Brightline Trains Florida discussion

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Oh God, please, please, please let this be so. Those designs are beautiful...and I think this is the first time I've ever had such a reaction to concept art. The fact that AAF is seriously considering "proper" dining service using a "real" kitchen rather than some food cart option (or a glorified microwave) is also very encouraging.

One thing to think about: If they follow through with this and it works, this should take a lot of pressure off of Amtrak on the OBS front.

Edit: Edit: I looked over the reports some more...glancing at the names at the bottom:

-Salci Consult...would that be Larry Salci, of Colorado Railcar?

-Likewise, I'm not sure who the "RailPlan" folks are. Any insights, folks?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Very nice, I like!

I also love the level platform boarding, that would be a great feature (and an improvement over most Amtrak LD trains).
 
Very nice, I like!

I also love the level platform boarding, that would be a great feature (and an improvement over most Amtrak LD trains).
Level boarding is a US DOT mandated requirement for ADA compliance for new stations and platforms, so All Aboard Florida has to provide that with new stations at every stop. Although a mini level boarding platform would be acceptable. Since these would be bi-level trains, that should mean 15" platforms, presumably on pull-over tracks to maintain full clearance for freight trains.
 
But I believe the rules still allow for 8" above top of rail platforms where there is significant freight traffic and where it would be infeasible to construct a pull-out. But 8 to 15 inches (7 inches) is still a lot better than 8 to 48 inches for Amfleet/Viewliner/Horizon equipment.
 
I just came across an interesting document on the Surface Transportation Board (STB) website. It is a petition by AAF to dismiss an earlier petition for exemption from STB oversight. Basically AAF is saying it is an intrastate passenger line, and not involved with interstate commerce. Therefore it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the STB. Of note, AAF has no plans to connect with Amtrak (either directly or with through ticketing). Also, this step is necessary as AAF claims in order to begin the process of obtaining financing it must get past this decision. Here is the link: http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/6084f194b67ca1c4852567d9005751dc/69bb9eca67c5047185257a920062707f/$FILE/233128.pdf
 
Interesting. So they are promising not to use the AAF track for any interstate freight movement either. That puts a kibosh on the theory that at some point they'd use this line and extension to gain access to Tampa for their freight service.
 
I just came across an interesting document on the Surface Transportation Board (STB) website. It is a petition by AAF to dismiss an earlier petition for exemption from STB oversight. Basically AAF is saying it is an intrastate passenger line, and not involved with interstate commerce. Therefore it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the STB. Of note, AAF has no plans to connect with Amtrak (either directly or with through ticketing). Also, this step is necessary as AAF claims in order to begin the process of obtaining financing it must get past this decision. Here is the link: http://www.stb.dot.g...FILE/233128.pdf
That probably kills any theory about Amtrak operating the service too.
 
Interesting. So they are promising not to use the AAF track for any interstate freight movement either. That puts a kibosh on the theory that at some point they'd use this line and extension to gain access to Tampa for their freight service.
No, FECR can still do that with new freight service on new tracks. In section I on page 4, last paragraph of the section, it says AAF is contemplating entering an operating agreement with FECR to allow AAF to use FECR existing tracks and for FECR to use all newly constructed AAF tracks. It seems like a bit of legalize here, but AAF-O (operations) and AAF-S (stations) are LLC corporate entities separate from the FECR. This would in fact allow the FECR (freight traffic) to utilize all new trackage built (whether alongside the existing FECR route or the new route to Orlando or Tampa), after FECR gets approval from the STB to operate over the new trackage. Remember AAF-O and AAF-S are separate corporations from FECR. This petition only affects the AAF-O and AAF-S companies, not the FECR.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
These are all, I presume, subsidiaries of FECI? It seems that way...and that's an interesting situation (though it makes sense since it should insulate FECR from any AAF-related headaches).

Also, as far as the freight stuff goes, FECR doesn't go outside of Florida. Granted, via a trackage deal with NS there's interstate access through an interchange at JAX...but a good portion of its operations are FL-specific. I have to wonder what sorts of oversight STB permission to operate freight on the AAF lines will trigger.
 
