From: ahk@chinet.com   
      
   Stephen Sprunk  wrote:   
   >On 14-Aug-14 03:37, rcp27g@gmail.com wrote:   
      
   >>Terms "heavy rail" and "light rail" are not particularly meaningful   
   >>anyway as they are marketing, not technical terms.   
      
   >They are FRA/FTA regulatory terms, not marketing or technical terms.   
      
   FTA is barely a standards-making agency. Anyway, if you're insisting on   
   pedanticism, "general system of railroad transportation" is a term   
   defined in transportation law in which the federal government asserts   
   regulatory authority over railroads meeting its definition. It long   
   predates FRA. FRA doesn't define its regulatory and standards-making regime   
   for itself; it has to be defined in law outside FRA.   
      
   >"Light rail" is for heavy non-FRA trains on a non-exclusive ROW, and   
   >"heavy rail" is for light non-FRA trains on an exclusive ROW.   
      
   I guess I've seen these terms in reference in regulation but can't say   
   I've seen a precise regulatory definition. In any event, the bright-line   
   distinction you claim is there based on use of exclusive right of way   
   ain't there at all. St. Louis, obviously, is almost entirely former   
   railroad right of way, except for portions on structure on a new,   
   exclusive, alignment on the Lambert Field airport campus.  St. Louis IS   
   NOT heavy rail.   
      
   Pittsburgh? I can't think of any non-exclusive segment since downtown   
   street running was eliminated except the Mount Washington tunnel, shared   
   with buses.   
      
   San Francisco and Boston are older systems in which street running is   
   combined with extensive tunnelling.   
      
   Patronage doesn't work as a distinction either. In a modern system like   
   Baltimore, for years, light rail routes had higher passenger density   
   than heavy rail routes. In Boston, when I looked up entering ridership   
   at Government Center station, because I was appalled that MBTA would shut   
   down a station with such high ridership for two years, it appeared to be   
   among the nation's top dozen boarding locations.   
      
   Is weight of the rolling stock a distinction? Historically, Chicago   
   "L" cars, based on PCCs, were lighter than modern light rail vehicles,   
   particularly Pittsburgh's. Even today, there is no shortage of examples   
   in which light rail vehicles have larger dimensions than Chicago "L" cars.   
      
   You can't even use train length as a distinguishing feature, again, with   
   too many Chicago exceptions given historic single-car train operation in   
   Chicago and still operating two-car trains on shuttles in Skokie and   
   Evanston for the bulk of service.   
      
   Your heavy-rail-versus-light-rail distinction is as much hand waiving as   
   that of anyone else assigning routes and systems to categories. In any   
   event, when referring to older systems like Chicago and New York, it's   
   rapid transit, not heavy rail. No regular passenger says "heavy rail".   
      
   --- SoupGate/W32 v1.03   
    * Origin: LiveWire BBS -=*=- UseNet FTN Gateway (1:2320/1)