Acela testing for 165mph in the works

[user 1215]

What is the maximum possible speed for current Acela hardware if a whole new ROW was created with the straightest possible track and most precise tolerances?

I'm thinking that 160 is about it for the existing trainsets. That is 10 mph above the original spec. Given the issues Amtrak had getting the existing sets qualified for 150mph, I think that Amtrak has their fingers crossed about 160. I don't think it is a given.

The FRA is in the process of revising the testing rules to permit speed qualifying to only be 5mph over the target, not 10mph as presently required. My supposition is that they knew that Acela could not achieve 170mph under any circumstances.

Forget about PR. A HALF a BILLION dollars to improve time by 40 seconds! Spend the money allocated to the speed improvement to shore up the rest of the infrastructure.

With waste like this, Amtrak DESERVES to fail!

 

[transit54]

Forget about PR. A HALF a BILLION dollars to improve time by 40 seconds! Spend the money allocated to the speed improvement to shore up the rest of the infrastructure.

With waste like this, Amtrak DESERVES to fail!

I think it was well established above that the money is being put to good use to improve infrastructure. The speed improvement was probably necessary to qualify for the money under the HSR grant program. Do you have information on what percent of the project's cost is will have no benefit other than the speed improvement? I'm guessing very little.

If we could provide Amtrak dedicated infrastructure funding, much like we do for highways, Amtrak would not have needed to apply for this grant, at least not with the speed improvement tied in.

 

[Ryan]

After this upgrade is completed, some of those lowly commuter trains will be doing 125mph in that segment. Tracks 1 and 4 are going to be upgraded to 125mph from 110mph. NJT claims that they will certify the MLVs for 125mph and they will be hauled by ALP46As which aqre 125mph capable.

Same speed these lowly commuter trains down here in Maryland have been running for years.

Forget about PR. A HALF a BILLION dollars to improve time by 40 seconds! Spend the money allocated to the speed improvement to shore up the rest of the infrastructure.

With waste like this, Amtrak DESERVES to fail!

Did you completely ignore PRR60's response to the first time you said this?

There's a lot more to this than PR and a 40 second increase.

 

[afigg]

What is the maximum possible speed for current Acela hardware if a whole new ROW was created with the straightest possible track and most precise tolerances?

Reportedly the max possible speed for the Acelas is 165 mph, maybe a little more. So the 160 mph is the max speed for daily operation, if Amtrak can get approval from the FRA and upgrade the long straight segment in NJ.

I think what some are overlooking in these trials, is that the recent NEC Vision Plan calls for 4 additional 160 mph segments between Baltimore and Trenton by 2025 as parts of the goal of achieving a ~2:12 NYP to WAS Acela trip time - if Amtrak can get the funding. By 2025, the current Acelas will have reached the stated end of their operational life, so there should be Acela replacements in service by then. Which, one would hope, would be lighter, use less power, and have a better ride.

 

[Peter KG6LSE]

My supposition is that they knew that Acela could not achieve 170mph under any circumstances.

Up the Pan voltage a few kV and volla ! irony as it was done for that uber fast TGV run , along with larger wheels . :help:

 

[Dutchrailnut]

you don't design a train for 150 mph and then try to go faster, its bound to get massive equipment failures. the testing this sept. is on basicly unmodified infrastructure.

by time the track and caternary are upgraded we will be well beyond 2017 and way closer to next generation of Acela. As for current Acela I really for life of me can't see them doing more than 150 in revenue service, and even then they had problems with frame and damper cracks.

 

[jis]

To go from 150 to 165 will reduce the time by 1 minute. They're only talking about testing to 165, revenue would be 160. How many millions to save 40 seconds? It' doesn't even alter Acela's margin of OTP error!

While the speed is the PR aspect of the project, all the stuff going on in the background is far more important. The catenary power supply system (a huge problem) will be reinforced (expanded convertor capacity, two new substations), the catenary will be replaced, signaling will be improved, and there will be track and interlocking improvements. This would be a worthwhile project without the speed increase.

That is so true, and something that detractors of NEC in general and NEC around New York in particular tend to forget. It should also be noted that speed will be going up from 135 to 160, not from 150 to 160 in this segment. Of the $450 million a very large proportion is going towards bringing the system to s state of good repair, and a relatively small proportion towards specifically increasing the speed beyond 150. Just fixing the catenary, which needs to be done anyway, basically gets you to 150. Also remember that part of the money is going into fixing A interlocking in Penn Station, which is a major choke point.

