Quote:
Originally Posted by ardecila
Depends on the city, the Chicago L, New York's IRT lines and the Paris Metro are considered HRT, but their loading gauge is virtually the same as most American LRT systems, from the height to the width to the car length. The only difference is in overall train length, obviously the trains on those HRT systems are longer and therefore the stations are also longer. The sheer volume of passengers who could exit an HRT train also requires wider platforms and more/wider vertical egress.
TL;DR there is a whole continuum from light rail to heavy rail, and no clear dividing line about how to classify systems.
|
If you have full grade separation, long platforms and adequate width platforms then you have heavy rail capacity because you have high frequency of service.
In Los Angeles; 3 car Light Rail Train (LRT) is about 270 feet in length, 4 car LRT (that I know Metro Board Member John Fasana has been pushing) would be 360 feet.
The LA Heavy Rail trains on Red/Purple lines are in 4 car train is 300 feet in length, 6 cars the max is 450 feet in length.
Most heavy rail systems around the world fall between the 300 to 500' train length. NYC, Washington Metro and BART are the exceptions to the rule with 600' long trains.
An example, the Canada Line in Vancouver with 150' long platforms is considered
heavy rail because it is automated, runs at high frequencies and is completely grade separated despite shorter train lengths.
So for our heavy rail capacity we should be pushing for what ever alignment to be completely
grade separated and have most passenger capacity throughput in the design of the stations and platforms.
Such as wider platforms, consider at interchange stations a "spanish platform" approach where there are three platforms; 2 side platforms and a center one. The center platform is for exiting only and the side platforms are for boarding only.