Talk:Light rail/Archive 1

message: I did it! I did it! I found the origin of light rail. It was invented in 1972 by the UMTA. It was derived from the German term stadtbahn rather then the British term light railway. The bafflegab on light railways now goes the way of the dodo (except for a polite nod in its direction, of course) RockyMtnGuy 23:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Origin of term ''light rail''

message: Does the author have permission to post this? ,  --maveric149
Yes, as far as I know
1. http://www.rinbad.demon.co.uk/ca_rail.htm -- from their FAQ 
 Copyright policy?
Copyright © 1992-2000. The copyright of the pages on this site belongs to us, but you may make copies for personal use. If you reproduce any of the material in any electronic or paper publication whether for profit or otherwise, please acknowledge the source as Rinbad.
2. The data is public data from National Transit Database, APTA (an association of public agencies) copied it themselves and formatted it in html, which was copied and cited, does that formatting matter?
Their statement:
Copyright© 2001, American Public Transportation Association; All Rights Reserved. Permission to use, copy and distribute documents and related graphics from this World Wide Web server ("Server") is granted provided that (1) the above copyright notice appears in all copies and that both the copyright notice and this permission notice appear; (2) use of documents and related graphics available from this Server is for informational and non-commercial purposes only; (3) no documents or related graphics available from this Server are modified in any way, and; (4) no graphics available from this Server are used, copied or distributed separate from accompanying text. Any rights not expressly granted herein are reserved by the American Public Transportation Association. The American Public Transportation Association shall not be liable for any damages whatsoever, including but not limited to direct, indirect, or consequential damages, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this Server or links provided from this Server to other servers or websites.
--DavidLevinson
Just as I thought -- these conditions are not compatible with the GNU FDL. The above notice can be deleted by anyone any time a wiki and no provision of the FDL can prevent commercial redistribution. Attribution on a wiki is also not possible. The material needs to be either extensively rewritten or removed. --maveric149
I have no problem in principle with rewriting LRT article (Rinbad piece), but
"Wikipedia and Nupedia's use of the GFDL began in January, 2001, and has won the project the support of Richard Stallman of the FSF.  See [1].  It has long been the understanding of Wikipedia principals (Jimbo Wales and Larry Sanger at least) that, as in the case of Nupedia (see [2] and [3]), links back to original Wikipedia articles would be required from anyone who used Wikipedia articles.  (Jimbo confirms that Stallman agreed that the license permits this. [4])  Wikipedia principals have, recently, finally gotten around to making this requirement explicit for Wikipedia (as it has been for Nupedia), which has caused some controversy. (See the Wikipedia-L archives and /Talk.)"
So if Wikipedia's GFDL allows it to insist that others links back to it, it is quite inconsistent to not allow other licenses to require that Wikipedia refer back to it.  I realize that since anyone can edit, anyone can delete notice, but that seems an implementation problem, that Wikipedia may face if another Wiki type site cites its articles. (Rinbad clearly just wants acknowledgment, and implicitly allows profit distribution).
I suspect APTA is blowing smoke about their copyright,  but I am still plowing through National Transit Database to find the original table.  I agree there is a problem with not allowing commercial reproduction if their copyright is valid.  But if it is public data than the point is moot.  
--DavidLevinson
As I thought, APTA took the data from: http://www.ntdprogram.com/NTD/NTDData.nsf/2000+TOC/Table20/$File/t20_32.html
(or equivalent tables in previous years)
The National Transit Database Table 20 and basically deleted all the lines not dealing with LRT (and a few redundant columns) to create the specific table.
Is that copyrightable?
Can I take someone else's data and remove some and get a new copyright?  Can I change a font and get a new copyright?
--DavidLevinson
Nope -- making those types of changes along with any changes that are not a complete rewrite are called "derivitive works" and are covered by the original copyright (no new copyright was formed since the terms of the original copyright cannot be followed by this wiki or be re-licensed under the GNU FDL). So the list has to be removed and the stub for this article has to be rewritten. You can use the same information in the rewrite - but it must be said in a different way and presented in a way that does not substantially reflect the creative work of the original author. If you don't get around to this, I will provide a rewritten definition that I prepared for work (also based in part on the definition you provided but rewritten to conform to copyright law). 
Also, even if the the original info for the table was from the FTA (thus in the public domain) APTA modified and added to it. Their modifications and choice of additions (even if they were also PD) is under automatic copyright protection in the US. The table in the / page is exactly the same as the one linked anyway - so providing an external link to it has the same effect. I will go ahead and remove the content from the / page and add the page to page titles to be deleted for a final review by another administrator. We are all learning here, so I hope this does not cause undue hard feelings. :)--maveric149 
