Talk:Streetcar (disambiguation)

Untitled

This page is now part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Streetcars. On Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Streetcars we are developing a great place to talk over our ideas and work out our differences about articles.

Click here to leave a new message on Talk: WikiProject Streetcars.

What about the Streetcar Resurgence?

Nowhere in this article does it mention that streetcar systems have been making a significant comeback in recent years (2001+). Portland, Oregon was the first US city to build a new streetcar line in the post-war era, but many other cities are folling suit. Anyone want to tackle this, or shall I? Skybum 02:46, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Second that. In addition to the emergence of multiple heritage streetcar lines using PCC/other cars (New Orleans, Philadelphia, San Francisco, Dallas, Memphis, Kenosha, San Pedro, Little Rock, San Diego) there are now half a dozen 'modern' streetcar lines in operation/construction (Portland, Seattle, DC, Salt Lake, Tucson, Atlanta, Cincinnati). Theblindsage (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC) http://www.thetransportpolitic.com/under-construction/[reply]

Bordeaux

I lived in Bordeaux until a couple of months ago, and I never figured out how the trams worked. Now I see in this article that Bordeaux has "hidden wires". Where on earth are they? Is it that funny strip in the middle? Chameleon 16:51, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

they're "hidden" in rails. It's explained here : http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramway#Alimentation_par_le_sol ;o) --Pontauxchats 09:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Translation from french

I'm in the middle of translating from fr:Tramway so I'm parking my notes here in case I never get back to it.

--

OK I got back to it so I removed the notes. The translation needs wikification. The only factual differences were - the Swansea thing (which I think was wrong) - the first electric tram (which I re-integrated into the translation). NB: I did this because of a request on Wikipedia:Translation into English#French-to-English.Sbwoodside 02:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Translation into English:

Article: fr:Tramway
Corresponding English-language article: Tram
Worth doing because: Includes a more detailed history.
Originally Requested by: Bogdangiusca 19:29, 7 Feb 2004
Status: Done by me Sbwoodside 02:14, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Other notes: Moved from Wikipedia:Requested article translations.

Appropriate header image

In the previous change comment, IsarSteve wrote Why delete the Athens Tram image ? ...Modern Manchester Trams?? These trams typify the "Third World" attitude to Public Transport in the UK! in response to G-Man replacing a picture of an Athens tram with a Manchester tram as the lead photograph in this article.

Whilst I'm not sure I follow the third-world bit, I too think that this replacement harmed the article. The Athens tram depicted is a latest state of the art vehicle, running on one of the newest systems. It is a 100% low floor model, and an example of a standardised model used in many other cities recently. As such it is a good representation of modern trams.

On the other hand the Manchester Tram represents 10+ year old practice and, whilst locally significant in the UK as the first new generation system here, has actually turned out to be something of an evolutionary dead-end. It is a high floor vehicle designed for use with high platforms (a combination little used elsewhere) and it is a system specific model used nowhere else. As such it probably deserved its previous appearance adjoining the 'Regional variations' section, but certainly not a headline appearance.

I have therefore reinstated the Athens tram, and moved the Manchester one back to its previous location. -- Chris j wood 13:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The reason I replaced it was because it is a terrible photoraph, most of the tram is cut off, and the enlarged version is barely any bigger than the thumbnail. Surely a better image can be found than this one. G-Man 18:18, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi Guys.. maybe the third-world was a bit OTT, but it had the desired effect.. As an ex-pat I have to admit that I get very frustrated with the UK and it´s tram developments... My Third- World remark, which by the way I feel welling up in me as I write this, has more to do with the timescale regarding new and updating systems in the UK... I have good friends who are employed by a Transport undertaking running Trams on the coast in the North West of England and the stories they tell me would make your hair curl.. compare that with tramway systems in Karlsruhe, Hannover or Freiburg/Breisgau in (Western)Germany and it´s just a different world.. Even cities that used to be in Communist East Germany e.g. Chemnitz have/are improved/ing their systems and have already overtaken the UK. Seasonal greetings from a cold and snowy Berlin IsarSteve 19:17, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I found a better image on the Finnish Wikipedia, I hope you all agree that it's OK G-Man 21:52, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Duplication

There seems to be a lot of duplication between this article and the light rail article. I'm not sure what if anything should be done about this. Any ideas? -- G-Man 20:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've noticed the duplication between the tram and light rail articles. In fact I started a 'Tram transport' category only to realise I was duplicating a light rail one. Trams and light rail aren't synonymous, but there is a awful lot of overlap. Not really sure what to do about this. -- Chris j wood 22:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Also, It might be a good idea to move the regional variations bits to their own articles such as Trams in Europe and Streetcars in North America or something, where they could be covered in greater detail. Anyone agree/disagree. -- G-Man 20:47, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not at all keen on this suggestion. Trams and streetcars are just different words for the same animal. I feel making this split reduces the net sum of common understanding. -- Chris j wood 22:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

older Talk items

Protest: I am new to Wikipedia, but I am European as well. Trams are still relatively widely used accross Europe. Not only Wienna, many German cities are linked with trains. These trains have 1435 mm rails, and their railway nets are connected with underground net and with train net. And yes, they run on electricity. In history, there were horse pulled trains, and steam powered ones. Such train is on display at Railroad museum at Utrecht Holland. And there are things reversed: Trains in Netherlands operate more like tramways then like trains in the rest of world. Janko Dobričević, Zagreb

This is from a previous version of the article:

However, all such systems in the United States were removed by the 1950's. This has often been attributed to the larger car manufacturers buying out the tram operators and then pulling up the tracks to make more space for cars.

Not all systems were removed, some remain, for example the famous San Francisco trollies. San Francisco still has two separate tram system, the Muni street cars (electric) and the world famous cable cars (pulled).

The second statement, about car manufacturers, should be clarified. Since tracks don't take up space that would be used for cars, I doubt that was the reason for their removal. The article alludes to the real reason: that car manufacturers caused trolley removal in order to sell fleets of buses. This is an interesting topic! Someone with better information should expand it.

In Melbourne, some tram lines run on tracks which are in lanes that cars and buses are not permitted to enter - tram stops placed in the middle of the streets physically stop cars from using those lanes. Therefore, their removal would allow extra lanes of traffic. Increasing traffic flow was certainly given as a reason when advocating removing the tramlines from Melbourne's streets in the 50's and 60's (any such attempt now would be doomed to fail). --user:Robert Merkel

I removed this:

There is a tram museum in Bendigo, some two hours north of Melbourne, and another in Maryland, USA, near Washington, DC.

A quick search shows numerous tram(way) museums in Australia. Unless there is something particularly distinguishing about the one in Bendigo, it seems out of place here. If there is something of special significance about Bendigo, by all means put it back into the article, but mention why that tram museum is notable.

