• Treczoks@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    9 days ago

    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.

    • eligibly@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      9 days ago

      The Acela II has a technical top speed of 189MPH.

      Sounds pretty comparable to 200 mph (320 km/h) to me…

      • Treczoks@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 days ago

        The 200MPH is not the top speed. It is the operational speed. High speed trains in Europe regularly travel at speeds exceeding 300km/h.

        • eligibly@discuss.tchncs.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          9 days ago

          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.

    • DrunkEngineer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 days ago

      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.)

      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).