Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Transportation

Amtrak's New 160mph Acela Trains Take Just As Long As the Old Ones (cnbc.com) 102

Posted by BeauHD from the would-you-look-at-that dept.
Amtrak's new 160 mph tilting Acela trains have debuted on the Northeast Corridor, offering smoother rides, upgraded interiors, faster Wi-Fi, and 27% more seating capacity. However, "they don't complete the journey any faster than the old trains," reports The Independent. From the report: Acela runs from Washington, DC's Union Station to Boston via Philadelphia, New York Penn Station, New Haven, and Providence. It's a total distance of 457 miles, with the fastest next-gen Acela journey being six hours and 43 minutes, five minutes slower than the quickest end-to-end time offered by the old Acela trains, introduced in 2000. However, this may be because, as is common practice with new trains the world over, Amtrak is scheduling longer dwell times at stations so staff and passengers can adjust to them. The next-gen sets have a top service speed that's 10mph faster -- though this can only be achieved on certain sections of the mostly 110mph route -- and an enhanced "anticipative" tilting system that allows for higher speeds through curves.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Amtrak's New 160mph Acela Trains Take Just As Long As the Old Ones More

Amtrak's New 160mph Acela Trains Take Just As Long As the Old Ones

Comments Filter:
  • In China...

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by lsllll ( 830002 )

      I rode the train from Shanghai to Hangzhou in 2016 and have a picture of the train moving at 307 kph, so 191 mph. And the ride was so smooth you couldn't even tell you were on a train.

      Our problem in the U.S. is not technology. It's bureaucracy and red tape as well as way too many middle men who want to make money, not to mention materials and wage differences between the U.S. and China, making something like China's trains cost prohibitive. Other possible issues could be right of way related for optimal

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by caseih ( 160668 )

        Some European trains also get up to 300 kph. I remember riding the train from Paris to Kohn back in 2014. Looking out the window I estimated our speed at around 160 kph. Pulled out my GPS unit and turned out I was wrong. Very wrong. 300 kph. And it was also a very smooth ride. The investment European countries made over the years was very costly but well worth it. I occasionally visit family in the US. Would love to have a fast train that would take me there, instead of driving for 12 hours. But you

        • Depending on the circumstances, I'd much rather drive 12 hours than take a train for 3.

          At the same time, I'd rather take a train for 3 days than a plane for 4 hours (and did so just last year).

          It really just depends on a variety of factors.

        • TGV / Eurostar get up to 320 km/h (199 mph).

        • One of the big problems with high-speed trains in the U.S. is their need to keep stopping.

          A literal bullet train that goes from SF to Santa Barbara to LA would be able to stretch its 'legs' and cover some serious ground at high-speed. If the U.S. passenger train system was run by private industry not politicians it would have a chance (in my opinion).

          There was once a plan to build a high-speed rail line to Orlando from somewhere in Florida (I forget where), but the trip was laughably short, so the train nev

      • My grandpa rode on a passenger airplane from LA and to New York in the 1960s at Mach 0.85 (900 km/h, 550 mph). I rode in my brother's Cirrus SR22T from Dallas to Denver at 200mph (320 kp/h) in 2015. I am sure people would use high speed rail in the US. But if I am taking a little 100 mile drive I would rather leave when I want to leave, not be restricted by someone else's set schedule, not wait at some train station, not share a vehicle with strangers, and have my own car to get around in the other city. I

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

          In places like Japan and China, trains leave every 10 or 15 minutes. They go from city center to city center and 300 km/h makes up a lot of time. If you're talking about Dallas to Denver, that's a 12 hour drive, compared to what would be a 4 and half hour train ride.

          Compared to flying commercial, your total travel time includes time needed to go from your house to the airport. You're having to arrive an hour and a half early. Then when you arrive, the Denver airport is a 30 minute drive from the city itself

          • Compared to flying commercial, your total travel time includes time needed to go from your house to the airport. You're having to arrive an hour and a half early. Then when you arrive, the Denver airport is a 30 minute drive from the city itself. Renting a car might take another 30 minutes. If you have baggage, you might also have to wait for it to show up at the carousel. Not to mention the price for both carry-ons and checked bags. So in the end, you're paying significantly more for a more cramped seat and arriving not too much sooner than a train.