The Bendigo Tram Museum is especially significant, anon. It's far and away the largest one in Australia, and (unless I miss my guess) one of the biggest in the world. There are quite a few others - one right here in Ballarat - but Bendigo is the mecca for tram lovers. Don't know anything about the Maryland one. Tannin 23:12, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Thanks, Tannin! Why don't you edit the article to say something about that. I originally removed it as part of my crusade to get rid of pointless enumerative lists. Not that lists are bad, but for every sentence to turn into something like "there are also tram museums in Adelaide, Antwerp, Atlanta, Brussels, Boston, Chicago..." would be annoying. So if it's an especially important tram museum, I think it should say so to justify its inclusion in the article. --Nate Silva 23:16, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

My pleasure, Nate. I am horribly pushed for time right now, unfortunately) and won't be on-line for more than a few moments till next week sometime, so hopefully someone else will take care of it. And good luck with your campaign: I hate those pointless lists too. Cheers -- Tannin

Good info on National City Lines, thanks to whoever put that in!

I wrote the original sentence that there are tram-type systems in the US, but not normally known as trams. I just removed a statement that they are known as "streetcars". That is partially true, but they're known by many different names. Light-rail, commuter rail, trolley, etc. Some of these names may not be totally accurate but they're what people call the systems that are otherwise known as trams. Examples: Portland Streetcar, Portland MAX Light Rail, San Diego Trolley, San Francisco Cable Cars. All of these operate, at least paritially, as trams. However, I don't think yet another enumerative list is necessary ("...also known as streetcars, trolleys, cable cars, bla, bla").

--Nate Silva 23:08, 14 Aug 2003 (UTC)

"The name "tram" is from Low German traam, meaning the "beam (of a wheelbarrow)"."

Is this true? I've read in lots of places that they were named after a man called Outram. Lee M 19:22, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

WikiProject Streetcars

User: Vaoverland

I am from Richmond, Virginia, where Frank J. Sprague is credited with creating the first successful electric trolley-powered streetcar system on some of our 7 hills in 1887-1888. The last streetcars operated here in 1949. However, Richmond has plans underway here for a heritage streetcar system, such as currently described in the Wikipedia article tram. I hope we can have some fun here. Vaoverland 23:09, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

terminology, U.S. vs others

When working on articles for Wikipedia:WikiProject Trains, we have been confronted with a problem in major differences in terminology used around the world. This is going to come up in this WikiProject as well.

Here are 2 examples already:

streetcar Should this really be redirected to tram, which is an obscure usage in US? I have never heard the term tram used here except referring to some small rubber-tired people movers used for parking shuttles at places like theme parks and major events.

subway should this really be redirected to metro, an inapplicable usage in US? The only time I hear metro used here is occasionally for the formal or slang name of a subway system, such as Metro in Washington, DC.

How can we incorporate the differences and educate everyone?

Comments on the above, anyone? Vaoverland 22:57, Dec 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, I think if the article is talking about a system in an American city, then we should say streetcar. Tram simply isn't used in the United States. Ditto with metro. Mackensen (talk) 23:54, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

That is my thinking also. I think we should have articles under subway and streetcar which indicate to SEE metro and SEE tram respectively for the non-North American version, and vice versa, if that is the proper way to differentiate. This would help readers find what they are looking for. This approach would allow us to pull out most of the U.S. related content in each article, and make room for more photos and content. I think the next step would be to post this on the talk pages for tram and metro, and solicit comments and help from other writers to be discussed here. Vaoverland 19:32, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. Mackensen (talk) 19:35, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It appear we have a quorum, so I will make it so, and we'll seee what we hear. Vaoverland 20:04, Dec 25, 2004 (UTC)

Separate articles for streetcar/tram

I disagree with this split into two articles. I think it solves a stylistic problem (a linguistic disagreement about the name), but introduces a substantive problem in making it appear that streetcars and trams are different animals, rather than just different names for the same animal.

If you look at the history of trams/streetcars, there has always been a large amount of interaction between the US and non-US industries. A few examples:

The early pioneers (both in the horse-drawn and early electric eras) were mostly from the US, but in many cases were drawn to the (at that time) more affluent European markets, so we see the same personalities building systems in both the US and Europe.
The PCC car, whilst designed for US operation, was directly used in many places outside the US, and influenced development in many others.
The move back to the streetcars/trams (albeit now called light rail) started with existing system improvements in Germany, was taken up with new systems in North America (Calgary and San Diego spring to mind), then cross-fertilised back to France and the UK.
The low floor movement started in France, and is now starting to be adopted in North America.

Based on that I think that Tram/Streetcar/LightRail are all the same thing, and having bits of the story in different articles depending on whether it happened in the US or elsewhere really doesn't help us be encyclopedic.

My suggestion would be a single headline article. To preserve linguistic neutrality (or avoid edit wars) why not call it 'Light Rail' which is an accepted term world wide. We could then have redirects from both 'Streetcar' and 'Tram' to that article. 'Light Rail' could be a summary article, with more detailed articles such as 'History of Light Rail' hung off it. -- Chris j wood 11:22, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree. There is significant overlap in the terms, and I believe it is important to minimize unnecessary duplication between them, but there is sufficient difference in what the terms mean beyond simple regionalism to justify, even require, separate articles.

Perhaps we could have a "comparisons and differences" type article, linked to all three main articles, explaining the essential differences. Ir is important for an encyclopedia to explain such things to those seeking interest, so they don't think the terms are necessarily interchangeable.

Streetcar is a comprehensive, mainly North American term for a local rail transit vehicle, which may be animal, cable, or electrically powered, arguably also petroleum-powered. When it is used in interurbans, as a rapid transit vehicle, it is not a streetcar.

Tram is a more comprehensive term than streetcar. You have the concept of "limited tramways" (whereas you don't have which are really what we would now call light rail, pre-metro, in which the lines are still tram lines.

Actually I've never heard the term "limited tramway". It is certainly not in general usage in the UK; where and for what have you heard it used?.

I've been interested in trams for 20 years or more; I'm a Brit who has worked for US companies for most of my working life and spent considerable time in the US; and I really, really don't think there is a significant difference in the meaning of the word streetcar in the US and tram in the UK/Europe:

Both imply a degree of 'old-fashioned-ness' to a lay audience, which is why more modern systems have been branded light rail; in both cases that old-fashioned-ness is diminishing, witness the use of the name 'Portland Streetcar' in the US and 'Tramlink' in the UK to describe brand new systems.

Both terms can be used to apply to animal, cable or electric propulsion (in the UK we also had steam trams and I've never heard the term 'steam streetcar' but that is a relatively minor point.

Both terms imply 'street-running' (either in mixed traffic or on reservation within the street) but I don't think either term is ruled out by an element of segregated track. And with both terms there are arguable/hybrid systems: (was the Newark subway a streetcar system in its original guise when the cars ran out onto the streets; probably yes; was it still a streetcar system when it was more or less completely segregated; I'm not sure) (was Manchester Metrolink as opened a tramway even though the only street running was a mile or so in the city centre; probably yes; is Tyne and Weir Metro a tramway even though it is completely segregated because it uses vehicles heavily based on a German tramcar design; probably not).

