Talk:Acela

Metric system

Please use miles, gallons, or other medieval units in the Encyclopedia when dealing with topics where the standards are set in those units. We are in 2006 and there is no universal unit system, being not everyone uses the same units. If they did we wouldn't even be talking about this. --Kev62nesl 09:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Please don't use miles, gallons, or other medieval units in an Encyclopedia. We are in 2005, the universal unit system is the metric system. There could be some local variations in a few countries, but this should not appear in Wikipedia articles. --Ocollard 11:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

While SI units are preferred, this is obviously still a matter of debate. See:

Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Style for numbers, weights, and measures:

The issue of whether all units should be metric (SI), Imperial, or American units is being debated at Wikipedia:Measurements Debate.

I think for now we're better-off using the units, spelling, etc. that are conventional for the "home" country of the article (and to give the alternative units as well). In general, I really don't care which order they come in and have no concerns about SI coming first but in this case, it looks like the "original" units for most of the numbers were American units (miles) so I think we should leave them as they were. (The fact that the "abouts" changed place from hard American units and "about" metric units to hard metric units and "about" American units supports this contention.)

Unfortunately, it is sad but true that America is a holdout on metrication and quite backwards in this area, but don't look for any improvement anytime soon. If you want the article to make any sense to the folks who watch Fox News, it'll have to be good-ole American units for now.

Atlant 11:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I've read Wikipedia:Measurements Debate and it is clear that the metric system should be used as measurement units. About 90% of the world population use this convenient system. If a few countries use a different system this should not interfere. The goal of this encyclopedia is to inform, not to not to make USAians think they ought to do. I don't think there is a "home" for this article, nor for any article. Every article in this encyclopedia is global, not local. It should use the units that everyone uses, not the units that locals use. I'm switching back to the metric system on this article, unless there is a clear policy that differs --Ocollard 12:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If you think there's no "home" country for an article, then you haven't read this entry in Wikipedia:Manual of Style:

• Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country.

It's referring to spelling, but it still makes the point. The Acela Express is clearly a topic that is specific to the United States and to use the spelling "colour" would be improper. I believe the same principle applies to respecting the customary units used by a country, even if those units are old and obsolete. By the way, there's essentially NO support for using the pseudo-SI 'mi/h' over the customary 'mph'.

Atlant 13:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

This link refers to spelling, not to measurement units. This Encyclopedia is aimed for the world, not just for one country. In a special Wikipedia for USA, the use of miles is ok, but not here. I cannot understand how we can support a measurement units that means nothing for 95% of the world population. I think this article is informative, and should be accessible to everyone. Using non standard measurement units cripples this. We are in 2005, let's live in today's world. --Ocollard 13:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

What a silly argument. Amtrak, and all North American railroads, use the Imperial system of units (tho' I presume that US roads use US gallons). The speeds listed are from timetables - convert at your own risk. As for using decimals in the conversions, that's just foolish! Unless you have an Amtrak NEC timetable, how would you know if the distances are are correct in US units? And you want to convert to multiple decimal places? Not. --Plaws 22:00, 2005 May 31 (UTC)

After all the changing of units here the version of 4.19.111.130 seemed like a fair compromise, Imp units first for an American subject, and a Metric conversion with no decimals. That is like most other articles. Wwoods’s innovation of replacing all the last significant figures with 0 or 5 is not mentioned in the measurement discussion. Would anyone support that as a general policy for all conversions on all other pages? Meggar 04:55, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)

"... reaches a top speed of 150 mph (about 241 km/h) only on on two sections of track in Rhode Island totalling 18 miles (about 29 km). ..."

Those speeds aren't really accurate ±1 km/h, or even ±1 mph. Note that all of them are in increments of 5 mph (~10 km/h). To say "about 241 km/h" is self-contradictory. On the other hand, when they give a distance of 18 miles, that implies it has been measured to the mile, so a more precise translation--29 or even 29.0 km--is warranted.

—wwoods 06:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I see now that the way it was worded, “reaches a top speed”, would have given the impression that they were ballpark figures. The numbers, 150, 135, 125, 110, though they end with zeros or fives are not approximations, but defined maximum speeds over certain stretches of track, so are exact numbers and not roundable. The equipment itself is capable of going faster, but then the engineer gets fired. Railroaders take the last digit seriously. For example, by federal regulation in the United States the max speed for any passenger train without supplementary automatic cab control is 79 mph. Not 80 but 79, it says so in 49 CFR(236.567). The event recorders on board trains have high resolution and their outputs are reported to ±1 mph in accident investigations. Meggar 02:21, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

New Acela outage due to brake problems

See...

