Why can't we have faster LRVs?

mtuandrew wrote:However, most modern LRT lines have stations placed too closely - stations a mile apart are rare for modern LRT systems.

[/quote]I'm not so sure about that. If you look at systems in the western U.S. like Denver, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, etc., the further out stations are usually more than a mile apart, average seems to be more like 2, sometimes as much as 5.

electricron wrote: Both transit agencies placed more emphasis on these trains being quieter than FRA compliant trains (up to 20db) at 60 mph, meaning far less footage of sound walls are needed. The trains aren't much quieter when ran at higher speeds.....

Considering that U.S. light rail systems often make heavy use of freeway alignments, noise really shouldn't be a problem in those sections. =)

RailHope wrote:

I'm not so sure about that. If you look at systems in the western U.S. like Denver, Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, etc., the further out stations are usually more than a mile apart, average seems to be more like 2, sometimes as much as 5.[/quote]

Maybe. But you'retaxing the abilities of 600/750 VDC over wire to supply the power to get to 60+ and stay there. And do it in a reasonable timeframe.

Considering that U.S. light rail systems often make heavy use of freeway alignments, noise really shouldn't be a problem in those sections. =)

It's not a nise issue, it's a power/cost benefit one. Unless you can sustain a decently high speed for a while, going faster just ain't worth it.

No different from the silly '110mph' track with P42s and Amfleets. It takes miles for one of those trains to just hit that speed. The net savings is tiny over 80mph - you can save more for less by just getting the dwells to a reasonable number and buying high performance equipment (which effecitvely means Talgo, in the US, for now)

RailHope wrote:Considering that U.S. light rail systems often make heavy use of freeway alignments, noise really shouldn't be a problem in those sections. =)

Noise is always a problem, even next to freeways. Almost everyone wants to compare noise between trains and automobiles during the busiest time of the day. That's the wrong approach to take. The EPA lowers allowable noise 10 db at night in residential neighborhoods, when most people are sleeping, so most can sleep peacefully. Most transit agencies spend lots of money quieting their trains so they can run at night. There really isn't that much traffic on freeways late at night, lowering the ambient db goal more too.

The answer to this is, essentially, that there is no real need for light rail vehicles to run any faster than they do. We should keep in mind that, although some of the more notable of the old interurbans reached 80 MPH plus top speeds ( properties like the North Shore line, The Cincinnati &Lake Erie RR, the Philadelphia & Western [ P&W], etc) most interurbans rarely exceeded 55 MPH top speed, and the 1920's vintage cars used on many of them did not accelerate anywhere near as quickly as today's LRV's do. Also, with the exception of the 13.5 mile Norristown "division" of the P&W, many of the faster interurbans were long haul interurbans, and served terminal points much farther apart than today's light rail lines, particularly in the midwest. And finally, with the exception of the P&W, speed didn't keep even the "super interurbans" from dying before end of the 1960's, and what used to be the P&W runs much slower now, as Septa Route 100. The technologly exists to build a 90 plus MPH capable LRV, but at least at present, there is no need to. Finally, the safety record of those old interurbans was, at best dismal. More than one property was put out of its financial misery as the result of one or more high speed fatal head on collisions which completely drained what little money it had left dealing with liability claims. This was just barely acceptable in the past, and would be totally unacceptable now.