(This post is in the wrong category on the forum.)
Looks like Brightline's fault for building it this way. BL says it read the high-speed specs instead of general specs that would apply to Tri-rail. There are two issues though:
1. Platforms too wide - nothing to do with high-speed specs, right?
2. Elevated rail too steep - it's about weight, but maybe power/weight ratio. I don't know that high speed trains necessarily can climb hills better, but apparently there's a spec. Tri-rail trains are a lot taller, could tip?? The article says they want to know if they can climb the hill "safely." Also, the article says "90% less than" when it probably means "90% of" the Tri-rail requirement.
There's sniping between board and management and politicians, about it just coming out now when the report was written in March (shades of DC. Metro on the wheels slipping across the axles, which was known for years), as well as Tri-rail blaming Brightline, which isn't refuted. No comment from Brightline.
It's hard to believe Tri-rail didn't review the engineering, but you could say the same thing about Amtrak at the airport. Maybe they didn't want to, for legal reasons. Or we've got some major league shenanigans going on.
It's a Miami Herald story by Douglas Hanks, for anyone who missed the tiny Herald logo, as I did.