Not sure if anyone is aware of this, but this is what I found. Apparently the fleet will consist of EMD F59PHIs and here is the shocker. These hi-level cars are Ex-ATSF and Amtrak Hi-levels. Not sure if this is what they will use, but 2014 is two years away still and things can change. Can't rule out they may purchase used cars.

http://ccrail.com/wp...ccrail.com_.pdf
That may have been a business presentation, but I don't believe that's what they'll be getting. When they addressed the FECRS convention, they mentioned that they were in talks with two foreign companies with plants in the US for new rolling stock, which will determine when they start service (about 26 minutes in).

Just wondering, but does the STB have jurisdiction over intrastate light rail lines and the like?

No, though MAP-21 was supposed to result in giving them or someone else responsibility for equipment "safety" regs after the Washington Metro crash. Unless I'm greatly mistaken, all light rail is currently regulated by the individual states.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Just wondering, but does the STB have jurisdiction over intrastate light rail lines and the like?

No, though MAP-21 was supposed to result in giving them or someone else responsibility for equipment "safety" regs after the Washington Metro crash. Unless I'm greatly mistaken, all light rail is currently regulated by the individual states.
Curiously, even light rail that crosses state boundaries!

FTA has been given the charge and they are in the process of rule-making in the area of safety.
 
More info thanks to a quick search of the STB website. Found the other petition from AAF for exemption from STB oversight. A few surprises in the document: AAF is in talks with the FRA to apply for a RRIF loan to cover some, but not all of the construction costs. It mentions 16-19 daily round trip trains. Trains will be approximately 900 feet long. Maybe if someone knows the lengths of train cars and loco's of the different builders one can then deduce what trainsets they are looking at! Also maximum speed is 110mph on track north of W Palm Beach. Here is the link. http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7f93537688b8e5852573210004b318/5c0f6ab35bc16d8d85257a9200626a97/$FILE/233127.pdf
 
More info thanks to a quick search of the STB website. Found the other petition from AAF for exemption from STB oversight. A few surprises in the document: AAF is in talks with the FRA to apply for a RRIF loan to cover some, but not all of the construction costs. It mentions 16-19 daily round trip trains. Trains will be approximately 900 feet long. Maybe if someone knows the lengths of train cars and loco's of the different builders one can then deduce what trainsets they are looking at! Also maximum speed is 110mph on track north of W Palm Beach. Here is the link. http://www.stb.dot.g...FILE/233127.pdf
9-10 car train, 85 feet's been the standard passenger railcar length since before World War II I think.

Interesting to see that they will not be offering through ticketing with Amtrak.
 
More info thanks to a quick search of the STB website. Found the other petition from AAF for exemption from STB oversight. A few surprises in the document: AAF is in talks with the FRA to apply for a RRIF loan to cover some, but not all of the construction costs. It mentions 16-19 daily round trip trains. Trains will be approximately 900 feet long. Maybe if someone knows the lengths of train cars and loco's of the different builders one can then deduce what trainsets they are looking at! Also maximum speed is 110mph on track north of W Palm Beach. Here is the link. http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/ba7f93537688b8e5852573210004b318/5c0f6ab35bc16d8d85257a9200626a97/$FILE/233127.pdf
900 feet is basically 10 cars + a loco or 9 cars and two locos. Most NJT MLV sets are about 900' long (10cars + 1 ALP-46). Standard car length in the US is 85'. Only non-standard length cars in US are the Talgo set cars which are much shorter but are articulated.

BTW, falling under STB jurisdiction is an entirely different thing from falling under FRA jurisdiction. I don;t see them managing to not fall under FRA jurisdiction. I don't believe they are even contemplating not working with FRA, as evidenced above. So I don't see them managing to get around Platform standards issues. STB just handles rate setting and mergers, etc. I think they are just trying to avoid STB's regulatory powers over new line construction, and that seems to make sense.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
More info thanks to a quick search of the STB website. Found the other petition from AAF for exemption from STB oversight. A few surprises in the document: AAF is in talks with the FRA to apply for a RRIF loan to cover some, but not all of the construction costs. It mentions 16-19 daily round trip trains. Trains will be approximately 900 feet long. Maybe if someone knows the lengths of train cars and loco's of the different builders one can then deduce what trainsets they are looking at! Also maximum speed is 110mph on track north of W Palm Beach. Here is the link. http://www.stb.dot.g...FILE/233127.pdf
900 feet is basically 10 cars + a loco or 9 cars and two locos. Most NJT MLV sets are about 900' long (10cars + 1 ALP-46). Standard car length in the US is 85'. Only non-standard length cars in US are the Talgo set cars which are much shorter but are articulated.