I'm at loss to think of a tram system that I wouldn't unhesitatingly describe as a streetcar system to an American contact. -- Chris j wood 23:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Light rail is a neologism, derived from the Britishism light railway, the latter of which implied any street railway / trolley type operation. However, light rail is not yet generic enough for an exclusive encyclopedia article, since the term implies a more upgraded right-of-way and a more modern vehicle than is covered by the simple terms "streetcar" or "tram." -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:11, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

If it is a neologism, it is now a pretty well used neologism. And the Britishism light railway is I think pretty well unrelated; to me it brings up a picture of lightly built, normally narrow gauge, steam or internal-combustion operated, segregated railways usually built to serve agricultural traffic; nothing much to do with trams, streetcars or light rail in its current sense (except for its use in the name 'Docklands Light Railway' which is a bit of an oddity).

I do however accept that light rail is a somewhat wider term than streetcar or tramcar (for example both Docklands Light Railway in London and SkyRail in Vancouver are both routinely described as light rail (strictly 'ALRT' or 'Automated Light Rail Transit') when I don't think anybody on either side of the Atlantic would describe them as a streetcar or a tram. So I withdraw my suggestion of using that name; but IMHO that just means we need to think of a better neutral name rather than continue the split. -- Chris j wood 23:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Upon consideration and reflection of the above thoughts, I still think that having the separate tram and streetcar articles is appropriate. Vaoverland 04:10, Dec 29, 2004 (UTC)

Ok, but it seems to be getting us more and more muddled. For example, both Talk:Tram and Talk:Streetcar now contain listings with the text 'For reference purposes, here is a listing of some of the WP articles which relate to streetcars. Please add to the list for project for working purposes'. And they are different. Not just by virtue of references to US and non-US systems, but also in ways which they should not differ (eg. Talk:Tram correctly lists the article cable car (railway) which is a general world-wide description of cable cars in the streetcar sense whilst Talk:Streetcar lists the article cable car which is actually just a dab page between cable cars in the streetcar sense and things that dangle off cables up Swiss mountains). Perhaps somebody in the two articles camp could undertake to keep the articles and their talk pages reasonably consistent. -- Chris j wood 23:05, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It is getting very confusing, at least to me. I have tried to consolidate the list of articles related on the WikiProject Streetcars talk page so that we can at least see it all in one place. The cable car related items alone seem to be to be intertwined in a crazy way. Hope this helps. Vaoverland 00:53, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)

It's just a matter that Cable car (without any qualifier like "railway") was originally a dab page, so it's just a matter of updating links. As to the question of separate articles, "streetcar" and "trolley" and "tram" are not exactly the same thing. There is also the point that having everything redirect to "tram" in an encyclopedia incorrectly implies that "tram" is the proper term, and everything else a variant. And before someone tells me that "This is an international wiki," I'm well aware of that, but too many believe that "international" = "non-U.S." The U.S is part of international, too. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:22, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As I indicated above, I don't believe that "streetcar" and "tram" are different things. "Trolley" is indeed something subtly different because it implies electric power, and is perhaps in need of disambiguation because in UK english it was commonly used as shorthand for "Trolleybus". But I think "Trolley" is a separate and second-order issue we can address later.

I'm certainly not suggesting redirecting Streetcar to Tram (or indeed vica versa), but rather that we should come up with a commonly acceptable name, and redirect both to that. The obvious one would be an article entitled "Streetcar or Tram" (or "Tram or Streetcar", or "Streetcar / Tram", etc) except that this differs from normal Wikipedia naming conventions, and somebody would undoubtedly 'help us' by renaming it without reading these discussions. "Street running rail transit" is an alternative; accurate, but cumbersome. -- Chris j wood 12:03, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I've brought up this topic again on Talk:Metro; would urban light rail and urban heavy rail (with links between the two) work? Or maybe urban surface rail? --SPUI (talk) 11:39, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Streetcar vs. Light Rail

User:SPUI merged this article into the Light rail article, but I've reverted it. Althought the Light Rail article is excellent, I believe that the two concepts are distinct enough to merit seperate articles. Here in Portland, Oregon at least, the "streetcar" is a relatively small vehicle which carries 45-60 people, travels in lanes that are shared with automotive traffic, has a top speed of about 25 mph, and is used entirely for local transportation. The "light rail", on the other hand, consists of much larger vehicles (200-300 people), travels in dedicated lanes, has a top speed of about 70 mph, and is used for transportation across the entire metropolitan region. Aside from the fact that both systems run on rails, I think they are otherwise distinct enough concepts to merit seperate articles.

I'm open to suggestions on a better name to encompass both streetcars and what Portland calls light rail. I really don't see any hard line that can be drawn; it's basically a continuous range of systems, from full street-running to street-running in dedicated lanes to street-running in dedicated lanes with limited stops and waiting areas, and so on. Same thing for the vehicles and their capacity.

There are modern light rail systems with sleek vehicles that run down the middle of streets, for instance the River LINE through Burlington Town Center. This is as close to a 1900-style track layout as you can get, and yet modern vehicles are used. --SPUI (talk) 16:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(I've searched around Wikipedia:WikiProject Streetcars and the like for any prior discussion of merging these articles, but haven't found anything. If I've overlooked something, let me know.)

I guess I'm questioning the value of merging these articles in the first place. It's true these systems operate on a continuum, but then so does everything. Parts of New York's system run above-ground; parts of Portland's system are underground. Does this mean that we should merge the light rail and underground articles? I think that the best thing to do is stick with the vernacular nomenclature wherever possible, and in this case it seems pretty clear to me. "Streetcar" is used for small systems, "light rail" is used for medium systems, and "urban rail" (or somesuch) is used for large systems. The tremendous diversity of these various systems argues for keeping them as separate articles, in my mind at least. Skybum 17:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The history from this was basically a summary of the history on tram. Tram lines, from what I understand, cover the continuum of streetcar-light rail (for instance Midland Metro is very interurban-like). So this distinction between light rail and streetcars may only exist in parts of the world.

As for the split between light rail and urban heavy rail, the main place to draw the line is complete grade separation and high platforms. This split is fairly common, for instance [1]. There are definitely systems that have aspects of both; the eastern half of Boston's Green Line is subway (and until recently partly elevated) with streetcars and low platforms. But there is a fairly clear distinction, and it's fairly clear when a system has characteristics of both. On the other hand, the streetcar/light rail distinction seems very fuzzy. Both use similar cars, and rights-of-way can change from one to the other at will. For instance, Boston's Green Line, depending on which branch you take, can take you out of the subway onto an interurban-style line (actually a converted freight railroad) (D Line) or an old-style street-running line (E Line). Both with the exact same cars, though the street-running line may on average use fewer cars per trainset.

By the way, Merriam-Webster defines "light rail" as "a means of urban railway transportation using trolley cars".

Now light rail might not be the best title, given that the Docklands Light Railway is a heavy rail line. Urban surface rail might work, but that only gets 3 google hits and could be considered a neologism. Maybe just Surface rail?

