Why can't we have faster LRVs?

Hi folks, I'm new here! I post on a number of transit-related blogs, but wanted a shot at a well-frequented forum to bring up this topic.

One thing that's always bothered me is that, unlike other rail modes, LRV speeds have not increased substantially. In fact, they haven't really increased at all -- the reigning LRV speed records were all set in the early-mid 20th century, before most of the readers here were even alive.

Most modern light rail systems built are essentially the same idea as the old interurbans -- trains capable of street-running, in some stretches functioning in the same capacity as trams/streetcars, but also having longer stretches between stations on private rights-of-way. An extreme example is the Metro Green Line in Los Angeles, which operates entirely grade-separated for its entire length! A number of old interurbans reached speeds of 100mph! Today, however, the fastest street-capable vehicles max out at about 65mph.

These speeds are dismal for a couple of reasons. Firstly, even though individual station to station gains would be relatively small, even a 10 minute improvement end-to-end would make a line more competitive for the longer-distance commuters new light rail systems attempt to attract.

The second reason is psychological, and this is very important! Many, many people are turned off of light rail when they look out the window and see automobiles roaring past them at substantially greater speeds. This is particularly noticeable on routes that run in freeway medians. If you've ever taken the aforementioned Green Line, or the southern segments of the San Jose VTA light rail, which is grade separated for almost all of its length. Drivers zoom by at ~80mph, while the train plods along at a pokey 55mph. Drivers on the freeway and "choice" rail riders on the train notice this, and it makes the train look unattractive. I've met many people who've decided to continue driving solely for this reason.

Heavy rail systems built for similar station-spacing models (short spacing downtown, long spacing further out) like BART and WMATA run faster, and don't look quite as bad (but still are visibly slower than the freeways they run next to). More people choose to use them, and the commute times are much more competitive. Nobody, however, is building systems like this anymore due to the cost differential between building an entirely grade-separated system, and building a system with at-grade and street-running segments in areas that would ordinarily require expensive tunneling.

Why can't we build a modern interurban vehicle that fills this role? The requirements are still the same -- fast braking and acceleration to let the train function in street-running segments and high speed for the long stretches. Our ancestors clearly could do it -- they did it, so why can't we?

LRV's are normally geared for a speed around 55 mph, gearing them for higher speeds is useless as the motor capacity is simply not there.
also if geared higher they would loose in acceleration and braking (dynamic) power, making them slower in overall speed.

I questioned whether a "number" of interurbans reached speeds of 100 mph. From what I've discovered after a little surfing, is that most interurbans only reached speeds of 70 mph. While I'll admit 65 mph isn't as fast as 70 mph, it's not that much slower.

electricron wrote:I questioned whether a "number" of interurbans reached speeds of 100 mph. From what I've discovered after a little surfing, is that most interurbans only reached speeds of 70 mph. While I'll admit 65 mph isn't as fast as 70 mph, it's not that much slower.

I'd accept that a number reached 100 mph ... but I'd say that number would be small and for short rural segments of a long line.

An LRV doing 55 mph is pretty good. Smooth acceleration and braking are more important than fast acceleration and braking. Cost saving designs that allow more trains to run instead of blowing the budget on a few fast trains.

As far as the "cars doing 80 mph" RailHope noted ... the first problem is where is it legal for cars to do 80 mph? In an area with LRVs I'd expect the maximum speed limit to be 55 mph (even if no one drives it). Roads with higher speed limits are not likely to be in an area that has LRVs. And while the posted speed limit is broken by cars for short stretches often they end up rushing to a stop or a crawl well below the speed limit where LRVs or other commuter services on dedicated right of ways easily pass the cars without the need for speed.

Back in the day when the few interurbans that could reached their "100 mph" speed it too was above the speed limit (the authorized speed) and for short segments of the line. Engineers cheating to make up time. With modern regulation a train breaking the speed limit would be a serious matter ... and a legislated 79 mph limit without expensive upgrades to the lines makes "100 mph" a more difficult speed to reach. Our "ancestors" didn't have the same regulations. They ran fast and loose and were fortunate to have not had more accidents and killed more people than they did.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroliner

Articulated DC-powered interurban that frequently hit 100mph in revenue operation (target speed of 80 mph, but was authorized to run 100mph to make up for delays until the speed limit for at-grade gated systems was imposed), with a top speed of 110mph. Operated high-platform in Chicago (on L tracks, with third rail) and at intermediate stations between Chicago and Milwaukee, then inside Milwaukee ran in stop-and-go traffic on streetcar tracks with street-level boarding capability (with automatic retractable stairs -- similar to how SF's Muni Metro switches between high-platform and street-level).