 

[NE933]

Well, it's the middle of September, aaaaannnndddd...

Another forum reveals that there is lot's of electrical work going on at County; implied though not said is that tracks and switches will follow eventually.

And so my dear people, Amtrak has less than two weeks to stay on target of ramming those Acela trains to 165. Anyone wanna add what you know?

 

[jis]

There will be no track modification at County. It's upgrade was completed last year. There will be two new crossover put in place a little further west, one between track 3 and 4 at a new CP called Delcan at the west end of Jersey Avenue station platform, and the other between track 2 and 1 at the west end of Adams MoW yard, I forget what the name of the CP will be there, but seem to recall it being called Adams.

The electrical work in county is mostly in NJT yard leads, and some catenary wire replacement. They also appear to be laying a bunch of cables which is more likely for some signal repositioning and maintenance work.

The High Speed grant work is scheduled to begin early next year. It is still in design phase.

I don't think anyone is going to announce before hand when the test will be run, and who knows some may have run already. There is no significant track or catenary work involved for running these tests. And in any case they will not be at County interlocking.

 

[Ziv]

This is a bit OT, but I wish that improving the maximum speeds on the LD routes out west from 79 mph to 95 mph (or even 110 mph) would happen before the money was spent to improve Acela from 135 to 160. The same amount of money spent out west would save a lot more passenger hours than it would here in the east. I am glad the Acela is getting the upgrades, and I realize that the speed increase is just the lagniappe, so to speak, but thinking about what that kind of money could do for the California Zephyr or the Empire Builder... And building a third track for the Sunset Limited in a few locations might unclog some severe choke points.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

This is a bit OT, but I wish that improving the maximum speeds on the LD routes out west from 79 mph to 95 mph (or even 110 mph) would happen before the money was spent to improve Acela from 135 to 160. The same amount of money spent out west would save a lot more passenger hours than it would here in the east. I am glad the Acela is getting the upgrades, and I realize that the speed increase is just the lagniappe, so to speak, but thinking about what that kind of money could do for the California Zephyr or the Empire Builder... And building a third track for the Sunset Limited in a few locations might unclog some severe choke points.

Amtrak owns the NEC, but does not own the western tracks, so it's up to the freight RR's to improve their tracks.

 

[PRR 60]

This is a bit OT, but I wish that improving the maximum speeds on the LD routes out west from 79 mph to 95 mph (or even 110 mph) would happen before the money was spent to improve Acela from 135 to 160. The same amount of money spent out west would save a lot more passenger hours than it would here in the east. I am glad the Acela is getting the upgrades, and I realize that the speed increase is just the lagniappe, so to speak, but thinking about what that kind of money could do for the California Zephyr or the Empire Builder... And building a third track for the Sunset Limited in a few locations might unclog some severe choke points.

Amtrak owns the NEC, but does not own the western tracks, so it's up to the freight RR's to improve their tracks.

And up to Amtrak or the taxpayers to pay for it. No freight railroad needs high speed. Like the improvements now underway in Illinois, the cost of any speed improvements for passenger service is public responsibility.

 

[Ziv]

This is a bit OT, but I wish that improving the maximum speeds on the LD routes out west from 79 mph to 95 mph (or even 110 mph) would happen before the money was spent to improve Acela from 135 to 160. The same amount of money spent out west would save a lot more passenger hours than it would here in the east. I am glad the Acela is getting the upgrades, and I realize that the speed increase is just the lagniappe, so to speak, but thinking about what that kind of money could do for the California Zephyr or the Empire Builder... And building a third track for the Sunset Limited in a few locations might unclog some severe choke points.

Amtrak owns the NEC, but does not own the western tracks, so it's up to the freight RR's to improve their tracks.

And up to Amtrak or the taxpayers to pay for it. No freight railroad needs high speed. Like the improvements now underway in Illinois, the cost of any speed improvements for passenger service is public responsibility.

Both points are well taken, and after I posted I thought a bit more about the passenger hours being saved moreso out west and realized that saving 15 minutes in NJ helps a lot more people than saving an hour on the Empire Builder or the California Zephyr. I have just spent 5 years hoping for the new Positive Train Control system to start improving trip times, but I am beginning to doubt that it ever will improve speeds enough that the time savings will be ever anything more than simply a bit more timetable cushion for ensuring that the trains arrive on time at their destination. In some ways, the NEC is Amtrak since it carries such a high percentage of its passengers and generates so much revenue.