My questions were rhetorical and aimed at APTA not wikipedia.  APTA modified the FTA public domain table by deleting rows, thus creating a derivative work, and then claimed copyright on it. (Its like copying part of a phone book, but only numbers beginning with '9'). Since you agreed with my point that this is invalid, APTA does *not* have a copyright on the table -- regardless of what they claim.  
WRT the LRT article (not the table), the rules RINBAD put forth a definition looks a lot like copyleft to me, simply asking for notification of original source.  I noted earlier, that wikipedia asks for exactly the same thing in its redistribution.
ALSO AS A SIDE MATTER - There probably should be some integration of the Tram and Light rail articles, Trolley and Street car already redirect.
--DavidLevinson
Their choice on what to delete and include in their own table is a copyrightable derivitive work -- 
and the "FTA" tables are obviously formatted differently in HTML and come from a .com domain, which in combination 
with the lack of an obvious copyright renunciation, places great doubt on their public domain status. The table that was inputed into
wikipedia was very obvously a minor HTML port of the exact APTA table and not the "FTA" table. --maveric149 
-----
AFAIK Tram and Light Rail are not the same thing. Eg, the Docklands Light Railway in London. A quick google search (results below) confirms that it would be more accurate to say Tram is a type of light rail which runs on roadways.
* http://www.lrta.org/explain.html
* http://www.lightrail.com/definition.htm
It seems this article needs replacing anyway. I'll look into it some more and get back to it. -- Tarquin
: "Tram" seems to mean more different things than "subway" (which is either a form of urban railroad, or a pedestrian underpass). Consider the "tram" up Victoria Peak in Hong Kong (an old funicular railway) and the "Roosevelt Island Tramway" in New York City (a cable car system). Vicki Rosenzweig
The Dayton System looks more like an electric bus than a light rail since it doesn't actually have rails. --DavidLevinson
: would that then be a "trolleybus", if it has power from overhead lines? There's also "guided buses", which use a rail of some sort (or optical markers) but run with a normal diesel engine. The emerging consensus seems to be that far from being synonyms, "tram" and "light rail" are two different things which overlap in modern trams which are built with light rail technology. The Tram article seems to explain it well. -- Tarquin
I added an article on electric trolleybus, including a list of North American cities which still have such systems (including Dayton).  The LRT and Tram articles still need fixing.  --DavidLevinson
:Hey, cool, you got to it before I did. Which is a good thing - it means I've got paying work!  :-)  -- Marj Tiefert
----
Great rewrite, AdamW! I'm trying to remember something I read about the tram / light rail difference: it's something to do with operation and the way the vehicle is driven. Light rail, like railways, have signs & lights which dictate the driver's behaviour; trams, like buses, don't. I'll see if I can dig it up. -- Tarquin 22:32 Sep 30, 2002 (UTC)
:And then you have hybrid systems like in Sacramento, California where the light-rail train operates like a tram (that is, the train shares right-of-way with automobiles) in the central city but like a traditional light rail system in the extensive suburbs (with its own right-of-way and only the occasional R/R crossing). But the vehicles there are most definitely light rail vehicles and not trams. There could be a better discussion on the distinction here - to most people there really isn't much, if any difference between the two systems/vehicle technologies. --mav 07:33 May 14, 2003 (UTC)
BTW, the photo on this page looks a hell of a lot like a tram to me (short, single vehicle on what looks like a city street) and not a light rail vehicle operating in a light rail system (that is yet anther distinction we should make). --mav
:Yep. Clearly a tram. But then tram is a form of light rail, so I guess that's OK. Ideally, a heavier example might be clearer though. Tannin
::I have just such a photo of a 3 car bifurcated light-rail train at a station on a pedestrian mall. But it is at work and hasn't been downsized or cropped yet. --mav
In Greece trolley is .... electric bus.  Really stupid. The vehicle is not a trolley but trolley bus (also trackless trolley or trolleybus), look up Wikipedia entry on trolleybus and delete Greece nonesense.
"Light rail is a particular class of railway that" yeah, what about narrow gauge rail and how does it differ? How does a passenger train running on narrow gauge track differ from the so called light train and what is the definition of lightness. Narrow gauge rail is as legitimate (although not as sexy a) term as "light rail."
Could we get a comparison of the advantages and disadvantages for light rails / trams vs other transportation systems? (Buses, Subway, Monorail, etc.) --Weyoun6 18:47, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: but its title is still Docklands Light Railway, whatever the "dividing line" might be!!! Peter Shearan 10:03, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Unheadered junk at top

