High Floor LRT is not "obsolete".
A conversation about rail technology, and what is and isn't bespoke.
Two Canadian cities, Calgary and Edmonton, have fairly large high floor “LRT” networks, and these networks are really quite something despite not having a ton of stations or mileage. They both move respectable numbers of riders everyday and provide a fairly good service.
The vehicles running on the network are quite distinctive. Individual "cars" are articulated units, having a bend in the middle two wheel sets at the ends, and a shared wheel set in the middle under the articulation. Cars are then coupled together into units of up to four cars in Calgary and five cars in Edmonton, forming a substantial train with capacity not unlike some metro models.
Unfortunately, this appears to be something Alberta has taken for granted. While Toronto Montreal, and Vancouver have been packing in the miles of new rapid transit, the Albertan cities are now only building low-floor tramways, with the assumption of heavy interaction with pedestrians and vehicles, and in many cases slower transit trips.
Edmonton actually started this trend with its decidedly not metro like "metro line" that embodies the planners’ vision for "urban-style" LRT", which appears to be code for rail with an alignment so meandering and lacking in grade separation that, rather than maximizing transit value, maximizes traffic congestion. Of course though, it would be preferred if such lines could be built with trams, and this is the direction things have headed. One potential rationale I have heard for this is quite concerning, and that's the idea that high floor LRT is "obsolete" or a relic of the past. This is not only untrue, but also illogical, and I want to talk about why in today's post.
The first thing that I'd like to bring to people’s attention is that the technology I'll refer to as HFLRT for the rest of this post is not unique, or even all that uncommon. Just when writing this article while riding on a train without internet, I'm able to come up with a number of different examples all around the world, including Los Angeles, Guadalajara, Manila, Rotterdam, Manchester, and Istanbul, who combined have over 10 different lines using trains of this style, and yet I have not heard of the trains being obsolete.
Quite the contrary, several of these cities are expanding their systems, and that's not to mention Calgary and Edmonton of course who have substantial existing systems. If this technology has truly going obsolete, then it's a crisis, because the entire urban rail backbone of both cities needs to be replaced, but of course that's not the case because it's not obsolete. In fact, Calgary took its last delivery of brand new trains from Siemens just a few years ago.
As a turns out, these systems, as well as other modern "light rail" networks in the United States, were inspired by German systems. And in fact, original vehicles used on the North American systems were nearly identical to those used in Europe, where even more such systems exist — For example, Frankfurt’s entire subway system is built on the technology.
A big part of how you can tell that this idea of "obsolescence" is unserious is the fact that it's not exactly clear what would be made obsolete. The light rail vehicles discussed in this piece are extremely simple and flexible, which has led to their proliferation: They are truly only one design feature removed (the articulation) from the streetcars of old that were among the most widely produced transit vehicles ever. Unlike low-floor vehicles that require substantial added complexity to fit wheel sets around the passenger compartment, not too mention electrical equipment, the high-floor design of these vehicles allows most equipment to sit entirely under the passenger compartment.
The simplicity of this design has allowed basically every conceivable rolling stock manufacturer to build some version of this type of vehicle. In fact, the design is so approachable, that Istanbul Metro was able to design and fabricate vehicles of this type in house!
I sort of wonder if part of the problem here is that every urban rail vehicle used on the systems has been purchased from Siemens. Siemens, admittedly, generally makes good equipment, but perhaps for their own preference they have suggested to these cities that they need to move to a different platform, when the correct solution is probably to just ask another manufacturer to produce vehicles, or even better just run an open tender with a requirement that vehicles be compatible with the existing system.
What's quite interesting is that the designs used on the systems overseas are often more sophisticated and developed than those seen in North America. For example, Frankfurt uses trains that connect units into fully walkthrough pairs, while Rotterdam has managed to add an additional segment in the middle of its newest vehicles. This has probably been made possible by the increasing grade separation of these systems, which have grown increasingly metro-like around the world, while Albertan cities have seemingly moved things in the opposite direction.
Given that I’ve pretty thoroughly debunked the idea shared at the beginning of the article, I think it's worth while to reiterate the benefits of high-floor vs. low-floor vehicles.
Low-floor vehicles by default make sense for substantial on-street operations, because they allow you to create more minimal stops, which can sometimes simply be a curb raised extra high. However, as I've often discussed in my videos and writings, North American cities overuse this transit typology, confusing correlation with causation (i.e. it’s not that European cities have narrow meandering streets and relatively high density combined with small footprints and thus have trams, but rather European cities have high densities combined with small footprints BECAUSE they have trams).
When lines of this type are generally not very successful in North America, it tends to put the brakes on transit expansion, and despite numerous American cities building such systems, none of them have really been a runaway success — particularly those in younger western cities.
By comparison, the legacy networks of Calgary and Edmonton perfectly display the type of transit typology that can be extremely successful in North America, namely suburban lines with substantial fast off-street operation, separation from pedestrians and road traffic, and absolute priority with railway gates. The above ground and separated nature of these networks allows them to be continually expanded and upgraded at fairly low cost, slowly turning them from suburban rail into systems that can resemble metros.
Of course, with that metro style operation comes metro levels of demand. The benefit of the high-floor design is that the vehicles can be more easily maintained and appears to generally be more robust then low-floor counterparts. This, along with the more capacious interior layout and additional doors, makes the much more well-suited for high capacity applications. The exact type the have created complete chaos in Ottawa, who's vehicles have been pushed to the limit.
All of this makes the case for a better informed public, and better informed transport planners who are not only familiar with domestic transit systems. Who are better able to challenge assertions about existing systems, while also driving them to actually evolve and improve.
The Manchester Metrolink is a great example of how HFLRT can work.
Another example for your list is Tyneside Metro. Original vehicles have lasted 45 years, new stock from Stadler being delivered now. Interesting network, mix of former rail lines, multiple extensions, some mixed running with heavy rail, some deep bored tunnels.