Brightline Trains Florida discussion

[Eric S]

I profoundly disagree that suburban and exurban sprawl occurs because of the free market at work. However, I'll leave it at that, since this is getting far astray from FEC/AAF.

 

[xyzzy]

My family has been in government and politics for a long time. What's naive is to blame behind-the-scenes forces for why things are the way they are without making the electorate accountable -- or without being open to the possibility that the electorate actually has what the majority of it wants. Of course there are political actors involved, some of whom do push for vertical growth and mass transit because it's in their self-interest (especially when a proposed rail line would run adjacent to properties they've purchased on spec), many of whom push for horizontal growth and no mass transit because it's in their self-interest. There are always political actors. They come and go. But if you think votes don't count or will not ultimately override the agendas of political actors, run for office or get involved in a campaign or the apparatus of a local political party (either red or blue). I have that t-shirt.

To bring this back to trains and FEC/AAF, it's fun to see a private-sector initiative for passenger rail give it a go. Maybe it succeeds, maybe it fails. With respect to Amtrak, if the American public really wanted a superior passenger train network, we'd get it. Projects like SEHSR would be funded instead of being studied and studied and studied without any progress toward implementation. But at present and for the last 40 years, the majority of Americans have shown tepid support for passenger trains and thus we see the consequences.

 

[Caesar La Rock]

Getting this back on topic. Speaking of the Orlando stop.

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/os-train-ridership-orlando-20150712-story.html

 

[Paulus]

I will say this. MCO is a better location for transfers than Amtrak's ORL. If the monorail happens, and if it connects with Sunrail at Sand Lake Rd., then I'll be the first to advocate moving the Orlando Amtrak station there, whether the current location is historical or not.

Frankly, if you can get the CSX-airport connection going (e.g. the planned SunRail connection) and you could successfully platform and run through Amtrak's trains at the planned OIA station, I'd tentatively be in favor of re-routing Amtrak over the new FEC tracks. The problem is that (A') you'd lose several stations (Sebring is more important than Okeechobee); (B') you'd need to split trains to serve Tampa; and (C') you'd lose Tampa-Miami intrastate traffic, which is a non-trivial consideration. The offset is that you'd knock about two hours off of the Orlando-Miami time, maybe a bit less if you switch back to CSX/Tri-Rail tracks in South Florida.

But why would FEC be in favor of it? It's a significantly slower train that can't keep a schedule worth a darn and that will be directly competing with their own trains.

 

[jis]

I will say this. MCO is a better location for transfers than Amtrak's ORL. If the monorail happens, and if it connects with Sunrail at Sand Lake Rd., then I'll be the first to advocate moving the Orlando Amtrak station there, whether the current location is historical or not.

Frankly, if you can get the CSX-airport connection going (e.g. the planned SunRail connection) and you could successfully platform and run through Amtrak's trains at the planned OIA station, I'd tentatively be in favor of re-routing Amtrak over the new FEC tracks. The problem is that (A') you'd lose several stations (Sebring is more important than Okeechobee); (B') you'd need to split trains to serve Tampa; and (C') you'd lose Tampa-Miami intrastate traffic, which is a non-trivial consideration. The offset is that you'd knock about two hours off of the Orlando-Miami time, maybe a bit less if you switch back to CSX/Tri-Rail tracks in South Florida.

But why would FEC be in favor of it? It's a significantly slower train that can't keep a schedule worth a darn and that will be directly competing with their own trains.

What is more important is that the current SunRail plans for connecting to the Orlando Airport Multimodal Center is to a stub end station with no connection to AAF. We heard this from the proverbial horse's mouth when we visited the unRail operations and maintenance center in Debary earlier this year.Indeed, it is not clear why AAF would want such a connection. They have stated several times that they have no interest in going to Tampa, and yet we keep insisting here that that is what they want to do all along. Oh well....