message: The comments made in this section are obviously written by a pro-light rail enthusiast.  "the notion that they are a waste of government money when compared with the ostensibly self-financing highway system is specious and is usually made for ideological/political reasons so as to push the interests of the pro-highway lobby" is a partisan statement if ever I heard one.  "despite the enormous social costs of continued highway dependence" is another.  I agree with the statements made, but this section has a definite slant. Benandorsqueaks 12:23, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Perhaps the section could be broken up into the arguments for and against light rail being cost effective (i.e. many pro-railers hold that highways incur large social costs and ..., while those opposed argue that...).66.240.10.170 04:11, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reworded the cost effectiveness article to be more NPOV.  I will remove the neutrality flag if there are no objections.Loodog 20:59, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV cost section 

message: While the definition of light rail may or may not have traditionally referred to tram or streetcars which are not completely seperated in the US, it is commonly employed nowadays to describe any rapid transit system which is fairly light including completely seperated systems such as those based on the Bombardier Advanced Rapid Transit. Indeed it appears in the UK and other European countries, trams are normally not considered light rail. As such, I think it's silly for us to describe the numerous completely seperated, rapid but light systems such as the, KL LRT, Singapore LRT, Docklands Light Railway and various other systems commonly referred to as light rail as mislabellings. They are called light rail, and I suspect many people using them (definetely being from KL, I can say I think of the KL LRT as light rail) would consider them light rail, not mislabellings. Indeed advocates of light rail commonly refer to these kind of completely seperated systems when they are talking about light rail. See this page for example . In NZ too, when people refer to light rail, they are usually referring these kinds of completely seperated, fairly frequent rapid people mover systems. There was a definite bias in this article and in other articles against calling these completely seperated systems light rail and I have attempted to remove this bias and make it clear that many people would consider these systems as light rail not mislabellings. I may not have done a superb job but I think it's better then it was before where it appeared to suggest that a completely seperate system wasn't really light rail just a mislabelling. Hope we can agree that it is not NPOV to try to claim these systems are not light rail Nil Einne 14:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed.  Perhaps the section could be broken up into the arguments for and against light rail being cost effective.67.92.28.66 15:54, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

text: The previous poster in this section did not sign.--Will 02:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light rail definition 

message: I really like the way the stack of images down the right side of the page looks, but unfortunately, it seems to confuse the layout software.  Take a look at :Image:LightRailScreenShot.png; notice the four [edit] tags in a row, with the rule drawn right through them.  I don't imagine that's what was intended.  The browser was Safari, and it only happens with certain window widths.  -- RoySmith (talk) 05:05, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad image layout 

message: The article is in need of another rewrite to clarify the definition(s) of light rail.  It says one thing in the intro, and different things in the "attempting to define" section.  Someone with a good understanding should weigh in.  Perhaps one improvement might be to separate the UK/continent/USA uses.  One paragraph state that the US preference is for the 2nd type (separate right of way), but the American Public Transportation Association defines light rail as primarily having no separate right-of-way.  -Help! --Blainster 21:06, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Light rail definition part 2

