Ten years of Acela service.

afiggatt wrote:
Ordering additional coach cars or a small number of additional train sets will be a problem because who would build them for a small production order?

Indeed, and why order additional Acela cars if the entire trainsets will require replacement before the end of the decade? On a technical level, the Acela/HHP8 order was a tremendous disappointment.

The reason they got rid of the Acela Regional brand is customers were not bothering to read what they actually are and then expecting an Acela Express trainset when they had tickets on an Acela Regional train, just because it is called "Acela".

I've never been much impressed by the Acela Express. To paraphrase Groucho Marx's famous "Why would I go to a bar?", let me answer the question, "Why would I ride Acela Express?"

Reasons not to:

1) It's really no faster than Metroliner EMUs of the early 1970s and AEM7 hauled Metroliners of the early 1990.
2) Air travel is often cheaper, and takes a LOT less time (even when factoring in TSA delays)
3) Acela Express doesn't ride all that well, and the seats are not all that comfortable

I've ridden ICE, TGV, and Shinkansen trains, as well as the X2000 (both in Sweden and here), and I would take ANY ONE of them over Acela Express.

Let's get on with ordering a replacement. The fact that Amtrak will be replacing all 25 of those HHP8 things (I had one break down on the train I took last Monday) tells you all you need to know about "Bombardier quality".

NellieBly wrote:I've never been much impressed by the Acela Express. To paraphrase Groucho Marx's famous "Why would I go to a bar?", let me answer the question, "Why would I ride Acela Express?"

Reasons not to:

1) It's really no faster than Metroliner EMUs of the early 1970s and AEM7 hauled Metroliners of the early 1990.

Okay, the biggest service improvement came from track upgrades and the electrification from New Haven to Boston.

NellieBly wrote:2) Air travel is often cheaper, and takes a LOT less time (even when factoring in TSA delays)

Well yes, it can be, depending on a number of factors, which is a major embarrassment. The high fares associated with the Acela have done a lot of damage the prospects of high-speed rail. After all, if you had to pay Acela costs-per-mile for a trancontinental trip, it might be cheaper to lease a small private jet.

NellieBly wrote:3) Acela Express doesn't ride all that well, and the seats are not all that comfortable

Yes, it's always been embarassing that there's less legroom on the Acela than on the old Metroliner. Oh, and the seats might be less comfortable than on the regionals.

NellieBly wrote:Let's get on with ordering a replacement. The fact that Amtrak will be replacing all 25 of those HHP8 things (I had one break down on the train I took last Monday) tells you all you need to know about "Bombardier quality".

Well, maybe the Acela trainsets won't last very long past 20 or so years, but that's not an excuse to simply pick among various European-style trainsets. If conventional locomotive hauled coaches can meet an express, limited stop schedule, why not go back to conventional equipment?

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: If conventional locomotive hauled coaches can meet an express, limited stop schedule, why not go back to conventional equipment?

That's a really good question, isn't it?

A lot of the motivation for the Acela equipment was public relations. Buy something new and fancy (and obese by HST standards thanks to the FRA), and you can market it as high speed service even if conventional equipment is almost as fast over the route in question. As you also note, it was infrastructure improvements that were primarily responsible for improvements in Boston-New York transit times (and even before that, Amtrak's New England Metroliners had run Boston-New York in 3 hours 55 minutes with F40s and Amfleet and an engine change at New Haven back in the mid-1980s.)

For the next generation, buy some reliable off-the-shelf European electrics and modern conventional coaches and spend the rest of the money on infrastructure. That approach even allows for consist flexibility at peak travel times, should Amtrak ever decide to go back to that revolutionary concept.

NellieBly wrote:I've never been much impressed by the Acela Express. To paraphrase Groucho Marx's famous "Why would I go to a bar?", let me answer the question, "Why would I ride Acela Express?"

Reasons not to:

1) It's really no faster than Metroliner EMUs of the early 1970s and AEM7 hauled Metroliners of the early 1990.
2) Air travel is often cheaper, and takes a LOT less time (even when factoring in TSA delays)
3) Acela Express doesn't ride all that well, and the seats are not all that comfortable

I've ridden ICE, TGV, and Shinkansen trains, as well as the X2000 (both in Sweden and here), and I would take ANY ONE of them over Acela Express.

Let's get on with ordering a replacement. The fact that Amtrak will be replacing all 25 of those HHP8 things (I had one break down on the train I took last Monday) tells you all you need to know about "Bombardier quality".

It's 15 Amtrak HHP's, actually (+6 HHP-8's for MARC iirc)

While I can't argue for Acela on a value for dollar basis (though I have noticed that Regional fares aren't always less than Acela fares anymore - with demand pricing I guess it depends on how close the train is to being sold out), I do find the Acela experience to be superior to that of the Regional service. I guess I like the modern design, the large windows, etc. Little things like the automatic sliding doors, more open vestibules, nicer restrooms and such give the train more of an upscale feel. And the 150 mph running on the north end is fun! I've ridden on quite a few high speed trains myself (Virgin Pendolino and Voyager, IC225, TGV single level, TGV duplex, Eurostar, ICE 3, and ETR 500) and I'd probably rate the Acela's interior design second only to the ICE 3 among those.

Ride quality varies in my experience, but yes, even on an Acela that's got fresh trucks/wheels/suspension the ride quality is good but not outstanding. The seats also are good but maybe not outstanding, imo.

Matt Johnson wrote:While I can't argue for Acela on a value for dollar basis (though I have noticed that Regional fares aren't always less than Acela fares anymore - with demand pricing I guess it depends on how close the train is to being sold out), I do find the Acela experience to be superior to that of the Regional service. I guess I like the modern design, the large windows, etc. Little things like the automatic sliding doors, more open vestibules, nicer restrooms and such give the train more of an upscale feel. And the 150 mph running on the north end is fun! I've ridden on quite a few high speed trains myself (Virgin Pendolino and Voyager, IC225, TGV single level, TGV duplex, Eurostar, ICE 3, and ETR 500) and I'd probably rate the Acela's interior design second only to the ICE 3 among those.

Ride quality varies in my experience, but yes, even on an Acela that's got fresh trucks/wheels/suspension the ride quality is good but not outstanding. The seats also are good but maybe not outstanding, imo.

I agree that the bigger windows are a great improvement over Amfleet, although I'm not sure how much of the Acela customer base cares about that. I rode several Pendolinos this summer, and I'd rate the Acela's ride quality as roughly equivalent.

They should have been built as 7-car trainsets from the start, seeing as how the old Metroliner consists were running 7 cars for several years prior to Acela Express rollout. Many of the weekday Acelas I ride are often near or at sellout conditions, with people even using the cafe stools as seats for their trips.

I often wondered why they decided on 6 car, 300 passenger capacity trainsets. 400+ seems like it would have been a better capacity for a fixed consist HST.

The Acela is certainly drawing a crowd, and I'm one. I've been traveling from BOS to central NJ on business regularly this year and the Acela is always my choice: The extra speed matters, as I'm connecting to NJT at NYP. The WiFi matters more; I (and a lot of others) can work, provided the train isn't so crowded with road warriors that the bandwidth is exhausted. Either of these could be delivered on a different platform, but the current offering is worth it to my employers: Flights to La Guardia leave me on the wrong side of NYC, flights to Newark aren't so common and it can be an ugly drive at the wrong time of day. Ditto Philadelphia. Add the cost of the rental (NJT/cab work well to reach both HQ and the hotel I normally use) to the flight and the $$ say "Acela" to my Comptroller.

Personally, I can work and read on the train where doing it on buses makes me sick. I can work on a plane when the size of the seat and the stage of the flight allow it. But in 34 years as a passenger, Amtrak has never told me "weather isn't our fault, go find/pay for your own hotel and we'll see what we can do for you in the morning". The DC city bus wasn't ideal when the Baltimore tunnel got washed out by the firemen, but it got me and my wife to a train and the train got us home. Likewise for various Late Shore Limiteds and San Francisco Zephyrs in snow.

I think the thread title should be 'tenth anniversary'. Weren't the trains suspended for a couple of multi-month stretches so that we got much less than 10 years of service over these 10 years?

Matt Johnson wrote: Little things like the automatic sliding doors

What's the difference between Acela express's sliding doors and those on regular Amtrak Washington-Boston trains? Don't regular trains also have buttons on their vestibule doors that operate a powered door opening device? Do the Acela expresses have supermarket sensors that open the doors automatically when a passenger approaches?

jbvb wrote:The Acela is certainly drawing a crowd, and I'm one. I've been traveling from BOS to central NJ on business regularly this year and the Acela is always my choice: The extra speed matters, as I'm connecting to NJT at NYP. The WiFi matters more; I (and a lot of others) can work, provided the train isn't so crowded with road warriors that the bandwidth is exhausted. Either of these could be delivered on a different platform, but the current offering is worth it to my employers: Flights to La Guardia leave me on the wrong side of NYC, flights to Newark aren't so common and it can be an ugly drive at the wrong time of day. Ditto Philadelphia. Add the cost of the rental (NJT/cab work well to reach both HQ and the hotel I normally use) to the flight and the $$ say "Acela" to my Comptroller.

Personally, I can work and read on the train where doing it on buses makes me sick. I can work on a plane when the size of the seat and the stage of the flight allow it. But in 34 years as a passenger, Amtrak has never told me "weather isn't our fault, go find/pay for your own hotel and we'll see what we can do for you in the morning". The DC city bus wasn't ideal when the Baltimore tunnel got washed out by the firemen, but it got me and my wife to a train and the train got us home. Likewise for various Late Shore Limiteds and San Francisco Zephyrs in snow.

Agreed. The Acela is the only comfortable and stress free way to travel between NYC and boston. By contrast, the regional is just too slow (the extra 45 minutes are not trivial if your time is at all valuable, and the price differential isn't all that great), the plane is a hassle both because of the to/from airport issues, as well as the inability to do work while in transit, the bus uncomfortable and slow, and driving is often stressful (and of course you can't do any work if you're driving).

Granted, for single day business trips the plane is the only option. And for students (lots of time, little money) sans car, the bus is where it's at. But if you're willing to pony up the cash, for a rush hour trip down to NYC from Boston and actually want to get some work done on the trip, I don't think there is a better way to go.

jbvb wrote:The extra speed matters, as I'm connecting to NJT at NYP.

This is another big misunderstanding by most riders. The Acelas don't have a shorter running time simply due to speed, but more so becuase of less stops. The biggest example of this is during winter months when we operate under the "Snow Plan". The Snow Plan reuires that the rear power car's pantograph is kept locked down and the rear power car is kept shut down, therefore the lead power car is pulling the entire train on it's own, including the dead weight of the rear power car. Additionally the Tilting feature is shut off during snowy conditions and as a result the Acelas have to operate at "B" speeds between Boston & New Haven which is the same speed as the Regionals, except the Acelas can still do 150mph in a few of the 150 stretches. It is usually only a difference of about 10 to 15 minutes running time.

I like the AE trainsets but we should also try out the SNCF TGV POS trainset which is sleeker and better than Acela although the current track condition won't allow for faster speeds but stil the SNCF POS TGV would be the best

Patrick Boylan wrote: What's the difference between Acela express's sliding doors and those on regular Amtrak Washington-Boston trains? Don't regular trains also have buttons on their vestibule doors that operate a powered door opening device? Do the Acela expresses have supermarket sensors that open the doors automatically when a passenger approaches?

Yeah, they do have those sensors. Plus they just look cooler than the cold, industrial design of the Amfleets with all the bare steel!