This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Atlant 14:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Amtrak's service bulletin. I've added both to the (new) References section. slambo 15:44, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
The article states that you can now travel Boston-NYC in under four hours. Is this what it's supposed to say? I mean, the distance is about 300 kilometers, if you drive that distance doing 75 km/h (somewhat less than 50 mph) you could go by car in that time.
It's 3 hours 20-25 minutes. Boston to NYC is 346 km, giving a speed of 103 kph (64 mph). That's rarely doable on the Boston-NYC corridor. -- SPUI ( talk) 23:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Drive time does not account for stops both at stations and in traffic, the trains must run up and down the track at certain times and be in certain places at certian times because of track traffic. The NEC is used both as an intercity route and a commuter route. so train must be coordinated, that is why it takes so long. -- kev62nesl
To clear up any misinformation regarding the tilting, I am a high speed supervising technician, I work for Amtrak. I can be contacted at hammank@amtrak.com, the tilting is for passanger comfort only, the power cars do not having titling it is only for the trailing cars. There are no public source I can cite off hand, only proprietory sources of information in MGU-026 book for amtrak training. Further more tilting is not a safety critical component on a trainset, meaning it is not necessary for safe operation. this can be confirmed in FRA 238 Tier II HST Daily Inspection MECHANICAL book.
There is an error in the article regarding the decision to use a tilt train for Acela. In fact, there was no rational engineering or technical reason to use a tilt train on the route. It was done for purely propaganda reasons. There are plenty of NON-tilt passenger trains in use today that operate on tighter curves (and at higher speeds) than Acela.
The real determining factor for curve speed is superevelation. Hans-Joachim Zierke has an excellent write-up on this. A good starting point is: [1].
Oh, and given the abysimal 60% on-time performance of NY-Boston Acela, the article should be careful in claiming a 3.5hr travel time.
Re -- Tilting My understanding (Mostly from NY Times articles I believe) is that the tilting is off on the curviest sections because of an error in design or communication which was discovered before the train went into service. It seems that there is not enough clearance on those sections between northbound and southbound trains in the case where one train is tilting and the train in the opposite direction is not not tilting. This could occur if there was a fault in the tilting mechanism. Unable to meet the clearance requirements in the case of a single fault, the tilting was permanently turned off on those sections of track. I am working from memory, but if this is correct, I think it is relevant and should be included. Perhaps someone has more information?
There should also be a mention of the problems with the brake design. The Acela design was modified to meet US crash standards (as mentioned in the article) and this exceeded the design capacity for the brakes. jcp 02:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It previously stated the CDOT owns the MNCR track, seemingly implying that they owned all of it. In fact, the CT part is owned by CDOT and the NY part is owned by NYDOT. Furthermore, the 90 mph max is only on NYDOT track. CDOT track is limited to 75 mph. I have cleared up the ambiguity/potential errors here.
I have also added a section explaining that the 135 mph limit south (west, really) of NYP is due to catenary issues, not track issues. The track is in fact straighter on the ex-Pennsy than on the ex-New Haven, as most here probably know. I do not believe this is readily apparent in the article, since no NYP-WAS timings are cited.
I may be wrong, but... in Europe and Japan the definition of high speed train is for vehicles running at over 250 km/h. Italian ETR 450 is NOT a HST. ETR 500 is. If the american definition is similar to the international one, Acela is not technically speaking an HST (his commercial speed is far lower than the europeans' one). 82.51.126.65 21:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The American Definition is anything running over 125mph, someone please convert, anything over that speed is what we call a Tier II railroad and operate under strict standards than a Tier II, we do not have the same well maintianed tracks as in Europe or Japan, which can be attributed to our love of our automobiles and shear size of our country. Kev62nesl
I’d say that the Acela Express is the U.S. definition of high-speed train. David Arthur 01:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I just did some checking after it was claimed that Trenton was discontinued as an Acela stop after the brake repairs. As per Amtrak's website, there's only one Acela that stops at Trenton (scheduled arrival at 6:47am from New York, Monday-Thursday), so while Acela service at the station is quite limited, it hasn't technically been "eliminated" yet. — LrdChaos 14:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Changed "North America's more stringent crash standards" to "North America's different approach to crash standards". This sentence was misleading, as North America and Europe have two opposite strategies to crash safety. While North American standards emphasize the robustness of the structures, Europe prefers lighter structures that distorts during crash to absorb the energy leaving a a "survival cell" made of very strong frame that protects passengers. This approach is used in the design of the TGV and European standards are no way less stringent than North Americans. Blastwizard 10:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to argue but the high speed trainset, aka acela express, are designed with the same survival cell that you refer to. On the HST anything outside of the interior doors (trailer car) are deisgned to crumple and the nose of the power cars are suppose to crumple. The engineers are suppose to dive into a little section behind his seat that are equiped with crash pads. These crumple zone are suppose to absorb over 50 megajewels.
