Re:U.S. Passenger Rail Ridership (2013)
by tptacek on Sunday December 07, 2014 @12:24PM
(#8712832)
There's a bigger gap between the 75MPH that normal Amtrak trains operate with at peak speed and the 130MPH the Acela does than there is between the Acela and a European high-speed train. Also: high-speed rail is going to go where the Acela already is, and the Acela is already fast enough to be viable and competitive. So, I kind of doubt train technology is going to make a huge difference.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
This is incorrect on all accounts.
The Acela doesn't run in California and it doesn't run in Texas.
Trains in Eurpoe are going to 220mph.
http://www.bloomberg.com/video/take-a-look-at-europe-s-faste...
The average speed between NYC and Boston is something like 79mph. Saying you have a top speed 130mph, and doing it only for a small portion of the trip is quite misleading. At any rate, peak has little meaning. I've been on commuter trains that peaked at 90mph for 5 minutes.
That's the point. Peak speed is really irrelevant on the northeast corridor. The bottleneck is track conditions and tunnel capacity.
Huh? Of course it doesn't: neither Texas nor California have routes that would be economical for an Acela-like service. LA-SD is a single point-to-point route; neither LA nor SD connect economically with any other California city.
I also don't understand your "peak versus average" speed thing. You're comparing apples-oranges, not me: I'm comparing peak-to-peak. Normal Amtrak trains also don't average 75MPH!