Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 beta 4/12/84; site rlgvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!hao!seismo!rlgvax!guy
From: guy@rlgvax.UUCP (Guy Harris)
Newsgroups: net.railroad
Subject: Re: Subways of US and Canada - (nf)
Message-ID: <2096@rlgvax.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 11-Jul-84 21:49:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: rlgvax.2096
Posted: Wed Jul 11 21:49:03 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 14-Jul-84 01:28:26 EDT
References: <20600011@uiucdcs.UUCP> <142@mtxinu.UUCP>
Organization: CCI Office Systems Group, Reston, VA
Lines: 16

> Was it an error in the reproduction, or is the accuracy
> of the listings in question?  The BART system in the
> San Francisco are is a light rail system, not heavy
> rail as the transcribed listing indicated.

The "State-of-the-art Illustrated Treasury of Rapid Transit Systems and
Cars of North America", by James W. Kerr, refers to BART as a heavy rail
system.  I'm not sure what the "official" definitions of "heavy rail" and
"light rail" are (for one thing, it says that the MUNI LRV's have an empty
weight of 34 tons, while the BART cars have an empty weight of 30 or 28
tons - then again, it describes most of the Chicago rapid transit cars as being
between 22 and 27 tons, so it's not clear empty car weight is the criterion),
but the BART system strikes me as a heavy rail system.

	Guy harris
	{seismo,ihnp4,allegra}!rlgvax!guy