"Acela II" to be capable of 180 mph

http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news ... fleet.html

In late 2010, Amtrak will complete a program to upgrade theinterior of all Acela Express trainsets, including leather seating, improvedtray tables and overage luggage compartment doors, and better at-seatelectrical outlets. The trainsets themselves, which have been in service formore than 10 years, eventually will be replaced with high speed equipmentcurrently dubbed “Acela II.” These “next-generation” trainsets will be capableof speeds up to 180 mph, with infrastructure upgrades, Boardman said.

Will this be an evolution of the existing Acela design, I wonder, or something totally new?

As a fan and regular patron of the current Acela, the thought of new equipment does sound interesting...but like the Acela of today, it will probably only achieve that for a couple miles or so...as we'll probably all be dead before any significant high speed service ever gets established in the northeast. That said, new equipment will be welcome...hopefully it will be a cool design.

Well, hopefully we'll see some infrastructure upgrades as well. From the same article:

Longer-term, the NEC is due for $10 billion in upgrades, $6 billion of that between Washington and New York. Amtrak is looking to replace all the NEC’s aging variable-tension catenary between Washington and New Haven,Conn., with a modern constant-tension system (like that in place between New Haven and Boston). A $700 million Washington-New York replacement program is already under way. Catenary improvements, along with improvements to curves and tunnel approaches and tie replacement, is expected to decrease trip times initially by 15 minutes. Further improvements should shave another 15 minutes. Boardman said Amtrak’s goal is to increase the Acela Express’s top speed on this segment of the NEC to 150 mph from the current 135 mph.

I've always felt the NEC north of Baltimore could be a prime 150mph running area.

I wonder though, if the money would be better spent in Metro North territory.

There are a few straight strectches of the Northeast Corridor where 180 mph running with the right equipment and track structure might be theoretically possible -- the New Haven RR allowed 90 mph running over a portion of the Boston-Providence stretch way back in the 1960s -- but unless the FRA modifies its crash strength regulations to allow European-type HSR equipment, the "Acela II" trainsets will probably be so heavy that it will take them an hour or two to accelerate to that speed! (Yeah, I'm exaggerating, but only slightly... )

Let's hope with some old fashioned evolutionary problem solving, "Acela II" doesn't wind up with the same brake, suspension, handling & weight issues Acela I has had, as Amtrak doesn't need another VW Fox high speed train (i.e. parts & equipment cobbled together, design afterwards).

Not sure M-N would care to have it's railroad 'improved' for the sake of a part-time tenant. The only way I see this happening is a multi-state or federal high-speed rail authority working directly with MTA on Amtrak's behalf (is there such an agency now?), with necessary capital funding. Money could be better spent elsewhere first (Newark-NYP bottleneck, Baltimore tunnels, etc..) 90-100mph's fine for this wicked curvy stretch as long as it is consistent, provided the fabled 'new' trains don't weight as much as a string of loaded coal hoppers, and will actually be able to tilt.

Matt Johnson wrote:http://www.railwayage.com/breaking-news ... fleet.html

In late 2010, Amtrak will complete a program to upgrade theinterior of all Acela Express trainsets, including leather seating, improvedtray tables and overage luggage compartment doors, and better at-seatelectrical outlets. The trainsets themselves, which have been in service formore than 10 years, eventually will be replaced with high speed equipmentcurrently dubbed “Acela II.” These “next-generation” trainsets will be capableof speeds up to 180 mph, with infrastructure upgrades, Boardman said.

Will this be an evolution of the existing Acela design, I wonder, or something totally new?

It's not the trains but the track that leads to higher speeds. If there is no dedicated track there is not much point in building faster trains. The two must be designed together.

Matt Johnson wrote:Will this be an evolution of the existing Acela design, I wonder, or something totally new?

Considering that Boardman has already gone on record saying 'Even the higher-speed Acelas must eventually be replaced because they are already worn beyond half their useful life' then I would expect something new from the flanges up. As they are ten years old and have less than ten years left proves the fallacy of just beefing up an existing platform. Hopefully they have learned their lesson and shall get it right this time.