Atlant 14:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Amtrak's service bulletin. I've added both to the (new) References section. slambo 15:44, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Schedules

The article states that you can now travel Boston-NYC in under four hours. Is this what it's supposed to say? I mean, the distance is about 300 kilometers, if you drive that distance doing 75 km/h (somewhat less than 50 mph) you could go by car in that time.

It's 3 hours 20-25 minutes. Boston to NYC is 346 km, giving a speed of 103 kph (64 mph). That's rarely doable on the Boston-NYC corridor. --SPUI (talk) 23:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Drive time does not account for stops both at stations and in traffic, the trains must run up and down the track at certain times and be in certain places at certian times because of track traffic. The NEC is used both as an intercity route and a commuter route. so train must be coordinated, that is why it takes so long. --kev62nesl

Tilt

kev62nesl

To clear up any misinformation regarding the tilting, I am a high speed supervising technician, I work for Amtrak. I can be contacted at hammank@amtrak.com, the tilting is for passanger comfort only, the power cars do not having titling it is only for the trailing cars. There are no public source I can cite off hand, only proprietory sources of information in MGU-026 book for amtrak training. Further more tilting is not a safety critical component on a trainset, meaning it is not necessary for safe operation. this can be confirmed in FRA 238 Tier II HST Daily Inspection MECHANICAL book.

There is an error in the article regarding the decision to use a tilt train for Acela. In fact, there was no rational engineering or technical reason to use a tilt train on the route. It was done for purely propaganda reasons. There are plenty of NON-tilt passenger trains in use today that operate on tighter curves (and at higher speeds) than Acela.

The real determining factor for curve speed is superevelation. Hans-Joachim Zierke has an excellent write-up on this. A good starting point is: [1].

Oh, and given the abysimal 60% on-time performance of NY-Boston Acela, the article should be careful in claiming a 3.5hr travel time.

The problem, of course, is that the Northeast Corridor ISN'T superelevated for the speeds they'd like to achieve with the Acela. Tilting at least allows for passenger comfort, if not ideal operation of the trains-as-a-whole.

Atlant 22:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If the NEC isn't superelevated for higher speeds, then using a tilt train won't fix that fundamental problem. As for passenger comfort, conventional trains throughout the civilized world (well, Europe at least) commonly run at higher speeds and through the same radius as found on the NEC. Moreover, tilt trains are more expensive to purchase and maintain, so they are not an "ideal operation" either. Like I said, there was no rational engineering reason for using a tilt train.

Emccaughrin 3 Apr 2005

I'm not sure I understand your point. No, tilt-trains won't reduce the forces on the wheels/wheel-flanges/track that could be "zeroed out" by correct superelevation. But yes, tilt-trains will zero-out the forces on the passengers that are caused by incorrect superelevation by causing the carbodies to bank at the correct (coordinated) angle, and they can do this at a variety of speeds-around-the-curve rather than at just at one designed-for speed. So yes, as I stated, tilt-trains are a rational response to the demands for passenger-comfort. Whether that was worth the money is another debate, of course.

Atlant 12:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Given the huge number of modern NON-tilt trains running on a daily basis in places like France, Switzerland, Germany through higher curve speeds than Acela, it is very hard to make the case that there was a passenger-comfort issue -- unless you think the laws of Physics are different in Europe, or an American passenger is somehow different than a European. Furthermore, it has been reported on various rail-foamer newsgroups that the tilt mechanims on Acela has frequently cut out and as far as anyone knows, passengers never noticed the difference.

Incidentally, the entry also claims that Acela captured "nearly half" of the Boston-New York market. The latest data I've seen (2003) showed it has dropped to 37%. However, the "nearly half" claim might still hold for New York-Washington.

Emccaughrin

You're arguing at cross-purposes with yourself. The European trains you reference are probably running on trackway that is correctly superelevated for the speeds at which the train is travelling, hence no need for the tilt mechanism.

No, the comparison is ROW with same superlevation through the same radius. Apples vs. apples. -EM

I also wonder why this is such a big deal with you; are you trying to prove the point that the money spent on the tilting mechanism was wasted? If so, fine; "it was wasted". We should have built a TGV-class dedicated trackway with TGV-style trainsets running at 300 kph. But we're the United States and we don't "do" rail, so we consider ourselves lucky to have gotten the Acela, such as it is.

If your point is something else, perhaps you should make it plain.