            Uh, no.

            A high-profile, high-speed train in the U.S. would be believed to be a target for terrorists, so you'd soon find TSA going thru your luggage, just like st the airport.

            Since the High-Speed line will only have one station in each city, you'll likely not live close enough to walk to the station, so now there's parking, car service, taxis, buses, etc to contend with.

            And I'm almost certain the passenger rail service would not be sufficient to justify running trains every 15 minutes, so you'll be waiting a

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by djinn6 ( 1868030 )

              A high-profile, high-speed train in the U.S. would be believed to be a target for terrorists, so you'd soon find TSA going thru your luggage, just like st the airport.

              Most countries don't do that though. Even China only x-rays your luggage. No need for shoes or body scan. A high speed train is simply much more resilient than an aircraft against small explosives.

              Since the High-Speed line will only have one station in each city, you'll likely not live close enough to walk to the station, so now there's parking, car service, taxis, buses, etc to contend with.

              In this respect it's similar to the airport, except that most people are significantly closer to the city center than they are to the airport. Of course the other half of the problem is that the US is seriously lacking in intra-city public transport as well. In Tokyo, you could take a 10 minute subway ride to the

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by bartoku ( 922448 )

            Those are very valid points, I was more teasing on the two parent posts inferring that somehow America was technically behind and that speed was the primary objective factor.
            For sure the Chinese train system has outpaced the American train system in speed, but I am not sold on high speed rail being a better solution than air.
            However, I will assert that the American values of living in a suburb with a patch of grass, and being able to go where you want when you want without someone playing their phone too lo

    • Re:Meanwhile (Score:4, Insightful)

      by smithmc ( 451373 ) on Friday August 29, 2025 @05:02PM (#65625178) Journal
      ...they don't care about eminent domain, and they just bulldoze wherever they want the train to go. Willing to give up your house? The problem isn't the trains, it's the curvy tracks and all the stations in between.

  • The problem is the right of way (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Baloo Uriza ( 1582831 ) <baloo@ursamundi.org> on Thursday August 28, 2025 @10:05PM (#65623240) Homepage Journal
    It's too curvy with bridges too old and outdated to handle high speed traffic for the most part. Just fixing the bridges would fix most of this, as you can't really overcome the turn issues, but there's still plenty of straightaways. The old trains could go about twice as fast as they were ever run on the NEC because of the same problem.

    • Re: The problem is the right of way (Score:4, Insightful)

      by dpille ( 547949 ) on Thursday August 28, 2025 @10:32PM (#65623262)
      I'm not convinced any bridgework could make it faster. As I recall, there are two tracks "southbound" out of New Haven, two tracks "northbound" out of Providence, and both those routes need sharing with commuter rail.

    • Re:The problem is the right of way (Score:5, Interesting)

      by buss_error ( 142273 ) on Thursday August 28, 2025 @10:44PM (#65623268) Homepage Journal

      It has inertial compensation - it tilts. The reason is partly track geometry as you point out, partly dwell times, but mostly because of catenary [reddit.com] upgrades [hsrail.org] are lagging.

    • It's simple, there are too many stops, and a train that holds more passengers has to spend longer times at stations so those extra passengers can get on/off the train.

      This is the same issue the famous (infamous?) CA "Bullet Train" has. The train can go very fast, but the plan to connect SF to LA added a significant number of miles (25% or more greater distance than a straight shot down the coastline) to the route and added pointless stops along the way, preventing the train from actually spending any real t

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by spitzak ( 4019 )

        The coast is not the straightest route. The straightest would pretty much follow the 5 freeway. I have heard it would have been less expensive to build as straight a line as possible PLUS build a branch that went to Fresno anyway.

        What has killed it is NIMBYs and also a lot of land owners who realized they could demand any amount of money they wanted to build some tracks on their land.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by dgatwood ( 11270 )

          The coast is not the straightest route. The straightest would pretty much follow the 5 freeway.

          Except for the whole problem that all of the major cities are half an hour to an hour away from I-5 one way or the other. It's not just Fresno up there. I-5 is a whole lot of nothing, so you'd be building a train that basically only serves the endpoints of the line. Not that this is a bad idea in principle, but it wasn't what they wanted to build.

