancelled because of lack of ridership would bring a lot of value. I get that heavy rail would be faster than light rail or bus, but I'm doubtful that any of those options would be faster than driving. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted August 26, 2013 Author Share Posted August 26, 2013 I'm not familiar with the details of the express bus service that was offered to IAH, but it seems questionable to me that increasing capacity (by use of heavy rail) on a route that was cancelled because of lack of ridership would bring a lot of value. I get that heavy rail would be faster than light rail or bus, but I'm doubtful that any of those options would be faster than driving.Because a heavy rail line would actually have stops along the way and be connected to a wider rail system. Different than a direct bus line from downtown to iah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 Like Editor pointed out, I was using the APTA classifications. Heavy rail trains are usually 8-10 cars long while light rail is usually 2-3 cars long. Capacity is much higher and while our current fleet is capable of going 65 mph, it is very rare for light rail to travel that fast in service. Btw, our new cars will have a top speed of only 40 mph roughly. But it is great to agree on something! Actually, you AND the editor are wrong. Well, I will give you partial credit. However, you claimed the classification is due to weight, which is incorrect. Your quote... Well, us transportation geeks refer to systems like the ones I mentioned as heavy rail. Due to the fact that the rails are configured for heavier trains.. The bolded part is wrong. But, I am sure you are excited that the editor stuck up for you. Good for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 A lot of people point to the existing heavy rail lines in Houston and their connection with the suburbs, which is true, but there will need to be significant upgrades for commuter rail traffic, and the fact that you can't have too many stops. Now, if you got The Woodlands "on board" with heavy commuter rail with maybe a stop near the airport, well, that just might work. A further plan could be that the commuter rail only goes so far as a proposed transit center near Greenspoint, similar to an idea that the Northwest Transit Center could have the light rail end there and have commuter rail go northwest. Problem is people really don't like transfers. Let's say you live in Spring and work downtown. Would you rather drive a car a short distance to the rail station, wait, go down to the transit center at Greenspoint via heavy rail, wait, ride the light rail to make it's way down Main Street (et. al.) to downtown, and then walk to work from there... OR Drive your car a long distance on toll roads (even long ones) and then just park in the parking garage? Even if you thought it was hip to do the former option, most people would do the latter. Besides, with more and more office buildings opening in the suburbs, driving to downtown may not even be necessary anymore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 Because a heavy rail line would actually have stops along the way and be connected to a wider rail system. Different than a direct bus line from downtown to iah.Sure, but each of those things translates to a longer transit time. Seems pretty optimistic to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted August 26, 2013 Share Posted August 26, 2013 Actually, you AND the editor are wrong. Well, I will give you partial credit. However, you claimed the classification is due to weight, which is incorrect. Your quote... The bolded part is wrong. But, I am sure you are excited that the editor stuck up for you. Good for you. I do know the difference between light rail and heavy rail, even though I mispoke. But for the fun of it, you could say that heavy rail trains are heavier, as a 10 car train is heavier than a 2 car train, even if each car of the 2 car train is heavier individually. For example, you could not run a 10 car train on the current tracks we are building. Different specifications need to be met. And I'm very excited, and thank you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trae Posted August 26, 2013 Author Share Posted August 26, 2013 Sure, but each of those things translates to a longer transit time. Seems pretty optimistic to me.It's not all about getting there the fastest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IronTiger Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 It's not all about getting there the fastest.It's also about getting there the cheapest & most efficiently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 It's not all about getting there the fastest. You're right, but it is a factor. Especially if the transit time is significantly longer which is what would happen with a light rail connection to a heavy rail running from the end of the North line. If you think about the door to door transit time from someplace like U of H, it's pretty daunting. BTW, one thing to keep in mind with rail transit to IAH is that there would have to be an additional system built at the airport to move passengers once they arrive. There's no central location for a train to disembark passengers and allow them access to all terminals and the current system would be inadequate for those needs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryDierker Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 BTW, one thing to keep in mind with rail transit to IAH is that there would have to be an additional system built at the airport to move passengers once they arrive. There's no central location for a train to disembark passengers and allow them access to all terminals and the current system would be inadequate for those needs. Does the 'elevated train' not run between the terminals anymore? http://goo.gl/maps/tMCk9 there was also an underground train that connected the terminals back when I worked there in 1999/2000. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skwatra Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 The elevated train and the Interterminal (underground) train both still operate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 The elevated train and the Interterminal (underground) train both still operate. Just my opinion, but I don't see those as viable options for connection to a heavy rail station. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Montrose1100 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 Just my opinion, but I don't see those as viable options for connection to a heavy rail station.They are hardly viable options between terminals (dramatic statement). The Underground one is scary and loud. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarryDierker Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 You could always hop on the employee shuttle, it stops at every terminal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
livincinco Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 My point was that the layout and current transportation system at IAH is not really conducive to having a train deliver a large number of people to a centralized location. Personally, I feel like we're drifting a little too far from the North Line topic at this point and should probably open another thread if people want to continue the discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted August 27, 2013 Share Posted August 27, 2013 My point was that the layout and current transportation system at IAH is not really conducive to having a train deliver a large number of people to a centralized location. Personally, I feel like we're drifting a little too far from the North Line topic at this point and should probably open another thread if people want to continue the discussion. One idea that is being considered/will be considered is to have Metro rail come to the Central rental car location on JFK and either stop there, with a switch to a future airport rail to the terminals or continue on with Metro equipment going direct to the terminals. The airport Master Plan calls for a central terminal to be built to which the rail service would go. Regardless, there is nothing about the layout that makes it not conducive to deliver a "large number of people" to a centralized location. As has been noted, we already have all the terminals connected by two different rail systems that can easily manage the distribution of the "large number of people" to the various terminals. See, for example, O'Hare Airport, which has a multi-terminal airport with one rail stop. (I put "large number of people" in quotes, because, at least relative to the number of people who come and go from IAH every day, the rail will not likely deliver a large number of people.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricco67 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 By the way, I noticed a train in the burnett stop s but ago. I guess they are accelerating the testing schedule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Houston19514 Posted August 28, 2013 Share Posted August 28, 2013 By the way, I noticed a train in the burnett stop s but ago.I guess they are accelerating the testing schedule? No recent acceleration. That's been the plan for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ArchFan Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 The above-ground people mover at IAH is within the security perimeter, right? As such, I don't see it as likely to connect directly with any rail system we might construct to get people to the airport. I don't recall whether the underground system is inside or outside of security, but I doubt it would have the capacity to serve that purpose, either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 There are many ways to connect a light rail line to the airport. You could have a central station with any of the following options: a shuttle bus connecting terminals to the rail station (Boston, LA are cities that I know have this), you could construct a people mover (my vote would be for us to somehow extend the underground people mover to the rail station since it is already outside of the sterile zone, the underground people mover would most likely have to be reconstructed as well), or you could have elevated walkways from the station to the terminals. A more expensive and probably not viable option would be to construct a station at each of the terminals, but you'd have to reconfigure the terminals and it would cost a lot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rsb320 Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 There is a train parked up on the new bridge today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mfastx Posted August 29, 2013 Share Posted August 29, 2013 Apparently they had the first test run on its own power last night, per METRO's facebook page. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.