Jump to content

Talk:Brightline

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 2001:a62:1527:7502:42:9517:a3ed:165d (talk) at 23:55, 27 May 2024 (→Ridership: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

High Speed vs. Higher Speed

High speed rail is a very loosely defined word, and the line between HSR and HrSR is very blurred. That said, considering that several other trains/systems that travel at 125mph are widely referred to as "high speed" (such as the British InterCity125) and the fact that several media outlets have described this project as such, including a recent statement by an FDOT official, I would argue that AAF should be referred to as HSR rather than HrSR. As noted some time ago in the Acela Express talk page, the UIC definition of HSR is 200kph, or roughly 124 miles per hour http://www.uic.org/spip.php?article971. It would appear that the Congressional Research Service would be in the minority in describing such speeds as "higher". 76.188.123.83 (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First off, anything below 125mph should not be called HSR even though the USDOT attempts to make anything above 90mph to be as such. It was just a marketing thing for the administration. From the legal standpoint, the best definition of HRS by USC is sustained operations of 125mph (not just top speeds). All Aboard Florida with the majority of the line (north-south) is definitely HrSR. The new east-west segment (a minority part of the line) is "potentially" be HRS because it is planned to be on dedicated tracks with top speeds of 125mph. Now to call All Aboard Florida as HRS might be too much. I would say it is a HrSR with a note that a segment is considered to be "HSR by some US definitions". Remember, Northeast Regional also has top speeds of 125mph but it is widely considered as HrSR, not HSR. Z22 (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that 90-110 mph is best classified as higher rather than high speed. However, even if the majority of the line is not moving at 125, I don't think that that discounts AAF as a high speed line. The Acela express reaches 134-150 mph speeds on only a few small segments of its route and the previously mentioned InterCity125 also operates at lower speeds on a few sections. It should also be noted that several other trains worldwide, such as in Sweden and Norway trains are referred to as "high speed" on Wikipedia that have similar maximum speeds. In fact, in the template box for high speed rail, a category of "124-155mph" trains is included. Of course, his distinction between HrSR and HSR is largely semantic, but I think this project is best described at the latter given that a significant segment operates at such speeds. If it reached 125 mph for say, two or three miles of it's whole route, than it would be more debatable, but again, it's a significant part of the system. 76.188.123.83 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A few more things: The Congressional Research Service refers to trains that reach speeds even up to 150 mph as "higher speed", which is definitely inconsistent with how most systems in the world that operate at such speeds are labeled as. It also calls anything above that as "very high speed" rather than simply high speed. This suggests that the CRS uses the term HrSR in a slightly different manner than others. As for the Northeast Regional's status, from the HrSR page's link to a 2010 Amtrak document, it does appear that the organization lists the service alongside the Acela and several 110mph lines as "high speed", although I don't often hear it being referred to as either HSR or HrSR, which is a little odd. Perhaps it would be appropriate to label All Aboard Florida as a both: A mostly HrSR route with a high speed section.(Similar to what you suggested earlier) 76.188.123.83 (talk) 22:16, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, we should then do something like this: All Aboard Florida is a proposed higher and high speed rail service... Also in the info box, we should list as "higher speed rail, high speed rail", and remove the inter-city rail because it is redundant as both of them are sub-types of inter-city rail anyway. I would leave the paragraph that explains about the 125mph segment and the discrepancy between USC and CRS the way it is and let the readers be more informed of such discrepancy. If you see no problem with this proposal, I can edit it. Z22 (talk) 05:10, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I take it back. After digging further I found that I gave an inaccurate information. Here is the more accurate information. First, since 1998, the United States Code has a definition of HRS as "reasonably expected to reach sustained speeds of more than 125 miles per hour". So, from the federal laws standpoint, it is clear that AAF does not meet the HSR definition. Second, according to this page from UIC, it has that "at all events, high speed is a combination of all the elements which constitute the “system”: infrastructure (new lines designed for speeds above 250 km/h and upgraded lines for speeds up to 200 or even 220 km/h,..." There is a distinction of new lines and upgraded lines. In the case of AAF, the east-west segment will be a new line and north-south will be an upgraded line. Both of which don't meet the infrastructure definition of UIC for HSR. So, the majority of definitions (both internationally and domestically) would not accept AAF as high speed rail. I think we should revert back the page to have AAF be classified as higher speed rail. Z22 (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since no additional comments here after more than a week, I will change the type to HrSR as per the reasons in the above. We can continue discussing if there are any additional concerns or ideas. Z22 (talk) 21:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I still think it should be labeled as both, until/unless there is some kind of definitive information that emerges (statement by company or government regarding it's status, etc). These definitions are still too vague. What does the USC consider "reasonable"? How much higher than 125? 