Between NY and Boston I've never seen the speeds claimed on that Wikipedia page -- not even close.

I only once rode NY->DC and it felt a bit faster, but not hugely so.

I didn't conduct any formal measurements, but I use to be a frequent TGV, ICE, and Shinkansen rider and you can tell you're moving fast by just looking out the window.

Yes the US priorities on rail (freight) means Acela is… not very good. IIRC the current train set has a maximum speed of 240km/h, and because so little of the way is dedicated the average speed end to end is around 110 I think. Kph. On the fastest section between NYC and DC it’s 130, or 80 mph. That’s a car’s speed.

Boston to DC is 735km which Acela covers in 6h45 minutes.

By comparison Paris to Marseilles is 862km which the TGV covers in 3h.

In fact, the “Mistral” which preceded the TGV and ran from 1950 to 1981 covered the distance in 6h40. That’s how bad Acela service is: it compares disfavorably to best-of-class trains from the 60s.

Standard "heavy rail" Amtrak (think: Pacific Surfliner, two stories tall with thundering diesel, https://www.pacificsurfliner.com/plan-your-trip/ ) can run at 120 MPH if the track has positive track control. By some definitions that makes it "high speed rail" heh.

Which the Surfliner didn't in my day (and I think it still doesn't) - but it would hit 90 MPH through Camp Pendleton and I swear my GPS clocked it at 100 once.

Still would beat a car LA station to San Diego station during rush hour traffic.

Freight priorities on rail don't apply in the Northeast Corridor, almost the entire stretch is owned by Amtrak (unlike the rest of the US). Acela and NE Regional have the right of way up here (with preference given to Acela). The reason it's slow is because the tracks are old and aren't rated for high speeds. They were constructed with sharp(ish) turns during an era of much slower trains which entirely precludes Acela from going 300km/h (like TGV), and only allow for ~240km/h on a tiny stretch between Boston and Providence, and a handful of small stretches between NYC and DC.

Despite many claims that Acela is swift, the killer argument is looking at the time difference between Acela scheduled time vs regular trains with only a few stops on the same route.

I happily pay more for Acela because the carriages are more comfortable but if the time is inconvenient I am happy to book a regular train.

I ride the NY<->DC NER and Acela pretty regularly, and I can tell the difference between the two (especially when it's the "nonstop" Acela). NY<->BOS I agree, though -- it's always felt exactly as fast as the NER.

http://www.realtransit.org/nec7.php has some interesting charts and analysis of the speed limits on the various segments of the Northeast Corridor. Note that the values shown are not necessarily what it achieves in practice, but there's seemingly potential to address that via operational changes and small, targeted capital spending.

For the NYC to BOS stretch the Acela is handicapped by politicians in Connecticut.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/04/30/opinion/path-better-n...

Current Acela trains run at the advertised top speed for a stretch of about 50 miles in Rhode Island, and another even shorter bit in New Jersey. Elsewhere, they're limited to far slower speeds by track (about comparable to European commuter rail lines).

> on that Wikipedia page

The page which says it isn't expected to start service until 2023?