BTW, falling under STB jurisdiction is an entirely different thing from falling under FRA jurisdiction. I don;t see them managing to not fall under FRA jurisdiction. I don't believe they are even contemplating not working with FRA, as evidenced above. So I don't see them managing to get around Platform standards issues. STB just handles rate setting and mergers, etc. I think they are just trying to avoid STB's regulatory powers over new line construction, and that seems to make sense.

I agree, AAF is trying to get away from going through STB oversight and review. I thought I read somewhere (maybe when they announced they were going forward back in August?) where the AAF trains would be 7 cars and 2 locomotives (one on each end). AAF (like all US railroads) will be required to follow FRA rules. I find it interesting however, that they are allowing themselves the future possibility of having FECR run freight trains on the new track though. I wonder what amount of money they are planning to ask for with the RRIF loan application?
 
Another item in the STB petition, AAF says that they will not be connected to any other railroad other than FECR. I wonder what this means for the route into the Orlando airport? I am aware of the Orlando Utilities Comission (OUC) railroad that CSX operates on that runs around the south and east sides of OIA. Could one assume that this means that AAF will not be physically connected to the OUC branch line at all? I read that the Sunrail project is looking at using these same tracks to the west and south of OIA to also get to the airport.
 
Thinking about the cars, it's entirely possible that AAF solicited a presentation from the Hi-Level folks to hold up next to the European builders. Even though maintenance would be a pain on the Hi-Levels, it's possible that were the Hi-Levels to only cost, say, $1 million apiece (or less), or even to be picked up on a medium-term lease, they might make sense to start things off with even with expensive maintenance if the alternative was a set of $15+ million trainsets.

Likewise, with a lease deal, AAF could order their trainsets, lease these to get their operation going, and use these until the trainsets actually get delivered. I don't know what the delivery timeline would be, but I can believe them being able to get the tracks in place by 2014 but the trainset acquisition process taking longer to get full delivery of a set of sets. The bottom line is that I wouldn't be surprised if they solicited this offer alongside planning an equipment order from someone overseas and/or at least looked at this as another option.

Shifting gears slightly, the through ticketing decision might be a temporary move (to dodge STB jurisdiction for as long as possible). It's also possible that if they go forward with expanding the operations, that JAX-MIA might end up as a nominally separate entity (they haven't had any problems dividing up their corporate persona yet, so another one, AAF-North, could happen that would offer through-ticketing but might have enough separation from the other entities to keep them safe from STB oversight) with through ticketing (since that would likely involve an "actual" interchange with Amtrak whereas both MIA and ORL are set to be clunky cross-town connections that would discourage a through trip for anyone but a railfan, since the southern FL cities are almost all also covered by Amtrak at a separate station at the present time).

On the 16-19 daily round trips, that would seem to imply the following (if I had to guess):

5 AM-9 PM hourly departures M-F, with an additional departure either at the half hour (7:30 AM and 5:30 PM would be good candidates) or at a "chaser" time (i.e. 7:05/7:10 and 5:05/5:10) each way during peak times. On weekends, cut back the 5 AM departure and the extra peak times and keep most of the rest of the service running (considering the tourist-heavy nature of things)...which would allow for things like a day-trip to Miami (or Orlando, especially if the line eventually gets extended out to the Disney side of town).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I just came across an interesting document on the Surface Transportation Board (STB) website. It is a petition by AAF to dismiss an earlier petition for exemption from STB oversight. Basically AAF is saying it is an intrastate passenger line, and not involved with interstate commerce. Therefore it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the STB. Of note, AAF has no plans to connect with Amtrak (either directly or with through ticketing). Also, this step is necessary as AAF claims in order to begin the process of obtaining financing it must get past this decision. Here is the link: http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/6084f194b67ca1c4852567d9005751dc/69bb9eca67c5047185257a920062707f/$FILE/233128.pdf
This claim will probably fail utterly, unless the STB feels generous. The STB has been pretty defensive about its powers. I guess AAF will have to either find financing some other way, or give up.
 
