Speaking of random...

[randomness]

...I've been working on a list of stations which share the same names in different metro/subway systems. It's tedious work finding them. I figured I'd see if anyone else on the net shared one of my quirky interests and could help out.

The Mornington Crescent intersystem quick reference, a work in progress.

Feel free to pass this to anyone you think interested in transit systems or Mornington Crescent.

Comments

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

So what is the distinguishing feature?

Well, I've started with http://home.cc.umanitoba.ca/~wyatt/modes.html:

"Heavy Rail Transit (HR)"

"Confusion: Using "Heavy Rail" to describe intercity railroads.

"Description: Typified by multiple-car trains with high capacity operating at close frequencies (as little as a 60 seconds in peak hours). Electric powered multiple-unit trains are nearly universal. Car-floor level loading platforms are nearly universal, as are exclusive rights-of-way (even level crossings with vehicle traffic are rare). Service is typically intra-urban, with stations spaced from a few city blocks to around a kilometre or two apart."

"Light Rail Transit (LR)"

"Confusion: British term "light railway" meaning "like a tramway but without street running". Others see LR as too broad, and divide it into two categories, one with a rapid transit connotation and the other more a street railway.

"Description: Catch-all category for rail transit systems that don't fit the other descriptions. Typically electric powered single cars, short MU trains or car-and-trailer combinations. Stop spacing closest to bus pattern. Right-of-way options include everything from subway to street running in mixed traffic (sometimes all on the same line!). Overhead power delivery most common (but not universal). Curb-height platforms, floor-height platforms or both."

The problem is that a "catch-all category" amounts to "well, we couldn't figure out what other list to put it in, so we gave up and put it here", which strikes me as exceptionally inelegant.

And it means worrying about systems like the LA Gold Line, St. Louis Metrolink, and the San Diego Trolley, which pretty much picked light rail over heavy rail for cost.

[hotpoint.livejournal.com]

The issue here is that there is a continuum along several axes, with vague lines places dividing things into "tram", "light rail", "heavy rail" and "commuter rail". Metro is often synonymous with "heavy rail", and the most distinctive characteristics of a metro line are EMU propulsion, high capacity and reserved right-of-way.

Level crossings are rare but they can exist -- the CTA Blue Line has grade crossings with third-rail propulsion, with the knowledge that the train's electrical system can bridge the gap between two energized third rails some distance from the grade crossing.

I'll propose two groups of rail systems for discussion. Both share multiple car operation, frequencies of every 15 minutes or less during the day on all branches (ruling out commuter-oriented services), and a reserved (not street median) right of way for their entire trip (ruling out trams). Group 1 has no grade crossings and requires level boarding, Group 2 allows grade crossings and allows boarding by stairs. Neither allows street running.

Compared to what one might expect, Group 1 excludes the Chicago Blue Line and some German Stadtbahn lines. Group 2 includes those, as well as the St Louis Metrolink and the MBTA Green D branch. Will these criteria suit you, or would you want to divide the cases more finely than that?

[r-ness.livejournal.com]

Compared to what one might expect, Group 1 excludes the Chicago Blue Line and some German Stadtbahn lines. Group 2 includes those, as well as the St Louis Metrolink and the MBTA Green D branch. Will these criteria suit you, or would you want to divide the cases more finely than that?

Of the two, Group 1, but it may be useful to have something even more restrictive. I don't particularly want to include Boston's Green Line, but it would be nice to include the Blue Line: the original discussion was about how one could distinguish between Boston's Blue Line and LA's Gold Line.

I really, really want not to have any of German Stadtbahn lines included, because that is yet another way to madness. :)

[hotpoint.livejournal.com]

The MBTA Blue Line satisfies both Group 1 and Group 2; specifying either at least 3-car trains, no articulated equipment (although 4-car articulated cars were considered for the new cars on order, 6-car trains were ordered) or weight of rail could distinguish them from light-rail systems. However, someone would need to review the specs of all of these other metro systems to make sure they didn't get excluded; it might be easier to just prepare a list of which ones fit the bill and be prepared to defend it. :)

Stadtbahn: OK, the Rhine-Ruhr megaplex is insane, but what about cities that are almost-but-not-quite standard heavy-rail metros and don't have cars traveling between city centers?

I'd like to note that Detroit, Jacksonville, and Miami's CBD distributor all fit the category of 'people-mover' -- rubber-tired, 2-car permanently coupled driverless trains, stations spaced close-together, elevated concrete guideways with unidirectional trackage, often on-demand service -- as opposed to heavy-rail metro. They're probably not interesting enough to bother including.

[totient]

frequency doesn't do it either; Boston's most frequent line is the Green line which runs on 45-second headways at rush hour.