Atlant 17:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The "point" is accuracy in the Wiki entry. -EM

I guess I've lost your point again, then. There's no doubt that tilt-train technology can provide a better passenger ride than the equivalent ride on an track which is incorrectly-superelevated for the current train speed. You haven't provided us with any facts that argue against this, nor do your European examples of acceptable rides argue against the concept of better rides. If you'd like to advance the claim in the article that the tilt-train technology was a waste of money, go ahead; edit it in and we'll see who supports your claim and who rejects your claim. If you'd like to argue that the tilt-train technology is often broken, go ahead. If the fact that the tilt-train technology's tilt-angle was limited by errors in the loading gauge and that's not already in the article, go ahead and edit that in, too. But there's nothing wrong with the tilt-train technology, in principle.

Here's the claim the article actually makes:

These trains also tilt to negotiate the many curves on the densely populated route, permitting better passenger comfort and lower construction costs for the higher speeds.

Note the use of the word better with regard to comfort and lower with regard to construction costs. Both of these claims are true facts, supported by the physics of the situation. A train that is more-closely banked to the correct angle (whether through superelevation or through tilt-train technology) is more comfrtable than a train where the turns are not appropriately coordinated. And the roadbed construction costs (to do no special superelevation) are certainly lower than the roadbed construction costs to reconstruct all the turns to have the correct superelevation angle for the Acela Express.

Atlant 19:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, the statement is incorrect and should be changed.

• As described above, the reconstructed track geometry did not require the use of a tilt train. Thus, the decision to purchase an active-tilt system did not in any way lower construction costs (in fact, the Acela will end up increasing the track costs too due to it being grossly overweight, but that is a whole other discussion).

• I don't want to get into an argument over pedantics, but anything is true in principle. So, yes, in principle a tilt system would be more comfortable, just as in principle Peewee Herman could beat Shaq O'Neil in a game of one-on-one. In practice the tilt system isn't even switched on along the curviest segment of the line -- ever. In practice the industry has spent a lot of time measuring the amount of lateral acceleration that would be noticed by passengers. With Acela operating under that threshold, any gain from tilt is going to be theoretical. Thus, based on the engineering data, and the overall incompetance of the Acela project, many observers have said that the only reason for using tilt was only for its "gee-whiz" appeal.

Anyway, that is all I am going to say on the topic. If I modify the page, it will be to add external links to web pages that discuss the issue further.

-EM

"In practice the tilt system isn't even switched on along the curviest segment of the line -- ever." AM I right in assuming that the curviest section is near a station or other feature that requires slow speeds? --SPUI (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

S/he's presumably referring to the fact that the tilt is inactive on MNCR territory from New Rochelle to New Haven. I have update the article to note that fact.

kev62nesl you are incorrect about the on time performance of Boston to Mew York, the entire amtrak system has a on time performace of 70%, the Boston to NYC has over 90% and yes a 3.5 hour travel time is correct However you are correct about the titling. the tilting is only for passanger comfort. It is self-evident by the fact there is no tilting on the power cars, however tilting cannot be cut out as some claim. Through metro north territory tilting is disabled, not cutout. Metro north does not allow tilting because they the believe the tracks are too close together, however you can only run at 85mph anyway so titling is not necessary. However you do notice the difference in tilting when it is activated.

Re -- Tilting My understanding (Mostly from NY Times articles I believe) is that the tilting is off on the curviest sections because of an error in design or communication which was discovered before the train went into service. It seems that there is not enough clearance on those sections between northbound and southbound trains in the case where one train is tilting and the train in the opposite direction is not not tilting. This could occur if there was a fault in the tilting mechanism. Unable to meet the clearance requirements in the case of a single fault, the tilting was permanently turned off on those sections of track. I am working from memory, but if this is correct, I think it is relevant and should be included. Perhaps someone has more information?

There should also be a mention of the problems with the brake design. The Acela design was modified to meet US crash standards (as mentioned in the article) and this exceeded the design capacity for the brakes. jcp 02:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

18 miles of 150 mph in RI

I made several corrections here. First, it is not limited to RI. It was initially MP 162-170 in RI, and MP 195-205 in MA. Second, it is now more than 18 miles of track; I have ridden in Acelas that have done 150 mph through Kingston, RI (which is around MP 158 or so - well outside of the former MP 162 cutoff). I am not sure exactly how much more though; someone would need to get the most up to date Amtrak employee timetable to find out.

Misc improvements/corrections

It previously stated the CDOT owns the MNCR track, seemingly implying that they owned all of it. In fact, the CT part is owned by CDOT and the NY part is owned by NYDOT. Furthermore, the 90 mph max is only on NYDOT track. CDOT track is limited to 75 mph. I have cleared up the ambiguity/potential errors here.

I have also added a section explaining that the 135 mph limit south (west, really) of NYP is due to catenary issues, not track issues. The track is in fact straighter on the ex-Pennsy than on the ex-New Haven, as most here probably know. I do not believe this is readily apparent in the article, since no NYP-WAS timings are cited.