But my heart is with the Long Distance routes out west. They are the railroads I grew up with and they are the ones I love to travel on the most. I just wish there was a way for Amtrak to build second or third tracks alongside the freight tracks to allow the passenger trains to maintain higher speeds than they do currently, while also allowing for the two types of trains to operate without impeding each other. And yes, I know that is about as likely as the Nationals winning the World Series... But the Nat's are looking pretty darned good this year! ;-)

 

[Shawn Ryu]

Reading this thread people treat 150MPH as slow. It isnt, Most HSR trains don't go past 190 mph. 40 mph is a significant difference but lets not pretend its a snail to cheetah speed difference.

The problem is Amtrak NEC doesnt have a lot of places where Acela can go 150mph. If 1/3 of the entire NEC was improved to handle 150mph, I suspect it would seriously cut down travel time between DC and Boston.

 

[jis]

Reading this thread people treat 150MPH as slow. It isnt, Most HSR trains don't go past 190 mph. 40 mph is a significant difference but lets not pretend its a snail to cheetah speed difference.

The problem is Amtrak NEC doesnt have a lot of places where Acela can go 150mph. If 1/3 of the entire NEC was improved to handle 150mph, I suspect it would seriously cut down travel time between DC and Boston.

Hey! The French thought that going from 157mph to 186mph was a big deal so why shouldn't we? They even think going from 186mph to 200mph is a big deal too! Took them many years to get there.

 

[railiner]

This is a bit OT, but I wish that improving the maximum speeds on the LD routes out west from 79 mph to 95 mph (or even 110 mph) would happen before the money was spent to improve Acela from 135 to 160. The same amount of money spent out west would save a lot more passenger hours than it would here in the east. I am glad the Acela is getting the upgrades, and I realize that the speed increase is just the lagniappe, so to speak, but thinking about what that kind of money could do for the California Zephyr or the Empire Builder... And building a third track for the Sunset Limited in a few locations might unclog some severe choke points.

Trains 'out West', that use calendars instead of clocks for timekeeping.....what does it matter if minutes or even hours were saved? For the passengers on the transcontinental trains, time is of little consequence....just aboard mainly for pleasure. I do however, support effort to make what schedules they do have, reliable.

 

[Anderson]

This is a bit OT, but I wish that improving the maximum speeds on the LD routes out west from 79 mph to 95 mph (or even 110 mph) would happen before the money was spent to improve Acela from 135 to 160. The same amount of money spent out west would save a lot more passenger hours than it would here in the east. I am glad the Acela is getting the upgrades, and I realize that the speed increase is just the lagniappe, so to speak, but thinking about what that kind of money could do for the California Zephyr or the Empire Builder... And building a third track for the Sunset Limited in a few locations might unclog some severe choke points.

Trains 'out West', that use calendars instead of clocks for timekeeping.....what does it matter if minutes or even hours were saved? For the passengers on the transcontinental trains, time is of little consequence....just aboard mainly for pleasure. I do however, support effort to make what schedules they do have, reliable.

That's only dealing with the longer-distance passengers on said trains (i.e. EMY/SAC-CHI). With certain city pairs, such as CHI-DEN or less, CHI-MSP, SAC/EMY-Reno, LAX-SAC/EMY, CHI/STL-Dallas, Dallas-San Antonio, San Antonio-Houston-NOL, and other "shorter" pairs, those time differences make a very real difference in terms of marketability versus driving/taking a bus.

Naturally, with all of that said, I think a serious discussion on priorities is fair here...we probably can't get back to the situation we had in the 50s (when taking a day en route was not a big deal), but there is market share and ridership to be won. Let me give a few quick examples here:

1) Chicago-Minneapolis/St. Paul is a 418 mile run. Presently, that run takes 8:16 WB (or 496 minutes)*, for an average speed of 50.6 MPH. Minnesota currently thinks there might be enough business on that run to justify at least a second train on the route (I concur, for the record), and MSP generates a good deal of business for having just a single train per day in each direction (IIRC, ridership at the station runs about 120k/year, depending on how disrupted the Builder gets). Let's move that average speed up to 60.6 MPH, which will cut the runtime from 8:16 to 6:54. How much extra business do you think Amtrak could get with that speed? What if we move the speed up to 65 MPH even (which is going to be driving competitive most of the time once you throw in stops for fuel/food and possible traffic and/or weather), which would get 6:26? Either top speed should be doable with 90/110 MPH top speeds.

