daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Should the US build or improve it's HSR network?
Yes 249 89.57%
No 29 10.43%
Voters: 278. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old February 24th, 2017, 08:22 AM   #6741
bluemeansgo
Registered User
 
bluemeansgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 451
Likes (Received): 124

Quote:
Originally Posted by ainvan View Post
Support Grows for a Seattle to Vancouver Bullet Train









The hardest part of this project will be the route north of the 49th. The current government seems to have no interest in rail transport and there are very few ROWs that would work into Vancouver unless they were tunnelled or completely new routes.
bluemeansgo no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old February 24th, 2017, 08:49 AM   #6742
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,995
Likes (Received): 1031

Why not just connect the Vancouver end to somewhere on the Canada Line of Metro Vancouver? It seems plausible to build a station somewhere near Vancouver Int'l Airport, which is itself connected to the Canada Line; frankly, that kind of transit hub--local rail, high-speed long-distance rail, and international airport--is the kind a lot of transit planners would dream of. It's not a city center terminal station, but it'd be easy to get to the city's center with some expansion of current services. They could (maybe) even electrify a stretch of the current Amtrak route and connect that to the new HSL to allow city center service to the existing station.

There are a lot of ways around the particular problem of termini placement, so long as you're willing to invest plentifully for city center access or plan wisely for peripheral stations.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2017, 05:29 PM   #6743
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

Peripheral stations are never as useful as central stations. Witness JR East investing a fortune in extending the Tohoku Shinkansen to Tokyo Station.
__________________

mrsmartman liked this post
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2017, 06:58 PM   #6744
aquaticko
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 1,995
Likes (Received): 1031

Sure, but that's Japan and the Shinkansen. No point along this Portland-Vancouver line is going to have the kind of transit coverage and inter-connectivity that the Tokyo region has. I'm not sure that the incentive to spend a fortune to get city-center stations is really there, even though that of course runs a high risk of reducing the utility and popularity of a high-speed service.
aquaticko no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 24th, 2017, 08:54 PM   #6745
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

It may not have AS MUCH connectivity, but it will still have the best in the area. And the idea is to limit sprawl as much as possible.
__________________

aquaticko, jchernin liked this post
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2017, 05:18 PM   #6746
luacstjh98
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 1,357
Likes (Received): 285

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Zy99 View Post
Peripheral stations are never as useful as central stations. Witness JR East investing a fortune in extending the Tohoku Shinkansen to Tokyo Station.
From Ueno Station, which was pretty much "up the road" anyway?

Don't forget - even before the Shinkansen, Ueno Station was already the terminal for trains to Saitama and points north. The Shinkansen platforms there only opened in 1985, a full 102 years after the station proper.

The distance from Tokyo Station to Ueno Station is probably something more like Grand Central Terminal to Lower Manhattan.

On a side note, unlike Japan, a Seattle-Vancouver HSR could just connect into the Via Rail lines to access Pacific Central Station, like what's done in Europe? Such an arrangement would also have the benefit of using existing US preclearance facilities...
__________________
Doors closing. Please stand clear of all train doors.

I have a bad habit of retroactively editing my posts without prior warning.

mrsmartman, aquaticko, phoenixboi08 liked this post
luacstjh98 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 25th, 2017, 10:29 PM   #6747
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

Quote:
Originally Posted by luacstjh98 View Post
From Ueno Station, which was pretty much "up the road" anyway?

Don't forget - even before the Shinkansen, Ueno Station was already the terminal for trains to Saitama and points north. The Shinkansen platforms there only opened in 1985, a full 102 years after the station proper.

The distance from Tokyo Station to Ueno Station is probably something more like Grand Central Terminal to Lower Manhattan.
From Omiya, on the outskirts of the city. And Tokyo station WAS the terminal for trains from Saitama and the like before the tracks were severed to put in the Shinkansen (which in turn lead to them needing to add a flyover on the Ueno-Tokyo Line).

