Talk:Acela/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Definition of high-speed

An editor has recently disputed the statement that the Acela is a "high-speed" train. According to the UIC, the international railway organization, the "high-speed" is generally defined as over 200 km/h for trains on existing lines, and over 250 km/h for new lines[1]. As the Acela has a maximum operating speed of 240 km/h, this can safely be defined as a high-speed train. Incidentally, nowhere in the definitions is there any stipulation about average speed. --DAJF (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

That all seems very sensible. And in some instances, even "trains capable of operating at 160 km/h...may... be considered as high speed." Good enough for me. Thank you. Hertz1888 (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Maybe... and I think clearly it's not "not high speed" but I think high speed is definitely a contested term and there are European definitions (I think the AVE, and TGV definitions) that would discount Acela from being considered high speed... and you have the issue of highest speed on a route vs. averages. I think it deserves at least a footnote of explanation. gren グレン 19:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
The accepted definition of high-speed rail is a train with an in-service top speed of over 200 km/h (125 mph). The Acela Express certainly meets this requirement. While there are only 32.3 miles of 150 mph track, there are many sections of track with a 135 mph maximum authorized speed. But even if there was only 1 mile of track with a MAS greater than 125 mph, the Acela Express still would meet the current UIC definition of high-speed rail. Only if the definition is changed, and the Acela Express does not satisfy the new definition, is this even debatable. Jersey emt (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Revisiting high-speed definition (2014)

I'd like to revisit this point, as I do not think that the European definition of "high-speed rail" is accurately characterized above. The exact phrasing of the EU directive on high-speed rail (Council Directive 96/48/EC of 23 July 1996 on the interoperability of the trans-European high-speed rail system) is as follows. On the infrastructure that comprises a high-speed rail system:


The infrastructure that Acela Express runs on is, with the exception of very short sections, not specifically built for high-speed travel, nor is it specifically upgraded for high-speed travel. The Council directive provides an exception for connecting lines, like those that go through cities or tunnels, but it does not allow for most of the line not being unable to support high-speed travel. Low-speed sections of the line are supposed to be the exception, only existing where special circumstances, like cities and tunnels, prevent high speeds. For Acela, low-speed infrastructure is the norm, and high-speed infrastructure is the exception.

The directive continues,


The Northeastern corridor is not generally equipped for speeds of 200 km/h. It is generally equipped for speeds on the order of 100 km/h. The sections of the track where it is not equipped for 200 km/h are not limited by special topographical or town-planning constraints, which the Council directive allows for, but rather simply by their poor infrastructure.

The EU definition of high-speed rail pretty clearly expects 200 km/h to be the norm on upgraded lines, not the exception. It expects speeds on this order not to be possible only in small segments with special constraints. It does not expect most of the line to be incapable of supporting high speeds simply because it has not been upgraded.

It's also pretty clear, just by comparing Acela to virtually every system in the world deemed "high-speed," that Acela doesn't belong in the same category. It travels virtually its entire route at highway speeds, and in fact has an average speed slower than that of cars on the highway. It's more comparable to regional trains in other countries.