kev62nesl
Yes, this is an error. The US standard includes the head on crash protection, (with more stringent anti-telescoping provisions I believe but not certain.) In addition, the US standard requires structural integrity to be maintained in the instance of a rollover or side impact due to jackknifing or collision with a stationary object (building.)
jcp
03:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The article says that the Acela Express cars have "identical 6000-horsepower power cars at each end", a statement reconfirmed at one of the external links. However, the HHP-8 article says that the 8000-hp locomotives have engines that are "very similar to the Acela Express power cars". Can somebody explain this discrepancy? C. M. Harris 20:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Note: One trainset has 9 cars, the extra geometry car is next to the south power car (unless turned) : Keo 00:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Power Car
HHP-8 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|
The last edit removed too much information from the article. There is a known issue with Firefox and Google Toolbar. Slambo (Speak) 01:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
"With the completion of electrification between New Haven and Boston, all trains on the line have become faster; one can travel between Boston and New York in just over three and a half hours (an improvement of half an hour). New York to Washington runs take about two and three-quarters hours."
The semicolon here implies that any train on the NEC can get you from Boston to Penn Station in 3 1/2 hours, when in reality, only the Acela goes this fast. The Amtrak website shows a scheduled time of 4:15 for a Regional NEC train. I'm sure the article is is wrong here (unless I'm just reading the sentence wrongly), but I'm wondering whether the improvement of half an hour over earlier diesel to electric switches is still correct. Anyone have any thoughts? Mjl0509 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I notice that we're coming close to an edit war on whether or not to include the May 25 NEC power outage in the "Outages" section of the article (namely, 84.49.106.92 and I have removed it, and Atlant has restored it).
I don't think that the power outage has any place in this article. Power outages on the NEC affect nearly all service, not just the Acela, as opposed to the other outages. The fact that several trains, including Acela trainsets, were stranded is hardly worth mentioning as part of this article; it's not the Acela's fault, it's not unique to the Acela, and power outages are not rare on Amtrak. Especially considering the magnitude of the other outages, which occured when defects were found solely with the Acela, including a paragraph about an electric locomotive being stuck when the power went out doesn't seem in the same league. — LrdChaos ( talk) 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I'm certainly no fan of Acela, but it wasn't "Acela's" outage, it was Amtrak's, or the NEC's, or NJ. I thought that LrdChaos made a good point about that.
In a similar way, when an Acela train came nose-to-nose (almost) with a commuter train at S.Norwalk,CT, it wasn't because of an Acela flaw (although that was the train at fault), it was a flaw with the Amtrak engineer that had been running with the safety mechanisms cut out! That's why ALL Amtrak trains, not just Acelas, have to report the condition of their cab signal & automatic train stop apparatus when they enter Metro North territory at New Haven,CT, or New Rochelle,NY. You wouldn't want "fatal safety flaw" listed under Acela's disadvantages, would you? Peace. Keo 21:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. --- J.S ( t| c) 07:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Notice on linking to YouTube, Google Video, and other similar sites:
There is no ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by these guidelines. From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.
The videos in question are the uploader's own work. This is permitted. Daniel Case 04:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it really the case (as indicated by New Haven being unbolded in the station list) that not all Acela trains stop in New Haven? Mjl0509 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Was there any such thing as a turbo Acela that was being tested? I heard rumors of an Acela Turbotrain that didn't pan out because it guzzled too much fuel and accelerated too slowly. I guess Lady Acela will long be an electric lady, then. 204.52.215.107 14:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Similar to what was being discussed with the electric outages, I think we should be careful not to simply list any incident where someone wandered onto the tracks and the train that struck them happened to be an Acela. There are times when it's relevant that an Acela train (vs. any other) hit someone, like the story about the grade crossing in Stonington (since Acela is unique among high speed rail for having them) or, in my judgment, the kid who crossed the tracks in Mansfield and was killed at 130 mph (since a different train would have been proceeding more slowly, I think.) The incident with the guy walking on the tracks in New Haven being hit seems not relevant to an article about Acela's specific design and characteristics, unless we are prepared to add a list of such events to every Amtrak line ever, which would be silly. Mjl0509 16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
A post of mine from a couple of days ago that might shed some light on my the Acela sucks:
(a bit of background: I've done a lot of environment work for Amtrak in the past and worked on the Acela Express during the environmental phase - specifically I worked on the Acela prototypes that ran on the NJ "racetrack" through Princeton and Pueblo CO. During that time I spent a lot of time with Amtrak & FRA officials as well as various rail consultants and Alstom-Bombardier staff)
Why not have the French, the Germans or the Japanese bid for the right to supply high speed rail for the northeast corridor? We'd get better, faster service, without Congress having to bail out the project.
It's not that simple. First of all, when Amtrak was choosing which technology to use for its HSR service, they actually brought over several HRS trainsets from European countries including the TGV, Eurostar, and ICE. Amtrak had a wishlist of features for their trains - all but Alstom-Bombardier (TGV) said they couldn't meet them. Siemens (ICE) said that if Amtrak could be a little flexible with their specs, the ICE could work with very little changes. But since AB said they could meet the specs, Amtrak went with them. If you talk with Amtrak officials today, they'll tell you that was a huge mistake.
