12 ms·

That is a really slow train, almost makes it sound like a tram. How many stops were there? Trains here in Sweden, albeit for longer distances usually go either

by sandos 8y ago

That is a really slow train, almost makes it sound like a tram. How many stops were there? Trains here in Sweden, albeit for longer distances usually go either 120, 160 or 200 km/h. Thats 74/100/124 miles/h.

goatlover 8y ago
Yeah, we don't get to have those kinds of trains here. Maybe 74, and maybe hyperloop one day.
cjrp 8y ago
Don't you have commuter trains?
- chrisseaton 8y ago
  Yes, but they speed up to between stations and don't run at just 48 mph.
  - cjrp 8y ago
    Presumably the average speed of 48mph includes slowing down/accelerating.
    - gsnedders 8y ago
      The question then is why it takes so long to accelerate.
      - geezerjay 8y ago
        > The question then is why it takes so long to accelerate. 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.
        gsnedders 8y ago
        The relatively new stopping trains here accelerate at up to 1.0m/s^2; using that as a figure (because it's nice and round), and where 79mph ~= 35m/s (to 2 s.f., as are all derived figures below): 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).
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- masklinn 8y ago
  This is a regional train not a commuter train. Commuter trains have stations every few miles, this doesn't. 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).
kss238 8y ago
It's not even a 40km trip. How fast do you expect the train to get up to?
- alex_duf 8y ago
  It's fairly common in Europe to have trains go fast, even on short distances. Some London tube line (Victoria line, metropolitan line) got faster than that train. Don't get me wrong, definitely a great step in the right direction.
- mhandley 8y ago
  London St Pancras to St Albans (a medium size town north of london) is 25 miles. The train takes 19 minutes.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    The question is if whether or not saving ten minutes is worth the amount it would cost the company to do the required upgrades. The answer is, at least right now, not yet.
    - masklinn 8y ago
      It's a brand new regional train yet barely reaches the speed of your average euro commuter train from the 60s (not joking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_Class_Z_5300 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_Class_Z_5300 has a top speed of 81mph).
      - bobthepanda 8y ago
        We are also talking about rail service where none previously existed, in a sprawled out, auto-dependent metropolitan area. High speed rail was not built in a day. 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.
endless1234 8y ago
Top speed vs average speed.. ~80km/h average is pretty normal/good for commuter trains
- masklinn 8y ago
  It's not a commuter train it's intercity. Tri-rail is the existing commuter service, it has 17 stations between Miami and West Palm Beach included (and Mangonia Park beyond WPB). This has 3 stations total: Miami, West Palm Beach and Fort Lauredale. Silver Service has more stops along the way than Brightline.
tzahola 8y ago
From the article: “The train runs at a top speed of 79 miles per hour on the leg between Miami and Fort Lauderdale ”
snaily 8y ago
Just looked up an example to compare: Östertälje-Uppsala C, a large part of a Stockholm commuter train line, is 102 km long, and takes 1:32h for an average speed of 66km/h, or 41mph, below the 45mph quoted in the article. The acceleration and waiting at stations really hits the average.
- masklinn 8y ago
  This is a regional train not commuter. According to the official website there is no stop between Miami and Ft Lauredale: https://gobrightline.com/fort-lauderdale/ https://gobrightline.com/fort-lauderdale/
  - gsnedders 8y ago
    A better comparison is the Stockholm C – Uppsala C SJ-operated non-stop services, which like the Miami to Ft Lauredale services take exactly 30 minutes. 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.
    - tssva 8y ago
      Taking a look at Google maps that is not really comparable either. Much of the area between them appears to be rural with a low population density where as Miami to Ft Lauderdale is high population density the entire route. Train speeds are limited in high density areas for safety.
      - gsnedders 8y ago
        > Train speeds are limited in high density areas for safety. 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.
pc86 8y ago
The train travels 79mph, it's just not in a straight line. Take the straight line distance and using that to computer average speed is disingenuous to say the least.
walshemj 8y ago
Possibly limited by the max speed allowed by the track limits as some one said that it was using freight tracks.
- CalRobert 8y ago
  Or this, since 79 mph is oddly specific. "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_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_Unite...
  - zaroth 8y ago
    They spent $1.5 billion reusing existing track and still couldn’t get ATC? :-(
    - walshemj 8y ago
      Don't think they have this on a national scale in the states
geezerjay 8y ago
> That is a really slow train, almost makes it sound like a tram. 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.
- masklinn 8y ago
  > 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. 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).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
andrepd 8y ago
The top speed is nearly irrelevant to the time of the trip. The bulk of the difference is in the length and frequency of the stops.
- masklinn 8y ago
  It has no stops between Miami and Ft Lauredale. 0. None. Nada. Zip.
tonywastaken 8y ago
The FEC (Florida East Coast railway) tracks that the Brightline runs on have a lot of grade crossings in between Miami and Ft. Lauderdale.
Operyl 8y ago
There've been a number of accidents involving the train now, too. People who think they can outrun the train, as far as I'm aware they've all been pedestrians. I wonder if this is the reason they're not going faster yet.