126? 127? Does that include trains operating at 125mph but are capable of faster speeds? What is the boundary line? As for federal definitions, the FRA considers 110+mph to be HSR, and while that is debatable it illustrates the inconsistencies of what is called HSR. Even the UIC definitions leave wiggle room by stating that systems with speeds below 125-150 can be considered "HSR" in cases such as regions where this is significantly faster in comparison to existing infrastructure (which is certainly the case in Florida). This ambiguity, combined with the fact that the project has been commonly referred to as HSR in the media and (seemingly) Floridian officials, I think it should be reverted to include both labels. Given how this is almost entirely based on semantics, I don't see the harm in calling it both names for the time being. If FDOT or AAF come out and say "this is not true high speed, just enhanced", then we can say for certain it is not. As it stands, the parts of this article regarding the projects speeds come off as nit picky wonk-talk. 76.188.123.83 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:10, 14 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there are inconsistent definitions, but let's address those one by one:
  • USC, which is the most authoritative definition within the US: It is part of the federal law with definition that was approved by both houses of the legislative branch and the executive branch. It clearly states as "reasonably expected to reach sustained speeds of more than 125 miles per hour". This is simply the same as having top speeds of more than 125 miles per hour. It's just that if the train goes above 125mph for like a few seconds or something, then it does not count. How much higher than 125mph the top speeds have to be in order to count as HSR? If you have a train that has top speeds of 126mph, then you have HSR as per this definition. Why is 125 vs. 126 such a big deal? We need to understand the FRA regulation regarding the crossings (see [1]). Essentially, all trains at 125mph or below will be permitted to have at-grade crossings (with some special devices), but 126mph won't be allowed to have any at-grade crossings. In that case, the speed limit will be at 125mph regardless of whether the locos or trainsets can run at a higher speed or not. So, upgrading from 125mph to 126mph is a very major investment. It's not just like speeding up the trains 1 more mph (that is illegal). So the USC's definition of HRS gears toward the trains that are mostly on grade-separated tracks.
  • UIC, which is the most authoritative entity in the international standard: UIC has the High Speed group that keeps track of planned and operating high speed lines in the world by applying their definition. As of July 2013, the only lines included for the US are Acela Express and the California High-Speed Rail (see list [2]). So this is pretty definitive.
  • Congressional Research Service: This legislative entity has some weight to it due to its nonpartisan basis. Their position is that 125mph should be called Higher Speed Rail. But again, you already pointed out that they don't even use the term High Speed Rail, but Very High Speed Rail instead for the next level up from Higher Speed Rail.
  • USDOT: It only had one clear definition in 2009 when it presented the "vision" of HSR. Their definition is debatable and very weak. That document [3] uses its definition in term of planning for federal grants for federally designed high-speed rail corridors only. Since Florida has been removed from the federally designated high-speed rail corridors, it will be hard to justify using that definition for something that is not part of it.
  • Amtrak, the operator in NEC: In their HSR plan for NEC (here [4]), they talked about the initiative called NEC-UP to increase capacity of their current HSR fleet. They only mentioned Acela Express (150mph max) but not Northeast Regional (125mph max). They also mentioned about the NEC NextGen HSR which will be brand new. Clearly, 125mph is not part of Amtrak's HSR defintion.
  • All Aboard Florida – Operations, LLC, the operator of AAF: They avoid using such terms. They don't even call their service a high-speed rail. Just simply, "inter-city rail". See the public scope meetings document here [5]
With the above, it is very clear to me that AAF should not be classified as HSR even in that 125mph segment. As much as I personally like to include as many projects (including AAF) to the list of planned HSR for the US, but we can't just invent something here. If we feel strongly about changing the article to make AAF to be HSR, then I think we should solicit opinions from more editors who are familiar with this topic and discuss before making such change. Z22 (talk) 03:24, 15 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Have to agree with the "Wonk Talk" comment. The term "High Speed Rail" has been used for decades, has a relatively fuzzy definition, and I'm not sure we can just change the way it's been used for decades simply because a group of political hacks have declared some definitions and new phrases in some recent legislation.

