# Acela at 150 - 180 MPH (Hypothetical)



## seat38a (Nov 29, 2014)

While watching couple videos of Acela passing by at 150 MPH, I was pondering what would the NEC and Acela be like if it was running the full length from BOS -> WAS at 150 MPH? Or even at the TGV's 180 MPH? Especially after my recent HSR train trip in Korea, and reading up on the history of the system, I'm thinking pretty much all the airline shuttles would be out of business and possibly profit to cover the whole system. If the Acela is printing money at the current half assed HSR speeds. At 150 MPH BOS -> WAS in 3.5 hours, NYC -> WAS in 1.5 hours. I'm also guessing more turns using less train sets so also less capital cost. I'm basing this on incremental improvements to the current tracks not a full blown newly built HSR rail line.


----------



## Ryan (Nov 29, 2014)

I assume this hypothetical also involves different laws of physics that would allow the train to go that fast without derailing?


----------



## Ziv (Nov 29, 2014)

How many corners/bridges/tunnels are there between NYC and WAS that require an Acela to slow below 100 mph? It would be cool to see how fast a 160 mph Acela could conceivably make an express run from NY to DC, with maybe just one stop in Philly, though Baltimore would probably make sense as a stop as well since the train has to slow down so much in the tunnel anyway.

The more knowledgeable posters here have probably seen this calculated before, but I can't remember how fast an Acela could reasonably be scheduled if they did get uprated to 160 mph and the worst of the slow spots were removed/improved.


----------



## seat38a (Nov 29, 2014)

Ziv said:


> How many corners/bridges/tunnels are there between NYC and WAS that require an Acela to slow below 100 mph? It would be cool to see how fast a 160 mph Acela could conceivably make an express run from NY to DC, with maybe just one stop in Philly, though Baltimore would probably make sense as a stop as well since the train has to slow down so much in the tunnel anyway.
> 
> The more knowledgeable posters here have probably seen this calculated before, but I can't remember how fast an Acela could reasonably be scheduled if they did get uprated to 160 mph and the worst of the slow spots were removed/improved.


Bridges, tunnels and turns would all reasonably handled by slowing down or handled through the "incremental improvements". But right now, the train only runs at 150 like on 20 something miles of track on 456 miles of track. So say we even average 100+ MPH throughout the whole run. Thats a big improvement over the 70+ MPH average speed currently.


----------



## William W. (Nov 29, 2014)

I've found that the Acela's speed is pretty consistent between WAS and NYP. Once past NYP, however, Metro North train interference causes it to crawl (when compared to its max speed) between NYP and NHV.


----------



## Anderson (Nov 29, 2014)

William W. said:


> I've found that the Acela's speed is pretty consistent between WAS and NYP. Once past NYP, however, Metro North train interference causes it to crawl (when compared to its max speed) between NYP and NHV.


There are a few issues between WAS and NYP, but they're pretty localized and identified (the Baltimore Tunnels are one, and there are some bridges with issues as well). Bear in mind that the Acela presently covers WAS-NYP in 2:45-2:50 (basically an average of 80 MPH give or take), and a mix of straightening out those issues and catenary improvements (IIRC there are some segments where an overhead wire fix-up would get you from 135 to 150) should get you pretty close to 2:30 (or an average of 90 MPH).

On NEC-North? Big mess there due to a hemmed-in alignment, non-cooperation from MNRR, and some other issues. Let's just say that while NEC Future is largely looking at keeping the present alignment south of NYP, there's a reason they want a new one north of there.


----------



## Ziv (Dec 1, 2014)

2:30 NY Penn to WAS would be pretty impressive for the States.

I tend to use the Capitol Limited and the Empire Builder more than the NEC, and they are pretty pokey. I thought that positive train control would let the EB stretch it legs and get up to 95 mph at least but that ain't happening. And then there is the freight traffic issue...


----------



## jis (Dec 1, 2014)

PTC by itself is not going to change a single thing as far as schedule speeds of LD trains go. Someone will first have to pay for re-timing all crossing gates and such, and I am sure the freight railroads will happily dream up half a dozen other things that will first need to be taken care of.

90mph would be possible if the railroads could be convinced to go up from Class 4 to Class 5 track. There are some segments where freight is allowed at 70mph, and theoretically at least on those segments passenger 90mph would be possible without in increment of track class. 95 is an entirely different kettle of fish, since it reacquires a higher class track (class 6) involving additional maintenance too.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 1, 2014)

90 MPH is also apparently a sort of "berserk button" for, at the very least, CSX: They'll work with Amtrak up to 90, but they go a little nuts if you want to go faster. NS is the same with 79 MPH, BNSF works with 90 MPH in a few cases, and I don't know what the attitudes of UP, CN, CP, or KCS are.


----------



## jis (Dec 1, 2014)

The Lincoln Corridor is UP. So at least UP is willing to go to 110 on some trackage.

Considering that ATSF at one point was able to run a hotshot service as fast as the Chief between Chicago and Los Angeles using max speed of 70mph, I suspect some freight railroads can be convinced to go with freight speeds upto 80 which gives passenger speed of 90. Clearly they are reserving that ability by sticking to the 90 number. beyond that it would be incremental passenger specific costs, and they are willing to use that as a leverage to try to get the passenger trains completely off of freight tracks if they can, as appears to be the case with CSX in NY State.


----------



## Guest (Dec 3, 2014)

K


----------