Quote:
On a side note, unlike Japan, a Seattle-Vancouver HSR could just connect into the Via Rail lines to access Pacific Central Station, like what's done in Europe? Such an arrangement would also have the benefit of using existing US preclearance facilities...
That would be feasible. It would bring trains reasonably into downtown, and the main issue would be raising the platforms at the station, which should probably be done anyways.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protected Lucifers View Post
i have no idea, did american need HST ? i thought they've done with gigantic airline service. and my question is, did american have it's own HST technologies ?
The US VERY MUCH needs HST. Corridors like SF-LA, and the NEC are saturated with traffic. The airlines would need very expensive airport expansions, and are much more polluting too. The US has put some work into developing its own HST technology since the 1930s, but only in sporadic fits and starts due to sabotage by the road and air lobbies.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2017, 08:11 AM   #6748
bluemeansgo
Registered User
 
bluemeansgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 451
Likes (Received): 124

UNITED STATES | High Speed Rail

Quote:
Originally Posted by 00Zy99 View Post
That would be feasible. It would bring trains reasonably into downtown, and the main issue would be raising the platforms at the station, which should probably be done anyways.

Pacific Central IS downtown. It's not ON the peninsula but make no mistake it's downtown and very well connected. The other station, Waterfront, is technically closer to the CBD but Pacific Central is already the logical choice as it's the current terminal for long distance buses and trains now and the area could be built around it for TOD.

Besides there is rail that would allow either station to be used.

The problem isn't using that station, it's getting there in a reasonable time. It would require a lot of infrastructure. Nothing impossible but upgrading it to full HSR would be very difficult. A route from the south would have fewer barriers and faster as much of it would be built over farmland but then you'd need to find a way from Richmond and that could only be a tunnel.

Update:
Actually looking at it again... I think that the best option would simply be follow Hwy #99 all the way until Westminster Hwy and then jog right to Knight Street with a 5–6km tunnel emerging just before Pacific Central.

Last edited by bluemeansgo; February 26th, 2017 at 08:21 AM.
bluemeansgo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2017, 08:29 PM   #6749
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

Quote:
Originally Posted by bluemeansgo View Post
Pacific Central IS downtown. It's not ON the peninsula but make no mistake it's downtown and very well connected. The other station, Waterfront, is technically closer to the CBD but Pacific Central is already the logical choice as it's the current terminal for long distance buses and trains now and the area could be built around it for TOD.
...I'm pretty sure that that is what I said.

Quote:
Besides there is rail that would allow either station to be used.

The problem isn't using that station, it's getting there in a reasonable time. It would require a lot of infrastructure. Nothing impossible but upgrading it to full HSR would be very difficult. A route from the south would have fewer barriers and faster as much of it would be built over farmland but then you'd need to find a way from Richmond and that could only be a tunnel.

Update:
Actually looking at it again... I think that the best option would simply be follow Hwy #99 all the way until Westminster Hwy and then jog right to Knight Street with a 5–6km tunnel emerging just before Pacific Central.
Just work out the details, there.

As I said, you would need to raise the platforms. And add catenary, but that's a given.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Protected Lucifers View Post
well, it's sad that HST project actually started in 1930s. it's remaind me to NGC series The Men Who Built America about business sabotage in early USA industrilizing

perhaps airline industry behind stuck of HST
100 years ago, the US was at the forefront of railroad development. Fast express trains raced across the country on many different routes.

The US was the first nation to have railroad equipment designed in a wind tunnel (Brill Bullet) and the first nation to work on having lightweight rolling stock (Cincinatti Car Co.). The streamliners like the Zephyr are obvious.

In 1941, the Electroliners entered service between Chicago and Milwaukee. They inspired the Odakyu Electric Railway's SE sets in Japan, which in turn helped provide the impetus for the famous Shinkansen.

In the 1950s, there were experiments with early Talgo equipment (which was manufactured here in the US), as well as other related designs. Sadly, just about all of these proved to be failures for one reason or another-most of them rode roughly.

In reaction to the opening of the Shinkansen, the US Congress approved funds for high speed rail in the US, which led to the Pennsylvania Railroad developing the Metroliner service. Sadly, the track improvements were underfunded and poorly organized and the rolling stock manufacturers were out of practice, which led to poor reliability.

Meanwhile, the New York Central mated a pair of jet engines from a bomber to an RDC and sent the Black Beetle racing back and forth on a section of the main line. They reached over 180 mph without damaging the track. There were no more funds for further work, though.

