Everyone who says the delay is overblown is correct. I wish RR.net had a "like" button.
On the "why didn't TCCI find this?" question, I suspect TCCI has modern constant-tension catenary like all TGV-heritage trains are all designed for (because nobody will build you NEC style constant geometry)
The Acela 2's pantograph apparently had trouble maintaining contact with NEC's constant geometry catenary. That's the kind of complex harmonic / double-pendulum kind of problem that you can only find by testing. And they found it. And it will take a little while to adjust the pantograph arms/springs/whatever and then re test.
I don't have a theory on the curves problem, but I can easily imagine that it'd be analogous to the catenary problem: only the NEC is built like the NEC.
Not a big deal. Not a reason to question retiring the Acela 1s (we had a whole thread on that). Not a reason to doubt the Acela 2
On the "why didn't TCCI find this?" question, I suspect TCCI has modern constant-tension catenary like all TGV-heritage trains are all designed for (because nobody will build you NEC style constant geometry)
The Acela 2's pantograph apparently had trouble maintaining contact with NEC's constant geometry catenary. That's the kind of complex harmonic / double-pendulum kind of problem that you can only find by testing. And they found it. And it will take a little while to adjust the pantograph arms/springs/whatever and then re test.
I don't have a theory on the curves problem, but I can easily imagine that it'd be analogous to the catenary problem: only the NEC is built like the NEC.
Not a big deal. Not a reason to question retiring the Acela 1s (we had a whole thread on that). Not a reason to doubt the Acela 2
"Trying to solve congestion by making roadways wider is like trying to solve obesity by buying bigger pants."--Charles Marohn