Anyway, forget about Amtrak run-through onto AAF tracks.Won't happen, and there is absolutely no logical reason to make it happen. It would be going against the agreement that AAF had to keep STB off their backs. Besides, Paulus' question is very apt. What exactly is in it for AAF to get a headache of a slower train on their 125mph tracks? Also, Amtrak would not want to have their own toll negotiations with Central Florida Toll Authority now, would they? If Amtrak is to run on FEC they should simply run JAX to Miami.

And BTW, it is Tri-Rail tracks in South Florida south of Mangonia.Park No CSX anymore. The tracks are owned by FDOT and managed by SFRTA and operated by Tri-Rail (reporting mark TRCX). Similarly around Orlando, between Deland and Poinciana, there is no CSX anymore. That segment is dispatched and operated by SunRail from their Debary base. CSX is just another tenent like Amtrak, on that segment. We from the Florida Passenger

 

[Brian_tampa]

I will say this. MCO is a better location for transfers than Amtrak's ORL. If the monorail happens, and if it connects with Sunrail at Sand Lake Rd., then I'll be the first to advocate moving the Orlando Amtrak station there, whether the current location is historical or not.

Frankly, if you can get the CSX-airport connection going (e.g. the planned SunRail connection) and you could successfully platform and run through Amtrak's trains at the planned OIA station, I'd tentatively be in favor of re-routing Amtrak over the new FEC tracks. The problem is that (A') you'd lose several stations (Sebring is more important than Okeechobee); (B') you'd need to split trains to serve Tampa; and (C') you'd lose Tampa-Miami intrastate traffic, which is a non-trivial consideration. The offset is that you'd knock about two hours off of the Orlando-Miami time, maybe a bit less if you switch back to CSX/Tri-Rail tracks in South Florida.

But why would FEC be in favor of it? It's a significantly slower train that can't keep a schedule worth a darn and that will be directly competing with their own trains.

What is more important is that the current SunRail plans for connecting to the Orlando Airport Multimodal Center is to a stub end station with no connection to AAF. We heard this from the proverbial horse's mouth when we visited the unRail operations and maintenance center in Debary earlier this year.Indeed, it is not clear why AAF would want such a connection. They have stated several times that they have no interest in going to Tampa, and yet we keep insisting here that that is what they want to do all along. Oh well....
Anyway, forget about Amtrak run-through onto AAF tracks.Won't happen, and there is absolutely no logical reason to make it happen. It would be going against the agreement that AAF had to keep STB off their backs. Besides, Paulus' question is very apt. What exactly is in it for AAF to get a headache of a slower train on their 125mph tracks? Also, Amtrak would not want to have their own toll negotiations with Central Florida Toll Authority now, would they? If Amtrak is to run on FEC they should simply run JAX to Miami.

And BTW, it is Tri-Rail tracks in South Florida south of Mangonia.Park No CSX anymore. The tracks are owned by FDOT and managed by SFRTA and operated by Tri-Rail (reporting mark TRCX). Similarly around Orlando, between Deland and Poinciana, there is no CSX anymore. That segment is dispatched and operated by SunRail from their Debary base. CSX is just another tenent like Amtrak, on that segment. We from the Florida Passenger

I can think of two reasons why AAF would want separate Sunrail platforms at the airport station:
1. It would allow AAF trains unimpeded access to their primary maintenance facility just south of the airport. No worrying about Sunrail trains getting in the way of deadhead moves to and from the maintenance facility.

2. Run through tracks for AAF that are not part of Sunrail will enable future expansion to tampa. A look at the track plans for the maintenance facility shows what appear to be possible mainline tracks that bypass the yard and shops there and go directly from the airport station to the west end of the facility.

3. AAF seems to want to control access to their platforms. Look at the Miami arrangement with TriRail. No shared platforms there either.