2) CHI-DEN is a 1038 mile overnight run which takes 18:15, or 1095 minutes, for an average speed of 56.9 MPH. Again, let's just throw 10 MPH onto the top speed, which would get us to 66.9 MPH. That, in turn, would knock the travel time down to 15:31 (or 931 minutes), for a time savings of 2:44. More importantly in many regards, however, this could allow the WB Chicago departure time to be moved forward by perhaps an an hour to 90 minutes (to avoid jamming Omaha and Lincoln too badly) and the EB arrival to be moved back similarly (same reasons). The resulting 3:00/3:30 PM departure becomes more sellable when combined with the convenient Denver arrival. Bumping things further (to an average speed of 70 MPH) gets you down to 890 minutes (or 14:50), which could be used to push the departure time to just after 4 PM. Lincoln is going to get screwed here, but the net business CHI-DEN should help make up for that. Moreover, cutting the time into the 15 hour range makes a daylight train on the route a plausible prospect with a running time on par with the Palmetto.

3) San Antonio-Houston-New Orleans. New Orleans-Houston is a run of 363 miles that takes 9:18 (or 558 minutes). There's a 37-minute hold at Houston, and then the train takes another 5:10 (or 310 minutes) to travel the next 210 miles. Combined, the run is 573 miles in 15:05 (or 905 minutes), for average speeds of:

NOL-HOU: 39.0 MPH

HOU-SAS: 40.6 MPH

NOL-SAS: 38.0 MPH

Let's allow a moment to stew over how bad those speeds are and shoot a dirty look in the direction of UP and SP. While I understand that UP isn't exactly keen to allow improvements here, assuming 50 MPH on each leg (plus a cut-down pad...let's say 15 minutes), you'd get:

NOL-HOU: 7:25 (1:53 saved)

HOU-SAS: 4:12 (0:58 saved)

NOL-SAS: 11:52 (3:13 saved)

Getting this to 60 MPH gets you:

NOL-HOU: 6:03 (3:15 saved)

HOU-SAS: 3:30 (1:40 saved)

NOL-SAS: 9:48 (5:17 saved)

NOL-SAS becomes an easy daylight run under such a schedule, HOU-SAS actually becomes seriously marketable as a corridor service, and NOL-HOU is a workable service as well.

My point with this is to note that those LD trains, with improvements, easily become more sellable to a lot of market segments. If taking the train is on par with "straight" driving time but you don't have to stare at the road for 15 hours at a go to pull it off (or blow large parts of two days), you have a selling point. If you can leave your originating city after work and arrive at your destination just after breakfast, that's also a selling point. And yes, I strongly believe that with substantial improvements such as these, some routes (such as CHI-DEN) could spin off second trains (or at least large second sections/"drop" sections of the current trains), particularly when intermediate stops come into play. Heck, you've already got a nascent version of this in the MSP car on the Builder and the occasionally dropped sleeper in Denver on the Zephyr.

I think the Acela improvements are perfectly valid to spend money on, yes, but I also always get nervous at seeing lots and lots of rail money going into a single project.

 

[user 1215]

Reading this thread people treat 150MPH as slow. It isnt, Most HSR trains don't go past 190 mph. 40 mph is a significant difference but lets not pretend its a snail to cheetah speed difference.

The problem is Amtrak NEC doesnt have a lot of places where Acela can go 150mph. If 1/3 of the entire NEC was improved to handle 150mph, I suspect it would seriously cut down travel time between DC and Boston.

Hey! The French thought that going from 157mph to 186mph was a big deal so why shouldn't we? They even think going from 186mph to 200mph is a big deal too! Took them many years to get there.

First, 29 MPH is a lot more than 15 MPH.

Second, I'm sure 186 MPH was done to more than 5 miles of track.

Instead of trying to impress sheeple into thinking that Acela is the premier 165 MPH train, they should spend that money upgrading more track to 150 MPH.

 

[jis]

Reading this thread people treat 150MPH as slow. It isnt, Most HSR trains don't go past 190 mph. 40 mph is a significant difference but lets not pretend its a snail to cheetah speed difference.