I'm going to try to get more people in here, as it's an interesting discussion, and it would be nice to come to a consensus, even if that consensus is to split the two (and hopefully avoid overlap in history etc). --SPUI (talk) 17:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't have a lot of time to devote to this right now, but here are a few quick thoughts: 1.) There would seem to be an argument for dividing these along partially historical lines. If my understanding is correct, early such vehicles were often called "streetcars" prior to the 1950s, and were certainly never called "light rail". These vehicles were also much more similar to what I think of as a "streetcar" (based on my Portland experience), in that they were generally smaller, lighter, non-lane-separated, and had single-car trainsets. "Light rail" is a term that came into being in the 1980s, I believe, and the vehicles built since then have generally been heavier, larger, lane-separated, and had multi-car trainsets. So we could define "streetcar" as being "generally like pre-1950's trolley vehicles," and "light rail" as being "generally unlike pre-1950's trolley vehicles," and the histories could be divided up accordingly.

The other way of doing this would be to conduct a fairly broad survey of what various systems call themselves, along with their respective attributes. There will of course always be exceptions to any rule, but if a mostly-clear distinction emerges (which I personally believe it would), then we should dedicate separate articles to each. I suspect that both of us are being biased by our respective experiences. Based upon my observations, the two terms are exceedingly distinct; but based upon your observations, they're not. So perhaps the thing to do here is cast a wider net than our individual observations. Skybum 19:00, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to have a template for the top of the articles, like the rail transport one on Locomotive, for links between the various types of rail:

And minor ones like:

funicular
aerial tramway maybe
interurban, unless that gets merged with light rail (as there's often no real distinction; the two systems can and have shared trackage)
monorail (an important subset of urban heavy rail, that deserves its own treatment since it's so different) --SPUI (talk) 17:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's other naming discussion on Talk:Urban heavy rail. --SPUI (talk) 18:01, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merging rail articles

SPUI, please stop merging rail articles into Uberarticles. Wikipedia policy is to have articles under the common names by which the subjects are called, not to invent uncommon expressions: "urban heavy rail" just so we can have super-articles. A person looking for "Streetcar" or "Tram" or "Funicular" should find pages devoted to those topics, no have to wade through a giant article.

It makes no sense at all to have micro-articles for every variants of R1-9 subway car and each subway service but make "light rail" cover every variant of street railway. That is what categories are for. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It makes no sense to have three articles at light rail, tram and streetcar that are basically copies of each other. When merging them, I found a lot of redundant content, particularly in the history.

A person looking for "Streetcar" will be looking for a wide range of possible configurations. Pretty much anything in light rail could be called a streetcar. --SPUI (talk) 20:09, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe that the distinctions found here] can be considered fairly definitive:

   LRV (Light Rail Vehicle)
   A tram, trolley, streetcar etc. constructed in the 1970s or later. 
   The name introduced to try to give the tram or trolley a more up-market
   image. LRVs also have higher weights and horsepower than trolleys or
   streetcars.
     
   Streetcar
   The predecessor to the LRV. Used to describe a steel tired vehicle that
   operate in mixed street traffic only. At the current time, within North
   America, all streetcars operate in single unit consists only.

If there is redundancy between the articles, we should work on reducing that in a rational fashion, rather than inappropriately merging everything together.

So what would grade separated trolleys pre-1970, like the D branch of the Green Line, be called? The definition even says that a LRV is a type of streetcar. Basically light rail is a newer term to describe what had been called trams/streetcars. I do share some of the concerns about the article TITLE, which is why I am asking for suggestions for a new title. Titling should be the least of our concerns, and lack of a good title should not cause forks. --SPUI (talk) 20:35, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To specifically answer your question about the Boston D line, at the time the line began operating, the line and similar operations in Europe were known by one or more of the following expressions:

Light rapid transit (US)
Trolley-rapid (US)
Subway-surface (US)
Limited tramway (EU)
Pre-Metro (EU)