I don't think they have stated that they have no interest in going to Tampa. Just not at this time or until they see how successful the initial segment is. I am aware that they have had discussions with FDOT regarding keeping the former HSR right of way "envelop" in the median of I4 intact between the convention center in Orlando and downtown tampa. This despite FDOTs I4 ultimate construction in Orlando and FDOTs future "Lexus" lanes planned for I4 between Lakeland and Tampa. Also, there has been ongoing communications between AAF/FECI and the leadership here in Tampa over the past years. It is my understanding that Tampa/Hillsborough County understands what needs to be done to facilitate AAF expanding into Tampa.

Also, the Sunrail tracks would be separated from the AAF tracks at all times. There would be no commingling of the two systems.

I would put the chance of a Tampa expansion at equal to expansion to Jacksonville, but only if the first segment is successful.

 

[Anderson]

I will say this. MCO is a better location for transfers than Amtrak's ORL. If the monorail happens, and if it connects with Sunrail at Sand Lake Rd., then I'll be the first to advocate moving the Orlando Amtrak station there, whether the current location is historical or not.

Frankly, if you can get the CSX-airport connection going (e.g. the planned SunRail connection) and you could successfully platform and run through Amtrak's trains at the planned OIA station, I'd tentatively be in favor of re-routing Amtrak over the new FEC tracks. The problem is that (A') you'd lose several stations (Sebring is more important than Okeechobee); (B') you'd need to split trains to serve Tampa; and (C') you'd lose Tampa-Miami intrastate traffic, which is a non-trivial consideration. The offset is that you'd knock about two hours off of the Orlando-Miami time, maybe a bit less if you switch back to CSX/Tri-Rail tracks in South Florida.

But why would FEC be in favor of it? It's a significantly slower train that can't keep a schedule worth a darn and that will be directly competing with their own trains.

What is more important is that the current SunRail plans for connecting to the Orlando Airport Multimodal Center is to a stub end station with no connection to AAF. We heard this from the proverbial horse's mouth when we visited the unRail operations and maintenance center in Debary earlier this year.Indeed, it is not clear why AAF would want such a connection. They have stated several times that they have no interest in going to Tampa, and yet we keep insisting here that that is what they want to do all along. Oh well....

Anyway, forget about Amtrak run-through onto AAF tracks.Won't happen, and there is absolutely no logical reason to make it happen. It would be going against the agreement that AAF had to keep STB off their backs. Besides, Paulus' question is very apt. What exactly is in it for AAF to get a headache of a slower train on their 125mph tracks? Also, Amtrak would not want to have their own toll negotiations with Central Florida Toll Authority now, would they? If Amtrak is to run on FEC they should simply run JAX to Miami.

And BTW, it is Tri-Rail tracks in South Florida south of Mangonia.Park No CSX anymore. The tracks are owned by FDOT and managed by SFRTA and operated by Tri-Rail (reporting mark TRCX). Similarly around Orlando, between Deland and Poinciana, there is no CSX anymore. That segment is dispatched and operated by SunRail from their Debary base. CSX is just another tenent like Amtrak, on that segment. We from the Florida Passenger

Frankly, the issue is that Amtrak is going to lose...I'd say probably about 80% of their "native" south-of-Orlando business at a minimum (e.g. passengers traveling from ORL to points south), if not more. A bus-to-OIA connection to Tampa for FEC would probably make a substantial dent in Amtrak's TPA-MIA business as well. Unlike WAS-NYP (which Amtrak excludes from the LD trains to avoid being swamped with local traffic), ORL-MIA is likely to end up as basically a "ghost town" for the trains if AAF is successful.

Ergo, I can see a strong argument for Amtrak to make Winter Park (or Deland...or maybe some added stop in the northern part of the Orlando area) the last boarding station on the SB trains. I find it kind of hard to see either Beeline or AAF viewing a train that is exclusively carrying passengers from northern Florida and beyond to Miami as a competitor to their trains.

