198
Amtrak launches new 160mph Acela trains — but they take just as long as the old ones
(www.independent.co.uk)
this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2025
198 points (96.7% liked)
Fuck Cars
13495 readers
1011 users here now
A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!
Rules
1. Be Civil
You may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.
2. No hate speech
Don't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.
3. Don't harass people
Don't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.
4. Stay on topic
This community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.
5. No reposts
Do not repost content that has already been posted in this community.
Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.
Posting Guidelines
In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:
- [meta] for discussions/suggestions about this community itself
- [article] for news articles
- [blog] for any blog-style content
- [video] for video resources
- [academic] for academic studies and sources
- [discussion] for text post questions, rants, and/or discussions
- [meme] for memes
- [image] for any non-meme images
- [misc] for anything that doesn’t fall cleanly into any of the other categories
Recommended communities:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
The tracks are the limiting factor. The acela trains are basically the TGV. They could go the same speed with better infrastructure.
The tracks and I'm sure the distances between stops. Hard to hit full speed when you already have to plan to slow down for the next stop.
Part of handling that is having both local and limited-stop services (which they likely already do) and a good local/commuter train network.
I'd think, in order to hit full speed even with a limited stop or express train, you'd still have speed issues coming up on a metro area. You can't just blow through Philly at 160 even if you hadn't planned on stopping there.
In an ideal world you'd have bypasses or tunnels to help them keep up speed, but that all depends on land allocation and investment. If you're stuck with old windy narrow tracks then yes youre going to be limited.
Trains like shinkansen can go very fast through dense urban areas, i think mostly in tunnels - but also because they spend a lot to straighten the routes. Obviously there are still some slow sections, but they minimize it by design - and probably a willingness to bulldoze historical land ownership.
I guess in Philly the route probably winds around a bit. https://www.openrailwaymap.org/ It looks like all lines funnel through a couple of very tight curves around the centre. That looks like quite a sensitive choke point.
But apart from that section it looks like the acela limit is over 100mph for quite a lot of the urban area around Philly, which isn't too bad. Its not like its crawling around at 60mph for half the distance.
There's another interesting looking slow chicane in Wilmington. In that case there's what looks like an ideal bypass line already there for any express. It runs through a massive siding (freight maybe?) that is limited to 10-30mph. Looks like a no brainer to me, strengthen those bridges and run any express through that. plenty of dead space around there to reconfigure just one level crossing i think to worry about. most of it is 3-4 tracks already judging by google map.
I heard that US freight and passenger rail don't like to share and enjoy though so probably that's a non starter.
You can but the track has to be built for it. Japan has stations that are passed at 320km/h (200mph). You need minimum four tracks (two platforms, two passing) and curves/gradients suitable for the speed, along with noise mitigations as necessary.
If you're trying to re-use tracks and stations built in the 1800s that's possibly less feasible.
The speed with high speed rail is usually made between cities, less so in dense areas. But that doesnt mean there is no gains to be made by improving track and running at say 130-160 km/h (80-100 mph)
To my knowledge these trains can alao accelerate quite fast because they are electric trains.
The express service is still considerably limited in the DC to Boston because it's like 40% metro and still has to slow down. You have DC, Philly, NY, and Boston all with substantial suburban infrastructure and it adds up.
In the best of situations on express it's hard to justify express acella unless you are really cash strapped.
Not really for Acela. The NE Corridor is fully grade separated for most parts and four cities chosen are far enough apart to make use of the train's top speed.
It makes use of the trains top speed for less than 50 miles of the route. It’s basically only infrastructure: tight curves, ancient bridges and tunnels, too many choke points. It may be grade separated but you still can’t blast through towns at full speed. It’s limited by freight trains. It’s even limited by shipping, because of drawbridges.
Edit - Here’s a partial map illustrating speed increases for some planned infrastructure projects
The Acela trains are far from being on par with French TGV, German ICE, or Japanese Shinkansen.
For a European, this is just a medium speed train.
As the comment you've replied to says, they are limited by the line speed and their design, and design speed, is effectively the same as the latest TGV.
TGVs at "normal speed" go at 320km/h or 200MPH. They can go up to 350MPH.
The Acela with its 160MPH top speed does not come close.
You're not understanding the difference between the line speed and the train's design speed. The train is capable of comparable speeds, significantly higher than the track speed
It is not. The technical top speed of the Acela II is less than 190MPH due to technical restrictions, and it has less engine units than a TGV.
From the comment that started this thread:
No, we all understood this the entire time.
Its literally the same trainset by the same manufacturer as the TGV, hence the comparison. The highest track speed on the northeast corridor is 160 MPH, which is why they're calling it a 160 MPH train.
The problem is the infrastructure not the train. Its a good train.
No, it is not the same train. The Acela II has a technical top speed of 189MPH. It might be built by the same company (Alstom), but it is no TGV. One of the differences is that the Acela has less motor units than the TGV.
Sounds pretty comparable to 200 mph (320 km/h) to me..
The 200MPH is not the top speed. It is the operational speed. High speed trains in Europe regularly travel at speeds exceeding 300km/h.
Yes... The point is the maximum design speeds of both are very similar.
Yes TGVs run operationally at much higher speeds than the Acela II but that is due to infrastructure, not the train itself. The train itself, independent of track constraints, is capable of similar speeds. I don't think there's much more worth saying on the matter.
Even if same train, it is not run under the same regulations. The US FRA regulations really kneecap the operational speeds:
Source: https://zierke.com/shasta_route/pages/15regulation.html
Note that the above was written about Acela 1. The Acela 2 is supposedly lighter weight, so in theory FRA might allow higher speeds (though I have yet to see any progress there).