The train was articulated so it could handle the tight cornering of streetcar tracks and the tighter L segments. The suspension and trucks were EXCELLENT at speed with virtually no vibrations or major truck hunting.

On suburban station pairs you could frequently average 60mph for your trip, counting intermediate stops.

And all these high-speed sections were with a TROLLEY POLE that somehow stayed attached at 100mph, not a pantograph!

There are numerous high-platform-only systems that an updated version of this trainset would absolutely rock on. The Los Angeles Metro Blue Line, for instance. It would be limited to 79mph on much of it until crossings were replaced with quad-gates (with appropriate sensor distances for 100mph operation). Most of the Blue Line is a *long* straight haul with large station spacing that would be sped up immensely with something like this. The Baltimore light rail system also begs for a trainset like this for the same reason.

Moreover it's perfectly capable of operating on low-platform or even street-level systems, though you would run into ADA issues unless you built wheelchair ramps at every stop (anyone who rides SF Muni Metro knows how slow it goes when it picks up a wheelchair patron at one of the street stops that doesn't have a wheelchair ramp -- the ramps are spaced at about every 3rd or 4th stop on the N, for instance.)

Long grade-separated freeway-running systems like the LA Metro Green Line or San Jose VTA Santa Teresa line, or the northern parts of the LA Metro Gold Line would make it immediately apparent that the train was outrunning the cars, even the cars that were speeding. They're grade separated, so safe high-speed operation on the long, straight segments would simply be a matter of ensuring proper tolerances in track geometry.

The UTA Trax Sandy line in Salt Lake City is very similar to the Blue Line and would also benefit -- a *very* long at-grade gated segment along railroad RoW that turns into a shorter street-running segment downtown (all stations are still platformed, no street boarding).

Think of how many people would use this on a daily commute. It would outpace freeway commuting on days with even moderate traffic, not just stop-and-go traffic jams.

Our ancestors really *did* do it better, and were still far safer than driving.

RailHope wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroliner
...
Our ancestors really *did* do it better, and were still far safer than driving.

Two train sets that operated for 22 years Chicago-Milwaukee then 13 more years in Philadelphia.
Nice trains ... I was wondering if you were referring to them in your initial post.

They would be limited to 79 mph if they ran today. Anything faster requires a lot of expensive track work.

So, where on the line were the electroliners allowed to hit 90 mph (not 100 mph due to grade crossing timings)? Wiki said "Electroliners were not faster than the conventional equipment operated by the North Shore Line." That would put it in the same ballpark as the South Shore Line equipment that was retired by 1983.

Faster is not always faster ... comparing current timings on the modern South Shore with the fast and lose days find the current trains making the run in about the same time as "the good old days" ... despite power changes at city limits and street running in three segments back in the past. Yes, the old trains could legally break 79 mph ... but they didn't make the journey faster than the current trains.

It looks like the Talgos that will be entering production in Wisconsin would be the closest "light" vehicles to those classics. Perhaps with enough money spent on upgrading right of ways and grade crossings we'll see 90 mph speeds out of them. And people will make the journey a couple of minutes faster.

The "conventional" cars it's being compared to are like the ones that run even today on the South Shore line. These cars, while run in-street in some locations, are generally not capable of running effectively on the streetcar-grade tracks that many modern Light Rail systems have in urban areas. Specifically, that's what sets Light Rail (or Tram-Trains) apart -- their cornering ability.

What makes the Electroliner special is that it was able to run at the speeds of mainline trains, yet was nimble enough to navigate streetcar/metro networks effortlessly. There is no modern equivalent with this level of performance. What makes light rail "light rail" is this mixture of track designs. The Electroliner remains the finest example of what we consider light-rail today. Modern vehicles in this role hew closer to streetcar/tram performance levels.

Incidentally the pure-streetcar speed record was set by an enhanced PCC, it has yet to be broken.

The "other cars" of the North Shore fulfilled the need of the railroad.
If our ancestors were so smart why didn't they make more than two sets of electroliners?

You seem to be looking at record speeds and best memories and not day to day operations. I've driven 100 mph ... and watch people drive 100 mph - 200 mph most weekends in "stock" cars. That doesn't mean that a normal operation of a car is done at that speed. Post a truthful normal speed for the electroliners and other cars on the line. 100 mph wasn't normal.

What do you want to do? The North Shore Line is long gone ... the South Shore Line is doing well after replacing all of their old 60ft-70ft equipment. Their purpose continues to be to carry millions of passengers each year into Chicago and back. The trip in to downtown Chicago on the South Shore can vary from 20 miles to 90 miles on a system designed specifically NOT to wrap around every court house like the other interurbans it outlived.