Starting in the late 1980s and going through the early 2000s, there was badly needed track upgrade work on the North East Corridor to get it into good condition (very good condition, actually). This was capped off with finally completing the electrification all the way up to Boston. However, the bridges still needed major replacements-a process now underway. The signals are getting replaced, and the older sections of the catenary as well.

The airline industry has indeed been sabotaging HSR efforts in the US for some time. The primary reason that Texas didn't get a TGV-based system 20 years ago was because of their lobbying.
__________________

mrsmartman liked this post
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2017, 08:54 PM   #6750
Gusiluz
Jaén (Spain)
 
Gusiluz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 6,578
Likes (Received): 10876

Talgo

Talgo trains made in the USA:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gusiluz View Post
Tras el primer prototipo de Alejandro Goicoechea: el Talgo I (en 1944), había que fabricar los primeros trenes comerciales. Los dos primeros prototipos habían sido fabricados en acero y habían servido para validar la tecnología, pero Goicoechea quería construir su tren en aluminio, y en España no había tecnología para ello. La guerra mundial en Europa y la posguerra en España hicieron que se dirigieran a los EE UU, donde iniciaron conversaciones con American Car and Foundry (ACF). El 08/12/1945, con Alejandro Goicoechea ya desvinculado de Talgo, se firmó el acuerdo para la construcción, sobre planos españoles, de dos composiciones y tres locomotoras a cambio de la cesión de la patente para los EE UU. Además, ACF construyó una tercera composición idéntica, aunque más corta (solo 6 remolques: furgón, coche de servicio, 3 de viajeros y coche panorámico) para su presentación en el mercado norteamericano.
Los trenes para España eran, al igual que el prototipo, composiciones indeformables y unidireccionales (ya que las ruedas atacaban la vía con un ángulo negativo) fabricadas enteramente de aluminio. Estaban formadas por 16 remolques muy cortos apoyados en un único rodal y guiados por el precedente, salvo el primero, que era guiado por una locomotora ACF clásica de bogies, aunque mucho más baja de lo habitual. La presentación del Talgo II en España fue el 02/03/1950 con un viaje Madrid-Valladolid, y estuvo en servicio hasta el 15/01/1972, cuando realizaba el Madrid-Palencia.




El tercer tren, propiedad de ACF, era conocido como “Talgo modelo 1949”, y desde ese año y hasta 1954 circuló de forma experimental y promocional en el Lackawanna Railroad entre Nueva York y Chicago, en el Pennsylvania Railroad y en el New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad. Con la construcción del segundo prototipo (en 1959) este tren, junto con su locomotora, fueron vendidos a España y cambiados de ancho.




Durante las pruebas, ACF pudo constatar los hándicaps del prototipo: composición indeformable, de altura y sección muy reducidas, y unidireccional, por lo que se lanzó a diseñar un tren adaptado al mercado norteamericano. Así surge el prototipo “Talgo modelo 1955”, con solo 4 remolques, pero mucho más grandes: más incluso que la locomotora, enganches normales y además: reversible, gracias al ángulo de ataque neutro de las ruedas ya que 3 de ellos formaban un conjunto autónomo articulado sobre 4 ejes.




También era reversible el proyecto Talgo modelo 1958 que, de forma independiente, se estaba desarrollando en España; continuó con el prototipo Estíbaliz (1960/1964 con entre 4 y 7 remolques) y germinó en el Talgo III, presentado el 05/06/1964.
Prototipo Estíbaliz:


El nuevo prototipo americano, el Talgo modelo 1955, estaba remolcado por la misma locomotora de 1949 y continuó las pruebas hasta 1958, consiguiendo un pedido del Chicago, Rock lsland and Western Railroad. No encontré información sobre el destino de los coches que, o bien fueron desguazados o, por el contrario, sufrieron una profunda transformación; la locomotora fue vendida a España junto con el Talgo modelo 1949.