Are we sure that NYDOT owns the trackage in N.Y.? I thought it was the MTA. Nelson Ricardo 02:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I would concur on that. Amtrak's timetable cites MNRR as the host railroad, and MNRR is a division of the MTA. --Adam613 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

High speed?

I may be wrong, but... in Europe and Japan the definition of high speed train is for vehicles running at over 250 km/h. Italian ETR 450 is NOT a HST. ETR 500 is. If the american definition is similar to the international one, Acela is not technically speaking an HST (his commercial speed is far lower than the europeans' one). 82.51.126.65 21:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The American Definition is anything running over 125mph, someone please convert, anything over that speed is what we call a Tier II railroad and operate under strict standards than a Tier II, we do not have the same well maintianed tracks as in Europe or Japan, which can be attributed to our love of our automobiles and shear size of our country.Kev62nesl

It's the best we can do. :-( America, in general, wishes railroad service dead.

Atlant 00:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I’d say that the Acela Express is the U.S. definition of high-speed train. David Arthur 01:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Acela -> 110 km/h mean speed...

ETR200 [2]-> 165 km/h mean on a 310 km/track from Milan to Florence, with a top of 203 on a bloody curvy line with slow trains, partly single track, with lots of tiny stations on it and one stop at Bologna. Impressive for 1939. Benito Mussolini almost cried for joy! And normal non-test runs were just a bit slower. Maybe that's why Allied bombed all of them: envy. ;-P

Ok, ok, just kidding. No offence intended. Acela is a good train after all. 82.61.131.41 00:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

(oh, and we have Ferrari too!)

Trenton station

I just did some checking after it was claimed that Trenton was discontinued as an Acela stop after the brake repairs. As per Amtrak's website, there's only one Acela that stops at Trenton (scheduled arrival at 6:47am from New York, Monday-Thursday), so while Acela service at the station is quite limited, it hasn't technically been "eliminated" yet. —LrdChaos 14:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Crash standards

Changed "North America's more stringent crash standards" to "North America's different approach to crash standards". This sentence was misleading, as North America and Europe have two opposite strategies to crash safety. While North American standards emphasize the robustness of the structures, Europe prefers lighter structures that distorts during crash to absorb the energy leaving a a "survival cell" made of very strong frame that protects passengers. This approach is used in the design of the TGV and European standards are no way less stringent than North Americans. Blastwizard 10:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't mean to argue but the high speed trainset, aka acela express, are designed with the same survival cell that you refer to. On the HST anything outside of the interior doors (trailer car) are deisgned to crumple and the nose of the power cars are suppose to crumple. The engineers are suppose to dive into a little section behind his seat that are equiped with crash pads. These crumple zone are suppose to absorb over 50 megajewels.kev62nesl

I suppose you mean 50 Megajoules, at top speed for Acela which is 241 $Km.h^{-1}$ or 67 $m.s^{-1}$, given that the energy is calculated as $E={\frac {1}{2}}mv^{2}$ (with the E energy in Joules, m the mass in Kg, and v the speed in metres per second) , this correspond to a mass of 22 metric tons far from being impressive if your information about the energy dissipated is correct! Also because of the relation between mass and energy and speed the lighter you are the safer you are at high speed. Blastwizard 10:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, this is an error. The US standard includes the head on crash protection, (with more stringent anti-telescoping provisions I believe but not certain.) In addition, the US standard requires structural integrity to be maintained in the instance of a rollover or side impact due to jackknifing or collision with a stationary object (building.) jcp 03:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

6000 horsepower?

The article says that the Acela Express cars have "identical 6000-horsepower power cars at each end", a statement reconfirmed at one of the external links. However, the HHP-8 article says that the 8000-hp locomotives have engines that are "very similar to the Acela Express power cars". Can somebody explain this discrepancy? C. M. Harris 20:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

No error, two different types of equipment. The trainset power cars (6000 hp) have a long, sloping nose and a squared rear, close-coupled to the next car. Thus, each trainset has 12000 hp, 2 x 6000. The HHP locomotives(8000 hp) have a shorter sloped nose, at each end, and are used to haul various standard equipment coaches, such as the AEM-7 locomotive hauls. Each consist has 8000hp. Kev62nesl explained that they have one more inverter than the power cars. They can frequently be seen running light, especially in yards, on the NEC.

