At the end of the article, it says the track that has been laid to date is not for revenue service, but just between the station and the maintenance facility.
Yeah, in this day and age, if built properly it should be a complete non-issue.
Why would Virgin pay Brightline for Brightline to use the Virgin brand? It is Brightline that used to pay Virgin a licensing fee to use the brand.
I don't think it should....Virgin Voyages would have represented a miniscule percentage of the total cruises from the port of Miami...
Ah! Got it.
Building anything to Port Canaveral is an extremely non-trivial and expensive exercise which is unlikely to come to pass in the foreseeable future. Any Port Canaveral access will most likely be via bus from the Cocoa-Rockledge station.
They cannot run passenger trains anymore until they have PTC, which they won't until early next year at the earliest. So the question is entirely moot.
The old tradition continues in more ways than people realize. The name of the company now is Fortress Group, instead of FEC. FECI is a subsidiary of Fortress Group and Brightline is a subsidiary of FECI.Isn't that how Henry M. Flagler got started in Florida?
Wes Edens - Milwaukee Bucks
It makes sense to keep and maintain the ATC with cab signaling and electronically integrate it into I-ETMS as jis is describing. In cab signal territory if you integrate the cab signals as an input into the I-ETMS on board computer cab codes can be used as the main source for wayside status on intermediate signal aspects and mainline switch position status which can cut down on the amount of wayside communications equipment you need to install for I-ETMS depending on how they decide to configure the implementation. For more info: https://www.regulations.gov/document?D=FRA-2010-0060-0047
Seems like that wouldn't satisfy interoperability requirements. But you seem more knowledgeable about this than I do. Would there be any issue with running foreign power in lead if they chose that route?
That would be fine as long as the back office makes sure that the equivalent information is carried in the I-ETMS protocol messages too. It is OK to provide more information to engines equipped with a more capable system than I-ETMS, as long as the I-ETMS protocol is not violated.
As the document suggests the wayside segment of an I-ETMS implementation can be configured three different ways. With wayside signal interface units that use data radio, with cab signals, and through wayside to office to locomotive communications (office-connected.) If you use the cab signals approach you rely on cab signal integration to the I-ETMS On board computer for status on track circuits, intermediate signal points, mainline switchs, and anything else tied into it etc. The cab signal method of operation does still require WIUs or an office communications method to relay absolute stop/not stop status and route information at control points to facilitate the I-ETMS positive stop and civil speed enforcement through the switch along with any other switches/signals/devices that are not tied in with the cab signal system and have to be monitored. Using that approach requires the cab signal unit to be connected to the I-ETMS on board computer and I-ETMS will cut out if cab signals are cut out. Obviously that approach has interoperability limitations as equipment on that territory would have to have cab signals. You also can go with a total overlay approach and use the office connected or WIU approach with cab signal integration on top of it. All depends on what the railroad has and how much they want to spend. It sounds like FECR is probably going with an office connected approach with maybe adding the cab signal integration but not sure.