El nuevo tren para Rock lsland estaba formado por 4 grupos de 3 remolques con 4 ejes (16 en total), tenía 296 plazas con restaurante y furgón, y estaba remolcado por una impresionante locomotora diésel-eléctrica unidireccional LWT12 de General Motors diseñada para el Aerotrain. En 1955 fue presentado en Chicago y realizó viajes de demostración en los cuales alcanzó los 170 km/h y circuló con la misma comodidad a 137 km/h en curvas limitadas a 112. El 11/02/1956, y con el nombre de Jet Rocket, entró en servicio entre Chicago y Peoria a 140 km/h. El tren incorporaba circuito cerrado de TV, de tal forma que los pasajeros veían la vía como si fuesen en cabina. Solo circuló en esa línea hasta agosto de 1957, cuando pasó a prestar un servicio suburbano hasta los años 60.




Patrick McGinnis era el director del New York, New Haven and Hartford Railroad y en 1956 compró un nuevo Talgo a ACF para competir con otros dos trenes ligeros en el Corredor Nordeste (Nueva York-Boston) y así elegir al mejor entre los tres para realizar un pedido de 40 unidades. Estos tres trenes eran el "John Quincy Adams" (Talgo ACF), "Dan't Webster'' (Train X) y "Roger Williams" (Budd "Hot Rod").
El Talgo de New Haven cubrió esta relación entre 1957 y 1958, y en 1964 fue vendido al FC de Langreo (más detalles dos mensajes más abajo).

McGinnis también era director del Boston and Maine Railroad, para el que encargó otro Talgo igual. Estaba destinado al servicio Boston-Portland, pero al ser recibido en 1958, cuando los trenes ligeros habían caído en desgracia, se destinó a las cercanías Boston-Reading.
El Talgo de Maine y el de New Haven eran iguales: estaban formados por 5 grupos de 3 remolques con 4 rodales cada uno, encuadrados entre dos locomotoras diésel-eléctricas Fairbanks-Morse P12-42 para 140 km/h y un total de 480 plazas sin restaurante ni furgón.



En resumen: ACF fabricó siete trenes con patente Talgo en los EE UU: 2 Talgo II para Renfe (1949), el Talgo modelo 1949 (que también terminó en Renfe), el Talgo modelo 1955, el Jet Rocket para Rock Island (1956), el John Quincy Adams para New Haven (1957, que acabó en Langreo) y otro igual para Maine (1958, que debió ser desguazado).

Articulated and light trains in the United States in the days of Talgo II:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gusiluz View Post
Aunque ya habían existido trenes articulados y “ligeros” como el Pioneer Zephyr (1934/1960, coches de 700 kg por plaza) de Ralph Budd, que rivalizó con el prototipo M-10000 (1934/1942) de Union Pacific, los trenes estadounidenses de viajeros siempre habían sido grandes y muy pesados, con coches de más de una tonelada por plaza. Además, la propia Budd Co. abandonó ese concepto en el General Pershing Zephyr de 1939.

Zephyr


M-10000


Durante los años 40 el ferrocarril estaba perdiendo la hegemonía del transporte de viajeros a favor del automóvil, así que las compañías, sobre todo las del Nordeste, buscaban desesperadamente trenes más rápidos y ligeros. Cuando ACF comenzó las pruebas del Talgo modelo 1949 (el Talgo II pesaba 333 kg por plaza, teniendo restaurante y mirador) en abril de 1949 entre Hoboken y Dover, las compañías del Este se interesaron por sus soluciones y se embarcaron en el lanzamiento de prototipos con el mismo concepto: trenes muy ligeros, con mucho aluminio y un centro de gravedad bajo para conseguir mayores velocidades. Todos ellos con tracción diésel.

En 1952 el presidente de Chesapeake and Ohio Railroad, Robert Young, diseñó un prototipo de clara inspiración Talgo, aunque reversible: el Train X. Así era la maqueta en 1954:



El proyecto fue realizado por Pullman Standard en 1956 en torno a un coche de dos ejes, que no rodales (seguramente por las patentes), en los que se apoyaban 4 coches de un solo eje por cada lado; igual que los Talgo VII se apoyan en la cafetería. Tenía una capacidad de 392 plazas (344 kg por plaza) y una suspensión neumática basculante, aunque en un plano inferior a la del Talgo Pendular. La locomotora era una Baldwin-Lima-Hamilton diésel-hidráulica con motores alemanes (¡!) Maybach.




