Acela--Fastest Speed Between Adjacent Stops

So,

We know that, whether we're looking between DC & NY, NY and BOS, or WAS to BOS, the Acela is a relative laughing stock as far as "high speed" trains (globally) go. Between Boston and NY, speed averages between ~62-66 MPH depending on the schedule. For DC-NYP, the current oft quoted 2 hrs 45 min fastest makes for a blazing 82.2 MPH. Granted, as others on this board have noted, Metroliners of past eras were able to make a 2.5 hr schedule work....but that's off-topic for purposes of this discussion. One thing I've noticed during my years of traveling the NEC is that on certain sections, the NEC behaves somewhat like an overseas higher-speed rail operation, e.g, track quality, speed, ride quality, etc. It's not ALL a slow clod along that makes you want to pull your hair out as you watch automotive traffic wizz by. But the NEC trip times are slowed by the constant accel/decel for the various sharp curves on the line and the mix of express and commuter traffic. While the theoretical time savings of straightening the line have already been generally hashed out (Elizabeth comes to mind as a useful but never-gonna-happen example), I'm curious what the current MAXIMUM average speed, A to B, that ANY NEC train makes between two adjacent stops is. E.g., is there some city pairing that results in an average speed of over 100 mph? I looked to the PVD-BOS route as a possibility due to the true HSR operation on that part of the route and relatively high speeds even approaching the cit(ies') limits, but, perhaps due to schedule padding and/or Rte 128, no dice. I've also thought about PHL-MET, BAL-WIL (which is pretty fast), MET-NYP. But it's hard to compare everything given the number of possible city pairs, and the number of trains, so, I wanted to see if anyone else had knowledge on this. Specifically--is there an A to B pairing on the NEC that would, as a standalone, compete favorably with overseas high or higher speed rail? I'm sure the answer to #2 is yes, but, definitely not sure on #1.

-AC

Breaking it down per Amtrak's train schedules - which may or may not reflect actual conditions mainly because Amtrak's trains rarely meet the schedule.
Boston South Station to Back Bay = 1 mile/5 minutes = 12 mph
Back Bay to Route 128 = 10 miles/9 minutes = 66 mph
Route 128 to Providence = 32 miles/21 minutes = 91 mph
Providence to New London = 62 miles/44 minutes = 84 mph
New London to New Haven = 51 miles/45 minutes = 68 mph
New Haven to Stamford = 39 miles/49 minutes = 48 mph
Stamford to New York City = 36 miles/47 minutes = 46 mph
New York City to Newark = 10 miles/14 minutes = 43 mph
Newark to Metropark = 14 miles/13 minutes = 64 mph
Metropark to Philadelphia 30th Street = 67 miles/46 minutes = 87 mph
30th Street to Wilmington = 25 miles/19 minutes = 79 mph
Wilmington to Baltimore = 69 miles/46 minutes = 90 mph
Baltimore to BWI = 11 miles/13 minutes = 51 mph
BWI to D.C. Union Station = 30 miles/25 minutes = 72 mph

I did much of the milage subtracting station miles on the schedule in my head, likewise with the minutes. I tried to pick the quickest times, where the train is going the fastest per the schedule. So there might be a mistake here or there, but I did the final math with a calculator, here's hoping I didn't make a typo.

Any average speed over 80 mph probably reflects where Acela trains go very fast.
It's also hard to go very fast when the stations are around 10 miles or less apart.

Don't forget Metropark-Trenton. I know it is not a typical schedule, but three Acelas stop at Trenton (2103,2126,& 2175.) 2175 on its own can be Newark-Trenton since it does not make Metropark.

amtrakhogger wrote:Don't forget Metropark-Trenton. I know it is not a typical schedule, but three Acelas stop at Trenton (2103,2126,& 2175.) 2175 on its own can be Newark-Trenton since it does not make Metropark.

The highest speed portion of the Corridor (except for a small 150 mph zone in New England) is Trenton-New Brunswick, where the Metroliners were tested and accepted in 1967-1969.

My money was going to be on Metropark to Trenton. That's 33.5 mi in 23 minutes on 2103, if you believe Wikipedia's mileposts. That's 87.39, but I wager it's routinely done more quickly than that (or at least was before the track work in the Princeton Jct area started). Newark to Trenton on 2175 is 48.1 miles, using Wikipedia's mileposts, in 31 minutes, which is 93.10mph.

I wonder if they added any time between New Brunswick and Trenton recently for the track work.

AC4619 wrote:Metroliners of past eras were able to make a 2.5 hr schedule work

Penn Central tried a 2.5-hour nonstop in 1969. Ended... in a few months?

Did any Metroliner after 1969 do 2.5 hours?

timz wrote: Did any Metroliner after 1969 do 2.5 hours?

Yes, or close at least. I remember a 2:35 Metroliner in the AEM-7 era.

timz wrote:[

Did any Metroliner after 1969 do 2.5 hours?

If we were Amtrak we would not decrease the running time until all the upgrading work is complete. Now that may be 10 - 20 years. We may find certain legs will have some time reductions but others will increase. The MARC section is ripe for major work and will need 4 main tracks then upgraded constant tension CAT all which will have delays such as is occurring now .

east point wrote: If we were Amtrak we would not decrease the running time until all the upgrading work is complete. Now that may be 10 - 20 years. We may find certain legs will have some time reductions but others will increase. The MARC section is ripe for major work and will need 4 main tracks then upgraded constant tension CAT all which will have delays such as is occurring now .