by sandos 8y ago

goatlover 8y ago

Yeah, we don't get to have those kinds of trains here. Maybe 74, and maybe hyperloop one day.

cjrp 8y ago

Don't you have commuter trains?

chrisseaton 8y ago
Yes, but they speed up to between stations and don't run at just 48 mph.
- cjrp 8y ago
  Presumably the average speed of 48mph includes slowing down/accelerating.
  - gsnedders 8y ago
    The question then is why it takes so long to accelerate.
    - geezerjay 8y ago
      > The question then is why it takes so long to accelerate. 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.
      - gsnedders 8y ago
        The relatively new stopping trains here accelerate at up to 1.0m/s^2; using that as a figure (because it's nice and round), and where 79mph ~= 35m/s (to 2 s.f., as are all derived figures below): 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).
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
masklinn 8y ago
This is a regional train not a commuter train. Commuter trains have stations every few miles, this doesn't. 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).

kss238 8y ago

It's not even a 40km trip. How fast do you expect the train to get up to?

alex_duf 8y ago
It's fairly common in Europe to have trains go fast, even on short distances. Some London tube line (Victoria line, metropolitan line) got faster than that train. Don't get me wrong, definitely a great step in the right direction.
mhandley 8y ago
London St Pancras to St Albans (a medium size town north of london) is 25 miles. The train takes 19 minutes.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  The question is if whether or not saving ten minutes is worth the amount it would cost the company to do the required upgrades. The answer is, at least right now, not yet.
  - masklinn 8y ago
    It's a brand new regional train yet barely reaches the speed of your average euro commuter train from the 60s (not joking: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_Class_Z_5300 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF_Class_Z_5300 has a top speed of 81mph).
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      We are also talking about rail service where none previously existed, in a sprawled out, auto-dependent metropolitan area. High speed rail was not built in a day. 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.

endless1234 8y ago

Top speed vs average speed.. ~80km/h average is pretty normal/good for commuter trains

masklinn 8y ago
It's not a commuter train it's intercity. Tri-rail is the existing commuter service, it has 17 stations between Miami and West Palm Beach included (and Mangonia Park beyond WPB). This has 3 stations total: Miami, West Palm Beach and Fort Lauredale. Silver Service has more stops along the way than Brightline.

tzahola 8y ago

From the article: “The train runs at a top speed of 79 miles per hour on the leg between Miami and Fort Lauderdale ”

snaily 8y ago

Just looked up an example to compare: Östertälje-Uppsala C, a large part of a Stockholm commuter train line, is 102 km long, and takes 1:32h for an average speed of 66km/h, or 41mph, below the 45mph quoted in the article. The acceleration and waiting at stations really hits the average.

masklinn 8y ago
This is a regional train not commuter. According to the official website there is no stop between Miami and Ft Lauredale: https://gobrightline.com/fort-lauderdale/ https://gobrightline.com/fort-lauderdale/
- gsnedders 8y ago
  A better comparison is the Stockholm C – Uppsala C SJ-operated non-stop services, which like the Miami to Ft Lauredale services take exactly 30 minutes. 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.
  - tssva 8y ago
    Taking a look at Google maps that is not really comparable either. Much of the area between them appears to be rural with a low population density where as Miami to Ft Lauderdale is high population density the entire route. Train speeds are limited in high density areas for safety.
    - gsnedders 8y ago
      > Train speeds are limited in high density areas for safety. 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.

pc86 8y ago

The train travels 79mph, it's just not in a straight line. Take the straight line distance and using that to computer average speed is disingenuous to say the least.

walshemj 8y ago

Possibly limited by the max speed allowed by the track limits as some one said that it was using freight tracks.

CalRobert 8y ago
Or this, since 79 mph is oddly specific. "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_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_Unite...
- zaroth 8y ago
  They spent $1.5 billion reusing existing track and still couldn’t get ATC? :-(
  - walshemj 8y ago
    Don't think they have this on a national scale in the states

geezerjay 8y ago

> That is a really slow train, almost makes it sound like a tram. 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.

masklinn 8y ago
> 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. 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).

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

andrepd 8y ago

The top speed is nearly irrelevant to the time of the trip. The bulk of the difference is in the length and frequency of the stops.

masklinn 8y ago
It has no stops between Miami and Ft Lauredale. 0. None. Nada. Zip.

tonywastaken 8y ago

The FEC (Florida East Coast railway) tracks that the Brightline runs on have a lot of grade crossings in between Miami and Ft. Lauderdale.

Operyl 8y ago

There've been a number of accidents involving the train now, too. People who think they can outrun the train, as far as I'm aware they've all been pedestrians. I wonder if this is the reason they're not going faster yet.