message: I have removed the US-centric tag from the article. While there is a section regarding Criticisms, which does indeed deal largely with the US, this is due to the specific issues there; these criticisms (ie, bus or private car is better, cheaper, etc) are less common in other countries, where the arguments against light rail tend only to deal with upfront cost, not a philosophical objection to it. (Not always, but enough to make the US-centric tag unwarranted.) ProhibitOnions 12:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Especially the "spatial mismatch" argument appears very US-centric to me. It may be partly true in the US, but in Europe it's complete nonsense. European cities are much more densely populated than American cities. As a result, I have never heard someone claim that there are too few people in a part of a city for light rail. This may be an issue in rural communities near the cities (is there a translation for the German "Zersiedelung"?), but not in the cities themselves.--Qualle (talk) 14:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, feel free to put the tag back in. However, I have heard this argument in terms of declining population in Frankfurt (Oder) and elsewhere, and many western European cities did remove their tram systems in the past for some of these reasons. Regards, ProhibitOnions 14:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure, but wasn't Frankfurt(Oder) a tram project? Regarding the removal of many tram systems in the 50s, 60s and 70s: AFAIK the dominant argument was creating an automobile-compatible city: The cities were so densely populated that the space available to traffic was limited. When automobile traffic grew, more space for cars was needed, so trams were closed down. In larger cities, metros or light rail systems with tunnels in the city center were built instead. --Qualle (talk) 18:19, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the arguments in European cities, but in the U.S. the arguments were made more in rhetorical terms: "trolleys are antiquated," "the public wants to ride on rubber," "you can't stop progress," and so on. There were complaints that streetcars got in the way of autos but frankly these arguments are rather asinine: if a higher-capacity form of transportation is in conflict with a lower-capacity form of transportation, getting rid of the higher-capacity form does not make much sense. -- Cecropia 18:27, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They are asinine if the higher-capacity is actually used to full capacity and not heavily subsidized.--Rotten 21:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

text: I edited the section and removed the tag, to make it clear (as others have pointed out) that the arguments in it are in response to conditions which, if not peculiar to the U.S., loom larger there than most other places. It would be nice if others could do some country-centric comment for countries that also have unique opponents, if any. -- Cecropia 19:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It still seems a bit US-centric to me, and I suggest having a specific article dealing with that US issue. Perhaps a link to "Light Rail in the USA", with all the US-centric arguments, would be appropriate.--66.167.115.102 12:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a great idea. Anyone up for it?  ProhibitOnions  (T) 15:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I finally bit the bullet and did it. You will find all the spatially mismatched text and other US-centric stuff (plus the Canadian info) at Light rail in North America.RockyMtnGuy 19:19, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: US-centric

message: Suggest merging Light railway into Light rail.  Essentially the same, I believe.  "Light Railway" does have some distinguishing information about th UK; perhaps a seperate article about "Light Rail (United Kingdom)" should be established.
CPAScott 15:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Tend to agree, though "light railway" does have a specific legal meaning in the UK from 1896 that is not specifically related to the current use of the term "light rail".  ProhibitOnions  (T) 15:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest that the two articles not be moved. A review of the two articles seem to show the terms mean different things. Light railways seems to refer to (mostly) abandonned passenger rail lines in the United Kingdom, while light rail seems to refer to several overlapping categories of (mostly) new passenger rail service, including trolleys, streetcars, trams, and interurbans, but does not seems to include high capacity subway systems or commuter rail systems.  In fact, it appears, from the article, that light railways may  fall category of commuter rail. WVhybrid 22:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would also oppose the merge - a light railway can refer to small railways used for hauling goods, like the sugar cane trains in Northern Queensland in Australia (of which there are a lot). It is certainly not restricted to light rail passenger transport. (JROBBO 04:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with WYhybrid and JROBBO - don't merge.  These are differing terms for different modes of rail transport and to merge the articles would only needlessly confuse the reader.  Disambig links at the tops of the articles would be a better solution.  Skabat169 13:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As a public transport agency professional and a technical consultant to the Light Rail Now Project (http://www.lightrailnow.org), I would recommend that the terms not be merged. Light rail/light rail transit - i.e., predominantly surface-routed light-capacity electric railways, consistent with the definitions from TRB and APTA - and light railways (a much larger group, including various self-propelled railway services) - are similar but not synonymous. Basically, LRT can be considered a "light railway", but not all light railways are LRT.  The Light Rail Now Project applies the term light railway to projects/services such as Ottawa's O-Train, New Jersey Transit's RiverLine, North County Transit District's Sprinter, and Capital Metro's Urban Commuter Rail - all of which use self-propelled rolling stock.  However, these are not "light rail" or LRT, despite their agencies' own self-description in some instances.  Light rail/LRT as a term has basically substituted for and surplanted the older term "electric street railway" (which seemed to encompass both urban streetcars and larger, faster suburban and interurban rolling stock).
70.112.251.134 20:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Doing some research, I discovered that the origin of the term light rail is not the British term light railway but the German term Stadtbahn, literally city rail. The Americans modified it to light rail. RockyMtnGuy 19:29, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge "Light Railways" 

