# Amtrak Questions **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 30, 2005, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amtrak-questions/296902 "2005-03-30T05:11:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 11\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 7:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amtrak-questions/296902/41 "2005-04-02T07:45:12Z")
> [@chaparralv8](#): > > As for the really fast (120+) stuff, you’re gonna need new alignments anyway. Really? Britain has long had 125mph services running on plenty of Victorian routes. And 100mph wasn’t unheard of for regular steam operations, nor for just about any mainline passenger service. I was under the impression that the particular problem for Acela is that the routes in question are particular twisty, giving few opportunities to accelerate to that speed. And tilting trains also necessitate different track conditions. But I fail to see what would be so difficult about making 125mph operation possible on much of the US network, scheduling requirements aside. (Actually, having just typed that, I’ve realised that of course signalling systems would need to be changed…) ---
**Author:** ![Antonius\_Block](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/51bf81/32.png) [@Antonius\_Block](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Antonius_Block)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 8:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amtrak-questions/296902/42 "2005-04-02T08:52:48Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Does the train make more stops than the bus? Or is it that, like all track Amtrak uses outside the Northeast, the property of a freight line, or several? For the particular case of rail travel between the San Francisco Bay Area and the Los Angeles Basin, it has more to do with physical geography than track ownership or number of stops. The [Coast Starlight](http://www.cwrr.com/Amtrak/w_costar.html) (the train that **Spectre of Pithecanthropus** is taking from Seattle to LA next month) goes south from Oakland via San Jose, winding through the Coast Range with many twisty climbs and descents, then following the wiggly Pacific Coast line on a predominantly single-track right of way. Highly photogenic (which is one reason why it’s so popular), but slow. The [San Joaquin](http://cwrr.com/Amtrak/wc_joaqn.html) trains are the main Amtrak route from the Bay Area to LA. They usually involve a train from Oakland to Bakersfield (although as **Spectre of Pithecanthropus** mentioned, one can cut off part of this with a bus to Stockton), followed by bus from Bakersfield to LA. This is faster than the Coast Starlight because the main part of the journey is **straight** and **flat**. Even though the San Joaquin trains start out from Oakland going North and West (on a journey that ends up being mainly South and East), it’s still a shorter distance than the coastal route that the Coast Starlight follows. My two links give the mileage: Oakland -\> LA as 473 miles (Coast Starlight, “direct”) vs 415 miles (San Joaquin train + bus, via Central Valley). [The winding nature of the Coast Route is shown even more conclusively if one takes the distance to LA from Martinez, the Bay Area station at which the coastal and inland routes diverge: 506 miles coastal vs 383 inland). Lots of curves mean greater mileage _plus_ lower speeds.] Both the Coastal and Inland routes run over track owned by Union Pacific; the main difference is that the San Joaquins go via California’s Central Valley, through which it is easy to run straight, flat, multitracked rail. The bus transfer is necessary in Bakersfield because there’s no “high-bandwidth” rail connection from the Central Valley into the LA Basin. The main rail route is via the [Tehachapi Pass](http://www.abocanyon.clara.net/page24.htm), which is a legendary bottleneck that Union Pacific freight operations _really do not want_ to share with low-revenue passenger service. The proposed [high-speed rail connection](http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/) between SF and LA would involve a Central Valley route with completely new – and expensive – passages over the Coast Range (in the SF area) and the Tehachapis (to get into the LA basin). The trackage within the Central Valley will be cheap and will require no major feats of engineering. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 1:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amtrak-questions/296902/43 "2005-04-02T13:28:43Z")
> [@](#): > > This is better than any other transportation system in this country - we don’t subsidize the Acela at all, it pays for itself and then subsidizes Amtrak. This is because it runs faster than the car or the airplane over its entire route. Some good points, but some clarification is needed on Accela: Acela are not high speed trains, they are tilt trains so speed can be carried through a turn. The NYC-Boston run is especially ‘twisty’ and IIRC the track makes the equivlant of 12 full circles (if you add up all sections). Accela’s speed comes from it’s ability to tilt, not from a faster engine. It just doesn’t have to slow down as much on turns. This is a great benifit on the NY-Bos run, but much less so from NY to Wash DC, which is a straighter track. If you compare Accela times vs ‘regular’ service (called metroliner?) you will see that Acella beats the regular by a fair margin from NY to Bost, but not such an advantage from NY to DC, it’s still faster but not by much. 1st is you don’t want to drive in NYC, and having a car is counterproductive to getting around due to parking and the slow road system. The subway and cabs (with driver who know their way around the apple) are far faster in most cases getting you door to door. Accela runs right into the heart of NYC, right where you want to be. It is hard to drive to this part and airports don’t get you anywhere near midtown. Other issues: NY-Bos uses LIRR tracks, then there is some issues with the train getting out of sunnyside yard, along with ‘merging’ onto the Metro North tracks. Any one of these 3 points can and usually do cause delays, and once one of them are missed the delays compound. Metro North will not allow Amtrak to use tilt mode on MN tracks, taking away Alcela’s speed advantage for a good portion of the trip. ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amtrak-questions/296902/44 "2005-04-02T14:58:01Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Some good points, but some clarification is needed on Accela: > > Acela are not high speed trains, they are tilt trains so speed can be carried through a turn. With a top speed of 150mph, Acela just about fits into the high-speed category. ---