        • The CA High-Speed Boondoggle leaves SF, goes into the Central Valley, heads south, and then heads back to LA.

          The station would not be 'downtown' on either end, and there are numerous stops in the Central Valley that literally no one wants except the politicians that got to design the route.

          Here's the map: https://www.hsr.ca.gov/communi... [ca.gov]

          Note how you take a light rail train out of SF to get to the "SF Station" for the High-Speed Rail Line...

          I recently heard that CA is thinking about planting solar panels in

      • Yeah a lot of the stops on that really should have been regional spurs coming from high speed stations in a later phase or separate project.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by spitzak ( 4019 )

      Bridges are actually straight. The curves are on land.

      However the basic problem is that raising the maximum speed is not going to make any difference when the previous trains couldn't reach their maximum speed either.

      • ... It is too curvy.

        ... The curves are on land.

        However the basic problem is that raising the maximum speed is not going to make any difference when the previous trains couldn't reach their maximum speed either.

        https://www.sealytutoring.com/... [sealytutoring.com] The curves on dedicated bullet-train tracks (not shared with slow-commuter trains and not shared with freight) must be curved to attain even moderately high speeds end-to-end on the line. In this regard, railroads are not that much different than banked curves on high-speed automotive roads that has been state-of-the-art for many decades now. Half-hearted attempts to achieve bullet trains in the USA need to quit living in the 19th-century past of the Promontory-Point-er

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mjwx ( 966435 )

      It's too curvy with bridges too old and outdated to handle high speed traffic for the most part. Just fixing the bridges would fix most of this, as you can't really overcome the turn issues, but there's still plenty of straightaways. The old trains could go about twice as fast as they were ever run on the NEC because of the same problem.

      Yep, the biggest problem isn't the locomotive, its often the line being unsuitable for high speed trains. That's why the UK had to build new tracks for the Eurostar (which does 186 MPH).

      • The new Class 374 Eurostars do 320 km/h (199 mph). The old Class 373s did 300 km/h (186 mph).

    • I'd also add that the distances are not that long between stations, so even when you do have straightaways, you may never have enough distances where you can make max speeds that would create notable differences in time: most of the stops are like 30 to 40 miles apart, with maybe three longer stretches being New Haven to Providence (100 miles) and Baltimore to Wilmington (70 miles) and Philadelphia to EWR (85 miles). That said, Acela is still the best option, particularly going from DC to NYC or NYC to Bost
      • This, so much this. At least California's doing the right thing and electrifying its public railroads, so the acceleration time is considerably better than with the legacy and obsolete diesel-electric equipment. But even then, that's just... start a siding loop before regional trains have to slow down and end it after they're back up to speed if not just straight up quad-track it so regional trains can stay out of the way of the high speed trains. Everyone wins, the high speed trains are high speed and n

  • ... to a story about AI? If I didn't know any better, I'd say the summary was written by AI. And AI has discovered the RickRoll.

  • Longer dwell times (Score:4, Informative)

    by Tony Isaac ( 1301187 ) on Thursday August 28, 2025 @11:56PM (#65623378) Homepage

    this may be because, as is common practice with new trains the world over, Amtrak is scheduling longer dwell times at stations so staff and passengers can adjust to them

    Well duh, if the train is sitting longer at stations, it's not going to get you there faster than a slightly slower train with shorter dwell times. They won't do this forever though, once the trains are broken in, the dwell times will come down.

    • Well duh, if the train is sitting longer at stations, it's not going to get you there faster than a slightly slower train with shorter dwell times.

      The article itself actually points out that dwell time is not really the problem. You could have a train capable of going at 300mph but it isn't going to get you there any faster if the track has a speed limit of 110mph.