And FWIW, there's been a lot of announcements from Amtrak and other government agencies about "High Speed" services (that is, reported as High Speed by all media outlets covering the issue) that refer to trains going at 110mph. Here's a recent press release from Amtrak that explicitly describes a 110mph route upgrade as "High Speed Rail": http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/88/957/Amtrak-Illinois-2013-Construction-Phase%201-ATK-13-078.pdf

My view? Wikipedia should purge itself of the term "Higher Speed Rail" and should concentrate on what secondary sources are saying. In most cases, this means describing any rail project of speeds 100mph and greater as HSR. I appreciate that'll upset people who want to be pedantic about things for the sake of being pedantic, but, seriously, there's no such Animal as "Higher Speed Rail" outside of politics. 98.254.202.225 (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See the Higher Speed Rail page and you will see that reliable secondary sources use this term outside of politics. Z22 (talk) 07:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-- This is an encylodia. There use of "High Speed Rail" is not only valid, it is the most commmon term out there. If you're writing some civil engineering thesis for your PhD, go ahead, get pedantic with things like "Higher Speed". This ain't congress, a court of law nor academia. This is an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:280:833:C8D8:D7A9:2A5A:CF8 (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how any of this works. Mackensen (talk) 18:06, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is the new claim being introduced: "When completed in 2022, it will be the only modern High Speed Rail ( HSR ) passenger train privately operated in the United States". No source has been provided for this claim. It's at odds with the discussion above, and with the definitions in both higher-speed rail and high-speed rail. The lower limit of 124 miles per hour (200 km/h) for high-speed rail refers to individual sections of an otherwise faster line; a system that tops out at 124/125 everywhere doesn't really meet that definition. Absent the UIC or other industry bodies calling the line high-speed, higher-speed would seem to be more appropriate terminology. Mackensen (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]


-- Yes, it does meet the criteria for high speed rail as laid out by CONSENSUS on both Wikpedia's High Speed Rail page AND it's passenger rail. I get it; you don't like it. It's barely squeeking in there. It feels like a PR stunt or something, right?

Nevertheless, the Orlando extension meets the consesus criteria for High Speed Rail. This is a great opportunity to add references in the article to things that address how much faster things can be.... maybe even how much more we'd love them to be, eh? It's great stuff.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_rail_terminology#High-speed_rail

Generally, the speed range for high-speed rail is between 200 km/h (124 mph) and 400 km/h (249 mph). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:280:833:C8D8:D7A9:2A5A:CF8 (talk) 18:55, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Whether I "like" it or not is of no consequence. We need verifiable, reliable sources which support your claim. You haven't provided any, despite being asked. Quoting the lead of a Wikipedia article isn't that, especially not when the body of the article dwells on the ambiguity of the various definitions. The discussion above engaged with those definitions as well. Far from adding references, you actually removed one and mangled the date in another: [6]. This seems unhelpful, at best, Mackensen (talk) 19:05, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Looking at the arguments here, and the consensus at Passenger rail terminology#High-speed rail, which as you quoted is:
    "Generally, the speed range for high-speed rail is between 200 km/h (124 mph) and 400 km/h (249 mph)"
I'd have to agree that Virgin Trains USA does not appear to meet the definition of High Speed Rail, and would better be described as Higher-speed. However, it is worth noting that it appears that more news sources use the term "high-speed" rather than the perhaps more technical "higher-speed" when referring to the line. I didn't dig particularly deep though, were the proposed speeds changed at any point? Prodego talk 19:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, in general sources "high-speed rail" is generally "any train which goes faster than others", without reference to formal governmental and engineering standards. It's important as far as public perception is concerned, but not dispositive for whether a line is "high-speed" in the technical sense of the term. Relatedly, news sources in the United States often refer to long-distance trains as "commuter" trains, simply because the latter are so much more prevalent that the writers don't realize commuter means something specific. This hasn't led us to calling long-distance trains commuter trains. Mackensen (talk) 00:08, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
My two cents on this debate: the distinction between high speed rail and higher speed rail, while meaningful, is not a widespread practice, especially in the United States. From a US perspective, a service that reaches 125 mph at points would almost certainly be considered "high speed." From an international perspective... not so much. - Jadebenn (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
OK, so if this is the case of not wanting to use international standards, the article should say: USA High Speed Rail or something similar... Teixant (talk) 07:48, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/amtrak/
    Triggered by \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:11, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 22:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What to do when the cited reference is wrong?