Finally, I don't see any citation for Acela Express being considered "high-speed." If it is generally referred to as "high-speed rail," then please correct me. For all the reasons given here, I'm going to replace the designation "high-speed" with "express" in the article. Acela Express really is Amtrak's "express" route, as it uses the same infrastructure as all the other low-speed trains, but makes fewer stops. -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:15, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I fail to see how a single, euro-centric definition can be applied world wide, let alone to another continent entirely. Also, the focus given here neglects the trains themselves, which have technology (tilting trains, especially) to aid in high-speed operations despite the older infrastructure. More importantly, though, is to restate that a EU legal definition has absolutely NO bearing on a train in North America, and cannot be used to qualify or disqualify something. To do such would be a form of WP:SYNTH. Do not change it. oknazevad (talk) 12:28, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm referencing the EU definitions because we have to have some sort of point of reference. I don't see what sources we're relying on to claim that Acela Express is "high-speed rail." Are there sources we're using to make this claim? Stepping back, I don't see how we can reasonably claim that a train with an average operational speed less than half of the average operational speed of high-speed railways around the world is itself "high-speed." It doesn't operate on dedicated high-speed track, or even (except for a very short segment) upgraded track. The trains are capable of high speed, but the infrastructure doesn't support high speed. It makes more sense to note somewhere in the article that Acela Express trains incorporate high-speed technology, but not to characterize the system or service as "high-speed." It simply isn't. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
Agreed, it is not high-speed. It is high-speed capable, but let's face it, "high-speed" is Amtrak marketing. When regular steam locomotive passenger service from 70 years ago was faster than Acela is now, using high-speed is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.28.154.104 (talk) 20:45, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
I think American rail services should be categorized by American definition. However, let's entertain the idea of having to use an international definition. UIC is the most authoritive source of the international definition for HSR which incorporates Euro definition but wih some exceptions added to it. UIC clearly gives Acela a high-speed title at 240 km/h on the Northeast Corridor. See their document here [2]. This is a clear cut case that does not need further research on it. UIC declares Acela as HSR by the international definition. That's all I need to say. Z22 (talk) 01:33, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
I think we should take a practical attitude to the question of whether Acela is "high-speed." The UIC calls the Northeast corridor "high-speed," but I don't think the UIC is the ultimate authority on the question. In newspaper articles, Acela is sometimes referred to as high speed, and it is sometimes called non-high-speed. I list a couple of examples below:
"High-speed rail in the United States is closest to reality in California, but the nation's busiest rail route - the Northeast Corridor - is struggling just to keep the trains running as Amtrak pleads for money to eventually bring bullet trains to the Northeast." - "Northeast Corridor transit firms work to retrofit railways," by Paul Nussbaum, 28 November 2013, The Philadelphia Inquirer
"But when Amtrak issued draft specifications for the new trains on Nov. 19, gone were the requirements for 220 m.p.h service on the Northeast Corridor. Instead, the requirements were set for 160 miles per hour.
"Rod Diridon, a high-speed-rail expert who is the executive director of the Mineta Transportation Institute in San Jose, said the new Amtrak 160-m.p.h. specification 'is sure news to me.'
"'We all thought the joint specs called for the standard international definition of high-speed rail, which is at least 300 kilometers per hour, or 186 miles per hour, remembering that the most modern of the international trains are indeed traveling 220 m.p.h. in daily service,' Diridon said."
... BY THE NUMBERS: 150. Fastest speed that Acela Express trains now reach. High-speed rail could increase that speed to 220 m.p.h. - "Northeast Corridor high-speed-rail plan slows to 160 m.p.h.," by Paul Nussbaum, 8 December 2013, The Philadelphia Inquirer
"The Florida route was one of only two true high-speed rail projects -- with trains capable of going more than 150 miles per hour, as is common in Europe and China -- to win some of the $8 billion in high-speed rail money in the Stimulus Act that was awarded in January. (The Acela trains on the Northeast Corridor are capable of going 150 m.p.h., but average only around half that because they operate on crowded, curvy tracks.)" - "Stimulus Plan For Rail Line Shows System Of Weak Links," by Michael Cooper, 23 March 2010, The New York Times
"'The Acela, of course, is the moneymaker,' said Marcus Peacock, project director for Subsidyscope. 'And that's the closest thing we have to high-speed rail right now.'" - "On a Faster Track," by Susan Stellin, 29 December 2009, The New York Times
"In the meantime, the Acela, Amtrak's express train running from Boston to New York to Washington, looks like a homely tortoise by comparison with its sleek brethren here, averaging only 71 miles an hour. Spain's high-speed train sector seems well positioned to expand. All AVE lines currently turn a profit and have easily survived price wars waged by airlines, Professor Valls said. What is more, trains require fewer employees and far less costly infrastructure than do planes." - "Train Travel Takes Off in High Speed and Comfort," by Elisabeth Rosenthal, 18 March 2010, The New York Times
There are a lot of journalists who write about Acela being slow, and about it not being high-speed rail, as the term is generally understood internationally. The question then is whether we should decide that only the UIC's judgement matters, or what journalists and the experts they consult say (like Rod Diridon, from the second quotation in the above list), or what other organizations, like the EU, consider to be high-speed rail. I think we should take a practical attitude. What is the purpose of writing this article? To let readers find out about Acela. Does it help the reader to better understand what Acela is if we tell them that Acela is high-speed rail? I don't think it helps the reader at all. In fact, I think it's downright confusing, given how radically slow Acela is compared to almost every other system in the world that gets labeled "high-speed rail."
I have a compromise solution. We can discuss high-speed rail in the article, noting both the UIC classification and the differences between Acela and international high-speed rail systems, as discussed by many sources. But we should not call Acela "high-speed" right off the bat in the lede, since it's not at all helpful to the reader, and because labeling Acela "high-speed rail" is a pretty controversial statement. In the lede, we should introduce Acela as Amtrak's "express train" on the Northeast Corridor, just as the last New York Times article cited above does. That way, we don't come down on the sticky question right away, and leave room to discuss it in a new section. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:01, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
So you start out your baseline by using EU Directives because you want to have "some sort of point of reference" and at that time you didn't reference to any news articles such that if people accept the Directives as standard then it is good enough for you. But when you are faced with the real UIC standard on the definition, all the sudden, you cherry pick some articles to be the basis of definition which is WP:UNDUE. If there is an existence of international standard to address any ambiguities on HSR definition and we just don't take that into account, then why having the international standard in the first place? Some of the news articles you use were referring to the new HSR line which is a new build out which will require the top speeds to be higher by the international standard but that is not applicable to the upgraded line like the current NEC. I agree with you that Acela is not a "true" HSR, but it is a HSR which is what it is said in this article. By the way, it is also defined in the federal law of the United States that Acela is a HRS. Go check the US Codes. Z22 (talk) 12:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

We should be using the best source available to guide this discussion. It's not clear why we should favor newspaper articles discussing "high-speed" incidentally over a source which defines the term. High-speed rail is a political football in the United States, and in popular usage means new builds. That doesn't match the technical definition. Newspaper articles are often very loose with jargon; I have seen many articles use "commuter rail" and "intercity rail" interchangeably, but we wouldn't use those to declare a long-distance train a "commuter train". Mackensen (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

