Re: Heritage (was: [Seattle] Melbourne W2 involved in accident)

[David McLoughlin <davemclNOSPAM@iprolink.co.nz>]

James Brook wrote:
> 
> not_val@uswest.net wrote:
> >
> > I dispute that Seattle route 99 is a "heritage" line, although our
> > definitions may differ.
> 
> If something is old and it runs then most gunzels automatically refer to
> it as "Heritage" no matter what condition it is in.
> 

Not at all. "Heritage" lines are tourist-oriented lines using historical
vehicles or vehicles meant to look like that, and are not a major
compenent of a city's transit system. 

The New Orleans St Charles line uses ancient trams but is not a heritage
line, it is a major component of the city's transit system. Boston's
Mattapan line uses ancient PCCs but is far from being a heritage line
(the only tourists who would even know it is there would be gunzels).
Adelaide's Glenelg line uses even older trams than Melbourne's remaining
Ws but it is not a heritage line.

The Seattle waterfront line fits the definition of heritage line (though
I concede it would more correctly be called a tourist line).

In Dallas, the McKinney Ave line is clearly a heritage line, while the
DART  light rail system is not.

San Francisco's F line is a hybrid... it uses heritage trams on a line
initially reinstated to attract tourists (and it does) but it has also
become a major part of that city's transit system. The cable cars on the
other hand are clearly heritage lines as they are legally a national
historic monument.

The city tramway loop in Christchurch is a heritage line, it uses old
trams and goes nowhere anyone but tourists would want to go, and slower
than one could walk the route.

David McLoughlin
Auckland New Zealand