At the end of the "Miami to Cocoa" section there's this, "... FEC will likely give priority to its own passenger trains over freight", with a citation to a (still online) WSJ article from 2012. That WSJ article is incorrect as it confuses Florida East Coast Industries (FECI) with Florida East Coast Railway Corp (FECR Corp.) The latter owns the right-of-way and is in the freight train business. The former, FECI, does not currently own or operate any trains or own any right-of-way or tracks. FECI hopes to get into the passenger rail business with their All Aboard Florida project. "FEC" cannot be said to be likely to do anything because there is no "FEC". You have to specify the freight operation, FECR Corp, or the nascent passenger operation of FECI/AAF. The two are not the same. I'm not sure whether it's worth changing anything at the moment because the WSJ article that is cited makes the same careless mistake. Is it permissible to delete something that's not true when there's a mainstream news article online that says otherwise? JeffTracy (talk) 09:54, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think if there are other secondary reliable sources (depending on the reliability of those sources) that say otherwise, you can use those sources instead of WSJ. Since there are contradiction among sources, it will be better if you can find multiple sources that state in your direction. Z22 (talk) 11:01, 13 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Go to FECRy's FECI's website and find their SEC 10-K forms. FECI and FECRy (actually a holding co) are both owned by private equity funds managed by Fortress Investment Group but they are separate companies on purpose. FECI owns All Aboard Florida and appears to own the right of way as well. FECRy gave or sold or leased an easement for passenger service to AAF - AAF will not be operated by FECRy. It's all in the 10-K. And all news to me - I thought FECI owned both the FECRy and AAF. Not true as it turns out. --plaws (talk) 03:36, 18 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Motive Power and Rolling Stock Selected

Siemens has been selected to supply their Charger Diesel-Electric locomotives and passenger cars for AAF service:

http://inr.synapticdigital.com/siemens/AAF/

Respective specification documents can be found at the linked site.

Fan Railer (talk) 18:46, 11 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

All Aboard Florida vs Brightline

Anyone have any insight as to what the rail service article should be called? I'm leaning towards re-naming this Brightline or Brightline rail service or something along those lines, and then leaving All Aboard Florida as the holding company of Brightline, like Parallel Infrastructure and Flagler Global Logistics, other subsidiaries of Florida East Coast Industries- Aalox (Say Hello • My Work) 18:44, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

News sources do seem to be using Brightline more frequently than "All Aboard Florida". I'll go ahead and move the article.--Cúchullain t/c 14:57, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Exact date for opening

Summer 2017 has arguably come, but the website does not even list a month for opening. When will service start? Hobbitschuster (talk) 17:30, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Today — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zcbtkn (talk • contribs) 18:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Article does not confront facts squarely.

> This segment of the proposed line will operate at speeds of up to 125 miles per hour (201 km/h)

Please note that sustained 200km/h service is impossible with diesel traction. It has been attempted over and over in Europe (Britain, France, Norway, etc.) and no one could make it work reliably, not even with oil-powered turbojets. Internal combustion machinery shakes itself apart quickly as speed increases and power density is too low. (Consider that diesel is only about as strong as the low voltage southern France 1500V DC electrification system, but in practice even the italian 3000V DC system could not supply true HST power needs and they had to switch to 25kV AC). Thus diesel traction will prove underpowered and sluggish in service.

Furthermore, diesel motive power suffers from "Traction or HVAC?" dilemma, since electricity demand for pax HVAC and entertainment is often 15-20% of the total generated and it is not realistic for the engineer to disconnect HVAC under the hot Florida skies whenever the train is accelerating. Electrified trains just pull more amperes from the catenary in such cases.

Thus, 160km/h is the realistic maximum for diesel-pulled operation, but experts strongly recommend electrification for speeds over 120km/h. The catenary is really thin and light with the 25kV 50/60Hz AC system and can be built economically. In fact that modern rail electrification system started in the 1920s in Hungary, one of the world's poorest civilized countries at the time, following extreme territorial losses suffered in WW1. Thus the USA could easily afford electrification and the traction decision is based more on emotion, i.e. her internal combustion culture. 82.131.210.163 (talk) 10:41, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are wrong. Siemens has been providing their trains even for freight tracks with an allowance for 200 km/h .... BUT ... it depends on the number of cars being pulled. So you can bring five cars to 200 km/h in five minutes, but for nine cars that's fifteen minutes. As such it does not make any sense to run 200 km/h in the built-up area up to West Palm Beach. But for the non-stop service to Orlando they could actually reach that speed for about an hour. Guidod (talk) 09:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And by the way, the diesel-electric InterCity 125 is as old as 1975. Four decades later they are still in revenue service at 200 km/h in the UK. Guidod (talk) 11:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Future referencing