message: See the image below.  I am using Firefox 1.5.0.4 with no extensions installed.
Image:Formatting_error_on_light_rail_page_in_section5_1.PNG
--Will 06:06, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This happens in other articles too, due to images floating on the right and the [edit] links having nowhere to go. Might want to check out the bugzilla to see if the issue has been reported. lensovet 06:11, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it.  At least for Foxfire and MS Explorer. Any problems with other browers? WVhybrid 05:01, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Could you explain what happened?  Should I delete the image?--Will 05:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like when you put a stack of images in a column, it upsets the wiki software that inserts the "edit" buttons.  So I used a bit of HTML formating code I found in a row of userboxes on someones User page.  (I was using the same code for my own User page.) You can see the two lines of code I used to bracket the Image references by looking at the history.  Apparently the formating realigns the wiki page so the edit buttons make sense.  As for deleting your message, is that what folks usually do?  I'm pretty new at all of this.  I'd suggest leaving it so folks can learn what can go wrong. I'm really not at HTML and wiki'ism, so personally, I like to see examples of how things are done. WVhybrid 05:51, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Found a formatting error under Section 5.1 

message: What does signal control of operations mean? Ken 15:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Terribly late answer (I just came to this page earlier today for the first time): Presumably it refers to the control of train movements with signals, usually color-light signals, as opposed to operation on sight. Operation on sight can be compared to the way you drive a car on a freeway/expressway/interstate/motorway/pick your term: There are no traffic signals telling you what to do; you simply avoid collisions with the cars around you. Of course operating on sight in a public street, with intersections, is more difficult than driving on a freeway. I should note that when a train operates in a public street without railway signals, it still is usually expected to obey the traffic signals intended for automobile drivers, but this is not "signal control of operations" because the signals are not specifically intended for the trains. --Tkynerd 15:50, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  signal control of operations 

message: Often in Wikipedia articles just get longer and more repetitive over time as people add information. I'm going through making the article more concise again. Some statements made seem a bit WP:POV to an outsider and there are very few secondary sources referenced in-line. If anyone thinks I've deleted some important information, please check you have find a reliable source for it. Stephen B Streater 21:14, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - 5kB shorter. I'll see if I can add some good cites inline. Stephen B Streater 23:35, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for doing this.  So many Wikipedia articles need a good copy editing like this. --Jfruh (talk) 00:28, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: This article has a number of problems that need fixing. This is not only a potentially "good" article, it could be a "great" article - but that will take a good deal of work.
Because this article is obviously the product of several contributors, I am not willing to make unilaterial edits. Instead, I'll spell out the deficiencies, and perhaps we can tackle these one step at a time.
The "introductory" section needs to be shortened substantially. Much of this information belongs in "defining light rail" and other sections.
In general - and with specific reference to the definition - this article appears to be extremely U.S.-centric (although parts appear rather "UK-centric").
:Duly noted and acted upon. Since this article was flagged as too long, I split the article and moved the US-centric (and Canadian) material off into the new Light rail in North America article. I also moved some of the text out of the header and into the Definition section. RockyMtnGuy 03:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And they ignored the fact that diesel light rail is unpopular with passengers and nearby residents because of the air pollution and noise from the diesel engines. RockyMtnGuy 14:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems that need fixing 