All those terms have mostly been merged into Light rail. But streetcars were and are still streetcars. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 20:40, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So then what's the Green Line E branch? It starts underground (currently; before and after reconstruction it will start elevated) and ends up as an old streetcar line, running down the middle of an undivided street. --SPUI (talk) 21:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The existence of hybrids isn't the same as the non-existence of individual species. Skybum 22:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regardless of what it was called at the time, the D line would now be considered a "light rail vehicle", because it is larger, heavier, faster, and more grade-seperated than streetcars. Light rail systems are an evolution out of streetcar systems, but this doesn't mean that streetcars weren't and aren't a distinctly different animal.Skybum 22:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So when that same train is assigned to the E Line (which has a section down the middle of an undivided two-lane street), it suddenly becomes a streetcar? Does it lose weight? --SPUI (talk) 22:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Eh, I do agree though that this nitpicking isn't really helping. I guess I need to step back and look at the big picture. Personally I see too much overlap between streetcar/tram/light rail, and not just in hybrids, but in systems that would change to or from light rail if they were built in a different place, to do anything but merge. --SPUI (talk) 22:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but they're still broadly different animals which are used in broadly different applications. I think it isn't overly blurry to say that LRVs are generally grade separated and streetcars are not (to pick just one of many distinctions), just as it isn't overly blurry to say that subways are generally underground. If the existence of exeptions to the rule means that we have to roll everything into a single article, then I'll have to insist that subway gets rolled into light rail as well, because I can think of many overlaps between the two. :-) Skybum 22:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I tried that at urban rail transit, but it got to be too big and unwieldly. It does seem though that there are many more overlaps between streetcar/tram/light rail than between those and subway/metro, and the line is less well defined. From what I understand, a system that is fully a subway/metro has full grade separation and high platforms (the level of the floor of the cars, without using low-floor cars). Anything with neither of those would be streetcar/tram/light rail, and there are some in between. --SPUI (talk) 22:24, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Similiarly, then, a system that is fully "streetcar" would be single-car, never grade separated, and only useful for intraurban trips -- with some systems being in between. I think you're getting confused by the fact that LRVs can be used in streetcar applications -- just as they can be used in subway applications -- but this doesn't work both ways. Streetcars, for one, are too underpowered to handle the high speed regional transit applications that LRVs can. This is yet another indication that they are separate things. Skybum 22:34, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah. It seems like part of the problem here is that the vehicles themselves determine what the system is called. I'm thinking of it as a line of track. So if LRVs and streetcars both run along the same track, what would the line or trackage be called? --SPUI (talk) 22:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Huh, I hadn't really thought about that. I don't know if they are called anything; or, if so, this might be the point where it becomes hopelessly regional, and probably even line-specific. Generic terms like "intra-urban rail transport" and "inter-urban rail transport" are easy enough to define, but have no relation to how people actually talk or think about these things... so I'm not sure if we even can call the lines anything in particular...? Skybum 22:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you now understand why I've done the merging? The articles deal not only with the trains but with the actual infrastructure too, and the history of that infrastructure. I am liking my alternate idea of having separate article for history, etc, though there still might need to be a split between light and heavy, even if only within the article. I'm also thinking about an article like passenger rail terminology, which would explain the differences between regions (see Talk:Heavy rail for yet another problematic term). --SPUI (talk) 23:02, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, I still don't understand why you want to merge these. Prior to the 1970 (give or take), streetcars are urban rail transit, period, unless it is subway or elevated, in which case the distinction is obvious. So it is appropriate to discuss streetcar history, vehicles, and infrastructure in the streetcar article. After 1970, a new kind of urban rail transit evolved, which shared certain characteristics with streetcars, but greatly improved upon their range and speed (and size and cost). This spawned an entirely new type of vehicle and infrastructure, which it is appropriate to discuss in the "light rail" article. However, it is an evolutionary offshoot from the streetcar, because legacy streetcar systems continued to operate, and beginning with the Portland streetcar in 2001, new systems began to be built. Because these do not share any of the new characteristics of light rail systems, either vehicularly or infrastructurally, these should be included in the streetcar article as well. Skybum 23:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I guess I'm not really seeing the major change in light rail - it's simply articulation of vehicles, from what I understand. Or is the Green Line still a streetcar system, and only new lines are light rail? The problem here is that light rail/streetcar refers to the vehicles, and the intent of the articles is to also discuss the infrastructure, which didn't really change. The higher-speed aspects of light rail are simple interurbans (yet another term that means different things in different places). --SPUI (talk) 23:21, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, the terminology doesn't strictly refer to the vehicles, although it is driven by by them. Streetcar infrastructure and light rail infrastructure are generally different, because streetcars are essentially useless in inter-urban applications, and LRVs are essentially overkill for low-speed stop-and-go streetcar applications. In the case of the Green Line, it looks like it is a streetcar line which has been upgraded to use LRVs. The locals can call individual systems whatever they like, but that doesn't change the fact that streetcar and lightrail systems are generally different. Generally, those differences are in both the line and the vehicle, but sometimes its only in one or the other. Skybum 23:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As far as I know, no upgrades were done to the Green Line infrastructure post-1970. Thus what was once a streetcar line somehow became a light rail line. I think an article about these systems in general would be better suited to talk about tracks, and vehicles could be differentiated by streetcar vs light rail. --SPUI (talk) 23:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Its article states that "For many years, the line used the PCC streetcars developed during the Depression. These were finally phased out in favor of new light rail cars supplied by Boeing-Vertol in the mid-1970s." So it's a streetcar line that now uses lightrail vehicles. I can perhaps see the point in having specialized sub-pages detailing the differences between streetcar and lightrail vehicles, tracks, route-planning, and so forth -- but when one thinks of a "line", those concepts are generally all rolled up in one. And appropriately so, although the Green Line demonstrates that there can be exceptions. But that's one of those exceptions that proves the rule, as they say. Skybum 23:45, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I;m still not understanding your reasoning. First of all, lines in the same style as high-speed light rail were built long ago as interurbans (see Newark-Trenton Fast Line for an example). These were often closely integrated with streetcar systems. Now the same thing is happening. The fact that the supporters choose to call it something different does not make it different. The vehicle itself is different, and Light Rail Vehicle can cover that. But the lines are being built much as they've always been built - to the highest standards possible given the constraints (including funding). This was true with interurbans (the Norristown High Speed Line, an interurban streetcar line, was grade-separated in 1912), and is still true with modern light rail. The infrastructure has not changed; the trains have changed. --SPUI (talk) 23:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Okay, one last time: with streetcar systems, grade separation is the exception. For light rail systems, it is the rule. For streetcar systems, multi-car trainsets are very much the exception. For light rail systems, it is the rule. For streetcar systems, wide regional applications are the exception. For lightrail systems, it is the rule. For streetcar systems, high speeds (25mph +) are as a rule not acheivable or desirable, because they run on low-speed streets. For light rail systems, high speeds are desired and acheived wherever possible. For streetcar systems, vehicles generally carry fewer than 100 people. For light rail systems, trainsets generally carry more than 400 people. Streetcars generally resemble what have been called "streetcars" since the 19th century. "Light rail" generally resembles what has been called "light rail" since the 1970s. I could go on and on and on, but I already have. Why can you not perceive the difference between these things? Skybum 00:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I can understand that there is a difference, but I dispute that light rail is a new thing, if you're correct that streetcars are low-capacity things that run slowly on city streets. It's just a renaming of what used to be a subset of streetcars. For example, see this photo. That's an old interurban line, going cross-country, with a single streetcar. No date is given, but it's listed as "Older Passenger equipment", and [2] says that the last day with the old cars was in 1983, so they had to be around before the "light rail" movement.

Again, that is an exception to a rule. For every inter-urban "streetcar" line, I could show you a hundred intra-urban ones. And for every mile of intra-urban lightrail line, I could show you 50 miles of inter-urban line. The fact that there is is a small bit of overlap between the two, and some systems which are distinctly hybrid, does not mean that they are the same thing -- no more than the existence of station wagons means that there is no difference between a car and a truck. Moreover, the fact that light rail was a new term with a new primary application with a new sort of vehicle makes it a new thing. And regretfully, I must now forswear having any further discussion with you on this point, because I have now stated the obvious in every single way that it can possibly be stated. Skybum 16:49, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It turns out the old version of the light rail article backs me up - "light rail" means whatever its supporters want it to mean. If we're going to split between street-running rail and higher-speed light lines, we need a term other than "light rail". --SPUI (talk) 17:42, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Historically, before the term light rail, the subway portion was called a streetcar subway,' which is what it was. BTW, on your Heavy urban rail] pages, you have pix of the Docklands line and the JFK Airtrain, both of which are characterized as light rail, not heavy rail. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:26, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

How are they light rail? They have all the characteristics of a heavy rail line, except maybe trainset size. Or is this another case of "let's call whatever we want light rail to make it sell"? --SPUI (talk) 21:29, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems that there is no simple solution to this problem, so unless we can come up with a better solution, I'm thinking it might be better to leave things as they were, which although imperfect seems as good as any of the alternatives. G-Man 23:31, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I very much disagree. The way things were, the history was spread across and duplicated across several articles. Details of U.S. systems were also duplicated between streetcar and tram. --SPUI (talk) 23:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

A possible solution

Ignoring what I've just said, I've thought of a possibility.

How about merging the tram and streetcar articles into a Trams and Streetcars article, seem as the two things are essentially a different name for the same thing. That way we would not be endorsing any one term, which seems to be a major objection.

The Trams and Streetcars article would cover the topic in general, and we could have sub articles about different regions eg Trams in the United Kingdom, Trams in Western Europe, Streetcars in North America etc and most of the content in the streetcar article could be moved into the latter.

However I think the light rail article shoud remain seperate, as it covers an area wider than just trams and streetcars. Any thoughts? G-Man 23:57, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For the light end of the urban railway spectrum, 'Trams and Streetcars' is by far the best proposal I've seen yet. I definitely think that they should remain separate from 'light rail', both because 'light rail' is itself an ambiguous term (many people have their own, different definitions of what makes a railway 'light' - see my comments on Talk:Urban_heavy_rail), and because 'tram' and 'streetcar' refer to the individual vehicle, while 'light rail' refers to a much more general concept and system. David Arthur 00:59, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

This is a good solution. I will change my vote accordingly below. Skybum 16:53, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Poll on merging

User:SPUI has merged this article with tram into light rail. Should streetcar, tram and light rail be kept as discrete articles or be merged into the single light rail article? I have protected this page during the poll as SPUI was persisting in making this article a redirect without consensus. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Keep discrete

-- Cecropia | explains it all ® 21:06, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-- Vaoverland 21:11, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC) I thought this was an old argument already resolved satisfactorily.
- The above discussion (a few sections up, before the recent stuff) indicates that it wasn't resolved. --SPUI (talk) 21:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- -- NOTE: I've changed my vote to the third option, below, if that's allowed Skybum 21:20, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) Where the differentiation is unclear, let's make it more clear, rather than doing away with it altogether.
- That's what Urban rail transit#Terminology is for. The terms are so intertwined that separating them makes little sense, especially when they're two regional words for the same thing. It's kind of like having transport and transportation separate. --SPUI (talk) 21:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - But they're not regional words for the same thing. They're words for distinctly different things, with some regional variation in their application. And the more I search around the web, I see that these variations are relatively uncommon; therefore, they're hardly something that Wikipedia should conform to.
    - What are you talking about? Trams and streetcars are very much the same thing. Light rail can be argued either way, but to me there seems to be too much overlap with the others. --SPUI (talk) 21:44, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      - Tram is a European term which -- and I'm not personally familiar with its actual usage -- can apparently either mean streetcar or light rail. If so, this makes it a broader term than either either of those, but it does not mean that those terms, themselves, are in any way synonymous. They are not. Skybum 21:53, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        I'm not saying that they're all the same thing, though I may have misspoke about streetcar and tram being exactly the same. If in fact tram is encompassing of both streetcar and light rail (as it seems to me too, though there are some European systems called light rail), then why not have an article at tram or some equivalent neutral term and cover everything there? --SPUI (talk) 21:56, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        I'll let the Europeans decide what to do with "Tram", but even if it is the case that it is descriptive of the overall genus (to continue the biological analogy I'm making above), "Streetcar" and "Light rail" are still distinct species, deserving of pages of their own. Skybum 22:05, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        What do you propose to prevent duplication between streetcar/light rail and tram? I see a few possibilities:
        
        Tram becomes a disambiguation. All links to tram have to be changed, and systems have to be assigned to either streetcar or light rail.
        
        Tram becomes a short page describing usage of the term, with links to streetcar and light rail. This seems to have the same problems as the disambiguation except that the reader has to know which of streetcar/light rail he wants.
        
        All three articles are short, describing mainly usage of the term. Links are provided to pages like History of urban rail transit and Urban rail transit technology. This one might actually work; it's at least worth some thought/discussion. --SPUI (talk) 22:28, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
- Just to clarify, in the UK at least any light rail system which runs along streets for at least part of its length would be called a tram system, such as the Manchester Metrolink. Wheareas a light rail system which was entirely seperate from road traffic, such as the Tyne and Wear Metro or the Docklands Light Railway would not be called a tram system, and would described as a light rail system only. G-Man 22:32, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  - I really don't understand that; both of those "light rail" systems seem like heavy subway/metro. --SPUI (talk) 22:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    - Well the difference is the presence or otherwise of on-street running. Eg any system which shares space with road traffic is usually described as as "tram" system (in common usage at least) whereas any system which doesn't and is entirely seperate both from road traffic and the main line rail system is NOT described as a tram system, but as a light rail or metro (whatever) system. G-Man 23:07, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      - Ah, yet another term that means different things in different places. In the U.S., "light rail" seems to be any modern tram system, such as Hudson-Bergen Light Rail.(more photos, showing clear street running) The Docklands Light Railway and Tyne And Wear Metro would probably be heavy rail/metro/subway, though there is some confusion with cases like the Docklands; AirTrain JFK is similar and is often considered light rail, despite its similarity to some lines of the New York City Subway. "Light rail", at least in the U.S., seems to be more of a loaded word than an actual useful description. --SPUI (talk) 23:13, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        Aaargh! In the U.S., all modern tram systems (prior to 2001) were called "light rail" because they all were light rail -- they all used LRVs, usually with a standard light rail sort of infrastructure. No new "streetcar" systems were built between World War II and 2001, when the Portland streetcar went online. Several other cities have since followed suite, but light rail and streetcars are still different things... Skybum 23:38, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        So then why are systems with all the characteristics of heavy rail being called light rail? --SPUI (talk) 23:41, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        Formerly, one of the characteristics of heavy rail was that the rolling stock was not self-propelled -- it was pulled by a locomotive. This effected a number of other things, such as greatly increasing the maximum weight of a car, and greatly decreasing its acceleration and deceleration abilities. Things like the ICE trains in Europe have blurred that particular distinction, but I believe that it still holds true in the US. Skybum 23:50, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
        That has nothing to do with this; I'm talking about heavy rail as it means subway/metro, not regional rail and intercity rail. AirTrain JFK is fully grade separated, with high platforms. It is similar to some parts of the NYC Subway, except that the supporting structures are sleeker. --SPUI (talk) 00:01, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Carnildo 22:58, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) When I hear "streetcar", I think of single-unit vehicles running on at-grade tracks, which may or may not be mixed in with automotive traffic. When I hear "light rail", I think "modern governmental boondoggle".
- Well, there's a point here... Streetcar to me (I live in the SF Bay Area) is like a cable car or Muni.. it runs on normal surface streets. Light Rail is a retarded governmental boondoggle here as well as where Carnildo lives. We also have BART and Caltrain and Amtrak and... OK. Well, it's complicated. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 23:01, Apr 21, 2005 (UTC)
  - Hey, my lightrail system kicks ass, thankyouverymuch. Of course, the government can screw up even the best ideas... :-/ Skybum 23:18, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
CComMack 13:31, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC) I predict that streetcar and tram will be unmerged and remerged repeatedly over time; better to leave them separate, even if this is somewhat redundant.