TomNelligan wrote:There are a few straight strectches of the Northeast Corridor where 180 mph running with the right equipment and track structure might be theoretically possible -- the New Haven RR allowed 90 mph running over a portion of the Boston-Providence stretch way back in the 1960s -- but unless the FRA modifies its crash strength regulations to allow European-type HSR equipment, the "Acela II" trainsets will probably be so heavy that it will take them an hour or two to accelerate to that speed! (Yeah, I'm exaggerating, but only slightly... )

Or they'll brown out the East Coast from Richmond to Bangor.

bmvguye39 wrote:As a fan and regular patron of the current Acela, the thought of new equipment does sound interesting...but like the Acela of today, it will probably only achieve that for a couple miles or so...as we'll probably all be dead before any significant high speed service ever gets established in the northeast. That said, new equipment will be welcome...hopefully it will be a cool design.

and let's hope they can carry a lot more people than 265.

Suburban Station wrote:

bmvguye39 wrote:As a fan and regular patron of the current Acela, the thought of new equipment does sound interesting...but like the Acela of today, it will probably only achieve that for a couple miles or so...as we'll probably all be dead before any significant high speed service ever gets established in the northeast. That said, new equipment will be welcome...hopefully it will be a cool design.

and let's hope they can carry a lot more people than 265.

304 is actually the passenger capacity, but yes, 400+ would be better.

Matt Johnson wrote: 304 is actually the passenger capacity, but yes, 400+ would be better.

ah, I'd shoot for 500 then. they should be the workhorses of the corridor, IMO. everyone should enjoy modern railroading (well, maybe noteveryone, but far more people) not just an excursion for the rich. the only way to do that is to offer more of a product and lower average costs. really start to take advantage of rail's strengths. besides, we aren't magically building higway capacity in the northeast and not even air capacity.

Suburban Station wrote:

Matt Johnson wrote: 304 is actually the passenger capacity, but yes, 400+ would be better.

ah, I'd shoot for 500 then. they should be the workhorses of the corridor, IMO. everyone should enjoy modern railroading (well, maybe noteveryone, but far more people) not just an excursion for the rich. the only way to do that is to offer more of a product and lower average costs. really start to take advantage of rail's strengths. besides, we aren't magically building higway capacity in the northeast and not even air capacity.

Problem is cost. I doubt you can effectively run them at high speeds and charge the same amount as Regional trains and not open up huge holes in your budget.

Greg Moore wrote: Problem is cost. I doubt you can effectively run them at high speeds and charge the same amount as Regional trains and not open up huge holes in your budget.

At the weight of the Acela? No. At the weight of a modern HST, yes, you can run them at high speeds and low costs.

Gunning for 180mph is stupid - even the 150mph running with Acela has proven to be pointless. A better goal would be to get 9 inches unbalance and fix the stupid slow portions of the NEC to get as much 125mph running as possible, then look to go higher. Getting rid of crap like Frankford Junction and the Elizabeth curve, and the slow NYC and Baltimore tunels would help more than extending the 150mph portions.

IMHO, the ideal Acela and Regional replacement should be a high performance tilt MU (8 or 10 cars, semi-fixed sets, though that's a given anyway), much along the lines of a Pendolino, though with a usable amount of power (the Pendolinos are way underpowered). The idea of running around 200 tons of locomotive just to move 6 cars is insanity. Design for a 150 mph top end, though expect at least at the outset to run 125mph in service.

The Acelas being 1/2way through their useful life isn't a surprise, at all.

Nasadowsk wrote:IMHO, the ideal Acela and Regional replacement should be a high performance tilt MU (8 or 10 cars, semi-fixed sets, though that's a given anyway), much along the lines of a Pendolino, though with a usable amount of power (the Pendolinos are way underpowered). The idea of running around 200 tons of locomotive just to move 6 cars is insanity. Design for a 150 mph top end, though expect at least at the outset to run 125mph in service.

I think the Alstom AGV looks like the ideal train, except for the lack of active tilt. I have to think, though, that the superior acceleration and higher top speed could more than make up for the lack of a tilt mechanism. The AGV combines the TGV's shared truck articulated design with the performance of an EMU, and is capable of 360 km/hr (224 mph).

The Acelas being 1/2way through their useful life isn't a surprise, at all.

How do they reach that conclusion? Surely the carbodies are still structurally sound, no? Everything else is basically a wear item that can be replaced.