The problem is Amtrak NEC doesnt have a lot of places where Acela can go 150mph. If 1/3 of the entire NEC was improved to handle 150mph, I suspect it would seriously cut down travel time between DC and Boston.

Hey! The French thought that going from 157mph to 186mph was a big deal so why shouldn't we? They even think going from 186mph to 200mph is a big deal too! Took them many years to get there.

First, 29 MPH is a lot more than 15 MPH.

Second, I'm sure 186 MPH was done to more than 5 miles of track.

Instead of trying to impress sheeple into thinking that Acela is the premier 165 MPH train, they should spend that money upgrading more track to 150 MPH.

First, there is no 15mph upgrade. It is either 10mph (150 to 160 up north) or 25mph (135 to 160) in NEC South.

I guess it is futile to try to explain one more time that the difference in cost in going from 150 to 160 is rather small and will probably get you another less than 5 miles of track somewhere upto 150 from 125. The track is already pretty much OK for 160. The trains need to be certified for 160, and a few rules need to be revised at FRA. The catenary is what needs to be replaced and that is where the cost is, and it costs exactly the same whether it is done for 150 or 160. Those are only the items specifically related to upping the speed, though arguably, the catenary replacement has to be done anyway speed or no speed before the whole thing comes crashing down. One could argue that a slightly cheer catenary replacement could be done if speeds were not targeted to be 150 or 160, and were restricted to 125, but again, not by much.

I have no idea where the notion that Acelas will run at 165mph commercial speed comes from. That is just plain incorrect, if that is the context in which the 165 number is being thrown around.

BTW, the 186mph tracks were all new construction initially, e.g. the LGV Atlantique which was the first commercial 186mph track in France, and it came with a new generation of TGV train sets capable of 186mph. LGV Sud-Est, the original 160 mph track was upgraded much much later. That included a complete replacement of the cab signaling system with an upgrade to TVM430. Sud Est service using the original Orange sets continued at its original speed for many years after 186 mph became the new standard elsewhere in France.

BTW, upgrading existing classic track to 160mph is something that we do. The French don't do that. They upgrade classic tracks to 135/145mph at most. Anything higher is new construction on new RoW. Same is true of Germany and certainly of Japan, where anything HS is completely different gauge from existing JR tracks.

 

[Anderson]

Reading this thread people treat 150MPH as slow. It isnt, Most HSR trains don't go past 190 mph. 40 mph is a significant difference but lets not pretend its a snail to cheetah speed difference.

The problem is Amtrak NEC doesnt have a lot of places where Acela can go 150mph. If 1/3 of the entire NEC was improved to handle 150mph, I suspect it would seriously cut down travel time between DC and Boston.

Hey! The French thought that going from 157mph to 186mph was a big deal so why shouldn't we? They even think going from 186mph to 200mph is a big deal too! Took them many years to get there.

First, 29 MPH is a lot more than 15 MPH.

Second, I'm sure 186 MPH was done to more than 5 miles of track.

Instead of trying to impress sheeple into thinking that Acela is the premier 165 MPH train, they should spend that money upgrading more track to 150 MPH.

Ok, /this/ I will agree with. Mind you, I'm not opposed to "vaulting" track from 135 MPH straight to 160 MPH (which, IIRC, is what's being done in NJ)...but given that amount of money, I think Amtrak might well get more ridership trying to do something on the RF&P between RVR and WAS. Right now, WAS-NYP is more or less maxed out in terms of ridership (very little in the way of improvement seems likely for the Regionals, and a lot of folks just can't afford the $300+ that most Acela tickets go for NYP-WAS on a round trip), and the New Haven Line north of NYP isn't likely to see more than incremental bumps in speeds.

Likewise, I think Amtrak is too optimistic as to how much ridership they'll generate for their proposed 200 MPH lines unless they plan to cap fares or start actually discounting fares on low-traffic Acelas. $163/person one way seems to be low bucket WAS-BOS. That's $1304 for a family of four (two adults, two kids) on the Acela. Compare that to $70/$35 for adult/child fares on a Regional: $420 for that same family of four in Coach on the same trip on the same day, and with a LOT more flexibility in times (I count only the 5 AM Acela and the 10 AM Acela at $163; all 9 Regionals list the $105 fare option). Even going to BC on a Regional "only" hikes the cost to $804 for the round trip ($500 less than the Acela at the apparent low bucket). These fares just aren't, well, family friendly.