Edit: There's another question that comes to mind. If AAF has "no interest in going to Tampa" then why did they have a map showing Tampa as a planned extension? The link below, though on another site, is their map:

http://www.tampabay.org/sites/default/files/styles/scale_880w/public/images/blog/All-Aboard-Florida-map.jpg?itok=akxXf26g

I'm all open to hearing that they decided to drop Tampa (though I'd be curious as to why), but they initially said that after Orlando they intended to extend to Jacksonville and Tampa...so really, we're "insisting" on it because they said it numerous times and have never given a public indication that they were dropping it (indeed, one of the support quotes on their website mentions Tampa as well). That most of the material on the site is focused on Orlando-Miami isn't a shocker since that's what is underway.

 

[jis]

I don't think Central Florida Toll folks would care too much about what Amtrak does. A train or two a day which already exists going another way, specially if it does not stop north of WPB would be a wash for them. Although I understand they did extract a small bit of blood out of AAF for their projected MCO - WPB traffic, but then we are talking 32 higher speed trains running highly reliable clockface schedule, which is a different ballgame altogether. I am sure they plan to extract more blood for MCO to Cocoa/Melbourne traffic when the Brevard stations comes into being. It is all based on figures that they had used in the Bond issuing document, so it does make sense.

But I still cannot see why AAF would want to have Amtrak run on the MCO - Cocoa segment. There literally is no positive in it for them and only some amount of dispatching pain. I think Amtrak would be better off concentrating on running JAX to Miami on FEC, even though that too adds dispatching pain for FEC. But I think they might be willing to live with that since there is little that is negative for them otherwise, even if the decided to run their own trains to JAX.

 

[Anderson]

I don't think Central Florida Toll folks would care too much about what Amtrak does. A train or two a day which already exists going another way, specially if it does not stop north of WPB would be a wash for them. Although I understand they did extract a small bit of blood out of AAF for their projected MCO - WPB traffic, but then we are talking 32 higher speed trains running highly reliable clockface schedule, which is a different ballgame altogether. I am sure they plan to extract more blood for MCO to Cocoa/Melbourne traffic when the Brevard stations comes into being. It is all based on figures that they had used in the Bond issuing document, so it does make sense.

But I still cannot see why AAF would want to have Amtrak run on the MCO - Cocoa segment. There literally is no positive in it for them and only some amount of dispatching pain. I think Amtrak would be better off concentrating on running JAX to Miami on FEC, even though that too adds dispatching pain for FEC. But I think they might be willing to live with that since there is little that is negative for them otherwise, even if the decided to run their own trains to JAX.

IIRC the "small bit of blood" AAF has to pay comes to...I think it was something like $1 or so per one-way ticket (so probably $1-2m/yr if only applied to WPB-MCO tickets, and more if applied more generally).

The dispatching pain would seem to be limited IMHO. As set up right now, that's a passenger-only corridor with no more than two trains per hour really foreseeable. Worst case, Amtrak has to wait 10-15 minutes or "hop in" behind an AAF train. I think Amtrak could pull some net gains in terms of reduced costs if they shift to FEC's tracks, if only by getting rid of a few stations.

On the JAX front, I think it is generally accepted that AAF wouldn't quite be running hourly service that far up (at least not to start with), and to be fair if the Palmetto/Silver Palm were to be run down those tracks the hours would be so far off of FEC's main operating ones (even assuming the train were slowed down so as not to cause freight problems) that it is hard to see it as a competitor. The other two trains (Star and Meteor) might be a slightly different story (Amtrak has estimated that such operations would likely be revenue-incremental for the Silvers IIRC), but even there...a pair of vaguely-reliable trains primarily catering to a different market would likely not be an issue, and I think FEC could probably work out an agreement with Amtrak to not undercut them on price and/or restrict local ticket sales to reduce other issues.

I've got to say...the idea of two same-gauge rail systems on more or less the same level entering the same station from the same side and not connecting is truly facepalm-worthy. At least when this is done with, say, a subway system it's usually because the lines are on separate levels. I would really think it would make more sense to have AAF and SunRail use a single double-track line to access the station...it isn't like either of them would likely ever have the traffic to overload such a line.