The articles I cite above don't touch incidentally on high-speed rail. That's their focus. I don't see why the UIC classification is the best source available to guide this discussion. It's a problematic classification to begin with, because it's at odds with how most countries define high-speed rail, and with what most rail engineers consider high-speed rail. In most places, high-speed rail means that the infrastructure is capable of supporting high speeds, except in places where difficult topographical features prohibit it, or in cities, where legacy track is used. That doesn't describe Acela at all. Acela runs on largely non-upgraded track, not capable of supporting speeds in excess of what legacy systems can achieve. Given how many technical experts and articles describe Acela as not being high-speed rail, I don't think we should decide that UIC's definition is the only one that matters. I think the compromise I proposed earlier deals with this issue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 21:23, 20 June 2014 (UTC)
The US Code definition is all forms of nonhighway ground transportation that run on rails or electromagnetic guideways providing transportation service which is- (A) reasonably expected to reach sustained speeds of more than 125 miles per hour; and (B) made available to members of the general public as passengers. Federal documents like grant dispositions indicate that the federal government does consider the Acela to be high speed rail by its definition; it reaches 125+ mph for sustained sections in every state than it operates in except New York as indicated by NEC employee timetables. The lede should say "high speed rail" in the first sentence; however, it would not be inappropriate to have a sentence stating that the federal government considers it high speed rail though it does not meet more rigorous European definitions. Certainly that should be properly integrated into the criticism and high speed infrastructure sections, which currently contain duplicate and confusing information. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure why European standards matter: we wouldn't indicate on European train articles that a certain service met the US standard for high-speed rail but not the European one, would we? Referring back to the question of newspaper articles, my point is simply that we can't trust the press to use a term of art correctly unless the article is defining and discussing said term of art. If the UIC, Amtrak, and the US Code call Acela high-speed rail, but outside qualified experts do not, then there's a tension there and their views should be discussed in the article proper. Mackensen (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It is not true that Acela runs on largely non-upgraded track for conventional rail. The speed limit for conventional rail in the United States is 79 miles per hour (127 km/h). Amtrak has upgraded and maintained the Northeast Corridor on the portion that it owns (from Washington DC to Boston excluding the potion from New York to Connecticut) since the introduction of Acela to the track Class 8 [3] which has maximum speed limit of 160 miles per hour (260 km/h).[4] (but many segments limit 135 miles per hour (217 km/h) due to aging electrical systems). Yes, Acela runs very slow in the 56-mile segment between New Rochelle, NY to New Haven, CT,[5] but it runs largely at top speeds of 135 miles per hour (217 km/h) between New York and Washington D.C.[6]. But again, the schedule for Acela is not that great. It stops at intermediate stations in term of minutes compared to HSR services in other counties that stop in term of seconds. In the end, the average speeds are pretty low, but no definitions of HSR talk about average speeds.
The quotes in the NYTimes were taken out of context. The expert clearly questioned Amtrak strategy on the purchase for their Next-Gen equipment which were originally planned in 2012[7] to be 220 mph so that they can use them to start phasing out the current Acela fleet and the new fleet can still be used when the new dedicated HSR line is completed. He was talking about top speeds of equipment for new HSR lines when mentioning the international standard, not about the upgraded line like current NEC. If we want to get some definitions from "experts", go for the trade magazines. I am giving here some examples here:
  • 'Acela Express' becoming from 2003 the only application of the name and specific to high-speed services by the new trains. (Railway Technology)
  • '[H]igh speed rail' is a term loosely defined on this side of the Atlantic. In Europe and Asia planners often limit its use to trains running at 200 km/h and above... [T]he high speed movement did not reach its next milestone until 2001, when Amtrak brought its Acela trainsets into service on the Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington DC. For the first time the USA had regularly-scheduled trains travelling at speeds greater than 215 km/h. (Railway Gazette)
  • In service since late 2000, Amtrak’s Acela Express high speed trainsets have operated at a maximum speed of 135 mph on the New York-Washington segment of the Northeast Corridor... The tests will utilize high-speed Acela Express equipment. (Railway Age)
I do not dispute that Amtrak's HSR services are lame compared to other counties. Having a lame HSR system does not change the fact that it is still a HSR. So we should still call it HSR in the lede and I don't think we need to go into the details of whether some may not consider it to be HSR in the lede. We can incorporate those criticisms into the section that talks about operating speeds. Z22 (talk) 03:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
First off, the quote by Diridon is not taken out of context. He is specifically talking about plans to upgrade the NEC, and he states that the new plans for the NEC will not meet "the standard international definition of high-speed rail." He describes this standard as, "at least 300 kilometers per hour, or 186 miles per hour, remembering that the most modern of the international trains are indeed traveling 220 m.p.h. in daily service." Newspaper articles focused on the issue of high-speed rail are reliable, especially when they cite outside experts.
Secondly, I don't think we should be relying solely on the rather idiosyncratic definition of high-speed rail used by the FRA and the ad-hoc classification of the UIC. Wikipedia has a global scope, and when we label Acela "high-speed," that should mean that it is "high-speed" in the sense commonly understood around the world. The alternative definition is not simply an EU definition. It's what is meant by high-speed rail in East Asia as well, where such systems run mostly on upgraded track capable of supporting high speeds, and where the systems achieve average speeds far in excess of those achieved by Acela.
Thirdly, I'm not arguing that Acela trainsets are not high-speed equipment. They most certainly are, just as the trade magazine Z22 cited states. But a high-speed rail system encompasses not only fast trainsets, but also infrastructure capable of supporting high speeds. What percentage of the NEC can support 125 mph? What percentage supports the advertised top speed of 150 mph? Most of the corridor operates well below these speeds. The fact that a train reaches speeds that are typically considered "high-speed" on limited sections of a network does not mean that the network is "high-speed." It's a conventional system with limited upgrades, or to paraphrase the UIC, a system that is far below international standards of high-speed rail, but which nevertheless has made "laudable efforts" in increasing speed.
Fourthly, and most importantly, what's the motivation to call Acela "high-speed rail"? Yes, the FRA uses a definition of high-speed rail that is different from how the term is commonly understood around the world, and the UIC includes the NEC in its list of high-speed corridors, apparently on the grounds that "it is also necessary to take into account those railways which are making laudable efforts to provide high speed despite a basis of old infrastructure and technology which is far removed from that employed by the railways of western Europe." And every other region that has high-speed rail, one might add. Again, our goal is to inform the reader about what Acela is. If we tell them right away that Acela is high-speed, they could very easily get the mistaken impression that Acela is high-speed in the sense commonly used around the world. If we want to avoid giving this mistaken impression, I'd say the best way to address the issue is to avoid the issue in the first sentence, and to perhaps note later that the FRA considers Acela "high-speed," and then to include a section in the article discussing the issue. Our goal, after all, is to write the article in the most informative way possible. -Thucydides411 (talk) 05:43, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure how you can say "global scope" and then insist on a European definition (EU) over an international (UIC) one. Even then, your newspaper examples don't tally. Diridon says 186 mph. What definition is that? It's not the EU definition. I'll note that the East Coast Main Line is similar infrastructure and is also described as high-speed, being an upgraded conventional route with operating speeds between 125-140 MPH. None of the definitions I've seen quoted make any provision for average speed, or how much of the infrastructure supports the top speed, or some such. Mackensen (talk) 12:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