Another way to look at it is that there's no way in H-E-double-hockey-sticks I could afford to put up with the Acela as much as I do on points runs were I married with children.

It's a matter of putting a given sum of rail money to the best use possible. Yes, Amtrak can probably flog another couple hundred thousand riders out of the NEC above and beyond standard growth patterns. If they can get "real" improvements north of NYP, then yes, a few million will probably shake loose. But there's a limit on the higher-end services if fares aren't going to be capped. By contrast, I do think that Amtrak could shake a few million riders out of VA and NC with an aggressive improvement program involving dedicated rights-of-way, 110/125 MPH maximum speeds (or, if they're putting in a dedicated ROW, just biting the bullet and going for 150 MPH). It might not /quite/ equal the NEC at present, but at the moment I think it's easier to find 3-5m riders above regular growth patterns in VA/NC than it is on the NEC, and you can find them for a lot less.

 

[user 1215]

The 165 came from my very sleepy and tangled brain.

 

[user 1215]

BTW, upgrading existing classic track to 160mph is something that we do. The French don't do that. They upgrade classic tracks to 135/145mph at most. Anything higher is new construction on new RoW. Same is true of Germany and certainly of Japan, where anything HS is completely different gauge from existing JR tracks.

Yes, it will be expensive to build a dedicated HSR RoW. There's no argument in that. But it's really the best way to introduce TRUE HSR in the US. It's that separate RoW that has allowed JNR/JR to achieve a near perfect safety record after 40+ years and unprecidented on time performance. Keep in mind that they didn't abandon the "old" trunk lines in Japan. It's still very possible to take local trains the entire distance (other than many of the Shinkansen stations were purpose built and not necessarily a junction with the local traffic). The current NEC could release the Acela to a dedicated RoW, increasing the capacity for many more shorter distance connectors.

 

[jis]

BTW, upgrading existing classic track to 160mph is something that we do. The French don't do that. They upgrade classic tracks to 135/145mph at most. Anything higher is new construction on new RoW. Same is true of Germany and certainly of Japan, where anything HS is completely different gauge from existing JR tracks.

Yes, it will be expensive to build a dedicated HSR RoW. There's no argument in that. But it's really the best way to introduce TRUE HSR in the US. It's that separate RoW that has allowed JNR/JR to achieve a near perfect safety record after 40+ years and unprecidented on time performance. Keep in mind that they didn't abandon the "old" trunk lines in Japan. It's still very possible to take local trains the entire distance (other than many of the Shinkansen stations were purpose built and not necessarily a junction with the local traffic). The current NEC could release the Acela to a dedicated RoW, increasing the capacity for many more shorter distance connectors.

I agree that the only way to get true HSR is to use new RoW. However, I am not convinced that such can be achieved on much of the NEC given other ground and political realities at present. Even if it was possible I would not move the current Acelas to the new RoW. I'd acquire purpose built high speed Tier III sets to run at 200mph on those, which cannot mix with Tier II equipment. The present Acela sets should be used for milk run higher speed service like the Kodama service in Japan, on the existing RoW, which is what they were originally designed for.

BTW, neither the French nor the Germans have abandoned any significant classic lines as a result of the construction of LGV/Neubaustrecke either, even though unlike Japan the new and old lines are the same gauge. Indeed the original LGV Sud-Est was built as a traffic reliever for the classic Paris Lyon line, and not as a replacement. You are absolutely correct in surmising that if a new RoW HSR is built in the NEC area, it should be as a traffic reliever rather than as a replacement of anything.

 

[NE933]

the cost of any speed improvements for passenger service is public responsibility.

It's easier to know what you have than not knowing what you don't have.

The cost of knowing what one should pay is a faster calculation of not knowing what one should not pay, witch is not to say one cost is cheaper or pricier than the other, because the first bill to be paid will see all the following bills paid afterwards.

 

[jis]

the cost of any speed improvements for passenger service is public responsibility.

It's easier to know what you have than not knowing what you don't have.

The cost of knowing what one should pay is a faster calculation of not knowing what one should not pay, witch is not to say one cost is cheaper or pricier than the other, because the first bill to be paid will see all the following bills paid afterwards.

Confucius couldn't have said it any better