message: -----Defining light rail
This section needs extensive rewriting. It is much too U.S.-centric, the emphasis on "light" v. "heavy" is neither informative nor appropriate, and it muddles rather than clarifies the distinction among light rail, tramway (or streetcar), metro (or heavy rail, or subway) and "regional rail" (or commuter rail).
::England and America are two worlds separated by a common language. What is called a tramway in Britain is called a streetcar or trolley in the United States. In the U.S., a tramway is generally a cablecar system suspended from towers, or a track for mine carts. Naturally there's some confusion about definitions. RockyMtnGuy 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so let's take the opportunity to clarify. Ldemery 03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Duly clarified. RockyMtnGuy 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: There was a suggestion that the U.S. specific information be moved to a new article called "Light Rail in the USA". Someone should do that. RockyMtnGuy 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but I presume that you do not intend that the section "Criticisms of light rail in the U.S., and responses to them" should be "spun off" while retaining the section titled "The Canadian experience." Do you envision a separate article for each country (or group of countries) ? Ldemery 03:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the choice is between reducing the size of the section or pulling it off into a separate article of its own (i.e. a few paragraphs followed by see Light Rail in the USA). Germany already has its own article on Stadtbahn. I don't think Canada justifies one. RockyMtnGuy 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I changed my mind. I split the article and put the U.S. and Canadian information into a new Light rail in North America article. I also co-opted the Stadtbahn article as Light rail in Germany. RockyMtnGuy 03:46, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Unless they happen to speak English as a native tongue. Then they have a serious problem with definitions. RockyMtnGuy 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Once again: let's take the opportunity to clarify. Ldemery 03:09, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Duly done. RockyMtnGuy 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the language of the article is English, mostly written by native English speakers. RockyMtnGuy 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, but what do you see as the "scope" of this article? Why not a broad international "overview"? That is one of the ingredients of a "great" article, which I believe this could become. Ldemery 03:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, but someone has to write it, and my experience is limited to Canada, the U.S. and Britain. Okay, maybe a little in Norway and Peru, but I've never ridden the rails in Germany, France, or Japan. RockyMtnGuy 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Tramway (streetcar) systems use special wheels and tracks to operate in the street, but you can change the wheels on the trains. Some grade-separated light rail systems use streetcar wheels and tracks because it can reduce the risk of derailment. RockyMtnGuy 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Special," huh? Yeah, I suppose this term is appropriate today in the "good ol' USA," merry olde England and Canada, where urban rail transport might be described as "scarce." It's true that "street tramway" ("street railway") vehicles used different wheel profiles than "railway" ("railroad") vehicles. Good, reliable information on the nature of this difference and where it occurs is one topic for a prospective "technology" section. Note also that "railway" track/wheel standards vary significantly between countries - another topic for a "technology" section.Ldemery 03:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I think track/wheel standards are rather standard between countries (except Spain and Russia). What I noticed is that streetcar tracks have an extra flangeway or guard rail on the inside (whereas conventional railway tracks have none). This keeps them from derailing in the street. However, I'm not up to a technical article on railway wheel/track design. RockyMtnGuy 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Some U.S. light rail systems are operated very much like streetcars, so the distinction becomes difficult to make. RockyMtnGuy 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which ones - save for those that "are" streetcar lines, but grouped together with all U.S. urban rail systems not classified as "heavy rail"?Ldemery 03:33, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the San Diego Trolley qualifies. However, the distinction between "streecar" and "light rail" is rather flexible. For instance, Toronto is investigation running streetcars in trains on some of its historic routes, because the passenger load is too heavy for single cars (30 second headways). And they're talking about running streetcars on their Scarborough line (which in European terms would be considered "light metro") because the LRV's are out of production and they can't get more, but they've got lots of streetcars. RockyMtnGuy 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: The Wikipedia link to light metro leads to this article, so until someone writes a "light metro" article, light metro is light rail. RockyMtnGuy 05:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I suppose so, but why not "spin off" a "light metro" article (as there is in French)? Ldemery 03:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, somebody (who's French is better than mine) could translate the "light metro" article into English. RockyMtnGuy 15:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems that need fixing - "Defining" 