If I may, I think this discussion has played itself out. Thucydides411, you're advancing a position contrary to our own article on high-speed rail. Reliable sources support the idea that the Acela Express is high-speed rail. Sources which take a contrary position either do not explain why it is not high-speed rail or advance a definition of high-speed rail not supported elsewhere (if the standard is 186 MPH then many, many articles must be revised). I don't see any basis for revising the article as written; if there's a place for an arcane discussion about terminology it's probably high-speed rail. Mackensen (talk) 12:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for an arcane discussion about the meaning of high-speed rail. Much more it's the reverse. I'm saying that because Acela is so clearly different from high-speed rail around the world, and given that it would be considered a legacy system almost anywhere that has "true" high-speed rail, we should not rely on a classification by a single industry group to label it high-speed rail. When many reliable sources describe it as not being high-speed rail (and I have listed several that do just this, based on a cursory search), it becomes even more inappropriate to insist on using the UIC's classification alone. From a common-sense point of view, wanting to write an informative article, I really do not understand the motivation to label Acela high-speed rail in the lede. If you've seen high-speed systems outside the United States, it is obvious that Acela is a very far cry from high-speed rail. To take Germany as an example, Acela would compare with the standard InterCity trains, which achieve a slightly higher average operating speed. It seems that most editors here are of the opinion that only maximum operating speed matters, and not average speed, or the percentage of the track along which high speeds are attained. That sounds more like arcane wrangling than asking that we go by international standards of high-speed rail and reporting on high-speed rail in national newspapers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 15:20, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
If you are so convinced that the overwhelming majority of the trackage was not built for high-speed operations, could you please provide reliable sources that specifically indicate that on the rail infrastructure side, the overwhelming majority of the line is limited to low speeds? Please include which segments from where to where are specifically conventional rail and at what speeds the equipment are operated on those segments. I already provided reliable sources that indicate otherwise. The majority of the track, according to the sources, is maintained to Class 8 at 160 mph. On the electrical side, the systems on the majority of line are maintained to 135 mph. Obviously, with the understanding that the chock points (bridges, tunnels, sharp curves, interlocks, etc.) are not at those speeds. And also in the high-density metro areas, there wouldn't be operating at those speeds. There is only one segment of 56 miles out of four hundred miles that is limited to 75 mph as mentioned in one of your articles (Philly Inquirer). So how come 56 mile length become a majority of the line? Z22 (talk) 19:15, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Counting directly off an NEC ETT gives 205 miles of the 453 mile corridor as allowing 125 to 150 mph for tilting trains (i.e, the Acela). This includes 135 of the 225 miles between New York and Washington DC, the section traversed by the most Acela trains. As Z22 stated, all except the 56 miles controlled by Metro-North are maintained to unambiguously HSR standards (check your sources, Z22 - the constant-tension catenary north of New Haven should all be good for 160mph (hence 150mph operations in RI and MA), as is that being installed in New Jersey). As Mackensen stated, I think we're done here - the consensus is obvious. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:48, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I see a lot of opinion, but not a lot of verifiable sources to back them up. "consensus is obvious" ... maybe, but there's not a lot backing up either side of the fence. This is not exactly Wikipedia at its best. Tenean (talk) 00:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
I already provided a lot of links to documents from reliable sources to back up my argument about 1) UIC as an international standard that specifically declars that NEC (Acela) is HSR. 2) List of trade magazines that indicate that Acela is HSR. 3) Transportation planning articles that indicate the Class 8 track for most of the segments owned by Amtrak and the 135 mph speeds for most of the line between NY and Washington DC and they mentioned that north of New Haven is new infrastructure. 4) A document that shows about the Next-Gen NEC which will be a new alignment build out in parallel to the other upgrade projects of exiting NEC called NEC-UP. That is the basis for to the reason that the equipment that Diridon was talking about were for the eventual new NEC alignment (Next-Gen) therefore he was talking about the "international standard" of new lines, not for upgraded lines like the current NEC that Acela uses. So if anyone missed any of these, please feel free to scroll up to read my comments to access those documents.
In addition to what I provided as the sources, the original poster already provided a reference to a Philly Inquirer article that confirms that only 56 miles are restricted to 75 mph. This should in fact strengthen the argument that the conventional part of the line is only 56 miles which is in minority, not the majority as claimed by the original poster. Also, someone posted a reference on U.S. Code (enacted by the US Congress, not by FRA) that specifically defines HSR as services reaching speeds greater than 125 mph which Acela obviously did. Let me know if there is any missing references on this side of the argument. Z22 (talk) 00:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
Essentially then what you are saying is that this trainset is HSR because the US says so. Same way that they ruled tomatoes are a vegetable. If North Korea, which has trains running between 30~60km/h, decided to define 80km/h as "high speed" and 100km/h as "ultra high speed" and then go on a rant internationally touting their "high speed rail", the world would be laughing, and rightfully so. In the end the only thing that matters is average speed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.193.213.4 (talk) 09:58, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
Nope. It has nothing to do with what the US wants to say. UIC is an international body based in Europe (check their website). Again, I have provided the reference to that UIC document many times that specifically said that Acela on NEC is HSR. So it's more like the international body of HSR experts said so. Z22 (talk) 12:19, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

