As the comment you’ve replied to says, they are limited by the line speed and their design, and design speed, is effectively the same as the latest TGV.
You’re not understanding the difference between the line speed and the train’s design speed. The train is capable of comparable speeds, significantly higher than the track speed
Its literally the same trainset by the same manufacturer as the TGV, hence the comparison. The highest track speed on the northeast corridor is 160 MPH, which is why they’re calling it a 160 MPH train.
The problem is the infrastructure not the train. Its a good train.
No, it is not the same train. The Acela II has a technical top speed of 189MPH. It might be built by the same company (Alstom), but it is no TGV. One of the differences is that the Acela has less motor units than the TGV.
Yes… The point is the maximum design speeds of both are very similar.
Yes TGVs run operationally at much higher speeds than the Acela II but that is due to infrastructure, not the train itself. The train itself, independent of track constraints, is capable of similar speeds. I don’t think there’s much more worth saying on the matter.
Even if same train, it is not run under the same regulations. The US FRA regulations really kneecap the operational speeds:
For the track between New Haven and Boston, [Acela] has a waiver for operation at 7 inches of unbalanced superelevation. This means, that the [tilting] Acela is allowed to use the same curve speed as non-tilting TGVs (or multiple units) in France. The “Acela Express” looses about half an hour between New York and Boston, compared to best practice in tilting train usage. (It also looses at least half an hour, compared to the calculations of US railroad engineers in the 1960s.)
Note that the above was written about Acela 1. The Acela 2 is supposedly lighter weight, so in theory FRA might allow higher speeds (though I have yet to see any progress there).
As the comment you’ve replied to says, they are limited by the line speed and their design, and design speed, is effectively the same as the latest TGV.
TGVs at “normal speed” go at 320km/h or 200MPH. They can go up to 350MPH.
The Acela with its 160MPH top speed does not come close.
You’re not understanding the difference between the line speed and the train’s design speed. The train is capable of comparable speeds, significantly higher than the track speed
It is not. The technical top speed of the Acela II is less than 190MPH due to technical restrictions, and it has less engine units than a TGV.
From the comment that started this thread:
No, we all understood this the entire time.
Its literally the same trainset by the same manufacturer as the TGV, hence the comparison. The highest track speed on the northeast corridor is 160 MPH, which is why they’re calling it a 160 MPH train.
The problem is the infrastructure not the train. Its a good train.
No, it is not the same train. The Acela II has a technical top speed of 189MPH. It might be built by the same company (Alstom), but it is no TGV. One of the differences is that the Acela has less motor units than the TGV.
Sounds pretty comparable to 200 mph (320 km/h) to me…
The 200MPH is not the top speed. It is the operational speed. High speed trains in Europe regularly travel at speeds exceeding 300km/h.
Yes… The point is the maximum design speeds of both are very similar.
Yes TGVs run operationally at much higher speeds than the Acela II but that is due to infrastructure, not the train itself. The train itself, independent of track constraints, is capable of similar speeds. I don’t think there’s much more worth saying on the matter.
deleted by creator
Even if same train, it is not run under the same regulations. The US FRA regulations really kneecap the operational speeds:
Source: https://zierke.com/shasta_route/pages/15regulation.html
Note that the above was written about Acela 1. The Acela 2 is supposedly lighter weight, so in theory FRA might allow higher speeds (though I have yet to see any progress there).