Railroad Forums 

  • Brightline West (XpressWest, DesertXpress) Las Vegas - Victorville - Rancho Cucamanga - LA Proposal

  • This is a forum for all operations, both current and planned, of Brightline, formerly All Aboard Florida and Virgin Trains USA:
    Websites: Current Brightline
    Virgin USA
    Virgin UK
This is a forum for all operations, both current and planned, of Brightline, formerly All Aboard Florida and Virgin Trains USA:
Websites: Current Brightline
Virgin USA
Virgin UK

Moderator: CRail

 #1486632  by mtuandrew
 
Whoops, I’m forgetting that there’s no direct Victorville - Palmdale railroad, not without either going nearly to Cajon Pass and reversing, or backtracking to Barstow, going to Mojave, and reversing again to Palmdale. Brightline would probably have to build a new connecting line between the two cities.
 #1486636  by Arlington
 
mtuandrew wrote:Whoops, I’m forgetting that there’s no direct Victorville - Palmdale railroad
Long-planned tangent shot across the desert, but yes, as-yet unbuilt, but therefore suitable for a Public-Private Partnership (but as I said, that PPP--or that Brightline should build it all its own--is precondition for tying into CASHR at Palmdale (or Metrolink there also)
 #1486643  by dowlingm
 
As far as Palmdale vs Victorville alignments go, I’m thinking “why not both” - departures every xx minutes LV-Barstow and every other train alternates between Palmdale and Victorville. Brightline have not demonstrated delivery of 125mph operations or infrastructure - that will presumably be demonstrated with the Orlando route. If they stay Siemens partnered then that’s obviously a plus for California legislators. Restricting to 125 and diesel can be sold as realistic as compared to the ballooning costs of CAHSR.

I have difficulty imagining Brightline paying for much in the way of improvements to assets they don’t own - more likely that California will be told that if they want the project to proceed, give Metrolink money for improving Palmdale-LAUS with resulting path capacity directed to Brightline.

I do wonder about equipment - in theory a low door bilevel like Nippon were going to build would be ideal for minimum issues around platform heights - will California Viaggios with traps suffice for ADA compliance or will full highs be required? In the alternative, maybe Siemens have a design for future Surf/Supers (and dual mode locos?) that Brightline could shake the bugs out of as they did the FRA Chargers and Viaggios?

Also: I wonder what the real estate play is? More entertainment and leisure hotels, or commercial to grab some business traffic too?
 #1486644  by bostontrainguy
 
As I read that last post I wonder why AAF/Brightline didn't go with a bilevel design here in Florida. Everything here is low-level platform and bilevel design. Even the super-efficient Colorado Rail Car design was used here (two full decks which could have even been designed with pass-throughs on both levels). Nothing much at all in the way of height restrictions. And no freight interference problems with platforms. Seems like a no brainer to have done that and not open up the can-of-worms that exists up north. It was a nice clean slate.

Even the European version of the Acela Avelia Liberty is going bilevel so speed is not a problem.
 #1486649  by Bob Roberts
 
dowlingm wrote:Also: I wonder what the real estate play is? More entertainment and leisure hotels, or commercial to grab some business traffic too?
I have wondered about this too. I am no expert on the Las Vegas market but I think the leisure market is still struggling with the oversupply of hotel space that was created a decade ago and the strip is a lousy location for office space. I can see their TOD, office-driven business model working well in the Miami-West Palm commuter market, but not in the much longer-rides that will be in play here. The tourism-driven TOD development model that built the FEC might work in Vegas, but only if Brightline's partners can sell hotel rooms for more than $40 a night.
 #1486653  by Nasadowsk
 
bretton88 wrote:Would Brightline consider doing dual-mode trains? Electric on their I-15 alignment and diesel on the access to LA? While it probably wouldn't be the cheapest engines in the world, I'm sure a manufacturer could build a FRA compliant dual mode train.
What does that bring to the table? Pretty much nothing, IMHO, and it's expensive and it's a maintenance headache. If they can do 125mph on diesel alone, they will.
 #1486675  by ziggyzack1234
 
Bostontrainguy (like the name btw, am from Boston myself), there seems to be a trend towards single-level/ high level boarding these days. Amtrak in Illinois is ordering the same type of cars Brightline is using, and Amtrak California is too since Nippon Sharyo dropped the ball on the new Superliner car design, so the money had to go somewhere. Caltrain is also planning to go high-level for compatibility with CHSR.


Why did Brightline go single level? I think the answer is design, they want to go 125mph, which takes certain equipment to do. The problem is that there are only 2 FRA-compliant bilevel cars on the continent that can go that fast, and they are both commuter cars, the MARC III and the Bombardier MultiLevel. Now they could use these, but Brightline has standards of service, and I don't think bumping your head on the ceiling (the Multilevel was built to fit in the NYC tunnels) lives up to those standards.
If Brightline needs more capacity, they can just lengthen the trains.


Personally, I don't want to walk up what amounts to multiple flights of stairs while walking through the train, so I'd much rather ride single level. High-level platforms and single-level cars are the most ADA friendly cars (think of the elderly who really can't do stairs unlike college-age me).
 #1486687  by electricron
 
ziggyzack1234 wrote:Personally, I don't want to walk up what amounts to multiple flights of stairs while walking through the train, so I'd much rather ride single level. High-level platforms and single-level cars are the most ADA friendly cars (think of the elderly who really can't do stairs unlike college-age me).
Why do you need to walk the length of any train? To go to the disappearing diner or cafe car? To go to the non existing observation car? To go to the only restroom on the train? Well, on most intercity trains every car has a restroom. Soon there will be no reason at all to walk from one car in a train to another, except to find a seat in the first place.
Ever watched people enter a building that provides two choices to get to the entrance; first a short flight of steps and second a long ramp for wheelchairs? Few, if any, seniors choose the long ramp, almost all take the short flight of steps. I think you under estimate the ability of seniors to navigate stairs. What they will appreciate is a strong handrail to grab on to.
 #1486691  by mtuandrew
 
electricron wrote:Ever watched people enter a building that provides two choices to get to the entrance; first a short flight of steps and second a long ramp for wheelchairs? Few, if any, seniors choose the long ramp, almost all take the short flight of steps. I think you under estimate the ability of seniors to navigate stairs. What they will appreciate is a strong handrail to grab on to.
That sounds like my father-in-law. On days when he’s relatively mobile, he takes the stairs, but it causes him obvious pain. It’s only the bad days where he detours five feet to the right and walks up the driveway.

The point isn’t that people choose to climb stairs versus using a ramp, it’s that the short route may be hazardous to their health. Besides, ramps are absolutely necessary for folks with suitcases and strollers, and those in wheelchairs. Many agencies have decided it isn’t worth the risk of a passenger tripping and smashing their face in the vestibule, so high-level boarding is their solution. Others assume that mobility-impaired passengers will sit on the lower level of a bilevel, and not move much.
 #1486694  by bostontrainguy
 
Cost should be considered also. High level platforms cost much more to build and do present a greater safety hazard. Every Brightline station needs a long expensive freight train bypass which again cost big bucks (tracks, signals, switches, crossings, etc.). Extra capacity would require additional cars. I would think a low-level platform design would have saved millions of dollars in additional costs, no?
 #1486696  by mtuandrew
 
I thought Brightline had platform extenders mounted on the cars, specifically so they wouldn’t have to install gauntlets or freight bypasses. Did FEC install gauntlets regardless?

Also, the 8” low level platform standard doesn’t clear Plate H cars, so you’d still need gauntlet tracks.
  • 1
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 38