Length at each speed out of date?

"Its maximum speed limit is 150 mph (241 km/h) on two sections of track totaling 28 mi (45 km) in Rhode Island and Massachusetts."

The reference for this is from 2005 and I've seen a longer number (in the 30s) thrown about. I can only imagine things are slightly improving over time. B137 (talk) 04:58, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

I think this is still correct. There is an ongoing project to increase speeds to 160 mph and to expand max speed operation to several sections in multiple states. It will be completed in 2017. Here. Z22 (talk) 13:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Not sure if we can imply from that press release that the 29.2 mile in RI and 27.8 miles in MA currently have max speeds of 150 mph for the entire length of those two sections. Z22 (talk) 14:06, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Ah but at the very least then it is that length in each state? I thought it was the total between the two states. B137 (talk) 18:38, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Another stat I couldn't find is the average/actual/field acceleration/deceleration rate. I got interested after watching the zany "documentary" on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_P2yOuhPKY where the guy compares the G force to a jet, obviously an exaggeration but with 12,000 hp (if catenary can really support that peak) it should be significant.
B137 (talk) 20:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
If the combined length of MAS at 150 mph is in fact 57 miles (combining RI and MA as per the press release), we will then need to update the article as the current information from 2005 has it as 28 miles combined. I'm not certain because I don't have Employee Timetable. I think some editors who watch this page have access to that info. Z22 (talk) 23:55, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
What "press release" are we referring to because the current source used, the one from 2005, says it's 10 miles in one state and 18 in another. There is no vague language there. I was just wondering if it has improved since then. The source is not a press release so I'm assuming by press release we are referring to something from Amtrak. B137 (talk) 02:33, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
I'm guessing it's this: http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/623/361/Amtrak-to-Operate-Test-Trains-at-165-mph-ATK-12-084.pdf B137 (talk) 02:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes, that one which was as of 2012, much newer info than 2005. However the language in the 2012 press release is vague. So, I'm not sure whether we can really count on that. Z22 (talk) 06:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
The testing in 2012 was in New Jersey (New Brunswick area), and was to assess the ability of the existing overhead catenary for operation at higher speeds. This area is planned to be upgraded for high-speed operation, so the distance over which Acela's can run at 150 mph will be increasing over the next few years. - Bethayres (talk) 10:13, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I have a 2010 ETT which I can cite; however, that's now five years old. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 17:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it will be better than 10 year old data currently on the article. I'm not sure who else might have a more updated ETT. Z22 (talk) 21:04, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Yeah just going back through the talk page and the talk page archive for this page, it's clear that Amtrak is not as transparent as say the MTA. When I initially started looking into MTA-related stuff I was expecting to find them an almost Orwellian operation, but they are surprisingly candid and social. Along with the lack of recent documents here I suppose there would thereby also be no updates regarding the dates for HSR improvements since the "sometime after 2016" that's mentioned in the article and 2017 which I have seen in a source. B137 (talk) 21:50, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
Employee timetables are generally kept private for a variety of reasons, many of them legitimate, and I know of no freight or passenger operator who makes their available. Several ETTs (Amtrak NEC 2010 and MNRR 2006) were briefly available on a university-hosted web site a few years ago, and fortunately copied on archive.org. I don't have time to dig through them right now, but the archive links and ready-to-go citations are on my user page here. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:18, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
What's a legitimate reason? Insert meme with a sarcastic actor saying "Tell me how much terrorism secret ETTs have prevented." B137 (talk) 01:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)
At the risk of this becoming a forum post, some reasons. Most passenger railroads in the United States operate over freight railroads, which may not wish to reveal full details of their infrastructures to competitors. Passenger operators may not wish to reveal exact track speeds and such, as they're much more likely to result in passengers angry over imagined safety violations ("My GPS said the train was going 82 mph in an 80 mph zone! I want the engineer fired or I'm suing!) or alleged insufficient service ("My train was only going 70 mph in an 80 mph zone!") than in any positive benefits. And in many cases, there's simply no reason for the vast majority of the not-involved-in-operating-or-designing-railroads public to ever need access to an ETT, so there's no reason for operators to release the document with no benefit to themselves. It's not a document like the MBTA's Bluebook that reports service parameters like frequency or on-time percentage that might be of value or common interest to the layperson. Comments by lower-level employees on railroad forums indicate that railroad employees have considered ETTs private information since long before "terrorism" was a common word. (It became so in the miid-1970s, for reasons I can't quite explain.)
In any case, if the 2010 ETT is useful, please cite it. If not, I suggest looking elsewhere for the information sought. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
It seems that in the 2010 ETT, the only new part with 150 mph (beyond the original 28 miles) was from MP 174.5 to 180.5. So we can say that the total length for 150 mph was 34 miles as of 2010? Did I read that table right? Z22 (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)
Yes. As of that timetable, 150mph is nominally allowed from 154.3-171.7 + 174.5-180.5 + 194.5-205 = 33.9 miles. However, 150 is only actually allowed from 154.3-159.7 + 160.5-170.5 + 170.9-171.7 = 16.2, 174.5-180.1 = 5.6, and 194.5-205 = 10.5 miles, for an actual total of 32.3 miles of real 150mph running. (The difference is due to certain restricted curves). I would say the 33.9 miles figure is the one we should be using; curve restrictions may be modified slightly but the nominally 150mph sections do not change much. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Acela Express. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:39, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Acela Express. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

WMATA logo in "Amtrak Acela" map

Could the page editor add the symbol and link to Washington DC's Metrorail (WMATA) system next to the MARC and VRE symbols/links? Union Station is a major transfer to Washington's subway system. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.164.134.243 (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Acela Express is not high-speed rail

This service cannot be called high-speed rail. It travels the 456 miles from Boston to Washington in 7 hours which is only 65.1 mph. A car down the highway can go faster than that. You can say the train cars are built for high speed, but the track, bridges, tunnels and overhead lines are what is limiting the system. The infrastructure is old, over 100 years old in some places. It needs to be replaced, but the government does not commit a long-term funding plan for Amtrak, only giving out money on a yearly basis. This makes it hard to plan repairs. Still, the maximum speed is vastly different from the operating speed, which is all that matters.

84.79.29.246 (talk) 14:06, 5 October 2015 (UTC)KF

  • This has been discussed to death on this very talk page. The international definition for high-speed rail does not use operating speed as criteria. Mackensen (talk) 15:09, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

What I said was true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.79.29.246 (talk) 13:50, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

  • It's official, but misleading to call this high-speed. Doing that puts it in the same category as other systems which run much faster. The Spanish AVE Madrid to Barcelona averages 171 mph, French TGV is 150mph, Japanese Shinkansen is 190mph, but Acela is only 75mph. The articles tries to downplay the weaknesses as much as possible. It basically says, "Look, the U.S. has a high speed train that can go up to 150 mph. Ooooh! How cool. I can travel quickly." But it really goes much slower for much more cost. Berlin to Hamburg is 179 miles, same as New York to Baltimore. However, the ICE is $50, Northeast Regional is $77 and 40 more minutes and Acela is $150 and 20 more minutes. [8]
    • There's nothing misleading about it, and the article's analysis is superficial at best. The Acela is at the low end of high-speed, but it's still high-speed by the definition that matters. The Northeast Regional is not high-speed and is no more relevant to this discussion than any of the slower IC trains on the Berlin-Hamburg route. The Wired article isn't particularly rigorous and probably shouldn't be used as a source at all. It doesn't tell us which dates it booked for, nor which fare brackets, nor which class. I have done similar test bookings for American and German city-pairs and come up with different results. Nor does it indicate whether the German fare included a seat reservation (which is included on the Acela). Using New York-Baltimore means including the rather slow North River Tunnels; I'm not aware of a comparable feature on the Berlin-Hamburg route. The German train is also non-stop, while the Acela is not. I imagine that's because, as the article said, there's a whole lot of nothing between those two cities. If the writer had traveled in the Ruhr, he would have found conditions comparable to the Northeast Corridor. In any event, this is all beside the point. Nothing in that article contradicts the article's assertion that the Acela is high-speed rail, operational differences between the US and the rest of the world notwithstanding. Mackensen (talk) 16:33, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
We've been over this before. Acela is not "high speed" by the European definition, but it is by the American definition, for whatever that's worth. It's not at all comparable to high-speed rail systems around the world, which is why I favor not simply labeling it as "high-speed" in the lede. It should just say that it's Amtrak's premiere/express (or some variation on those terms) service in the Northeast, and then later in the article note that it meets the FRA definition of "high-speed rail" (which, again, falls far short of the European definition, or what HSR generally means in Asia). -Thucydides411 (talk) 00:19, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
And for the fifth time, it meets the definition and is recognized as high speed by the UIC, an international body based in Europe. Why do you have such a hard time accepting that it meets the internationally accepted definitions X that any changes to eliminate the term "high speed" from the lead plain and simply constitute non-neutral POV pushing? Drop the stick. oknazevad (talk) 00:26, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
And again, for those who don't believe that the UIC classifies Acela as high speed, use UIC website as a reference.Z22 (talk) 02:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm not pushing a POV. I'm pointing out that Acela doesn't meet the standards commonly understood as "high-speed rail." The UIC recognizes it, but doesn't give a technical reason for doing so - it says Acela is recognized because of the strides it's made towards improving speed. The UIC's classification is at odds with how other organizations, such as the EU, define high-speed rail. I just want the article to describe what Acela is, without including a dubious label. Acela is Amtrak's express service in the northeast corridor. We can note in a later section, outside the lede, that UIC classifies it as high-speed, but that it doesn't meet other definitions of high-speed. From a practical standpoint, we all know that Acela isn't comparable to other systems that are internationally called high-speed rail, so I don't see why we should feel the need to call it that in the lede. It just seems that we're misinforming readers. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
The international body the defines high speed rail for the world explicitly recognizes and defines it as such; that is all that is needed. Other definitions are utterly irrelevant, and applying them is WP:OR. This has been explained to you many times now. Drop the stick, please. oknazevad (talk) 03:45, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
One particular, relatively unimportant international organization defines what high-speed rail is? Factually, that's simply not true. Other organizations, such as the EU, have issued definitions that conflict with that of the UIC. Journalists often describe Acela as not being true high-speed rail. You're simply elevating that organization that happens to agree with you to the supreme arbiter. I see no reason to treat UIC as the sole source for the definition of high-speed rail. Again, I think this is somewhat of a practical issue - do we want to write a more informative article, or to push a particular, somewhat misleading viewpoint on the readers? There's no necessity to put a label in the lede that is very arguable, and which will give the average reader an incorrect image of the subject. -Thucydides411 (talk) 03:00, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

For the fifteenth time, of what relevance does the EU have here? Seriously? It's not in Europe. And the UIC is the international body for railroads. Period. Stop the bad faith accusations of "push(ing) ... a misleading viewpoint".. It's objectively defined as high-speed by the main international body that makes such definitions. The EU is irrelevant, and your opinion means nothing here, as you are just another anonymous guy on the Internet. The objective definition that actually applies world wide is sourced. That is all. Again, drop the f-ing stick, and stop arguing against obvious consensus. It's just tedentious editing at this point, and obnoxious. oknazevad (talk) 04:25, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Oknazevad, it's a bit rich that you drop the f-bomb while trying to appeal to Wikipedia guidelines. You're skirting dangerously against the edge of Wikipedia's guidelines on civility. The EU is relevant, because it's an international body that issues clear, technical guidelines on what constitutes "high-speed rail." You're appealing to a body, the UIC, that has only issued an extremely vague and subjective definition of high-speed rail. You'll notice that UIC explicitly acknowledge that Acela does not meet EU standards for high-speed rail, but that they nevertheless use the label in order to reward Amtrak's efforts to improve Acela service. So you want to throw out the definition used by a technical body, and use the admittedly subjective label by another body that agrees with you. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I'll also point out that there's no clear consensus here, as evidenced by the fact that editors other than me continually bring up this point. -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:46, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree. Oknazevad is an example of the type of editor that drives other editors away from Wikipedia. The words "...your opinion means nothing here, as you are just another anonymous guy on the Internet" show a complete disregard to two of the pillars of this project; namely that anyone can edit and that all editors (registered or simply IP users) should be treated with respect and civility. On both counts this user deserves to be reported on the Admins page. KirksKeyKard (talk) 09:05, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I don't. I think it's pretty clear that when he said "another anonymous guy on the Internet" he included himself in that description. Looking around, none of us are editing under our real names, and none of us is a subject matter expert. There's hardly anything here which would justify an ANI complaint, especially as it was said three months ago. It's still not clear why the EU's view should be privileged over the UIC's, or why this discussion is playing out here instead of at High-speed rail. Mackensen (talk) 11:11, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. There are numerous examples of incivility that I could copy and paste from various postings by Oknazevad. I also think that the view being put forward by Thucydides411 has validity. The UIC webpage that Oknazevad likes to use as the basis for his argument acknowledges that there a multiple definitions of what constitutes high-speed. The primary definition, is that of the European Union. This is clearly written on the page and is clearly the "de facto" standard for comparison. It then goes on to state that "... it is also necessary to take into account those railways which are making laudable efforts to provide high speed despite a basis of old infrastructure and technology which is far removed from that employed by the railways of western Europe". So I think it is quite clear that the Amtrak system falls into the camp labeled "laudable efforts". So I think that the accusation that Thucydides411 is pushing a single view, I would conclude the opposite, that he is in fact trying to accurately reflect a more neutral view based on what the UIC actually states. For myself, I think that it is clear that the Acela Express is by the plural nature of the word "definitions" by the UIC considered to be worthy of inclusion in their listing, but is far removed from being a true high-speed system. That's a verifiable truth which is easily proven by the fact that Amtrak itself wants to build a new (true high-speed) line through new England to connect New York and Boston. KirksKeyKard (talk) 11:53, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Plenty of reliable sources consider the Acela Express high-speed rail and it is such by certain definitions (though not all). Obviously it's at the bottom tier of such services; I don't think anyone disputes that. That's not the argument that Thucydides411 is making, at least not as I understand it; he would drop "high-speed rail" from the lead altogether. The lead isn't the place for an involved discussion of what is or is not high-speed rail. This article also shouldn't vary from Wikipedia's article on high-speed rail; that article has an involved discussion in the lead and elsewhere about what high-speed rail is. By Wikipedia's internal definition, as written, the Acela Express is high-speed. We need to be internally consistent. Mackensen (talk) 13:03, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
KirksKeyKard, I feel that Oknazevad has been perfectly reasonable given the long history of this discussion. Thucydides411 has been making the same arguments for several years now, refuses to listen to arguments that contradict their views, and is quick to accuse other editors (myself included) of rudeness. I find Oknazevad a pleasure to work with, and someone who is more than civil with people willing to have a reasonable discussion. As Mackensen points out, and several editors including myself have pointed out before, this is the wrong place for Thucydides411 to be making any argument about whether the Acela is HSR, much less one that has been thoroughly debunked on multiple occasions. Not only that, it's an entirely moot point - in approximately 11 months, there will at least one section and possibly several operating at 160 miles per hour (260 km/h) (source), which firmly breaks the 250 kph barrier that's used by any definition, and will actually bump average speeds for many station pairs into the same average speed as some undisputed new-build HSR. At that point, any reading even of the EU rules will likely include the Acela as well.
Just to be clear, the argument I'm making is that we should drop mention of "high-speed rail" from the lede, but discuss it in a separate section. If Acela becomes unambiguously HSR by the technical definition (the EU definition, which even UIC acknowledges), then I'd of course have no problem with just flat-out calling Acela "Amtrak's high-speed rail service in the Northeastern Corridor." -Thucydides411 (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