Por su parte, General Motors lanzó el Aerotrain, formado por 10 cajas de autobuses (no es ninguna exageración: incluso tenían guardabarros y bodega para equipajes bajo el vehículo) de dos ejes, con enganches estándar, una capacidad de 400 plazas (430 kg por plaza) y suspensión neumática. La impresionante locomotora era una diésel-eléctrica unidireccional LWT12 de General Motors, que también remolcó al Talgo Jet Rocket de Rock Island.




En resumen, entre 1956 y 1958 se fabricaron siete trenes ligeros comerciales: los 3 ACF con patente Talgo (el Jet Rocket para Rock Island, el John Quincy Adams para New Haven y otro igual para Maine), 2 Train X (New York Central y New Haven) y otros 2 Aerotrain (New York Central y Pennsylvannia).

Finalmente ninguno de los trenes articulados y ligeros tuvo éxito en los EE UU porque se preferían los coches amplios y robustos y, sobre todo, por la decadencia del ferrocarril de viajeros debida a la competencia del automóvil y el avión.
__________________

Kenni, aquaticko, mrsmartman, Jobber liked this post
Gusiluz no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2017, 09:08 PM   #6751
bluemeansgo
Registered User
 
bluemeansgo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 451
Likes (Received): 124

Wow! I honestly had no idea! Those industrial designs rival the designs we see today in Japan. Thanks for the share.

The Zephyr and M-10000 remind me of the Nankai rap:t in Osaka.
bluemeansgo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2017, 09:41 PM   #6752
Kenni
Admin
 
Kenni's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: LATAM
Posts: 27,307

What a delight in designs. Love this one....

__________________

bluemeansgo, Perennial Quest liked this post
Kenni no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2017, 10:28 PM   #6753
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

The M-10000 had some difficulties and was scrapped for its aluminum content in WWII. The original Zephyr, on the other hand, is still around, sitting in a museum in Chicago, near a U-boat.
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old February 26th, 2017, 10:33 PM   #6754
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kenni View Post
What a delight in designs. Love this one....

That is the GM Aerotrain.

The best thing that can be said about it was that it was pretty fast and the engine was reliable.

Notice how the cars only have four axles? They were basically bus bodies on rails. To get an idea of why that isn't a good thing, look at Britain's Pacer series of DMUs.

Furthermore, the interiors were designed for planned obsolescence, instead of durability. Basically, they were supposed to be tossed out wholesale instead of being refurbished.

Also, the engine may have been reliable, but it was under-powered for climbing any grades.

Nonetheless, the train was VERY lightweight, and it still holds the record for service on the Chicago-Detroit and Philadelphia-Pittsburgh runs.

http://streamlinermemories.info/?p=2248
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 5th, 2017, 03:55 PM   #6755
prageethSL
Registered User
 
prageethSL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tomorrowland
Posts: 1,241
Likes (Received): 3036

California high-speed rail ready to lay some track

Quote:
After years of prep work, Gov. Jerry Brown's finance department decided Friday that California's $64 billion high-speed rail project is ready to lay some track.
The administration approved the rail authority's request to spend $2.6 billion on work in the Central Valley. The decision lets the authority ask the state treasurer's office to sell a portion of the nearly $10 billion in bonds voters approved in 2008 for a bullet train.
However, the first 29-mile segment of track isn't expected to be completed until at least August 2019.
The bullet train's long-term prospects remain clouded because of uncertainty over funding and several pending lawsuits. Significant federal help is required, and the Republican-controlled Congress does not support the project. Private money also is needed but none has been secured yet.
The treasurer previously issued $1.15 billion of the bonds that went for administration and on work to connect the new system to existing tracks, leaving the bulk of the money unspent.
Finance Director Michael Cohen approved the Central Valley plan while downplaying a Federal Railroad Administration risk analysis that included a worst-case scenario for the costs of the project. He instead cited the authority's more optimistic analysis and an independent consultant's review that he said found that "the cost estimates and contingencies in this plan are reasonable."
Brown is a vocal advocate of the rail project, and his administration includes the finance department, so Friday's decision is not surprising.
__________________
We are all drops of awareness, in an ocean of consciousness.
prageethSL no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 6th, 2017, 01:16 AM   #6756
Sunfuns
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Basel
Posts: 2,426
Likes (Received): 361