Merge into light rail

Or some other neutral all-encompassing term. I'm not sure that light rail is the proper term. --SPUI (talk) 21:08, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
How about ... "buses on rails" :D -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 02:20, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merge streetcar and tram but keep light rail separate

G-Man 21:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC) I would agree that the present system is a bit of a mess, but the merged light rail article is a complete dogs dinner. G-Man 21:30, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Streetcar and tram are not identical, and it would not be proper to force readers to one or the other as the "right" term. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 22:04, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure how exactly, they appear to me to be different words for the same thing, in the same way as "Railway" and "Railroad". Are they not both electrically powered vehicles which run on rails through streets?. That said I dont feel strongly on the subject. G-Man 22:14, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree, although strictly I don't think either term implies electric propulsion. They are both rail-mounted, street-running, vehicles. -- Chris j wood 10:50, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While I acknowledge there are some differences between streetcars and trams, you'd never know it by reading the articles, so I think a merge makes sense here. "Light rail" refers to a system, not a vehicle and so should stay discrete. JYolkowski // talk 00:10, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I believe Streetcar and Tram are just different vernacular terms for pretty much the same animal, and the two articles should be merged. The suggested title (above) of Trams and Streetcars (or Streetcars and Trams is just fine. On the other hand I think that Light Rail does represent a sufficientry different vague area on the continuous spectrum of various sorts of rail transport to justify a seperate article. Both articles need plenty of text to explain that the distiction between the two (and indeed between Light rail and Metro/Subway) is vague, arbitrary and often debatable, but nonetheless useful. -- Chris j wood 10:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Casting my vote this way now, in accordance with G-Man's solution proposed above. Skybum 16:56, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Hello. I’m almost not active on English Wikipedia (because my English is quite poor), so I don’t know whether my opinion is valuable, but still, I will give it J

As you know, in Europe (continent I live in) rail borne public transportation became quite popular in recent years, so you have many systems to compare.

What I see as a ‘tram’ is an electric powered vehicle that is used mainly in streets (though it can have separate infrastructure too). Trams are often used even in pedestrian areas. Very typical for modern trams is that they have low floor, so people can step in from the street level. Also, trams are mostly single-unit vehicles. They are lighter than light rail vehicles.

Light rail is more like cheaper version of metro. It can be used in streets, but is mostly used on separate infrastructure. The floor level is high, so stop places have high platforms. Trains are mostly multiple units.

My personal criteria between tram and light rail is: “Tram riding through pedestrian shopping street is quite normal, while light rail riding through the same street is real nonsense” Kneiphof 14:12, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comments:

By the way, I do admit the light rail needs some more cleanup. I'm somewhat hesitant to do that right now without knowing if it will stay merged. --SPUI (talk) 21:52, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where now?

I've moved urban heavy rail to rapid transit, which no one has objected to (and the poll on talk:metro was in favor of the merge). There may be some cleanup needed.

I'm starting Passenger rail terminology, meant to describe the differences between names for systems, and to a lesser extent vehicles. We're going to need a better name for the "light rail" article if it's going to describe anything meaningful, rather than just describing that people call anything light rail if they want it to sell. --SPUI (talk) 16:40, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think I have most of the terms on passenger rail terminology; now it needs cleanup and expansion. No major reorganizations are planned, so others can help without likely edit conflicts. --SPUI (talk) 17:12, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've done some work on the rapid transit and [whatever we decide to call stuff below rapid transit] sections. The light rail subsection is from the old version of the light rail article, and seems to agree with my assessment, that pretty much anything can be called light rail if it's built anew. --SPUI (talk) 17:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and subway was changed from a redirect to a disambig. I have protested on Talk:Subway#Turned_into_a_disambiguation_page and will wait for yet another argument to conclude before changing it back. --SPUI (talk) 16:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

So the main issues now are:

What do we call the streetcar/tram merge? And how do we ensure that this doesn't overlap with higher-speed light systems, as the term tram does?
What do we call the subset of light rail that actually is separate from older streetcars? "Light rail" is way too broad, describing anything from old-style streetcar lines to fully heavy rapid transit.
What do we do with U.S.-style interurbans? Merge it with #2?

--SPUI (talk) 17:47, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There's also the issue of what to call anything below rapid transit (streetcar/tram/light rail), as we want to have a term for this (like on Passenger rail terminology, although I guess streetcar/tram and light rail could be split). But then we need a better term for light rail there, as "light rail" is just too ambiguous. --SPUI (talk) 23:43, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I disagree I think the light rail article should attempt to explain the different usages of the term. Light rail is a wide meaning term, which is used to mean anything from streetcar/tram systems to modern Metro type systems. For example a tram system is by definition light rail, but light rail does not by definition mean tram/streetcar. G-Man 00:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree; light rail should talk about the usage of the term. But it doesn't make sense to say that a system is light rail (at least not without qualifying it with another term), since "light rail" has been used to label systems from simple street-running streetcars (or if not that, systems very close to that) to heavy rail. --SPUI (talk) 00:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've never heard it used for heavy rail, although I dont know what definition of heavy rail your using. In general terms light rail systems are passenger only rail systems on which the trains, and infrastructure are built to a lighter weight construction than on the regular rail system and are incompatible with the regular rail system, and also cover a relatively small area. Is that a good enough definition? G-Man 01:08, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Docklands Light Railway and AirTrain JFK are both heavy rail, but typically called light rail. The former is simply to distinguish it from the "heavier" London Underground; the latter may have been for marketing purposes. --SPUI (talk) 01:30, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry I still dont know what your talking about, neither of those systems are "heavy rail" as they are not part of the regular rail system. What exactly do you mean when you say "heavy rail" cause it clearly isn't the way I understand the term?. G-Man 20:23, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question: does anyone know if light rail when applied to AirTrain JFK is simply a bastardization of the name advanced light rapid transit? AirTrain JFK is listed on that article, which makes it clear that ALRT is a type of rapid transit. --SPUI (talk) 02:59, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, another example - PUTRA Light Rail Transit is ALRT. That system just comes out and says it - the term "light rail" is applied to all sorts of lines, including rapid transit. --SPUI (talk) 03:03, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Streetcar / Tram / Light Rail Transit

OK, here's some of what I know on naming. The Encyclopedia Britannica (Note the Britannica--i.e., not U.S.) has their main article on streetcars under (*cough*) "Streetcar". "Tram" directs you to "Streetcar." The generic term for what we're calling "Light Rail" is "Light rail transit," which term was used at least since the first conference on the subject in 1975.[3] See also that the EB calls their article "Light Rail Transit," and gives us this snippet "[...]system of railways usually powered by overhead electrical wires and used for medium-capacity local transportation in metropolitan areas. Light rail vehicles (LRVs) are a technological outgrowth of streetcars (trams). Light rail transit lines are more segregated from street traffic than are tramways (particularly in congested urban areas) but less so than are [...] [4]. You want more, you gotta subscribe.

As to the question on why the JFK AirTrain is called "light rail," the reason is essentially political. "Light rail" is "sexy" (a direct quote from a NYS DOT functionary) and calling it such helped overcome opposition from neighbors along the line whose opposition to a railroad (or worse, an "elevated") near their homes had to be addressed. In practice, the line (save for the linear induction motors) is highly analogous to the regular subway lines in construction and equipment, the latter being almost the same profile as a BMT/IND subway car (but 3 feet shorter, IIRC). -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:36, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually I think the EB is written in America now, despite its name. G-Man 20:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it seems there are indeed some usages of the term which are colored by politics. In the case of the AirTrain, I suppose that "light rail" sounded less intimidating than "heavy rail". In the case of a streetcar system which is currently being installed up in Tacoma, they're calling it a "streetcar / light rail," which I guess makes it sound like they're getting more bang for their buck -- when it is really only a streetcar system. And also, as SPUI points out, there are systems which are genuinely hybrids of both -- although these are far and away in the minority.