Disc brake

That the link to Disc brakes be modified as follows Disc brakes. Peter Horn User talk 15:56, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Importance of actual operating speeds, according to Joseph Boardman

NEC Acela service represents the only true “Emerging High-Speed Rail” operation in the U.S., with 165-mph equipment and maximum operating speeds of 150 mph – speeds rarely met due to track limitations, the number of stops, and capacity demands from other NEC rail operations.[1]

Successful high-speed rail operations around the world have commercial operating speeds (average speeds including time in stations) of 130-140 mph. To meet these aggressive NEC travel time goals, commercial operating speeds of roughly 140 mph would be needed, compared to 62 mph (New York City-Boston) and 86 mph (New York City-Washington) under present Acela operations. [1]

References

  1. ^ a b Boardman, Joseph (28 September 2010). Vision for High-Speed Rail in the Northeast Corridor (PDF). p. 8. Retrieved 8 December 2016. Cite error: The named reference "Vision 2010" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

So, Amtrak's CEO himself defined Acela as "emergent"...i.e., not quite there, and stated that successful systems were almost twice as fast. Anmccaff (talk) 15:57, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

  • Excellent find. That tracks with the definitions above from the Congressional Research Office and FRA/DOT. Mackensen (talk) 16:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, that's true. Acela is a really poor performance high-speed rail but it is a high-speed rail nevertheless. If we would use the same person as a reference for that, he also said "As America’s intercity passenger rail service provider and only high-speed rail operator, Amtrak...", confirming that they are in fact a "high-speed rail" operator. Z22 (talk) 18:59, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
It is entirely possible to be a high-speed rail operator and yet not have a single high speed line; Amtrak currently personifies that. Anmccaff (talk) 02:19, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Amtrak's flagship

A real part of Amtrak's essential problem is that it is at least two separate things: a transportation company, and a cruise ship company that is short of water. To Northeasterners, and most foamers, the NEC is undoubtedly Amtrak's main focus, but there is a considerable number who would see, say, the Coast Starlight as a more iconic symbol. Thoughts? Anmccaff (talk) 02:01, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

  • I love the Starlight and I go out of my way to take it, but I wouldn't say that it's more prominent in Amtrak's marketing. I think the key here is Amtrak's early-2000s rebrand, with a new logo and a new livery, which was oriented around the launch of the Acela. There ought to be sources discussing Amtrak's marketing; I dug up similar ones for the EMD F40PH which was the centerpiece of 1980s marketing. Part of the issue here is that, Hi-Levels aside, there's just not much to physically differentiate the long-distance and medium-distance trains from each other. The Acela looks different from anything else on the rails in the United States. Mackensen (talk) 03:09, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I think this will always have fuzzy edges no matter how much it is researched, since it depends not only on marketing, but on the gut feelings of employees, customers, bystanders &cet. "Widely seen as..." "generally see as..." "often seen as..." might be better than a flat-out "is", especially since Amtrak is careful not to officially announce something that could lose it a good chunk of its political support. Anmccaff (talk) 03:23, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Sources say the fastest speed is in the otherwise slower Bos-NYC section

Right now the lead is making a false claim. Anmccaff (talk) 01:48, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

My guess is the editors might want to say something more like this (bold is my addition):
Acela operates along routes that are also used by freight and slower regional passenger traffic, and only reaches its maximum speed along short sections in Massachusetts and Rhode Island. The high-speed operation occurs mostly along the 226-mile (364 km) route from New York's Penn Station to Washington DC's Union Station.
--Z22 (talk) 05:03, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't have the ETT in front of me, but IIRC the fastest operation is occurs in a couple spots between Boston and New Haven. However, New York-New Haven is slow because of MTA dispatching and commuter congestion. Both can be true. Mackensen (talk) 11:39, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Acela/Archive_2&oldid=1041879179"