Agreed; there's a good chunk of trackwork to do. Between WAS and WIL:

• Four track, WAS to WINNANS, adjusting interlocks as needed.
• Rebuild Amtrak's NCR, BWI stations, as well as modify MARC's Seabrooke, Bowie State, and Odenton stations (Odenton needing an express platform accessed by the existing tunnel)
• Building the Circle Tunnel, which will avoid issues with the B&P and it's 30 MPH speed limit.
• Four track BAL to WIL, including wider/seperate bridges. I think the Gunpower bridge is due for replacement as well.

We're basically at track capacity. Time to increase it.

Yes, the NEC should be four tracks for a lot of the stretch between DC and WIL. This will not only help Amtrak trains but commuter trains. First Amtrak should start off with adding four tracks from DC to Baltimore as well as those new tunnels for the sake of increasing the speeds as well as increased rail service from both MARC and Amtrak. The majority of MARC's Penn Line trains run between DC and BAL as that is the core market.

njt/mnrrbuff wrote:Yes, the NEC should be four tracks for a lot of the stretch between DC and WIL. This will not only help Amtrak trains but commuter trains. First Amtrak should start off with adding four tracks from DC to Baltimore as well as those new tunnels for the sake of increasing the speeds as well as increased rail service from both MARC and Amtrak. The majority of MARC's Penn Line trains run between DC and BAL as that is the core market.

I don’t doubt four tracks are needed all the way between D.C. and Baltimore, but who really needs the extra capacity and who should pay for it? When passenger trains need more slots on freight owned railroad lines, the passenger trains are expected to pay for the extra capacity. Shouldn’t it be the same if the line is owned by Amtrak too?
I’ll admit I don’t know how much of the extra capacity is needed by Amtrak, MARC, or SEPTA, but somehow I feel each needs more and all should help pay for the additional capacity. How much and how needs to be answered before any additional capacity should be built.
It’s the same question that needs to be answered all along the NEC no matter who actually owns the tracks in each section. It is unlikely that Amtrak should and will pay for all the needed improvements.

electricron wrote:

njt/mnrrbuff wrote:Yes, the NEC should be four tracks for a lot of the stretch between DC and WIL. This will not only help Amtrak trains but commuter trains. First Amtrak should start off with adding four tracks from DC to Baltimore as well as those new tunnels for the sake of increasing the speeds as well as increased rail service from both MARC and Amtrak. The majority of MARC's Penn Line trains run between DC and BAL as that is the core market.

I don’t doubt four tracks are needed all the way between D.C. and Baltimore, but who really needs the extra capacity and who should pay for it? When passenger trains need more slots on freight owned railroad lines, the passenger trains are expected to pay for the extra capacity. Shouldn’t it be the same if the line is owned by Amtrak too?
I’ll admit I don’t know how much of the extra capacity is needed by Amtrak, MARC, or SEPTA, but somehow I feel each needs more and all should help pay for the additional capacity. How much and how needs to be answered before any additional capacity should be built.
It’s the same question that needs to be answered all along the NEC no matter who actually owns the tracks in each section. It is unlikely that Amtrak should and will pay for all the needed improvements.

Acela Express and soon the Avelia Liberty are the crown jewel of Amtrak. Once Amtrak cans the Southwest Chief routes as Richard Anderson has proposed, they will save a ton of funds which can be reallocated to the North Eastern Corridor to accelerate its growth.

electricron wrote: I don’t doubt four tracks are needed all the way between D.C. and Baltimore, but who really needs the extra capacity and who should pay for it? When passenger trains need more slots on freight owned railroad lines, the passenger trains are expected to pay for the extra capacity. Shouldn’t it be the same if the line is owned by Amtrak too?
I’ll admit I don’t know how much of the extra capacity is needed by Amtrak, MARC, or SEPTA, but somehow I feel each needs more and all should help pay for the additional capacity. How much and how needs to be answered before any additional capacity should be built.
It’s the same question that needs to be answered all along the NEC no matter who actually owns the tracks in each section. It is unlikely that Amtrak should and will pay for all the needed improvements.

It'll be Amtrak, Maryland, and the Feds for the Circle Tunnel, and I bet the 4-track between WINNANS and GROVE will be the same trio. The main benefits from just those two projects would be faster speeds through the tunnels (shaves a few minutes off the trains) and less contention over servicing BWI Airport station (as it'll be a three-platform, all-tracks-serviced station when all said and done). It will also set the stage for "service separation" between Amtrak and MARC -- MARC makes 2-3 times more stops over Amtrak in the same area.

Yep, one of the big problems there right now is Amtrak and MARC trains getting stuck behind each other.

daybeers wrote:Yep, one of the big problems there right now is Amtrak and MARC trains getting stuck behind each other.

As I've brought up before, convert the WAS-NYP portion of NEC into a 300 km/h high speed line for high speed and Regional traffic and divert all other traffic onto the parallel B&O main line (electrifying and widening it).