 

[cirdan]

I've got to say...the idea of two same-gauge rail systems on more or less the same level entering the same station from the same side and not connecting is truly facepalm-worthy. At least when this is done with, say, a subway system it's usually because the lines are on separate levels. I would really think it would make more sense to have AAF and SunRail use a single double-track line to access the station...it isn't like either of them would likely ever have the traffic to overload such a line.

AAF and SunRail may have the same gauge but the platform heights are different. So it wouldn't make much sense for them to try and share platforms.

There may well be some emergency track connection, permitting for example the transfer of track maintenance trains. But such would be by mutual agreement bettween the two railroads.

 

[Anderson]

I've got to say...the idea of two same-gauge rail systems on more or less the same level entering the same station from the same side and not connecting is truly facepalm-worthy. At least when this is done with, say, a subway system it's usually because the lines are on separate levels. I would really think it would make more sense to have AAF and SunRail use a single double-track line to access the station...it isn't like either of them would likely ever have the traffic to overload such a line.

AAF and SunRail may have the same gauge but the platform heights are different. So it wouldn't make much sense for them to try and share platforms.

There may well be some emergency track connection, permitting for example the transfer of track maintenance trains. But such would be by mutual agreement bettween the two railroads.

Point taken. I'm frankly so used to "everyone uses the low platform" station situations with Amtrak (at least, from WAS southwards) that this didn't even jump to mind.

 

[jis]

I've got to say...the idea of two same-gauge rail systems on more or less the same level entering the same station from the same side and not connecting is truly facepalm-worthy. At least when this is done with, say, a subway system it's usually because the lines are on separate levels. I would really think it would make more sense to have AAF and SunRail use a single double-track line to access the station...it isn't like either of them would likely ever have the traffic to overload such a line.

Perhaps the fact that they have different height platforms, and also that they approach the station from two completely different directions have any bearing on this?

Also why would you unnecessarily put in additional switches and signals where none are really needed for the currently planned operational pattern. By keeping them separate, the SunRail side can be dispatched from Debary and the AAF side from wherever they dispacth AAF and the two centers do not need to do any coordination. That would seem to be a significant simplification and money saver.

So for me, if they did connect at MCO that would have been more of a facepalm than what they are doing now. But then again, I guess I am more of a "what does it take to operate this efficiently while providing the best service" kinda guy.

 

[cirdan]

I've got to say...the idea of two same-gauge rail systems on more or less the same level entering the same station from the same side and not connecting is truly facepalm-worthy. At least when this is done with, say, a subway system it's usually because the lines are on separate levels. I would really think it would make more sense to have AAF and SunRail use a single double-track line to access the station...it isn't like either of them would likely ever have the traffic to overload such a line.

Perhaps the fact that they have different height platforms, and also that they approach the station from two completely different directions have any bearing on this?
Also why would you unnecessarily put in additional switches and signals where none are really needed for the currently planned operational pattern. By keeping them separate, the SunRail side can be dispatched from Debary and the AAF side from wherever they dispacth AAF and the two centers do not need to do any coordination. That would seem to be a significant simplification and money saver.

So for me, if they did connect at MCO that would have been more of a facepalm than what they are doing now. But then again, I guess I am more of a "what does it take to operate this efficiently while providing the best service" kinda guy.

Explorations on Google Earth and in real life show that when two railroads approach one another, and there isn't already a connection some way further up or down, that there is often a physical connection between the two at the easiest location. I guess in the bigger picture of things extra switches don't cost much and you never know when you might need them. If such switches are padlocked and clipped they don't interfere with anybody's signals and you can dispatch both sides as if there wasn't a connection but still transfer stuff when an emergency or special situation arises. Sometimes you even find spurs connecting museums or metros to freight railroads. Apart from maybe the once in 30 years delivery of new trains, I cannot see any purpose in that.

So in this case the question would be

1) what is the use case, under what circumstances and how often during the lifetime of the equipment is this likely to occur?