Most of the things in the article referring to the service is future reference, and if the opening date for Fort Lauderdale to West Palm Beach service is correct, service started 3 days ago (If you're reading this when I posted it). Someone please fix this.2601:245:C101:6BCC:64E3:7A3B:F734:146 (talk) 17:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the information in the Infobox is stating planned service, not current service. E.g. the current system length is 70 miles. 240 miles is likely the planned length. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.216.199.149 (talk) 18:29, 11 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned references in Brightline

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Brightline's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Trains Magazine":

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 02:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Updates I made

I made the following updates today:

Updated some verbs' tense from future to present, now that service is operational.

Updated train frequencies and running times, based on latest schedule on gobrightline.com

In the Stations section, deleted a paragraph about MiamiCentral from the main section. Some of it was construction-related, so no longer relevant. The rest was redundant to info in the specific subsection on Miami.

Updated connections info for the stations, particularly future connections. Deleted mentions of WAVE streetcar which appears to be a dead project, and Tri-Rail Coastal Connection which appears to be in a state of flux, and if it does happen will be many years in the future (I could not find any relevant current source.) Also added possible future connection to an I-Drive link from Orlando Airport, as this is included on the airport's website and specifically provided for in the design of the Intermodal Terminal.

I also replaced some old pre-construction citations with more contemporary ones. Joelkfla (talk) 17:53, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

125 mph and NEC

I agree with the view that the Acela is the number 1 on the US railtracks (for now)in terms of speed, but the North East Regional already has a speed of 125 mph, so if Brightline introduce service with a top speed of 125 mph then they wil be shared second or third not only second. SRich (talk) 22:00, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Even MARC has already a service with continu top speed of 125 mph on the penn line. I will correct te article. SRich (talk) 10:32, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Number of Planned Stations

Don't know how to update the diagram of stations to add the planned Tampa, FL station. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.14.67.212 (talk) 09:37, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

-- At this time the Tampa station isn't planned. It's an aspiration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:346:280:833:C8D8:D7A9:2A5A:CF8 (talk) 18:10, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Article should not include prima facie ridiculous, technically impossible claims as facts.

> will reach 110 mph (177 km/h) between West Palm Beach and Cocoa, and 125 mph (201 km/h) between Cocoa and the Orlando International Airport

If you think sustained and reliable 160+ km/h rail service is possible with diesel traction, then I have a railway bridge to sell you... Wikipedia should take itself more seriously, as it is a well-known fact of railway engineering that 120+ km/h is the domain of catenary electrifiction, both for economical and technical reasons. (There is a limit to the max. RPM of large diesel engines, which are by nature low-revving beasts and it is difficult to construct generators which can provide enough amps for high speed traction at such low RPMs. Meanwhile 25kV AC overhead wire provides up to 11MW or up to 16MW with the japanese's 2x25kV supply scheme.) 79.120.151.121 (talk) 18:07, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Wikipedia is not a mechanical engineering journal; it's an encyclopedia. Virgin Trains USA is reporting it will operate trains reaching those speeds. This article correctly points out that Virgin Trains USA claims they will operate at those speeds.

If this is something that can not be done, feel free to gather papers and articles that take up this issue. You could create a section in the article for it to point out that many in the industry question if Virgin Trains USA can operate at those speeds with diesel-electric locomotives. Agassiz830 (talk) 20:48, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ridership Data

Across Brightline's various press releases and quarterly reports, I've got monthly ridership numbers (and approximate revenue numbers) for the service. I don't want to cruft up the article with this and I don't know how to craft a collapsible box, but this feels like it might be useful for the short term (I presume that in the long term it'll be consolidated down to either quarterly ridership data, like FrontRunner's article has, or even annual data). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.134.233.2 (talk) 11:38, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please add this information at your earliest convenience. Since we're talking only a year so far, I don't think cruftiness is any problem at all. 86.130.154.59 (talk) 01:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@204.134.233.2: Can you please post the data here before doing this? Thanks! –Daybeers (talk) 03:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Corridor names

