Anything nice, bright and reflective. White would be fine too as would Bright Pink if all existing colors in the standard is inappropriate for some reason.
The key is for whatever marking is used, to be very clearly visible at night. Macadam to metal transition is not all that visible at night in their natural state, except perhaps when the Macadam is very fresh which may last for a few weeks after it is laid.
My hometown of South Benfleet had swing gates that were electrically powered and operated from a nearby signal box (interlocking tower in US-ese). They were eliminated in the 1960's when the busy road (only connection to Canvey Island) was rebuilt with an underpass.
The "black markings" are not markings at all, but the edges and ends of the crossing panel segments. Based on the nice exact end of the paint at the edge of the crossing panels, it is fairly certain that the paint job predates the crossing panel installation. Chances are the next time the lane lines are painted they will paint across the crossing, or possibly not have any lane lines at all, but large wide stop lines across the lanes as is commonly done at intersections.
This would work in Florida, and is used in quite a few places to mark lanes or edges or other factors, but would not work in any area were snow plows are used. I think the reason for that would be obvious.
That occurred to me, and it's what I meant by part of the structure. I just didn't think the panels used at crossings were that small. Perhaps the thick lines are panel edges, and the thin ones built-in expansion joints?
I have no clue. Thick ones do look about right for length of panel segments. For something this short you do not need expansion joints, so I do not know what the thin lines are. These are not usual in the ones I have seen.
Up north we have recessed reflectors on at least our highways.
Recessed reflectors and lights are used on airport runways and taxiways so sweepers can clear area faster.
Wow, that's the fastest speed in the U.S. outside of the Northeast Corridor!
I don't think that's how it works.
I know... that's why I am a bit confused about this statement. I've always thought the Chargers had a maximum speed of 125mph. I understand all of the mechanical and engineering design reasons why they should not be able to run faster than 125mph. But yet we have this video with Brightline saying they are exploring the idea of running at 150mph. This doesn't square with all I have known so far.
Easy, just remove the limiter.
Of course they will need to get those certified for both higher speed which is probably achievable changing the gear ratio and Tier III buff strength architecture. Thos etrains are incredibly over powered, so changing the gear ratio may be feasible.
People, people, this is not how it works. Even if the equipment cannot run faster than 125mph, you should NOT build an alignment that limits you to that speed. Alignments you are stuck with. Equipment can be replaced or modified. If it were me doing it, I would be looking toward an alignment that could handle 175 to 200 mph, even if the current equipment and train control could not go past 110 or even 79 mph. Technology changes. Alignment revisions vary from very expensive to impossible for all practical purposes. For the case here, my initial statement concerning alignment development is, "A straight line has no speed limit." They are probably saying 150 mph for the sake of saying to these people, we can and likely will in the future run faster than we do now. 150 mph is probably as high a number they dare use that does not flip the locals circuit breakers.
Doesn't 125-160 operation require Tier II certification? Tier III is for 160-220mph I think. But Brightline must be aware of a somewhat cost effective path to get the trainsets certified for 150mph operation. That is why they must know the potential maximum speed capabilities of the trainsets and what is required to get them to run at the higher speed. What would prevent them from running at 150 MAS between Orlando and Cocoa? That section is actually straighter for a longer distance than any section along I-4.
The government Florida HSR project from 2010 would have had a maximum speed of 168mph along I-4. That included some significant work on modifying the I-4 highway lanes along certain segments around curves as well as utilizing electric powered locomotives. I agree that maximizing the alignment for the highest speed is great. In the case of Brightline, being privately funded also means it has to justify every expenditure, so I get it that they might not want to increase the construction cost significantly at this time to save a few minutes run time. They have to work within the confines of what FDOT will allow in their ROW. That being said, I have not seen the design plans for phase 3 to Tampa along I-4 to verify what they are going to build along I-4.