2) what are the alternatives and how long a detour would be required?

I don't have enough local knowledge to answer either of these questions, but my gut feeling is that it's a no.

But maybe with the AAF/Siemens maintenance plant being nearby, there might be a use case for delivering supplies or equipment, but this depends on the viability of alternative routeings.

 

[user 1215]

I've got to say...the idea of two same-gauge rail systems on more or less the same level entering the same station from the same side and not connecting is truly facepalm-worthy. At least when this is done with, say, a subway system it's usually because the lines are on separate levels. I would really think it would make more sense to have AAF and SunRail use a single double-track line to access the station...it isn't like either of them would likely ever have the traffic to overload such a line.

AAF and SunRail may have the same gauge but the platform heights are different. So it wouldn't make much sense for them to try and share platforms.

There may well be some emergency track connection, permitting for example the transfer of track maintenance trains. But such would be by mutual agreement bettween the two railroads.

Point taken. I'm frankly so used to "everyone uses the low platform" station situations with Amtrak (at least, from WAS southwards) that this didn't even jump to mind.

But the same argument goes for working with Tri Rail. They use low platforms like SunRail.

 

[Anderson]

I've got to say...the idea of two same-gauge rail systems on more or less the same level entering the same station from the same side and not connecting is truly facepalm-worthy. At least when this is done with, say, a subway system it's usually because the lines are on separate levels. I would really think it would make more sense to have AAF and SunRail use a single double-track line to access the station...it isn't like either of them would likely ever have the traffic to overload such a line.

AAF and SunRail may have the same gauge but the platform heights are different. So it wouldn't make much sense for them to try and share platforms.

There may well be some emergency track connection, permitting for example the transfer of track maintenance trains. But such would be by mutual agreement bettween the two railroads.

Point taken. I'm frankly so used to "everyone uses the low platform" station situations with Amtrak (at least, from WAS southwards) that this didn't even jump to mind.

But the same argument goes for working with Tri Rail. They use low platforms like SunRail.

AAF is probably going to tell Tri-Rail to spring for low-level platforms at various stops (and/or work out agreements to add high-level platforms if/when AAF seeks to add infill stations).

jis: My inclination is "how do I reduce costs while not seriously impacting service". SunRail and AAF using entirely separate tracks strikes me as a situation where you're going to end up with several miles of underused double-tracking (SunRail will probably want/need it if their service frequencies go over twice-hourly; AAF seems inclined to double-track the approaches as well...but four tracks on approach seems both unnecessary and probably a waste of space (of which I'm not sure how much they have to work with...I haven't seen detailed site plans for the station yet, but most maps seem to imply a northerly approach for both systems).

 

[Brian_tampa]

I've got to say...the idea of two same-gauge rail systems on more or less the same level entering the same station from the same side and not connecting is truly facepalm-worthy. At least when this is done with, say, a subway system it's usually because the lines are on separate levels. I would really think it would make more sense to have AAF and SunRail use a single double-track line to access the station...it isn't like either of them would likely ever have the traffic to overload such a line.

AAF and SunRail may have the same gauge but the platform heights are different. So it wouldn't make much sense for them to try and share platforms.

There may well be some emergency track connection, permitting for example the transfer of track maintenance trains. But such would be by mutual agreement bettween the two railroads.

Point taken. I'm frankly so used to "everyone uses the low platform" station situations with Amtrak (at least, from WAS southwards) that this didn't even jump to mind.

But the same argument goes for working with Tri Rail. They use low platforms like SunRail.

AAF is probably going to tell Tri-Rail to spring for low-level platforms at various stops (and/or work out agreements to add high-level platforms if/when AAF seeks to add infill stations).
jis: My inclination is "how do I reduce costs while not seriously impacting service". SunRail and AAF using entirely separate tracks strikes me as a situation where you're going to end up with several miles of underused double-tracking (SunRail will probably want/need it if their service frequencies go over twice-hourly; AAF seems inclined to double-track the approaches as well...but four tracks on approach seems both unnecessary and probably a waste of space (of which I'm not sure how much they have to work with...I haven't seen detailed site plans for the station yet, but most maps seem to imply a northerly approach for both systems).

