this post was submitted on 30 Aug 2025
198 points (96.7% liked)

Fuck Cars

13430 readers
874 users here now

A place to discuss problems of car centric infrastructure or how it hurts us all. Let's explore the bad world of Cars!

Rules

1. Be CivilYou may not agree on ideas, but please do not be needlessly rude or insulting to other people in this community.

2. No hate speechDon't discriminate or disparage people on the basis of sex, gender, race, ethnicity, nationality, religion, or sexuality.

3. Don't harass peopleDon't follow people you disagree with into multiple threads or into PMs to insult, disparage, or otherwise attack them. And certainly don't doxx any non-public figures.

4. Stay on topicThis community is about cars, their externalities in society, car-dependency, and solutions to these.

5. No repostsDo not repost content that has already been posted in this community.

Moderator discretion will be used to judge reports with regard to the above rules.

Posting Guidelines

In the absence of a flair system on lemmy yet, let’s try to make it easier to scan through posts by type in here by using tags:

Recommended communities:

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] hildegarde@lemmy.blahaj.zone 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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 2 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

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

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

[–] Treczoks@lemmy.world 1 points 1 month ago (2 children)

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 2 points 1 month 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 1 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month 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).