If you were given a brand new 2010 electroliner where would you put it? What city pairs would you serve? How far would the journey be? How close would the stops be? What is the design of the right of way ... dedicated and straight or wrapped around buildings? (Are you planning 90ft radius turns?) Any grade crossings? How many passengers do you expect to ride it? Please be less theoretical about WHY you want an "LRV" like the electroliner. Do you even have a route in mind?

The electroliner had 146 seats per train. The smallest South Shore can carry 184 and most trains are set up for around 800-900 passengers per train. The South Shore carried 3.9 million passengers last year. Is your theoretical 2010 electroliner run on a heavy commuter corridor? How many train sets would you need to meet the need of the corridor in mind ... or would it be better to have a longer consist that carries more passengers?

Going really fast then turning on a dime is a nice design ... but is it useful? Where would the 2010 electroliners be used?

The Electroliners ran 80mph as their typical operating speed, but when delayed they ran up to 90-100mph to make up time. They had a MAXIMUM speed of 110mph but that was never used in revenue service. Some years after their introduction they were then limited to an 80mph hard speed limit due to infrastructure concerns, at which point they never exceeded it, even when behind schedule.

Regarding where I'd use such a trainset -- I just listed a bunch of routes! Here's the issue:

Newly-built urban rail systems in dozens of cities across the country are built with the following paradigm -- long-fast-and-straight in the suburbs, but twisty, slow, and stop-and-go in the cores (whereas in previous times a subway or elevated would have been built, but this is no longer done due to incredible construction costs). We're trying to build something like the Paris RER, but cheaping out and building the denser segments to streetcar standards. The end result is precisely the sort of crazily-varied mixture of curves and station spacing that many (but not all) of the old interurbans had.

Current modern LRVs are good at turning on a dime, and are great for stopping and starting at station distances that are measured in hundreds of feet, but are mediocre at going fast on long, straight stretches. In short, we're taking glorified streetcars/trams, then throwing them on interurban routes with stops miles apart. We *have* to use these vehicles though, because short-haul commuter rolling stock (like what runs on the South Shore) will *not work* on these routes. The end result is the situation where I'll look out my window on an LRV running next to a freeway, and see a *BUS* passing me at a noticeable rate -- the bus is faster, and he's mostly following the 65mph speed limit, although in practice some bus drivers max it out to the governor limit since everyone else is doing 75mph on the freeway (citing freeway-median light rail routes in San Jose and Los Angeles, where I see this most often -- although I've been outrun by freeway buses on BART even, since its maximum design speed is only 79mph, and it runs at only 60-65 max usually to preserve margins).

So let's take the LA Metro Blue Line for instance. There are two streetcar-style endpoints (Downtown LA, and downtown Long Beach), in between there is the old 4-track Pacific Electric railway RoW -- many station pairs are 2+ miles apart (longest is 5), and the old interurban used express tracks for greater speeds (currently there are no express tracks, but space has provisioned for them to be put back in). This is the perfect environment for a dedicated maneuverable, high-acceleration, high-top-speed dedicated interurban trainset -- unfortunately nobody makes such a beast anymore. If express tracks were put back in, the performance improvement would become *very* noticeable.

This also opens up possibilities to resurrect and extend old interurban routes that are currently separated by operations of differing speeds. Here in the SF bay area, Caltrain is going to have to get an FRA waiver once they electrify and switch to their planned non-FRA-compliant stock (time separated from nighttime heavy freight operation, like the San Jose Vasona line's existing waiver). Imagine an interurban that could run on that RoW at 80-100mph (keeping up with the mainline trains), but instead of forcing a transfer downtown, actually dove right into the SF Muni Metro network, giving a single seat ride from much of the city to San Jose in a fraction of the time it takes now. While still in SF the train wouldn't actually *move* any faster than the current awful Breda LRVs we use, but you wouldn't have to leave 20 minutes early like you do now to make sure you don't miss your transfer. If you tried that with current LRV stock, it would create a passing nightmare as the 90mph mainlines overtook the 55-65mph max LRVs. Having light rail-capable stock that can keep up with mainline trains makes this sort of service possible.

I'm sorry that I keep using west coast examples, but that's where I live and where I'm most familiar with the networks.

I hope I'm making my case clearer now. Something like the Electroliner has zero benefit over streetcars running as streetcars, and zero benefit over commuter/mainlines when they're in their element. Its huge advantage is that it can run in both sorts of environments -- situations that the light rail systems we're building now resemble, and also opens up possibilities for transfer-free sharing of track with mainlines as more and more commuter lines opt out of FRA freight spec, just like the old interurbans did before the modern FRA regs were put into place.

I think this makes sense.

