New Amtrak Acela train.. Avelia

[learmoia]

220MPH...? 

Huh.. Cool.. ~Ian

[peteski]

220 MPH?  Where? Probably on some short sections of the trackage.  How many places does the current Acela hit its maximum speed?  But it looks really cool!

[sirenwerks]

Like the new paint scheme!

[nuno81291]

Yuck! Uglier than the ACS! Hard to believe the Acela seems "classic" to me at this point... Probably to how a lot of you older folks felt of the AEM7s. Reminds me of every european train I have been on! Perhaps thats a step in the right direction...off to railroad.net to see the consensus 

[dougnelson]

Although it may be capable of 220, I believe Amtrak has said the new train would have a top speed of 160 mph on the existing NEC infrastructure. The existing Acelas do 150 mph in a few short stretches between Boston and New London. I hope the new train will do 160 mph in more areas than the Acela does 150.

[Scottl]

Is there a map anywhere showing the limiting speed on the NEC?  I remember seeing one on the ICE network in Germany. 

[sirenwerks]

Now, when do we start stringing up wires across the rest of America?

[eja]

Now, when do we start stringing up wires across the rest of America?

Never!   

Real estate and upkeep are too prohibitive

[peteski]

Why then bother to get new (and expensive) trains capable of running 220 MPH when the probability of it actually achieving those speeds it its expected lifetime is nill?    Does that sound like waste of money?

[davefoxx]

Well, it seems to me that things hold up better when you're not running them at 100% all of the time.

DFF

[peteski]

Well, it seems to me that things hold up better when you're not running them at 100% all of the time.

DFF

Does that mean that all the high-speed trains in Europe and Japan only run at a fraction of the speed they were designed to achieve? 

[Missaberoad]

Does that mean that all the high-speed trains in Europe and Japan only run at a fraction of the speed they were designed to achieve? 

I dont think the current Acela runs at its top speed, neither did the Turbo up here in Canada.

It probably isn't practical to design a slower high speed train just for one application.

[davefoxx]

Does that mean that all the high-speed trains in Europe and Japan only run at a fraction of the speed they were designed to achieve? 

Beats me, but I sure don't run my car at the red line all of the time.  Not to mention power curves, but, hey, we're now above my pay grade.

Anyhow, the 220 mph claim is probably a marketing ploy to win over the public and, more importantly, Congress for funding.  Besides, if you're looking to improve the travel time between, say, Washington and New York by train, it would be much wiser to improve the low-speed running getting out of Washington, running though Baltimore and Philadelphia, and entering New York, than it would be to just increase the top speed between towns.  It's the slow speed running that really kills the overall time from start to destination.

DFF

[peteski]

Beats me, but I sure don't run my car at the red line all of the time.  Not to mention power curves, but, hey, we're now above my pay grade.

I think that automobiles are rated a bit differently than trains. I suspect that trains are designed to run at their rated speeds for extended period of time.

[Missaberoad]

The current Acela runs 15 mph under its top speed (with its current gearing) and the Turbo ran 50 mph under its top speed.

I think purposly engineering a train to be slower would wind up costing more.

Looking at it globally most of the trains on this list do not operate at or even near their maximum speed.

http://www.railway-technology.com/features/feature-top-ten-fastest-trains-in-the-world