Good point.
There are more ways to adapt capacity than by switching in and out additional cars (which, as others have said, is complicated for the Brightline consists).
I probably should have mentioned the elephant in the room regarding the payments to the toll road authorities here: politics. By agreeing to these payments, although it looks bad on the surface, Brightline is able to maintain widespread support from the State government. If they were perceived as not paying their fair share, then it would have been that much more difficult for them when dealing with the legislature here on other issues important to Brightline. It also allows them to maintain their stance that they do not receive public funding or subsidies, even though it is clear they at least indirectly benefit from government programs.
Apropos this issue, I think they have some room to play with. They are starting service with 1tph each way. Track capacity wise, given all the single track segments between Cocoa and Orlando, they may be able to go upto 4tph definitely without affecting end to end running time I speculate. But with 3+ hours running time they will need 4+4 = 8 consists to maintain hourly service, so they won't have a lot of leeway in rolling stock to add significant service. Afterall they will need some PM/BO flexibility too. But' we'll see how things develop of course.
Yeah, I agree. I think they will first grow trains to their full 10 car complement before contemplating additional frequency. Although I won't be surprised if they start with less than hourly frequency and grow to hourly over a period of a year or two during the startup phase.
You bring up several questions. Increasing frequency will mean more hiring of T&E. Exactly how is Brightline crewed? That includes is there an actual conductor and does that person also have other duties? How is on board ticking confirmed? Are there any operating openings advertised and if so, where? Since the planned time to MCO for one-way trip is about 3 hours either T&E will do a roundtrip or maybe1-1/2 RTs?
Usually they design the ROW for double track but lay single track in some sections to save money. Afterall one does not really require double track to run one or two tph in each direction. They can fill in track when traffic increases, when there will be money from revenue available to do so instead of needing interest bearing bonds and such.
I recall that FDOT reported that due to future toll lanes between Lakeland and Tampa along I-4, there will be a short several mile stretch of single track ROW in the median near Plant City that cannot ever be expanded to double tracks.
Couldn't they double deck the rail track? Or would that be a bridge too far for the FDOT? That is something they do in short segments in India where there is no way nohow they can get a wide enough easement through densely occupied areas.
I suppose they could do that, but a more reasonable design would be a long viaduct similar to the Selmon/Crosstown Expressway elevated express lanes in the median here in Tampa. They could even build the piers to support 2 bridge span structures but only install one span at first! The section in question is mainly east of Plant City where the parallel frontage roads are adjacent to the outside shoulder lanes with only a concrete barrier wall separating them at this time. The median is not so wide either at this point.
In densely populated areas the situation is different as a bridge may be cheaper than compensating land owners for their real estate. I think this sort of thing exists in Japan as well, but only for very short stretches to work around other obstructions. Something similar exists in Spain, for example, where on the southern approach to Barcelona Sants the high speed line runs in a shallow tunnel below the regular line, again because I suppose this was cheaper or less disruptive than acquiring the adjacent land, which is densely populated with big buildings built right up onto the edge of the ROW.
That is what I thought, which of course leaves me a bit puzzled about the single track only easement situation.
I-4 is a different issue than I-75 as it was originally built between the late 1950s and early 1970s. So the ROW is narrower in general compared to I-75 which seems to have a much wider ROW especially from Tampa south to Ft Myers. I-75 around Tampa and south, IIRC, was built-out in the 1980s.
