4 ms·

The US only has like 500 miles of modern rail track - between Boston and Washington.

gumby 4y ago
I wouldn’t call that “modern”: the “high speed” train has a top speed of 86 mph and in my experience only attains that for 15 minutes between Boston and NYC. On the NYC DC stretch, scheduled “high speed” service is only 20-30 minutes shorter than the much cheaper regular service that stops at every station.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > “high speed” train has a top speed of 86 mph Wikipedia says 150, but I guess if you live there you probably know better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela
  - gumby 4y ago
    yes, that’s my experience, though there is a thread parallel to your comment that disputes it.
- danans 4y ago
  > has a top speed of 86 mph and in my experience only attains that for 15 minutes between Boston and NYC. 135 to 150mph. There are plenty of YouTube videos of people independently verifying the speed either from the train using a phone speedometer app) or using a speed measurement device from alongside the track. Here is one (go to timestamp 6:13): https://youtu.be/KHF8ajhAZa8 https://youtu.be/KHF8ajhAZa8
  - gumby 4y ago
    The conductor sometimes announces it and I’ve never heard it exceed mid 80s. I also have a phone and can look how fast I’m traveling myself. I’ve never personally experienced the speeds claimed by that video on Acela. The Acela schedules for nyc-dc last week were pretty damning. Shaving 30 minutes (at best!) from a 3 hour makes-every-stop trip clearly doesn’t mean significant high speed travel. At earlier stages of my life I was a regular traveler on tgv/Thales/Eurostar, ICE, and Shinkansen. I know what a high speed train feels like.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - therealcamino 4y ago
      I don't think "It didn't feel that fast to me" is a basis for claiming the published speeds are a lie. You can get real time train information at https://www.amtrak.com/services/maps.trainlocation.html https://www.amtrak.com/services/maps.trainlocation.html . The first two trains I clicked on in MD and NJ were at 104mph and 124mph.
      - ghaff 4y ago
        For Boston to NYC, the Acela only hits peakish speed for a relatively short part of its journey. It is faster than the regular regional train but not by all that much--maybe by 30 minutes or a bit more. (The biggest benefit to the introduction of Acela was that it required the electrification of the tracks north of New Haven which eliminated what could be a fairly long engine switch on the regular regional train.) If I'm paying out of my own pocket I usually just take the regional.
        therealcamino 4y ago
        North of NYC is definitely slower than south of NYC (and nobody misses changing locomotives in New Haven.) It sounded to me like the poster was claiming a top speed of 86 for the entire Boston to Washington route, which is what I was responding to.
      - gumby 4y ago
        I didn’t use the word “lie” just related my experience, including using a gps speed app. It’s fine if other people have a different experience. I like trains which is why I use such an app on my phone. In my experience the Acela is rather absurd. Comfy, sure; I do take it on the BOS-NYC route but in my experience it’s not worth the price for NY-DC. Lookimg right now at Amtrak app nyc-was, we have the regional 57 Vermonter taking 3:27 and the Acela 2259 3:04. I don’t think that’s worth paying extra for.
    - danans 4y ago
formerkrogemp 4y ago
Why is 70% of freight carried by trucks then?

I wouldn’t call that “modern”: the “high speed” train has a top speed of 86 mph and in my experience only attains that for 15 minutes between Boston and NYC. On the NYC DC stretch, scheduled “high speed” service is only 20-30 minutes shorter than the much cheaper regular service that stops at every station.

chrisseaton 4y ago
> “high speed” train has a top speed of 86 mph Wikipedia says 150, but I guess if you live there you probably know better. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela
- gumby 4y ago
  yes, that’s my experience, though there is a thread parallel to your comment that disputes it.
danans 4y ago
> has a top speed of 86 mph and in my experience only attains that for 15 minutes between Boston and NYC. 135 to 150mph. There are plenty of YouTube videos of people independently verifying the speed either from the train using a phone speedometer app) or using a speed measurement device from alongside the track. Here is one (go to timestamp 6:13): https://youtu.be/KHF8ajhAZa8 https://youtu.be/KHF8ajhAZa8
- gumby 4y ago
  The conductor sometimes announces it and I’ve never heard it exceed mid 80s. I also have a phone and can look how fast I’m traveling myself. I’ve never personally experienced the speeds claimed by that video on Acela. The Acela schedules for nyc-dc last week were pretty damning. Shaving 30 minutes (at best!) from a 3 hour makes-every-stop trip clearly doesn’t mean significant high speed travel. At earlier stages of my life I was a regular traveler on tgv/Thales/Eurostar, ICE, and Shinkansen. I know what a high speed train feels like.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - therealcamino 4y ago
    I don't think "It didn't feel that fast to me" is a basis for claiming the published speeds are a lie. You can get real time train information at https://www.amtrak.com/services/maps.trainlocation.html https://www.amtrak.com/services/maps.trainlocation.html . The first two trains I clicked on in MD and NJ were at 104mph and 124mph.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      For Boston to NYC, the Acela only hits peakish speed for a relatively short part of its journey. It is faster than the regular regional train but not by all that much--maybe by 30 minutes or a bit more. (The biggest benefit to the introduction of Acela was that it required the electrification of the tracks north of New Haven which eliminated what could be a fairly long engine switch on the regular regional train.) If I'm paying out of my own pocket I usually just take the regional.
      - therealcamino 4y ago
        North of NYC is definitely slower than south of NYC (and nobody misses changing locomotives in New Haven.) It sounded to me like the poster was claiming a top speed of 86 for the entire Boston to Washington route, which is what I was responding to.
    - gumby 4y ago
      I didn’t use the word “lie” just related my experience, including using a gps speed app. It’s fine if other people have a different experience. I like trains which is why I use such an app on my phone. In my experience the Acela is rather absurd. Comfy, sure; I do take it on the BOS-NYC route but in my experience it’s not worth the price for NY-DC. Lookimg right now at Amtrak app nyc-was, we have the regional 57 Vermonter taking 3:27 and the Acela 2259 3:04. I don’t think that’s worth paying extra for.
  - danans 4y ago

formerkrogemp 4y ago

Why is 70% of freight carried by trucks then?