Virgin Trains USA is currently the name of a Florida railway. But soon, the topic that the Virgin Trains USA page covers will probably be called "Florida Corridor (Virgin Trains USA)" or something similar. The actual page would be about the entire system, including the Florida (Brightline) Corridor, the Las Vegas (XpressWest) corridor and whatever the future brings. When the corridors are officially named, the Virgin Trains USA page should explain the different corridors, rather than just have the Florida stuff. And all the different corridors (including FL and Vegas) would have their own pages as well. I hope you guys get the idea. -Bluebunny2 (talk) 00:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)\[reply]

The article does mention the other corridors. At this time the only one outside of Florida is Las Vegas. What exactly is it missing that you feel should be there? Agassiz830 (talk) 20:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I understand what Bluebunny2 is saying. XpressWest is a separate service (LA to Vegas) but now owned by Virgin Trains USA. That this page only talks about Virgin's Florida service would be like the Amtrak page only talking about Acela. That being said, the LA to Vegas line is still only in the proposal stages. It might be appropriate to make the Las Vegas and California mentions their own sections. Maybe I'll do that after lunch. Lukevdl (talk) 16:43, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 8 August 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. West Palm Beach station (Virgin Trains USA) and Fort Lauderdale station (Virgin Trains USA) will need a separate discussion other than this one, they can be included in the same multi RM discussion. Regards, —usernamekiran (talk) 21:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Virgin Trains USA → Brightline – According to this article, Virgin Trains USA will be returning to the Brightline branding. Should we go ahead and move the page back to Brightline? – Jadebenn (talk · contribs · subpages) 06:41, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That really would depend on a few things in my opinion. Is the Virgin Trains USA brand going to be used on the California-Nevada operations? and Will Virgin formally dispute the notice as suggested in the article? Mainline421 (talk) 17:50, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong support - on the grounds that it never appears that the Virgin Trains USA was established as the WP:COMMONNAME and this page’s name should have never been changed in the first place. — RickyCourtney (talk) 19:04, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Possilikely (a mix between possible and likely) on confirmation of the contract termination; not urgent. --Will74205 (talk) 22:43, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with your common name argument. Operationally and across the public in South Florida, it never changed. Fredlyfish4 (talk) 01:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Only hesitancy I have relates to this quote from the article: "Virgin has disputed the validity of the termination notice." Seems like the de-branding is being contested. All that said, I think the intention is there, and the company running the train has never not been Brightline, so I'm in favor of the move. Absolutely fine to keep this on the backburner till this all gets finalized though. TheSavageNorwegian 23:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - with a redirect from Virgin Trains USA. Might this also be an opportunity to merge XpressWest into this page as well? Lukevdl (talk) 17:27, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Per above comments. The partnership is done. So we must revert it back to the old name. Davidng913 (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree - well well, that has been quite predictable. However it does not have to do with licensing quarrels but the fact that Virgin just needed access to Brightline as a template model for other regions. So at some point Virgin would likely become the national railroad company while the local operation flips back to the established name. In a way there was nothing more to it than having both names be shown in parallel for some time. I chose to just flip the order of names mentioned in the German wikipedia for that time without renaming the article itself. Obviously, I could have been wrong. Guidod (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly agree, but at least partial branding took place as per the big sign outside Virgin MiamiCentral station. Mjdestroyerofworlds (talk) 20:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support - Whether the deal returns, the more commonly used name is certainly Brightline as the branding was never changed. Until the company is rebranded to Virgin, if ever, I think it should be Brightline. 198.72.46.3 (talk) 12:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If/when this article is moved back to Brightline, West Palm Beach station (Virgin Trains USA) and Fort Lauderdale station (Virgin Trains USA) should also be moved back to using the (Brightline) disambiguator. Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Comments

There have been at least two previous moves, note 

14:58, 10 May 2016‎ Cuchullain talk contribs block‎  40 bytes +40‎  Cuchullain moved page All Aboard Florida to Brightline: Moving per talk: seems to be the more WP:COMMONNAME now

and at least one of them was poorly documented. In hindsight the article should have stayed at Brightline and my guess is that had policies and procedures been more closely followed, that is exactly what would have happened. Andrewa (talk) 22:19, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure Coast station north of West Palm Beach

Fort Pierce and Stuart were competing for position as the next station north of West Palm Beach, as the train heads toward Cocoa. By a report of July 12, 2021, it appears that Stuart has edged out, over Fort Pierce. Should not the table of the train route be adjusted? Or does someone have more updated information? See this TC Business article: [7] Dogru144 (talk) 16:31, 3 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Add "Accidents and Incidents" like the Tri-Rail page has.

it seems almost like propaganda against local, public commuter rail. Let's not allow real estate 'investment' companies to run amok here. 2601:582:8600:5E80:90B6:B9EE:FAA8:2D52 (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Deadliest Railroad"

"Brightline has been described as the deadliest railroad in the United States; in the two years following its launch, more than 40 people were killed by Brightline trains on tracks and at rail crossings."

This is really inappropriate to leave bare like this. I don't have a suggestion presently, and yes, it's technically true that it's been called that, but that's a really dopey way to put it. You can't get killed if you're not fooling around on a railroad track. These trains are not hunting people down and murdering them. Ruryanov (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed! Let me know if you think there's enough context. 199.212.65.220 (talk) 00:57, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Updating Planned/confirmed stations

The orlando station is no longer a "planned station" as services are beginning in May of 2023

I only make this topic due to my lack of experience in the Wikipedia community and lack of ability in efficiently and effectively editing Wikipedia pages. If this topic is either clutter or not needed don't hesitate to ask for its removal.

https://www.wptv.com/lifestyle/travel/brightline-service-in-orlando-to-begin-this-summer-ticket-sales-to-start-in-may?fbclid=IwAR2SeQ7EYUKRZJSDbwQhIuWNGJ0aTmRGbNHLyQ4SoqoUJpwWpBLs_TkVYnI 2600:1700:4133:A010:F9C4:D1F:70EF:996D (talk) 17:39, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So far, the Brightline Orlando station has not yet begun service. Once the official day of service for the station starts, it will be considered an operational station (making a total of six). The planned stations, such as Tampa, Cocoa, etc., are still considered "planned" until construction begins. Traintrak (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

How long is it?

How long is the current track? I couldn't find information on that anywhere. 103.154.37.49 (talk) 17:11, 3 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not inter-city

Brightline does not leave the Miami-West Palm Beach CSA. It is not an inter-city train. That claim is inaccurate. It is a commuter rail. Stidmatt (talk) 13:16, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The main difference between inter-city rail (Brightline) and commuter rail (Tri-Rail) is that commuter rail connects communities in a metro area, while inter-city rail connects cities within a region. Brightline connects the cities of Miami, Aventura, Fort Lauderdale, Boca Raton, West Palm Beach, and, in a couple of months, Orlando. Traintrak (talk) 18:35, 10 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
whatever the argument may have been back when you wrote this, it isn't any more since the Orlando extension now makes it clearly Intercity. 2001:A62:15F5:8F02:42:9517:A3ED:165D (talk) 16:41, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Deadliest Rail

How is accidents not even mentioned in this article? Who edits this? For what is considered to be a ridiculously deadly rail line. The deadliest in the entire country, I am very shocked to see that there's not a single chapter talking about its safety record. I skimmed through the article and cannot easily find such info.


Since Brightline started operations in 2018, there have been at least 68 casualties. In April 2022, a 27 year old driver died after his car was hit by a Brightline train at Pompano Beach. A day later, another driver in a Jeep Wrangler was hit by a Brightline train in Hollywood, and died from his injuries. In the three months after Brightline had restarted service following the COVID-19 lockdowns, there were 11 cars who had crashed into Brightline trains. 49.180.230.124 (talk) 22:19, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So for what is considered to be an extremely deadly rail. Where too many people lost their lives in a very short period of time, it's really something to not have it clearly shown in the article. I am aware that is a private company who cares about public image, but they do not have the right to make the public unaware of such notable incidents. So I am adding in a chapter that gives that info justice. As no reason to not mention this. 49.180.230.124 (talk) 22:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's like over a hundred accidents. I cannot be bothered to include every single major incident, like a Brightline passenger train hitting a fully loaded car carrier in Florida this year, which made headlines and viral videos.[8] I can't add them all in but have added in the more serious ones that involved a fatality and made national headlines. But given there is around at least one accident happening every month[9], it definitely deserves its own dedicated chapter and find it very shameful it's been buried this whole time. It should not be buried away but easily accessible to readers to be aware of the shameful issue. If others do not agree, am happy to discuss here on Talk, and even address this in admin noticeboard if I have to. But there is no moral reason to try to hide the information and bury it away in "engineering" chapter.49.180.230.124 (talk) 23:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Given the sheer number of accidents along the line, I agree that it deserves some level of coverage. That said, the issue I struggle with is (to my knowledge) Brightline isn't at fault for any of the accidents. Typically, these accidents happen when someone is on the tracks when the gates are down (the train has the right of way) or is trespassing. So we's need to apply a healthy amount of skepticism in our coverage. Also, you'd need to find airtight citations for the claim that it's the "deadliest rail." Freight railroads all across the nation have similar accidents nearly every day, yet it seems that Brightline gets more coverage because it involves a "Florida Man." RickyCourtney (talk) 01:00, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It gets the most coverage because it has the highest rate of deaths nationwide. But I didn't call it the deadliest Rail on the page itself, and there's not a single sentence that puts fault on the company. I even allowed a dedicated chapter that stated it's not the company's fault and labelled them as accidents. However it actually is notable for the highest death incidents compared to other trains nationwide.

According to an ongoing Associated Press analysis of federal data, Brightline trains have the highest death rate in the U.S., with trains fatally striking 98 people since Miami-West Palm.[10]

But it could do better to improve the situation like not build such tracks openly in heavily urbanised areas in the first place, with so many people around. It's asking for trouble there and if you do build it then you have a responsibility to be mindful of the abundance of people wanting to cross the tracks, and should build better fences or some warning system or build better safety crossings. Otherwise don't operate at all if you can't handle the reality that you help create. No other rail network have the same severe issues. Nonetheless, when its trains hits other people in the public and racked a high death rate that's the highest nationwide. It still deserves its own chapter outlining that and readers have a right to know about those highest rate of deaths nationally.49.180.230.124 (talk) 02:19, 29 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well railroads in Europe somehow manage to not get as much negative press for crossing accidents - is it because there are fewer of them? Or because they are better at PR? And in either case: Why? 213.95.33.60 (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Its because higher speed passenger rail is relatively new to Florida so Floridians are not as afraid of train tracks, and there are a significant amount of grade crossings in very dense urban areas. Lots of opportunities to get hit by the train. PyropePe (talk) 01:54, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused about the criteria used to select which incidents to include but some of the sources here aren't quite up to snuff. The article cited here does not contain the listed statistic and is from a website with conflicting interests. The struggle between the car and public transport communities is strong

Within the first three months after Brightline had restarted service following the COVID-19 lockdowns, there were 11 cars who had crashed into Brightline trains, and two fatalities.[11]

probably best to just remove the whole sentence bc it doesn't add much. PyropePe (talk) 16:46, 23 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Average speed

This edit says "average speed is not needed". I disagree. What do you think? Is there precedent either way? 213.95.33.60 (talk) 20:51, 4 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

10 km/h reduction

The average speed is now down to 69 or 70 mph (111 km/h), from the initial 80 mph (130 kmh) average, that aligned with the target time of 3 hours from Miami to Orlando. That time is now extended to almost 3 and half hours. Notably, 80 mph is or was the overall average speed of the Acela service on the Northeast Corridor. With a few track improvements and introduction of the Aveila Liberty trainsets, the NEC may have gotten faster where the Florida service is now slower. Even if a small segment of the Brightline service tops out at over 125 (200 kmh), possibly even 150 mph (240 kmh), an average speed in the 60s mph (a mile a minute), is not high speed rail that could outpace a car on a highway with zero to one stops. B137 (talk) 00:59, 13 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I’m just saying if you’re a little worried 196.207.188.97 (talk) 06:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No.The sort. And you can get 196.207.188.97 (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Official Brightline "Too Long To Drive and Too Short To Fly" maps

I think adding one or both of these maps by Brightline would be a great addition to the webpage to illustrate the interest Brightline has of other corridors:

Official Brightline "Too Long To Drive and Too Short To Fly" maps:

@Thesavagenorwegian ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 01:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ridership

People on Reddit are putting out ridership data here. Unfortunately when I click on the link in the reddit post I get "403 forbidden" but the post itself might still be a useful resource. 2001:A62:15F5:8F02:42:9517:A3ED:165D (talk) 16:37, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Reddit is not a source that can be used on Wikipedia, but the linked ridership report from Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's website can. I just added the April 2024 ridership information to the article, with a citation.FFM784 (talk) 17:22, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Here is March and this is February. 2001:A62:1527:7502:42:9517:A3ED:165D (talk) 23:55, 27 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brightline&oldid=1225994391"