message: This section could some rewriting and rearranging, but is otherwise reasonable - however:
* The operating cost advantage of light rail "compared with buses" needs to be discussed.
* The hardware generally operates more quietly than commuter rail or metro systems, and noise mitigation is easier to design.
This sentence needs clarification - and verification. Ldemery 04:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems that need fixing - "Advantages" 

message: This section also needs rewriting and rearranging.
* "Light rail tends to be safest when operating in dedicated rights-of-way with complete grade separations."
Non-sequiteur. "Dedicated rights of way with complete separation" is not "light rail." It's either "light metro" or "metro," or perhaps AGT or some other mode.
::If you type "light metro" into Wikipedia you'll end up here at "light rail". So, we're claiming it as part of our territory. RockyMtnGuy 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since nobody verified it, I toasted the sentence about collisions with automobiles. Anybody who puts it back better cite references. RockyMtnGuy 04:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been on a bus when it hit a car, and it was no big deal - on the bus. The car, however, got punted a considerable distance down the street. RockyMtnGuy 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I've seen a few collisions between LRV's and cars, and LRV's aren't designed to survive collisions with autos, they're designed to annihilate autos, which is why I put the "verfication required" tag on the line. RockyMtnGuy 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, and it's too bad that so many auto drivers seem blissfully unaware of this. On opening day of San Francisco's F Line extension to Fisherman's Wharf, I saw the aftermath of a collision between an auto and a historic streetcar - one from New Orleans (= slow acceleration, but sturdy). The crash occurred because the motorist made an illegal left turn across the tracks, in front of the car. Ldemery 03:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nobody verified this sentence, so I toasted it, too. Same caveat - anybody who puts it back better cite references. RockyMtnGuy 04:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another place I put a verification required tag. It must be written by someone who hasn't heard an LRV in operation. RockyMtnGuy 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, good for you, but I think you'll find that some statements such as the one you tagged are purposeful "disinformation." Ldemery 03:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but I try to be polite about such things. I don't always succeed, but I try. RockyMtnGuy 17:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: LRVs actually have a better safety record on streets than buses, but they do make an awful mess when they actually hit a car. RockyMtnGuy 06:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It would be interesting to know - there is probably research on this topic - what percent of collisions between LRVs and other vehicles are "not" the fault" of the other vehicle's driver. Ldemery 03:59, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is research on this topic, I should find it and link to it. However, as a result of an 1877 US court decision, any collision with a train at a level crossing is always the other vehicle's fault. Those were the good old days, when might made right. RockyMtnGuy 17:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problems that need fixing - "Disadvantages" 

message: Because this article has been flagged as too long, North American specific text plus related discussion has been moved to Light rail in North America. RockyMtnGuy 19:37, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Article: Light rail in North America

message: The Good article nomination for  has failed
:There are no references listed, only external links.  While it may be that these links were used as references, the reader has no way of knowing this.  References are especially necessary in the discussion about costs.  Also as a matter of formatting, the large line of rather large thumbnail images is a bit overwhelming.
 Slambo (Speak) 19:56, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Plus there's the issue of how light rail simply doesn't arouse the same passions in people (pro or con) as freeways do, which is why it's generally easier to find references for freeways (as I have done for that article).  --Coolcaesar 22:13, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Good articles|Good Article]] [[Wikipedia:Good articles/Nominations|nomination]] has failed 