**Author:** ![chaparralv8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@chaparralv8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chaparralv8)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 4:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amtrak-questions/296902/45 "2005-04-02T16:56:22Z")
> [@GorillaMan](#): > > Really? Britain has long had 125mph services running on plenty of Victorian routes. And 100mph wasn’t unheard of for regular steam operations, nor for just about any mainline passenger service. I was under the impression that the particular problem for Acela is that the routes in question are particular twisty, giving few opportunities to accelerate to that speed. And tilting trains also necessitate different track conditions. But I fail to see what would be so difficult about making 125mph operation possible on much of the US network, scheduling requirements aside. > > (Actually, having just typed that, I’ve realised that of course signalling systems would need to be changed…) The 125 MPH British freight/passenger tracks were designed by a guy called “Brunel”. I don’t think American railway systems are up to quite that standard. Besides, I don’t want 130+ MPH , 800 ton passenger trains on the same tracks as 15,000 ton freights going 35 MPH. All it takes is one missed signal and you’ve crashed seven jumbo jets… ---
**Author:** ![GorillaMan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/50afbb/32.png) [@GorillaMan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GorillaMan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 6:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amtrak-questions/296902/46 "2005-04-02T18:29:47Z")
> [@chaparralv8](#): > > The 125 MPH British freight/passenger tracks were designed by a guy called “Brunel”. I don’t think American railway systems are up to quite that standard. Fair point. (But don’t leave out Stevenson!) > [@](#): > > Besides, I don’t want 130+ MPH , 800 ton passenger trains on the same tracks as 15,000 ton freights going 35 MPH. If the signalling system is appropriate for the traffic, what’s the problem? Fast passenger trains and slow freight have been sharing tracks since the earliest railways, and only TGV-style trains have dedicated tracks. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amtrak-questions/296902/47 "2005-04-02T19:28:10Z")
> [@](#): > > , effectively, that no non-electric train could go faster than 79 miles per hour. Is this law still in effect. I once took a GPS on a amtrak diesel and found it pushed 100 mph, actually just short of it, perhaps 98-99 mph till metro north territory, which speeds were down to about 80 mph, and consistantly dropped as the train approached NYC. ---
**Author:** ![dotchan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9d8465/32.png) [@dotchan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dotchan)\ **Post date:** [April 2, 2005, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amtrak-questions/296902/48 "2005-04-02T19:33:46Z")
Just adding my opnion that I like the trains, too, even if they’re sometimes later than the Second Coming. I live in Boca Raton, and I prefer to take the train up to Orlando to visit the folks because I find the (3+ hours) drive up to be long and tedious, and I despise Grayhound’s lack of legroom and clean toilets. What would be really cool is if we ever got hi-speed rail, but I doubt that will happen in my lifetime. ---
**Author:** ![chaparralv8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@chaparralv8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chaparralv8)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2005, 1:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amtrak-questions/296902/49 "2005-04-03T01:08:48Z")
> [@kanicbird](#): > > Is this law still in effect. I once took a GPS on a amtrak diesel and found it pushed 100 mph, actually just short of it, perhaps 98-99 mph till metro north territory, which speeds were down to about 80 mph, and consistantly dropped as the train approached NYC. Yes, it’s still in effect, though if Amtrak ever has a train that’s a few minutes late with clear track ahead they’ll let the operator flout it and run a bit faster to catch up. It’s better to violate a stupid rule than get stuck behind a local freight… Actually, I think Amtrak should simply ignore that regulation; it’s in their best interest and in the best interest of railroading, which is what railroad regulations are for. ---
**Author:** ![kanicbird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/5f8ce5/32.png) [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)\ **Post date:** [April 3, 2005, 2:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amtrak-questions/296902/50 "2005-04-03T02:17:17Z")
> [@](#): > > Actually, I think Amtrak should simply ignore that regulation; Perhaps they do. Between Hudson NY and Rinecliff NY, the scedual (normally) says 20 minutes, and the distance is 27 miles (using MS streets and trips, which shows RR lines). which gives an ave speed of 81 mph. This does not allow for acceleration or deceleration, which if included would require the train to travel faster to make up that time. This section of track has no electric power. There is no 3rd rail and no overhead wires. ---
**Author:** ![chaparralv8](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/e274bd/32.png) [@chaparralv8](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/chaparralv8)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2005, 7:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amtrak-questions/296902/51 "2005-04-05T19:42:45Z")
That’s interesting. Out here they stick to 79 like they’d be electrocuted for going over. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/amtrak-questions/296902.md?page=2)