Jump to content

Talk:CapMetro Rail

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Information transferred

[edit]

Transferred data from Capital --Peter Horn 23:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Metropolitan Transportation Authority to Capital Metro Commuter Rail. Make that Capital Metro Commuter Rail/Temp.--Peter Horn 23:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lightweight DMUs on existing track?

[edit]

How did they get approval to run the light-weight Stadler DMUs on existing freight tracks? Have they been given an exemption from the usual weight requirements, or is there some sort of time separation? David Arthur (talk) 20:00, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They haven't received waivers yet. See this article in the Austin American-Statesman: "U.S. regulators question Cap Metro rail cars' safety". jareha (comments) 23:57, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Commuter rail or light rail?

[edit]

The system uses diesel railcars, and by the schedules it looks like it runs rather frequently. It also shares similarities with Denver's LRT system in using dedicated, high speed right-of-way, as well as street running as I can see from the pictures. Shouldn't this, then, be considered a LRT system rather than a commuter train? WaltBren (talk) 21:15, 23 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It runs on the regular main-line tracks, and the diesel-powered trains are considered main-line equipment in Europe, though they require a special exemption under U.S. rules in order to run on tracks shared with freight trains. The photo at the top of the page does look somewhat like street running, but I think it's actually just a brief, walled-off section next to a street – or can someone with direct access to the system correct me? Furthermore, this schedule seems to say that trains run on the half hour, with no mid-day service, which is definitely a commuter rail service pattern. David Arthur (talk) 12:51, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps it's more comparable to the Calgary C-Train, which runs along the street in downtown. -Secondarywaltz (talk) 14:21, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The C-Train is definitely a tramway, though a high-grade one. It has street running and level crossings, and its tracks aren't shared with main-line traffic. (At various points, they make very tight turns that I doubt a main-line train could handle even if it somehow found its way onto the line.) It also runs at much higher frequencies than this railway.
Austin's trains largely use existing main-line tracks, which are still in use by the freight trains. They also seem to be defined as main-line for legal purposes, since the FAQ page talks about various rules imposed upon them by the Federal Railroad Administrations, including 110-decibel horns to blow at unprotected level crossings.
I can't tell from the maps, though, whether they actually run on the streets through the city centre, or on a regular line which happens to be beside the street. It would help if we could get a broader view of the central section depicted in the article photograph. Does anyone know whether the central section is a new construction, or a line that was already there? David Arthur (talk) 22:23, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely street running here. However, you are correct in service frequency and right of way. Should it, then, be considered a hybrid tram-train? WaltBren (talk) 04:20, 30 March 2009 (UTC) (and espcially here, too. I'm REALLY going to have to say that the article should say tram-train now, or a tram-train-esque system. It looks like there are two stations on the street, and the rest are on freight ROW. WaltBren (talk) 04:24, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, from those two videos it looks like an almost textbook case of tram-train operation. David Arthur (talk) 16:33, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited the article accordingly. Thanks. WaltBren (talk) 18:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In Europe it would be classified as a tram-train, however in the USA we do not have a designation for that category, so the closest we can get is commuter rail or light rail. Due to frequency and the fact that this runs on main line tracks it is classified as Commuter rail.Tampasteve (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because we don't have it in large amounts here in the United States does not necessarily mean it has to be classified as something different. The same thing is being discussed with the Docklands Light Railway In London. Yes, it is technically "Light Rail," but it is not the regular definition of LRT by U.S. Standards, but it is easily an automated people mover. Capital MetoRail is certainly a tram-train operation, even though it may be the only true tram-train in the United States. It should certainly be classified as a tram-train nonetheless. WaltBren (talk) 02:54, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Global classification would most certainly put it as a tram-train, I do not debate that point. However, the US government has no classification as such, so it would have to fall under commuter rail by US definition. So I suppose that the issue is whether we are talking global or domestic definitions of rail.Tampasteve (talk) 15:23, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this is old, but just as an FYI, light rail cars can be built to lower crash survivability standards because they operate on isolated systems and do not share right-of-way with freight trains. The FRA classifies MetroRail as commuter rail, which falls under its jurisdiction (light rail does not, as it does not operate main-line). Legally these types of systems are often categorized as either light rail or commuter/heavy rail for this reason. Capital Metro ultimately got FRA-certified by reinforcing the fuel tanks to bring their DMUs up to commuter rail standards; see this archived news story. They would not have had to do this if they were light rail. Shelbystripes (talk) 21:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Mueller Community

[edit]

Seems a little strange that this was included in ridership projections, because there's no stop anywhere near it... AnonMoos (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speed

[edit]

How fast does this brand new high tech "commuter rail" train go? By the looks I was guessing less than 60 m.p.h. According to this, FRA set the max speed at 60, but this was published before operations began. B137 (talk) 22:29, 16 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The speed limit of the tracks generally increases the further away from downtown you get. The speed on the street-running section in downtown is 15 mph, but increases to 30 mph once you’re out of the center of downtown, then increases to 50 mph, and once you get out past Howard station, the speed limit varies from 40-60 mph. The FRA wasn’t used to using lightweight Stadler GTWs on rail lines in the US, because this system was only the 2nd system to use GTWs in the US. Thus they limited the maximum speed to 60 mph for safety concerns. I assume now that Stadler has gotten a much bigger presence in the US, the FRA will probably lift that restriction and allow Capital Metro to run the trains at higher speeds. Capital Metro originally wanted to run trains at 75 mph in the suburbs, but they can’t do that yet due to the FRA. They are just finishing up installation of PTC on this line, so maybe that’ll allow them to run trains faster. OTravels2004 (talk) 22:34, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the section on future expansions

[edit]

I noticed some of the paragraphs pertaining to expansions of the rail change tense in a way that can make it hard to understand which expansions are being proposed/in progress/or otherwise abandoned. Specifically, the sections related to the MoKan corridor tend to be inconsistent. Also, I feel like the section on the Gateway expansion should be expanded upon. At present it is an unjustifiably vague, run-on sentence that does little to educate or inform anybody on what this expansion entails. Finally, we might consider updating the section to include more proposed plans. Specifically, the riverside corridor plan comes to mind, in which the presence of a new rail line (running along riverside, east out to the airport) plays a prominent role in addressing problems of traffic congestion as well as improving the overall quality of life of the residents. Montiver (talk) 00:33, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Capital MetroRail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Capital MetroRail. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:45, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

McKalla Place and Broadmoor

[edit]

The "MetroRail Red Line additional stations" subsection need to be updated to reflect that McKalla Place and Broadmoor are actually under construction now (McKalla Place should be close to opening, if the work is on schedule). AnonMoos (talk) 03:21, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:CapMetro_Rail&oldid=1213306040"