@anderson

The new third track (being construction at this time) for freight bypass around the FTL and WPB station sites looks like it could be used as a second track for a low level platform for TriRail. AAF is saying the third track is to divert freight trains around the station site during construction, but it is a permanent track meant to be used for freight trains in the future.

At Orlando, the Sunrail approach is from the south. They will use the existing OUC spur branch and branch off of it south of the new AAF maintenance shops complex. As I have previously stated, AAF does indeed want to design their system to allow for future expansion to Tampa. That is why the track plans I have seen for the maintenance facility appear to have two main tracks at the far northern edge of the facility that go nowhere but towards the west end of it. Of course, that is where the connection from AAF to the OUC spur is planned. I believe if the Tampa extension gets built, it will follow the same planned route as the cancelled HSR project, which is exactly where the two main tracks I refer to are headed to.

There is plenty of room south of the the new station at the airport for two sets of double track. I would not rule out a future interlocking between the two systems. Where things get cramped is north of the new station where a AAF has to make its way just to the east of the existing terminal. The maglev or light rail system will run parallel AAF to the north through the airport property and then head west.

 

[jis]

SunRail will use the existing ROW used by the power station lead. So I will be surprised if they have a northerly approach since that track skirts the airport to its south, AFAIR just north of 417 but way south of the airport. The siding to the power house passes under 528 quite a ways to the east of the 528/417 interchange. There will be a lead built from it to the west of 417 to get to the station is how it was explained to me by the SunRail folks during our Debary visit. So I can't visualize where the two would run parallel for several miles. Also I got the impression that the airport connection will be a single track possibly even single stub end platform thing to keep the need for scarce funds to the minimum. Nobody knows where it is going to be funded from as of now apparently.

 

[cirdan]

SunRail will use the existing ROW used by the power station lead. So I will be surprised if they have a northerly approach since that track skirts the airport to its south, AFAIR just north of 417 but way south of the airport. The siding to the power house passes under 528 quite a ways to the east of the 528/417 interchange. There will be a lead built from it to the west of 417 to get to the station is how it was explained to me by the SunRail folks during our Debary visit. So I can't visualize where the two would run parallel for several miles. Also I got the impression that the airport connection will be a single track possibly even single stub end platform thing to keep the need for scarce funds to the minimum. Nobody knows where it is going to be funded from as of now apparently.

I didn't realize this. This makes me understand your previous statements better and indeed I agree it is unlikely that there will be a track connection.

 

[Anderson]

SunRail will use the existing ROW used by the power station lead. So I will be surprised if they have a northerly approach since that track skirts the airport to its south, AFAIR just north of 417 but way south of the airport. The siding to the power house passes under 528 quite a ways to the east of the 528/417 interchange. There will be a lead built from it to the west of 417 to get to the station is how it was explained to me by the SunRail folks during our Debary visit. So I can't visualize where the two would run parallel for several miles. Also I got the impression that the airport connection will be a single track possibly even single stub end platform thing to keep the need for scarce funds to the minimum. Nobody knows where it is going to be funded from as of now apparently.

I find the odds of it not at least having either a double platform or a passing siding to be...well, let's just say that not doing so would present real operational issues.

As to the line being used...sorry, I was looking at another of the lines in that part of Orlando (southern Orlando is littered with tracks and I've never been able to mentally place the power plant vis-a-vis the airport...all I know is that I can see it from McCoy's).

 

[jis]

I think practically speaking they will have a single platform with two tracks at MCO. At least initially there will probably not be a passing siding enroute from the SunRail main line to MCO since an hourly service can be operated without one.

 

[Anderson]

I think practically speaking they will have a single platform with two tracks at MCO. At least initially there will probably not be a passing siding enroute from the SunRail main line to MCO since an hourly service can be operated without one.