So what exactly is this latest 2.6 billions for? Those first 29 miles have been under construction for some time already and with visible results, but it's crazy that the rest of the Central Valley route to Bakersfield is still pretty much dormant. When are they finally going to start with anything outside the construction package 1 ???
Sunfuns no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 11th, 2017, 09:13 PM   #6757
Scizoid.Trans.Prog.
platfusy i koderaści sio
 
Scizoid.Trans.Prog.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Toronto
Posts: 1,171
Likes (Received): 312

I would love to see a NYC - Toronto HST line!
__________________
Warszawa > Winnipeg > Toronto

Nie udzielam się na FPW.

24/1.8EX 50/1.4EX H85/1.5 70-300vc
Scizoid.Trans.Prog. no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2017, 04:36 AM   #6758
Innsertnamehere
insertoronto
 
Innsertnamehere's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,960
Likes (Received): 680

IIRC there was a study done to improve the empire corridor speeds so there were large stretches of 200km/h operations, not sure what ended up happening to that.

Lets get a reliable, semi-frequent and fast train between Toronto and NYC before we go full HSR. The current train only makes a single daily trip and it takes 13 hours or something.
__________________

The Polman liked this post
Innsertnamehere no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 13th, 2017, 05:55 AM   #6759
00Zy99
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 2,980
Likes (Received): 1506

The 200 kph/125 mph project is trundling along slowly. There have been improvements along the Hudson River, and they are going to restore a second track between Albany and Schenectady.
__________________

The Polman liked this post
00Zy99 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old March 16th, 2017, 07:43 AM   #6760
prageethSL
Registered User
 
prageethSL's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Tomorrowland
Posts: 1,241
Likes (Received): 3036

Brightline targets inter-city opportunities across the country



Quote:
USA: Inter-city passenger promoter All Aboard Florida is expanding its horizon to focus on other potential markets across the country.
The company announced on March 8 that Dave Howard, ‘a veteran executive from the sports and entertainment industry’, was joining the leadership team as Chief Executive Officer for the Brightline project, while Patrick Goddard had been promoted to Chief Operating Officer. Former CEO Michael Reininger is moving to parent company Florida East Coast Industries as Executive Director with a remit to ‘lead new development and growth opportunities’.
With the first of five Siemens-built trainsets already test running from the operator’s new servicing facility at West Palm Beach and a second dispatched from its Sacramento birthplace at the end of February, Brightline is gearing up to launch passenger services between Miami, Fort Lauderdale and West Palm Beach in mid-year. Meanwhile, the related property development projects are taking shape around the three stations.
Speaking exclusively to Railway Gazette, Howard said Brightline was ‘a private passenger railroad express that solves a significant issue’, adding that ‘I see this extraordinary plan coming to reality.’ Emphasising that ‘this needs to be operated with a hospitality mindset’, Howard said he was able to bring a range of experience from the sports and entertainment sector.
Explaining that it was ‘great to bring in an executive to run the day-to-day business’, Reininger confirmed that he was now focusing on the second phase of the Brightline project. ‘Station construction in Orlando is proceeding very well’, he reported, adding that the authorisation process for the new route from there to meet the FEC main line at Cocoa was in its final stages. ‘Once we get started on right-of-way construction, the Orlando line will be done in 2½ years.’
FECI was already looking at extend the Brightline service north from Cocoa to Jacksonville and west from Orlando to Tampa. But Reininger said ‘we’re going to look beyond’, to find other potential inter-city corridors in which to replicate the rail-plus-property model. ‘Florida is not the only area where there are overcrowded roads and interstates’, he pointed out. ‘We are fulfilling our vision here in Florida, but we are not exclusively bound by the state borders. We have a belief that major cities that are 500 to 600 km apart set themselves up as prime candidates for express passenger rail, and can be made to work. We want to apply that throughout the USA.’
__________________
We are all drops of awareness, in an ocean of consciousness.

mrsmartman, jonasry liked this post
prageethSL no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
amtrak, desertxpress, fly california, high speed rail, northeast corridor, texas triangle, united states

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 02:51 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium