This same journey would take 45 minutes by car in the express lane. I don't even want to imagine what this would be in the non-express during rush hour.
Trains here in Sweden, albeit for longer distances usually go either 120, 160 or 200 km/h. Thats 74/100/124 miles/h.
For a number of reasons, including safety, passenger comfort, and managing the trade-off between energy waste and traveling speed. You can picture a passenger bus and how gradually the driver needs to start the ride. You can't just supercharge the engine and expect passengers to grab hold to their seats.
It takes 35 seconds to accelerate up to top speed, in which case it has travelled 610m. The distance of the track is 25 miles (or 40km), and assuming it maintains the top speed throughout and deceleration matches acceleration for comfort, then the journey would take 19 minutes.
If we take the lower value of 0.79m/s^2, which is what the newest intercity diesel trains do:
It takes 44 seconds to accelerate up to top speed, in which case it has travelled 780m. The journey would take 20 minutes.
Okay, these are somewhat optimistic assumptions, but the European in me would be surprised if there were that many places where it had to slow significantly, and obviously they don't actually have linear acceleration (we're talking closer to 60s to 60mph in the diesel case in reality, though the additional acceleration to 79mph is likely near the maximum acceleration give the reason for the prolongation is reducing jank).
It's a bit subtle, but that folks commute with it doesn't make it a commuter train, I've known folks who commuted via HSR (proper, euro-style).
Don't get me wrong, definitely a great step in the right direction.
It's also worth noting that all rail has to be at this point is faster than its competition, which it is. Cars are slower and this is far too short of a distance for airplanes.
The area has had commuter rail for over 20 years. This express service is using previously freight-only lines. What's really going to be impressive is when it connects Orlando.
Granted, flying is not a cost effective means to commute, but I don’t think rail service from Orlando to Miami will have too many true commuters on board compared to less frequent travelers.
Not cheap though, HSR tickets are not $10 (though it's not that far if you're using a high-frequency subscription thing, especially if you're using it daily).
Only at Miami since the Orlando train station is, again, at the Orlando airport. So the traffic trouble will be the exact same.
Basically most of the reason our trains suck is because our regulatory body sucks.
The Acela hits 150mph along some stretches in New England.
That's not necessarily a fair comparison, as IIRC Amtrack shares rail tracks with cargo trains. Cargo trains are far slower and occupy tracks for longer stretches of time, while passenger trains require longer stretches of track to be reserved for their passage to ensure higher circulation speeds. Thus, having to share tracks with slower trains limits how the track can be allocated to passenger traffic.
To put it differently, that would be like stating that a bus is slow because in some stretches of road it is forced to wait cargo trucks to pass.
Wikipedia says that several companies run freight trains over sections of the NEC, as well as the line is also used by commuter trains.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_Corridor
As a comparison, the TGV connection between Paris and Brussels may be a high-speed track, but train speeds grind to a halt way down to 20km/h when passing through track sections used by commuter and freight trains.
~40km, 18 minutes. That's an average speed of ~130km/h.
There's also a run with 4 station stops inbetween and makes the trip in 28, so that's still an average speed of ~85km/h.
77km/h average on a ~40km non-stop (I'm assuming) run is quite slow.
Confirmed looking at the official site, there is no stop between Miami and Ft Lauredale.
Brightline covers a few cities with one long strip of a suburb the entire route. Except in length the comparison isn't remotely fair.
Silver Service has more stops along the way than Brightline.
The acceleration and waiting at stations really hits the average.
This is 63 km (39 mi) as the crow flies (66 km by track), so an average speed of 126 km/h (78 mph), substantially quicker than the Miami to Ft Lauredale service.
There are plenty of places in Europe where 100mph+ running through urban areas is common. Urban v. rural isn't really a consideration for line speeds here. Heck, most of the mainlines north and west out of London reach their 125mph top speeds while still within Greater London. The question here is more about the presence and type of at-grade crossings, and there's a fair number on lines with 125mph running.
Actually, having to wait about 1 or 2 minutes at each stop is what really drags down the commercial speed. A train only takes a fraction of that time to go from 100km/h to zero.
Take the straight line distance and using that to computer average speed is disingenuous to say the least.
"Trains without "an automatic cab signal, automatic train stop or automatic train control system "may not exceed 79 mph."" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_Unite...
I don't believe that's remotely slow. A commercial speed of 48mph (about 77km/h) is a respectable speed for a conventional intercity and suburban train. Please note that commercial speed is the average speed, and also takes into account the time that a train stays at each stop.
As a comparison, the commercial speed of a tram (light rail, no right-of-way) is around 20km/h (about 12mph) and the average commercial speed of a subway system (medium rail, right-of-way) is about 30km/h (about 17mph). The latter is, obviously, also not slow because it matches the average speed of an automobile circulating in an urban area.
Going nearly 80km/h is respectably fast, and will beat the commercial speed of your typical commute by car.
There's nothing respectable about under 80 for an intercity train which has 0 stops over 40km. In Europe this is an average speed more closely associated with commuter train, or the regional trains with relatively frequent stops (every 5~10km).
Some models are better off not being applied.
Is the benefit of running at full tilt in cities really worth it? You don't spend a lot of mileage traveling within a city, and cities are generally places where trains slow down and stop anyways. Combined with the very high cost of land appropriation in a city assuming fair market compensation, there's a reason why most places just don't bother with full high speed rail in urban areas.
Or for an alternative view, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London .
As a result, many states changed their eminent domain laws. Prior to the Kelo decision, only seven states specifically prohibited the use of eminent domain for economic development except to eliminate blight. Since the decision, forty-four states have amended their eminent domain laws, although some of these changes are cosmetic.[30]
The mechanisms were adjusted accordingly as the public and the politicians they voted in saw fit.
In China its been used more regularly however compensation has been often ridiculously pitiful (although sometimes also quite reasonable and this has as I understand improved more recently). Sometimes we pay poor compensation in the west too though maybe not as bad.
Its also tied to China's communist past where land is for the public good (and typically only leased by individuals) as opposed to the west's 'right to land ownership' (i use inverted commas because its never really been an absolute right, even if people use the phrase).
Best practice in my view (as someone in the industry) is probably somewhere in between. I don't believe in a world of limited resources (as we are in) in indefinite rights of land ownership. I do believe however in fair compensation, which probably should be a considerable premium above an independently assessed market value (if the site was otherwise sold today, accounting for any other anticipated changes to the neighbourhood).
The same train takes 12 minutes for the ICE Frankfurt/Cologne to get from Frankfurt central station to Frankfurt Airport (9km linear distance, average 45km/h, 28mph) and then 49 minutes from there to Cologne (150km linear distance, average 183km/h, 113mph).
The latter leg is still pretty close to "populated areas" (just outside various towns along the route), but the track was specifically made for that train (taking required minimum curvature etc into account) and point-to-point connection (fewer junctions).
How many grade crossings are there on that route? This train, at least through Hallandale/Hollywood, needs to deal with a grade crossing every half mile (800m) or so. Considering the crap that went on during the effort 20 years ago to get FEC to stop using horns at certain times of day convincing people that a train should be allowed to do 100+ mph down that line is a non-starter.
That said, I can think of a fair number of places in different places in Europe where there's at-grade crossings in built up areas where trains regularly cross at around 100mph. (OTOH, there's no general requirement for horns/whistles at them.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Central_Railway
https://communityimpact.com/houston/tomball-magnolia/develop...
I agree with you that it's too little too late, but at least they're trying.
Connecting Dallas, Houston, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, will take at least a decade, more likely closer to 15 years. There is no real scenario where it happens faster.
From El Paso you push to Tucson, Phoenix, Albuquerque.
From Houston you go to New Orleans.
From Dallas you go to Oklahoma City.
Then if other cities are smart at all and pick up some confidence about what can be done, and at a reasonable cost, you then see eg St Louis, Louisville, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago all link up. And so on.
The model for the US will be regional high speed rail, rather than massive scale coast to coast approaches. Maybe eventually you get high speed interlinking between them.
Atlanta or Jacksonville to Mobile and on to New Orleans, which gets you to Texas via Houston.
El Paso to Tucson/Phoenix gets you to Vegas. Properly that's an easy hop to Los Angeles (skepticism warranted because it's infrastructure in California), which gets you LA to Texas to Miami.
If they did it right, Texas ends up acting as the obvious central web that you can tie the country together with high speed rail over time.
We could build all of this for $400 billion perhaps, if it's done as it will be in Texas in terms of time & cost (enter the land & zoning nightmares in some parts of the country); $20b per year for 20 years (non inflation adjusted), which we can easily afford.
The main difference is that this planning is done much further in advance (although at least the UK is well behind in terms of rail capacity construction - the UK and the US have many similarities in terms of government incompetence).
Only place that is faster is China, but they work on a different scale.