    • How many stations have raised platforms I wonder? One issue I never understood with the Denver metro area's lightrail was the absolute lack of raised platforms. Consequently you had to have time in station for the disabled or elderlyl person with crutches to get onto the train (I'm discussing giving enough time, not particular individuals). If they'd made it like (say) the London Underground or the NYC subway where the train glided up to the platform, doors opened, and people stepped in you could be in and

  • Just one change would really speed Amtrak up (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Applehu Akbar ( 2968043 ) on Friday August 29, 2025 @12:35AM (#65623440)

    Everywhere else in the woe world, train doors open at the same level as the platform, allowing passengers to quickly step or roll on and off the cars. Amtrak doors open two feet above the platform, like the steamers in old movies. When a fat old person boards, station personable have to fetch a little plastic stepstool and delegate two employees to assist that person on or off the train as she teeters like a circus elephant on that tiny stool. Wheelchair passengers require a crane.

    This single factor means a dwell time of several minutes at every minor stop. After a few statins, unanticipated extra dwell time means tha the train falls out of its contracted time slot on the line, after which it has to be sidelined for every single freight train to pass by. Because of this, some trains are routinely twelve hours late.

    • Pfft. The statins are only going to make the fat and handicapped live longer.

    • I wanted to fact check the Amtrak claim here. I went through some recent trip photos, and sure enough, I have a picture of the door opening a bit above the platform level, with a yellow step stool there. I can't tell if it is "two feet", but the basic fact check appears to be successful.

      The stool appears to be metal, rather than plastic. Additionally, as a wheel chair passenger, I did not require a crane, nor did I have two people helping me.

      I can't speak to what happens everywhere else in the world.

      • I've ridden the acela to and from boston many times. Almost all the platforms are level with the train. Might be one stop in connecticut that's at ground level, but only one. Boston, providence, new haven, nyc, philadelphia, baltimore, and dc are all high platforms.

        • Perhaps conditions are better in the Northeast corridor, where Amtrak owns its own trackage. My experience is almost all west of Chicago. And yes, I have seen some California stations where there is a ramp on the platform that allows wheelchair passengers to self- board at one specific place.

    • I'm not sure which station you saw this at, but none of the stations I've been to, and I've been to most of them along the Northeast Corridor mentioned in the article, as well as elsewhere around the country, have a difference in height between the train and the platform. What you experienced sounds very rare.

  • the traffic on the rails, and the condition of the rails. It is hard to pass another slow train, and you have to straiten the rails, upgrade the signals etc to go faster. It is not only the trainsets themselves. But those improvements might happen over time, when they for instance have to repair the rails anyway.

    • These trains are also less than 7% faster in theory, so they were always going to have an improvement under 7%, and of course rolling down the rails was never the only thing the trains did and it was always going to be less than the improvement in top speed anyway. Even on a perfect RoW the difference would have always been underwhelming.

  • Divided We Fall (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hadleyburg ( 823868 ) on Friday August 29, 2025 @02:43AM (#65623600)

    An expensive multi-year project, such as is required for world class infrastructure doesn't necessarily mean cheap labour, or authoritarian governments.

    In a democracy it does require the ability to rally the country behind a large project. Japan did it with their train system, and the US did it with Apollo.

    But you need a largely united people.

    • FWIW, this specific Acela issue has nothing to do with how bad the US is at HSR.

      The new Acelas were built to replace aging, high maintenance, trains that were lower capacity. The older trains weren't slow, the infrastructure they ran upon was inadequate - and still is, basically railroads built in the 1800s with limited clearance for track straightening, and cheap governments insisting on building grade level crossings all over the place.

      So it's entirely expected that the new Acelas wouldn't be faster.

      The U

      • Come now, California does not do this and you can see that their high speed rail will never start. No, we have NIMBYism, and a bunch of other complex stuff and too much corruption and nepotism in the building.

    • It works both ways though. The people need to have some confidence that such project are worth supporting - that they'll achieve their stated goals, and will come in close to their stated budget. When so many national infrastructure projects can't acheive either of these it isn't a surprise that it's hard to gather popular support for more.

      The UK has tried a high-speed rail project for the past 15 years (HS2). It was supposed to link London in the south with large parts of the midlands and the north of Engl

      • I certainly see your point. The HS2 project, although very costly, doesn't benefit much of the population. And anyway, there is a general skepticism and low level of trust in government plans.