Note: One trainset has 9 cars, the extra geometry car is next to the south power car (unless turned) :Keo 00:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Power Car

HHP-8
Type and origin Power type Electric Builder Bombardier Transportation Total produced 21
Specifications Configuration: ​  • AAR B-B Gauge 1,435 mm (4 ft 8+1⁄2 in) Electric system/s 11,000 V AC, 25 Hz 11,000-13,500 V AC, 60 Hz 25,000 V AC, 60 Hz Current pickup(s) Overhead AC with dual pantographs
Performance figures Power output 8,000 hp
Career Nicknames Bananas; Rhinos Locale Amtrak's Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington, DC

rollback reason

The last edit removed too much information from the article. There is a known issue with Firefox and Google Toolbar. Slambo (Speak) 01:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Travel Time on Regional Trains

"With the completion of electrification between New Haven and Boston, all trains on the line have become faster; one can travel between Boston and New York in just over three and a half hours (an improvement of half an hour). New York to Washington runs take about two and three-quarters hours."

The semicolon here implies that any train on the NEC can get you from Boston to Penn Station in 3 1/2 hours, when in reality, only the Acela goes this fast. The Amtrak website shows a scheduled time of 4:15 for a Regional NEC train. I'm sure the article is is wrong here (unless I'm just reading the sentence wrongly), but I'm wondering whether the improvement of half an hour over earlier diesel to electric switches is still correct. Anyone have any thoughts? Mjl0509 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Include power outage in "Outages" section?

I notice that we're coming close to an edit war on whether or not to include the May 25 NEC power outage in the "Outages" section of the article (namely, 84.49.106.92 and I have removed it, and Atlant has restored it).

I don't think that the power outage has any place in this article. Power outages on the NEC affect nearly all service, not just the Acela, as opposed to the other outages. The fact that several trains, including Acela trainsets, were stranded is hardly worth mentioning as part of this article; it's not the Acela's fault, it's not unique to the Acela, and power outages are not rare on Amtrak. Especially considering the magnitude of the other outages, which occured when defects were found solely with the Acela, including a paragraph about an electric locomotive being stuck when the power went out doesn't seem in the same league. —LrdChaos (talk) 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

As I stated in my edit summary, though, it was primarily Amtrak's Acela service that took the bad press on this most-recent deep outage. And an outage is an outage, whether it's caused by falling-apart damper brackets, falling apart brake discs, or falling-apart electrical infrastructure.

Atlant 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of where the media focused its attention, the fact is that the power outage was not unique to the Acela Express. It stranded AEM-7s and HHP-8s, as well as New Jersey transit and SEPTA equipment. The outage was the result of a power system problem, not a fault in the Acela Express, and it only lasted a few hours. It was newsworthy at the time, but in a historical context, the affect of the outage on the AE was no different than it was on any other locomotive in use at the time, none of which have any mention of the outage.

You say that "an outage is an outage, whether it's caused by falling-apart damper brackets, falling apart brake discs, or falling-apart electrical infrastructure." What sets the "electrical infrastructure" item apart from the damper brackets and the brake discs is that those are internal components of the Acela Express; the electrical infrastructure is a larger, external problem that affects everything. It may have a place in an article for the incident, or in Northeast Corridor, but it has no place being listed along with internal flaws/defects/problems with the AE. —LrdChaos (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I guess I'll chalk this up as another instance of "partisans defending their party".

Atlant 12:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, I'm certainly no fan of Acela, but it wasn't "Acela's" outage, it was Amtrak's, or the NEC's, or NJ. I thought that LrdChaos made a good point about that.

In a similar way, when an Acela train came nose-to-nose (almost) with a commuter train at S.Norwalk,CT, it wasn't because of an Acela flaw (although that was the train at fault), it was a flaw with the Amtrak engineer that had been running with the safety mechanisms cut out! That's why ALL Amtrak trains, not just Acelas, have to report the condition of their cab signal & automatic train stop apparatus when they enter Metro North territory at New Haven,CT, or New Rochelle,NY. You wouldn't want "fatal safety flaw" listed under Acela's disadvantages, would you? Peace. Keo 21:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

YouTube links

This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. ---J.S (t|c) 07:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

From that policy:

Notice on linking to YouTube, Google Video, and other similar sites:

There is no ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by these guidelines. From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.

The videos in question are the uploader's own work. This is permitted. Daniel Case 04:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

New Haven Station

Is it really the case (as indicated by New Haven being unbolded in the station list) that not all Acela trains stop in New Haven? Mjl0509 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Turbo Acela that flunked test?

Was there any such thing as a turbo Acela that was being tested? I heard rumors of an Acela Turbotrain that didn't pan out because it guzzled too much fuel and accelerated too slowly. I guess Lady Acela will long be an electric lady, then. 204.52.215.107 14:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)