4 ms·
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.am
by 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 agoFor 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 agoNorth 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 agoI 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.