RailHope wrote:I'm sorry that I keep using west coast examples, but that's where I live and where I'm most familiar with the networks.

No problem ... I just happen to be closer to the South Shore and the Chicago network.

Back to the question "Our ancestors clearly could do it -- they did it, so why can't we?"

We can. We just have to find a reason to do it. Where I've seen LRVs they don't mix with heavy uses. Something that looks like the electroliner would be a streetcar with a decent chance of not having a private ROW (read: mixed traffic). One seat might work if the tracks are compatible and the shared line has capacity for the suburban/intercity trains.

We can do it ... within newer FRA rules and standards it may be more difficult ... but I wouldn't expect to see anyone try. Running intercity/suburban trains in to a city and smaller trains around the city seems to be the norm.

The North Shore was prime territory for something like the Electroliner - a limited stop double-track route with relatively few grade crossings, with a robust physical plant and electric supply capability, and a requirement that they outpace competing steam (diesel) railroads despite slow speeds in the Loop and on TMER&L trackage. However, most modern LRT lines have stations placed too closely - stations a mile apart are rare for modern LRT systems. A modern equivalent would be the tram-train concept, with either a diesel or overhead electric power source for suburban travel, and electric power for city street use. Bombardier and Alstom make LRVs that fit this concept, but only the Stadler GTW diesel-only version is currently used in this country.

mtuandrew wrote:The North Shore was prime territory for something like the Electroliner - a limited stop double-track route with relatively few grade crossings, with a robust physical plant and electric supply capability, and a requirement that they outpace competing steam (diesel) railroads despite slow speeds in the Loop and on TMER&L trackage. However, most modern LRT lines have stations placed too closely - stations a mile apart are rare for modern LRT systems. A modern equivalent would be the tram-train concept, with either a diesel or overhead electric power source for suburban travel, and electric power for city street use. Bombardier and Alstom make LRVs that fit this concept, but only the Stadler GTW diesel-only version is currently used in this country.

Stadler also makes EMU versions of their GTWs, but you're correct in that there are only DMU versions of the GTW in America. The diesel powered GTWs CapMetro and DCTA have bought have tops speeds of 75 mph per specifications, but neither agency plans to go faster than 60 mph in service. Stadler has made GTWs capable of top speeds of 90 mph for European operators. 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.....

DART and DCTA have been working with the Stadler and the FRA to assist the FRA in making new "Alternate" FRA compliance rules, that incorporate modern European crash energy management technology and regulations. The latest I've read is that both agencies expect the FRA to release their report in May this year. So, it may be possible to run new design GTWs on the same tracks as FRA compliant trains at the same time in the near future.

electricron wrote: The latest I've read is that both agencies expect the FRA to release their report in May this year. So, it may be possible to run new design GTWs on the same tracks as FRA compliant trains at the same time in the near future.

Expect the Class Is to REALLY oppose that, if it happens. Their nightmare is having to deal with dozens of little agencies who want to run Stadler cars on various branch lines.

On the flip side, such a ruling could likely open the way for modern rail equipment in the US - afterall, if the GTW becomes 'compliant' with minimal modification, than it's hard to argue against other equipment, too. Particularly on systems like the LIRR, where costs are out of control and equipment's poor performing and expensive to run....

Nasadowsk wrote:Expect the Class Is to REALLY oppose that, if it happens. Their nightmare is having to deal with dozens of little agencies who want to run Stadler cars on various branch lines.
On the flip side, such a ruling could likely open the way for modern rail equipment in the US - afterall, if the GTW becomes 'compliant' with minimal modification, than it's hard to argue against other equipment, too. Particularly on systems like the LIRR, where costs are out of control and equipment's poor performing and expensive to run....

I really don't see much difference between running Stadler GTWs or US Railcar DMUs on Class I tracks. With what CSX expects from FDOT (Sunrail), and what Amtrak expected from the Ski Train, Class I objections become baseless when commuter rail agencies are forced to buy no-fault (no blame) insurance for both themselves and the Class I.

electricron wrote:
I really don't see much difference between running Stadler GTWs or US Railcar DMUs on Class I tracks.

Other than the Stadler car exists, works, and is proven? The chopped ones in NJ seem to be just fine, despite all the claims of "that European stuff can't work here"....

With what CSX expects from FDOT (Sunrail), and what Amtrak expected from the Ski Train, Class I objections become baseless when commuter rail agencies are forced to buy no-fault (no blame) insurance for both themselves and the Class I.

I suspect that will change, especially given CSX's track maintenance and (lack of) safety. Sooner or later, transit agencies will get tired of being hosed for the host RR's unwillingness to maintain track and run a decent operation. And then you'll see changes...