However, all that said, there are political misapplications of the term, and then there is the actual definition of the term, as used implicitely by urban planners and transit professionals around the world. (I'm talking from experience here, by the way -- this is part of what I do for my day job). I don't believe it is at all appropriate for Wikipedia to endorse what is essentially a misuse of the word, even if it has come into collequial usage in certain parts of the world. I would support mentioning somewhere that "some people mean 'light rail' to be 'anything that is less than heavy rail'"; however, I also believe that it is essential to give the more precise definition of lightrail, namely that it it something that evolved out of streetcars, but involves larger and heavier vehicles, multi-vehicle trains, higher speeds, lane and grade separation, and wider regional applications.

In summation, where confusion exists, the purpose of an encyclopedia is to clear up the confusion -- not give in to it. Skybum 07:25, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Can we agree on the following definitions.

Tram/Streetcar systems refer to a particular type of traditional light rail system, on which at least part of the system runs along streets, and shares space with road traffic. Is generally low speed and with regular stops, and the trains/trams are generally quite short, usually one or two carriages/cars long.
Light Rail could refer to tram/streetcar systems, but also is used to refer to heavier/higher speed systems which are seperated from road traffic, and run entirely on a seperate right-of-way. The trains which run on these systems are heavier and faster than traditional trams/streetcars, but not as heavy as regular main line trains. These heavier systems could NOT be described as traditional tram or streetcar systems, but are NOT part of the regular rail system either, and fall into an in-between category known loosely as 'light rail'.

Is that a good enough definition? G-Man 20:34, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In general, it looks good. I ight even support having the article at light rail, if we can get a consistent definition (and mention but not give serious time to the fringe uses). I think the light/heavy hybrids should be mentioned in both (in passing; they'd factor mainly into it with technology and history). We also still need a term for tram/streetcar; I don't think something like tram and streetcar is standard usage, where the two terms are roughly alternate names for the same thing (rather than two separate things that make sense merged, like 1-9 (New York City Subway service)). Is surface rail reasonable, or can that refer to freight rail too? Or we could just say screw it and put it at streetcar, redirect tram there, and have a message up top that says "if you're looking for higher-capacity trams, see light rail". --SPUI (talk) 21:15, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think G-Man's definitions are getting there, but still a bit too prescriptive. The requirement that light rail systems are entirely separated from road traffic would rule out most North American and European systems normally regarded as light rail (eg. Portland TriMet, San Jose ValTrans, Croydon Tramlink, or Strasbourg all have some in-traffic running). Also there are subtly different meanings to the terms 'segregated' and 'own right of way', which can range from running in grooved rail in road lanes with just lane marking and legal enforcement to keep other traffic out, through running on ballasted track on a median or roadside location, to a private fenced right of way on a non-highway related alignment. I'd suggest we replace which are seperated from road traffic, and run entirely on a seperate right-of-way with which are largely segregated from other road traffic, running on reserved lanes or tracks within the highway or on an entirely seperate right of way. -- Chris j wood 12:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Here would be my version of G-Man's definitions, with the important differences marked in bold:

A Tram/Streetcar is a particular type of traditional light rail system, that predominantly run along streets, sharing lanes with road traffic. Is relatively low speed, with stops every few blocks, and the vehicles are generally only a single carriage.

"Light Rail" is sometimes used as a catch-all reference to any lightweight rail system, but more specifically refers to a particular modern derivative of tram/streetcar systems that are heavier, higher speed, and predominantly seperated from road traffic. The trains which run on these systems often come in two-carriage trainsets, but are not as heavy or as long as main line trains.

So, are we getting there? :-) Skybum 19:53, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nearly, but I have trouble with the 'Predominantly run along streets'. For example the Manchester Metrolink and Croydon Tramlink run predominantly along former British Rail lines, with only a minority of the system running through streets. However these are usually always described as 'tram' systems, in common usage. G-Man 22:18, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've restored light rail to its pre-merge status, and tram and streetcar have been merged into tram, as that had most of the stuff. I'm proposing a move to streetcar; see Talk:Tram#Move for discussion. --SPUI (talk) 20:31, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Sleekcar"

I can find no reference to "sleekcar" in the industry. The only references that Google refer to a domain name that is for sale and someone's user name on chats. "Modern streetcar" is not a generic term, not descriptive. -- Cecropia 17:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation

I have turned this article into a proper disambiguation page (as it was in all but name), as it only duplicated content on Tram and the other links. Please refer to these articles instead. ProhibitOnions 00:55, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am restoring the article, since it covers current U.S. experience which is not covered in tram. "Streetcar" in the U.S. has a presence, both official (i.e., government recognition, funding, and planning) and in the media which is not analogous to tram. Please respect that not all issues fit into a euromold. -- Cecropia 01:00, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What "Euromold"? This is a glorified disambiguation page, with an advertisment for a British company as one of the definitions. A streetcar is a tram in most respects, and the article that serves it best is Tram, where the evolution of, and minor variations in the use of, the term can be better discussed. I shall move this to a disambiguation page, leaving your two definitions on it. ProhibitOnions 01:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Streetcar now redirects to Tram, a comprehensive article covering worldwide tram/trolley/streetcar systems. The old "article" is now at Streetcar (disambiguation). I still think the "historic" and "modern" definitions should be left off the disambiguation page as they are complicated and a bit misleading; the real definition problem is the distinction between tram/trolley/streetcar and light rail, where this distinction is better explored. While there are minor differences in the technical difference between streetcar and trolley, these are dealt with in Tram, and there is no real difference between tram and streetcar, other than geographic preference for one term or the other. This, too, is mentioned in the Tram article, as is the occasional U.S. meaning of tram as a concatenated tourist vehicle on tires (such as the Universal Studios Glamour Tram).

Not personal to you, we have any number of editors who try to force all articles into a eurocentric mode. We even had one developer who advised on his user page (the reference now removed) that recommended that interested Wikipedians should go about changing U.S. spellings to Commonwealth spellings, though this is clearly against Wikipedia policy. Your user page specifies that you are from GB and are now in Berlin. There is nothing there to suggest that you are "up" on current US practice. "Good faith" is not at issue here; many fine editors make honest edits in good faith that are ignorant of some issues or unavoidably centered on their own experience. This is one of the reasons for a Wiki, which are intended to be self-correcting. -- Cecropia 17:30, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is now consistent: Streetcar and Trolley both redirect to Tram, which in turn has links to the disambiguation pages for both of these terms, as well as links to Light rail and Trolleybus in the header. This is, as I see it, the best solution for something that is known under several different names, tram being the most common. No text has been removed, apart from the mention on the disambiguation page of a British company named Stretcar that had no Wikipedia article.

BTW, Cecropia, it might interest you to know that I am in fact a U.S. citizen, and for that matter the webmaster of a site dealing with a rail-based rapid transit system. Please remember WP:AGF. ProhibitOnions 11:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A streetcar is a tram — if there is any U.S.- or North America-specific information absent from Tram, it should be added to that article, rather than creating a parallel one with limited geographical scope. David Arthur 15:56, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]