        Contrast this with Japan in the 1960s. Everyone was on board with the national project to rise from the ashes of WWII and build a modern country where every year is better than the last. Everyone agrees to put their all into this. Enormous visions like the idea of high speed rails covering the length of the whole count

        • Interesting. In my opinion, what you're describing in Japan is the combination of demographics and economics that were all in their favour throughout the 60s, 70s, and 80s. Throughout that time they were one of the fastest growing countries in the world (pop culture at the time was concerned with Japan overtaking the USA). It was helped by the favourable demographics - lots of young people willing to work hard to make a new coutry for themselves.

          During the 90s they had both a banking collapse and their demo

          • I think you're right. A good economy is probably a prerequisite for the right kind of public mood to get behind large infrastructure projects.

            But not just a high GDP. The required unified public mood probably comes out of a feeling that everyone is on the same team, so you won't get the right public mood if there is massive inequality, and half the voters don't feel part of the team at all. The Japanese public has, comparitively speaking, mostly considered themselves all "middle class".

            • Very true. A sense of tribal loyalty is likely a contributing factor.

              Famously Japan has long been a very homogonous society, with strong social enforcement of norms and behaviours. I don't know enough about Japanese culture to know how true this still is in the modern world, but my guess is that its still more true than in most western countries.

              Not sure how much national unity can be expected in modern western societies when they're so ireconcilably split (largely between the urban/educated/young vs the ru

  • The important thing about the new equipment is that it has improved creature comforts and that it's longer, thus creating more capacity. One of the more significant problems with the first generation Acela trainsets is that they're only six cars long. Journey time is more a function of the track than the equipment, and the Avelia Liberty acquisition doesn't address that (nor was it meant to). The Shore Line between Providence and Stamford is still full of curves. The Metro-North Railroad still handles dispa
  • The ADA is 35 years old. Amtrak is looking to have all their stations ADA compliant by 2027. Only a quarter of stations are currently ADA compliant, and 13% are "accessible". Can we stop pretending Amtrak works?
  • If this country invested as much in transit/trains as we do airports and roads we'd be a world leader.
  • You can't expect too much in a 3rd world country like the US. People living in it are so brainwashed that they think it is as wonderful as North Korea, but the rest of the world is not fooled. Go and enjoy your amazing capitalism. Luckier people live in proper countries with decent social services and public transportation (like Western Europe). Thankfully, the younger generations in the US are finally starting to wake up to the realities of the American Nightmare and warming up to socialism, but far too la

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by whitroth ( 9367 )

      *snicker* Hey, we're a first-rate banana republic.

      And, of course, the GOP will happily give tens of billions for roads and airports, but *hates* trains. Biden got Amtrak its first major money for upgrades, and I'm worried about next year.

      Meanwhile, if you're *not* talking about the Northeast Corridor, where the Pennsy/NYC/er, Amtrak owns the lines... the scumbag freight railways hate maintenance (cf Ohio last year), and having just ridden the Empire Builder (Chicago to Seattle) for Worldcon, here's a fiver

  • The limiting factor isn't the train.
    • I suspect track logitics/controls havent been updated to account for faster trains. More to a train than just the train.
  • could only get above 80 on only a couple sections of the track between ny and new haven so having an even faster train doesn't make the trip fasterr

  • They're matching the current timetable which includes the older Acela fleet.

    When the old Acelas go away the timetable will be revised to reflect the higher speeds.

    It isn't rocket science to know this. The article is misleading to say the least.

  • I'm getting sent to "https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/28/generative-ai-reshapes-us-job-market-stanford-study-shows-entry-level-young-workers.html" from the link in the summary.

  • Not bad. (Score:2)

    by jd ( 1658 )

    50 years later and 26mph slower than Italy's high speed rail,30 years later and 40mph slower than France, 15 years later and 20mph slower than Spain, in a country with an awful lot more money, greater access to modern technology, a larger engineering pool, and a lot of relatively flat land.

    Still, one shouldn't complain. America is, at least, moving in a sensible direction on train travel, which is an improvement over how things were in 2000 when the Federal government weren't able to get a number of States

  • Have you read ./ lately?

  • Brand new trains that can only reach a maximum speed of 110mph most of the time are no faster than older trains that can only reach a maximum speed of 110mph most of the time? Who'da thunkit?

Slashdot Top Deals

Save a little money each month and at the end of the year you'll be surprised at how little you have. -- Ernest Haskins

Close