That makes sense. Only having a single track at a single platform seems (A) like it is being overly cheap and (B) runs into all sorts of room for an operational meltdown since you can't get a train inbound until the last one that came in drops off its passengers and more or less gets back to Sand Lake.

 

[jis]

The junction is quite a bit south of Sand Lake and it is a Wye junction. The pattern will most likely be Deland - Airport - Poinciana and vice versa for those trains that go to the airport. There will be addition through trains bypassing the airport on the main Lin most likely specially during rush hours.

 

[cirdan]

Talkng about the (potential) Tampa extension, I only kust realized by looking at the map that Tampa is actually slightly south of Orlando.

Miami to Tampa via Orlanda is thus going to be a bit of a dog leg, with the advantages of high speed being negated by the detour required.

Maybe this is why AAF are not actively pursuing thsi right now.

Tampa to destinations north makes much more sense though, so maybe Tampa won't start geting serious until after the Jacksonville part has been achieved.

 

[Brian_tampa]

Talkng about the (potential) Tampa extension, I only kust realized by looking at the map that Tampa is actually slightly south of Orlando.Miami to Tampa via Orlanda is thus going to be a bit of a dog leg, with the advantages of high speed being negated by the detour required.Maybe this is why AAF are not actively pursuing thsi right now.Tampa to destinations north makes much more sense though, so maybe Tampa won't start geting serious until after the Jacksonville part has been achieved.

Downtown Tampa to downtown Miami is about 4:30-4:45 hours by car. The problem with driving is that if going to Miami (not so much Ft Lauderdale or WPB), the traffic is horrible the last 20 miles into Miami. I've been in traffic jams on 826 more than I care to remember. Not to mention that on weekends, I-75 can be very busy with congestion from around Ft Myers to Naples.
The dogleg isnt too bad if AAF can run at 125 mph between the Orlando airport and downtown Tampa and have only 1 stop. It is about 80-85 miles which means about 45 minutes. So a 3:45 trip via Orlando on AAF vs 4:30 is competitive with driving.

The main negative to expanding to Tampa is the lack of a good bus system here. And honestly, Orlando is only marginally better for bus service I've been told by friends there. Here, we need to increase frequencies and extend service later at night on more routes. One positive is that a main bus hub is right next to the likely location of any train station downtown.

AAF has told me they aren't considering any expansion (Tampa or Jacksonville) until the first route proves to be successful. So we have at least 3 years before any serious discussion of expansion.

Edit: actually the estimated downtown Tampa to WPB schedule time of 2:45-3:00 hrs on AAF is also about half hour faster than driving via hwy 60 and the turnpike.

 

[Anderson]

Brian,

Thanks for the info there. I'm trying to sort out the tea leaves on this and what I'm thinking is the following:
(1) AAF is going to get their Orlando-Miami line running. At the same time they'll probably run a feasibility study (not too expensive and it gets it out of the way) on the Jacksonville line (since that requires almost no new ROW, just re-double-tracking the existing line).

(2) Once Orlando-Miami is running, and assuming that it ramps up roughly in line with what they're shooting for, they'll focus on making Jacksonville happen (EIS, etc.). This will probably be accompanied by some feasibility work on Tampa.

(3) Assuming that Jacksonville gets going (I figure that will only take 2-3 years...unlike Orlando, where there's new ROW and all, Jacksonville probably won't involve much construction south of Cocoa, so the room for NIMBY objections is going to get a bit thin) and also performs well, the Tampa EIS process will begin.

So we're probably looking at about a decade, at least, before Tampa gets service. Jacksonville might get it by 2020/21 (again, I think the Jacksonville process will be comparatively smooth...the politicians on the northern end of the line seem to be pretty well-disposed towards AAF, particularly in the hope that they can somehow use it to link up with Central Florida) but Tampa...2026-2030 seems like the timeframe you're looking at.