For those who don’t know it, here’s a shot: Google Maps (Sorry about G - much easier to do that than add my own dashcam images!). As you can see, it’s tracks are on a raised island down the middle of the road, with the vehicle lanes being built-up slightly at crossings (& the signals also say “T”!). Most stations are nothing spectacular though: Google Maps
My view is that since it’s primarily separated from road traffic, the vehicles only function on their own lines and are purpose-built with lengthy EMU vehicles, that’s light rail. Other examples that I would consider Light Rail: Sydney (L1, L2, L3), Newcastle (L1), Parramatta (L4), Canberra (“Metro”).
Trams on the other hand are primarily road-running/mixed traffic, often without dedicated infrastructure for stops (i.e. purpose-built shelters), and have freedom of movement through a network via routes (like buses), i.e. Melbourne’s vast tram network. Something important to note here as well is although Melbourne’s tram network operates a fleet of modern, similarly classed “light rail” units, the network is still unmistakably a tram network due to its design and purpose.
Thus, practically anything built after the 1980s in Australia would be considered a Light Rail system by default, unless considered an extension of an existing Tram network.
I also think the classification/mention of third rail presence is unnecessary here since we only use overhead/catenary here in Australia. High floor light rail vehicles are also really only common in other overseas countries (i.e. the USA, some towns in the UK) and aren’t used in Australia. It might also be worth opening a page to mention these differences and considerations in the Australian Tagging Guidelines? Just my two cents.
Like most things it’s fuzzy. However the GCLR does not have a signalling system and has street running, which is pretty much the OpenRailwayMap definition of a tram.
Additionally in Australia trams are considered to be road vehicles which is why they are covered by the Road Rules (and also the reason they have head/tail/brake lights).
A quick look suggests that is separated from other traffic for the vast majority of the way.
While the light rails tracks are geospatially in the middle of the road (actually, between one-way segments in each direction), they aren’t part of the road the other road users may use (physical barriers; i.e. concrete kerbs, etc, separate them from the road area that cars are allowed to use). In other words, other vehicles can’t use the same surface as the “trams”.
Contrast this with the Melbourne streets where the trams truly do share the same road surface (you just can’t drive through a tram stop!).
Physically separated tramway with the same surfacing is still possible. It makes them usable when needed. Contrast grassy ones. You probably won’t change tram to light_rail for that alone. light_rail is most obvious when it uses non-grooved tracks, ie ballasted, or raised ballastless tracks, as in wiki’s cover photo. Other cases need to use other factors. File:U14 Auwiesen 230720061032.jpg - OpenStreetMap Wiki
Sure, as with grade-separation. It’s a matter of proportion and significance.
High-floor platform with level-boarding vehicles might be more standardized along the line. Unless, there’s some weird layout.
Yes, but in the case we are describing here, the “same surfacing” mostly exists at intersections. Most of the track is elevated above the regular road surface by the height of a road kerb.
Therefore, it doesn’t really make it “usable when needed”, as you would need to install kilometres of ramps to deal with the kerb, and ensure that no damage comes to vehicles with low ground clearance when they transition from the elevated track surface to the regular road surface.
Hopefully, since all this conjecture spins up from a lack of clarity in the wiki, that improvements to the wiki can also be done, so that future considerations can be objective, rather than subjective.
It appears that this is very much a matter of definitions (and local language preferences, including historical naming).
Can anyone point to an example of unambiguous “light rail”?
Is “light rail” effectively a synonym for “tram track”?
Based on the evidence presented in this thread, it would appear that the poll needs to be extended to include the “light rail” in other Australian states, as there are no substantive differences with this location (presented thus far).
Question of signalling was raised earlier. As shown in the image ^, & from my observations riding as a passenger in the tram & driving alongside the track, the “signals” are basically modified traffic lights. Do they count as “signals”?
Thought I’d also include a couple of other images showing carriage height (low!) & also a tram at a station.
Years ago, I thought the Berlin S-Bahn was a light_rail, similar to a metro/subway, but possibly with level crossings and operating according to railway standards. More recently I became aware that trams like the Stuttgart Stadtbahn are also tagged as light_rail and now it isn’t clear anymore to me what this tag is supposed to express.
The current wiki definition says they’re trams:
A higher-standard tram system, often separated from other traffic for part or much of the way. It exists between classical tram railway=tram and classical conventional railway railway=rail .
Those “Stadtschnellbahn” as light_rail are quite unrelated, and broken. They are heavy rail, forced by some to use light_rail , basically Tagging For Renderer etc problems.
Stadtbahn are what’s discussed here for light_rail