message: After attempting to add "Regional variations" above Light rail in Germany and Light rail in North America someone believed it was vandalism and reverted.  I only changed it as i was about to add "Light rail in Australia" (which had now been added) and believed it would be better if there was a header for these Regional topics.  I agree "Regional variations" was a bad choice of name but i still stand with my view there should be some sort of heading.  Would "Light rail in different Regions" be more suitable?  L blue l 02:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not here to do vandalism if you would so kindly look to see my history you would relies this.  L blue l 03:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It was apparently a misunderstanding of your intent, which is not an uncommon occurance around here. The section and its link looks fine. Now, if someone would be good enough to add a "Light rail in Britain" article, we would have enough to justify putting them all under a "Light rail in different regions" section. RockyMtnGuy 17:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, “Mea Culpa”, I reverted Light rail in Germany, was trying to organize. It's amazing the interest on this topic, lets all work together, I personally really enjoy the freedom of transporting myself “sans” one ton of metal and 100+ horses. -- Ciudad jardin 21:22, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Light rail in different Regions 

message: Please! this is really getting confusing
Do we need another Tram Page?
Do we really need to Split  Tram?
Do we really need Two (2)  Tram Articles! 
Please read discussion about the merge on the light rail talk:
“Merges with Light Rail / Fusion of Light Rail and Tram”
 Talk:Light rail#Merges with Trams L blue l 02:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please discuss this on Talk:Tram system. --NE2 16:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we really need to Split  [[Tram]] to [[Tram system]] 

message: One of the sources of confusion on this topic is that everyone is using the same terms to mean different things. I would like to point out that the English speaking world consists of a number of different countries, separated by a common language.
* Tram is a Britishism. It originally was a Scottish term for a coal mine cart, that was adapted to mean an electric street railway car. This definition never made it to North America (except for Canadian French). In Canadian English it still means a mine cart. However, in the U.S. it usually means an aerial cable car.
* Trolley is an Americanism which meant the same thing as the Brits meant when they said Tram. This definition never even made it into Canada, where a trolley is a cart pushed by hand.
* Streetcar is the generic North American term for an electric street railway car. This definition will work in both the U.S. and Canada. I don't know how it plays in Britain.
* Light Rail was invented by the Americans in 1972 to describe a rapid rail transit system that cost less than the Bay Area Rapid Transit System. It was based on German Stadtbahn technology, and most of the North American systems use German designs. Interestingly, two of the first three implementations were in Canada rather than the U.S.
*Light Railway is the equivalent British term to the American Light Rail concept, as in the Docklands Light Railway.
Just to provide an example of what we are dealing with, the city of Porland Oregon operates 1) a light rail system, 2) a streetcar system, and 3) an aerial tram system. The technology is completely different. The Portland MAX is a high-tech mini-metro system, the Portland Streetcar is a classic streetcar 10 inches narrower and 1/3 the lenght of the light rail trains, and the Portland Aerial Tram is an aerial cable car. RockyMtnGuy 04:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So in a global perspective, what should we call the modern or traditional vehicles witch travel by rail trough city streets – Moebiusuibeom 21:01, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In the North American context traditional electric street railway cars are variously called "heritage trolleys" or "vintage streetcars". Modern electric street railway cars are called "trolleys (U.S. only) or "streetcars" (U.S. and Canada) RockyMtnGuy 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO the difference is the level of separation from individual road traffic: Light rail tracks, while often in the middle of the road, are usually seperated from other traffic - not completely, but whereever reasonable. Light rail tracks may cross an intersection, but the majority of the line should be separated. Otherwise it's a tram. Of course, with all the "mays" and "shoulds" there is a significant gray area in between. --Qualle (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The term "tram" is not used by North America transit systems, except for aerial cable cars, which is a problem for this article since it seems to have been Britishized while I was away. Streetcars meet the technical definition of light rail vehicles, but are generally not recognized as such in North America. The key differences are that LRVs are bigger, faster, and often operate in multi-unit trains whereas streetcars are smaller, slower and only operate as single units. A number of North American cities operate both streetcar and LRT systems, but operate them as separate systems with incompatible vehicles. Some American cities attempt to operate LRVs as streetcars, but this leads to a lot of accidents because American drivers are not used to rail vehicles operating in the street. RockyMtnGuy 02:29, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  National Differences in English 

message: Could we add a section about ultralight rail (The tiny cabin thingies)? It is relevant and more or less important. Alx xlA 01:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ULRT