165 mph over 29.2 miles is just over 5 1/2 minutes. By the time you accelerate into that section and then slow down for the exit, you'll be at 165 mph for maybe 2 minutes. Big deal.

The Northeast Corridor can only handle true "high speed" trains (150+ mph) in a handful of very short sections. The rest of the corridor is not suitable for that kind of high speeds due to the curvature. The Northeast Corridor right of way was built when 70 mph was considered "fast." It will never be able to accommodate today's "high speed" trains. That's why the Acela has been such a flop. It's just not that much faster than the non-Acela trains because it can only go 150 mph for a handful of miles on the route.

After WWII all the passenger cars in the PRR Blue Ribbon fleet had a speed rating of 100 mph.

Impressive, it's is to bad they do not do that the whole way from Boston to NYC, we have 2nd rate train travel in the USA, compared to Japan & Europe.  I'm happy to ride my 79mph Amtrak Down Easter from NH to Boston in 1 hour, sure as heck beats driving, and parking etc..

Rich,

the Acela may not have met the high expectations placed on it, but it is by no means a flop. Most morning and afternoon/evening trips between NYC and DC are fairly full with business passengers. Some even sell out.

I do agree completely that the line between DC and Boston will never be the high speed corridor it should be unless a significant infrastructure investment is made. Even then it will only shorten travel times by small increments because of curvature.

Heck, we all just hope that the Portal Draw bridge replacement is done on schedule.

I find it cool that the original PRR 'speedway' south (RR west) of New Brunswick is still used for trainset testing.

Emphasis on test. Remember the jet powered RDC? Decreased travel time costs money and most routes with the built in speed restrictions they have, just don't seem to have the potential justify the additional expense in terms of what are essentially commuter runs.

Medium and long distance..maybe, ( for tangents ) but to be competitive, at minimum the ticket costs has to equal airfare.  Speed equals additional expense.To me all this is playing around at the edges of "high speed rail" as practiced in other countries that have built their own largely from the ground up. Not much if anything has changed except perhaps in the Midwest..some selected runs out of Chicago. 

While true there's other interesting facts keeping the Acela from really stretching her legs.  Miss-communications between Bombardier and Amtrak causing the trains sets to be wider than first intended.  Due to the extra width they can't fully tilt in some areas like New Haven, Ct where they would hit other trains or the station platforms.  Now that's a government operation for you.

The Acela a flop?

I don't think Rich understands how full these trains are on a regular basis. Rich, have you ever ridden an Acela? It is a great ride and beats the heck out of air travel between Washington and Boston. Unless you enjoy being strip searched and then having to squeeze into a "seat" that only twiggy could love.

The Acela may  not hit it's intended top speeds, but it is hardly a flop.

Paul

To me, the Talgo concept would have been better in the NEC because of the curves.  But I think Talgo was too low for the high level platforms.

Some videos of the test are beginning to filter onto YouTube:

Looks faster than the usual speeds there, but as always take them with a grain of salt till official sources confirm. Maybe compare passing times with more ordinary runbys at the same station (in this case, Princeton Jct)

---PCJ

In this report, Amtrak outlines its plan for true high speed.

A lot to read, I did notice the new Portal Bridge and found particularly fascinating an inland route via Hartford and Danbury. The part east of Hartford seems to follow the old New Haven "Air Line " route via Putman CT.

http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/45...rtheast-Corridor.pdf

I used the word "flop" because the trains never lived up to the initial hype that Amtrak published when these trains were originally announced. The initial announcements led people to believe that they were going to run 150 mph for almost the entire route between Boston and Washington. When reality set in and people realized that the train would achieve 150 mph only in short stretches, the Acela proved to be somewhat underwhelming.

I assume Amtrak knew how wide they wanted the units to be. Are you sure it wasn't Bombardier that messed up?? You know how sloppy those private companies can be....

In early 1999, a minor controversy arose concerning the trainsets, which were reportedly built 10 cm (4 inches) wider than specified. In some areas of the NEC, this reduces the maximum permissible tilt from 6.5 degrees to 4.2 degrees due to the constraint of the AAR Plate C clearance standards. Bombardier and Amtrak claimed that this would not significantly impact schedule timing.

Acela trainsets are forbidden to use tilt on Metro-North territory. Apparently that stretch of the NEC has track centers closer than the former PRR section, and tilting coaches-built-4" too wide would come within 11" of passing equipment on curves, so "ixnay on the tilt-nay".

It's not clear that the restriction would have been enacted had the trainsets been the expected width, though it sounds like the track spacing would have nixed the feature anyway.

---PCJ  

Yeah right  As I recall the lawsuits went back and forth for years.  Who ever is at fault for the design failures(cracked brake disks, cracks in the yaw dampers, cars to wide)  The train sets are maintenance intensive which make working on steam a walk in the park(a joke).  While Amtrak has everything under control they cost more to maintain than planned and Amtrak wants to buy more cars to ad to the train sets.  I say come up with something better that's cheaper to operate and dump the Acela as the money pit they have become.

Bring back the Turbo Train= Just kidding! Has there ever been a successful Northeast Passenger train that has been fast/efficent in recent history?

How about METROLINERS with AEM7's and Amfleet cars

At first Amtrak has 5 A sets on reserve for breakdowns.  They are now taking cars out of those sets, and making other trainset longer.

Also, the A's were to be push pull.  FRA said, "NO".  So they tend to be overpowered.

Anyway, what is max speed on amfleet?

Agreed, I should of clarified I was speaking more of the New York to Boston run.

"but to be competitive, at minimum the ticket costs has to equal airfare.  Speed equals additional expense."   So currently USAirways and United are more expensive than AMTRAK (Boston to DC) and given security delays flights from NYC to DC from cab to cab are longer time wise thus the reason why the trains are packed. 

All the info I've seen says 125 MPH

---PCJ

125!  GOOD ENOUGH!  And proven!