I think the attempt to escape STB jurisdiction is completely bogus and doesn't stand a chance.

....But if AAF simply applies for the certificate from the STB authorizing the construction, it would undoubtedly get the certificate. Probably expedited. The STB is *required* by statute to issue the certificate unless there is some compelling reason not to.

I wonder why AAF is trying to escape STB jurisdiction. I doubt they'll get away with it.
 
Just wondering, but does the STB have jurisdiction over intrastate light rail lines and the like?

No, though MAP-21 was supposed to result in giving them or someone else responsibility for equipment "safety" regs after the Washington Metro crash. Unless I'm greatly mistaken, all light rail is currently regulated by the individual states.
Curiously, even light rail that crosses state boundaries!

FTA has been given the charge and they are in the process of rule-making in the area of safety.
It has to do with whether the system is "connected to the general system of railroad transportation". If you maintain an isolated system (such as the vast majority of metro and light rail systems), the STB doesn't bother you. Rarely-used, gated-and-locked switching tracks for delivery of new railroad equipment doesn't affect this. But if you're connected to one of the national railroads, so that freight traffic from the national system could potentially be dispatchd onto your line, the STB does regulate you. (So the RiverLine and Newark City Subway, which both interact with freight lines on a regular basis, did have to deal with the STB. I forget exactly what the outcome of those cases was; they both got unique, one-off rules.)
 
I just came across an interesting document on the Surface Transportation Board (STB) website. It is a petition by AAF to dismiss an earlier petition for exemption from STB oversight. Basically AAF is saying it is an intrastate passenger line, and not involved with interstate commerce. Therefore it does not fall under the jurisdiction of the STB. Of note, AAF has no plans to connect with Amtrak (either directly or with through ticketing). Also, this step is necessary as AAF claims in order to begin the process of obtaining financing it must get past this decision. Here is the link: http://www.stb.dot.gov/filings/all.nsf/6084f194b67ca1c4852567d9005751dc/69bb9eca67c5047185257a920062707f/$FILE/233128.pdf
This claim will probably fail utterly, unless the STB feels generous. The STB has been pretty defensive about its powers. I guess AAF will have to either find financing some other way, or give up.
I don't understand why they are doing what they are doing. Is it just to try to avoid a separate STB Environmental Assessment? But historically STB has worked with FRA to piggyback on FRA's NEPA work, which apparently AAF is very close to concluding.I don;t see why STB would deny their petition for STB permission anyway. Clearly there are some nuances of this that at least I don't understand.

On the business about no through ticketing with Amtrak or anyone else, why is that a good thing for the public puzzles me too.
 
At least for the moment...who would they through ticket with? I can't see anyone taking FEC partway up the coast and then switching to Amtrak (assuming that project happens) or vice-versa, and a through-ticket option from Orlando to Tampa would be clunky. Only a switch at Orlando makes any sense, and there's just no connection between the airport and the present Amtrak station, nor one planned in the next few years.

Edit: I'm going to play a hunch here. FEC is trying to pull out of STB jurisdiction now so as to avoid having to deal with them them over the Tampa extension (which will likely be a more complicated project). This makes a lot more sense, IMHO...it's a preemptive move. After all, it'll be pretty hard for the STB to get involved with the project

There's one other thought that comes to mind: How much authority would the STB have with respect to setting fares and dictating service levels? There's a bad corporate history there (when the FEC was trying to dump passenger trains back in the 60s), and I don't think they want to risk having their hands tied on fares (or risk a nasty fight over a train-off on a given frequency). I'm asking on this front because I don't know...I know that a lot of the ICC's authority was gutted before it was transferred to the STB, but I don't know what the rules are regarding passenger rail service.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top