But the biggest impediment to good HSR service on the NE corridor is not the technology, it's the infrastructure. The NE corridor has too may curves which limit the highest speeds. Straightening out those curves would require the acquisition of hundreds of thousands of square miles of land, and the pricing for the land along would be astronomical (not even counting construction and environmental assessment costs).
The second problem is that speed is limited by the number of grade-crossings along the line - can't have a train speeding through a busy intersection at 150mph. Grade separating these crossings would cost on the order of $1 million per, not including the cost of rerouting train/auto traffic during construction.
The third problem is that the catanary south of New Haven dates from the 19th century and can't handle the highest speeds. As I mentioned before, I was present during some of the high speed testing through New Jersey where they ran the train at top speeds. Seriously, I though the catanary was going to fall down everytime the train passed.
The fourth problem is that a good portion of the NE corridor south of Philadelphia is owned and dispatched by CSX and Norfolk Southern (freight lines). And the freight companies have the annoying habit of prioritizing their trains over Amtrak train. If you've ridden an Acela north out of DC and found yourself waiting on a stopped train, it's because NS has decided that a 10,000-ft freight train moving at 25 mph should have priority over your Acela.
Again, these are the biggest problems on the NE corridor. FRA/Amtrak could ship over a TGV tomorrow, plop it down on the NE corridor and the service would still be crap. If we want world-class high-speed rail service, we're going to have to pay for the infrastructure costs. But every politician knows it would be political suicide to advocate sinking 10's of billions of dollars into Amtrak. As an order of magnitude - 1 mile of single tracks costs $1 million - not including environmental assessment, land, or special mitigation costs.
Funny enough - the $150 billion "stimulus" package would probably be better off being invested in completely redoing the NE corridor, and maybe expanding it to the south and midwest. It would be a mega-project that would provide thousands of white and blue collar jobs, it would improve mobility, take some strain off the airspace and probably result in technology improvements that could be applied to other industries. But that would mean taking a long term view of things, and we don't do that in the U.S.
(end quote)
FWIW, I know folks working on the CA HSR study, and things are looking a little bleak there also. It costs money, and no one wants to go out on a limb and spend it.
-- TIB ( talk) 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"There are also many miles of track, especially east of New Haven, that have been upgraded to 110 mph and 125 mph (177 km/h and 201 km/h)." Does anyone have more specific information? How many miles are 110 and how many are 125? Where are these sections located? The distinction between 110 and 125 is important, because the 200km/h definition of high-speed rail includes one but not the other.-- Bhuck ( talk) 14:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not supposed to usually be a picture gallery, especially in an article that is not List-class. As such, pictures with acceptable licenses on the Commons are accessible via the link, and thus have been commented out. -- AEMoreira042281 ( talk) 21:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
"Amtrak has captured over half of the market share of travelers between Washington and New York.[1] "
does this mean half the share of rail travel or travel in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.117.192 ( talk) 20:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The article on Acela has been merged into this one. Here is the link to its old talk page. Murjax ( talk) 23:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps include a section or mention of ticket prices? 208.203.88.3 ( talk) 17:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Are there any plans for future upgrades of the track to make all (or most) sections of it high speed rail? gren グレン 06:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
"There was little support for building an entirely new railway as had been done for Japan's Shinkansen ("Bullet Train"), France's TGV and Germany's Intercity-Express." -- Only partly true. The German ICE was designed to run on old railways as well, at much lower speed of course, but this helped reducing costs as new high speed parts could be installed later where desired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.94.108.66 ( talk) 12:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Please use miles, gallons, or other medieval units in the Encyclopedia when dealing with topics where the standards are set in those units. We are in 2006 and there is no universal unit system, being not everyone uses the same units. If they did we wouldn't even be talking about this. -- Kev62nesl 09:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't use miles, gallons, or other medieval units in an Encyclopedia. We are in 2005, the universal unit system is the metric system. There could be some local variations in a few countries, but this should not appear in Wikipedia articles. -- Ocollard 11:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I've read Wikipedia:Measurements Debate and it is clear that the metric system should be used as measurement units. About 90% of the world population use this convenient system. If a few countries use a different system this should not interfere. The goal of this encyclopedia is to inform, not to not to make USAians think they ought to do. I don't think there is a "home" for this article, nor for any article. Every article in this encyclopedia is global, not local. It should use the units that everyone uses, not the units that locals use. I'm switching back to the metric system on this article, unless there is a clear policy that differs -- Ocollard 12:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
This link refers to spelling, not to measurement units. This Encyclopedia is aimed for the world, not just for one country. In a special Wikipedia for USA, the use of miles is ok, but not here. I cannot understand how we can support a measurement units that means nothing for 95% of the world population. I think this article is informative, and should be accessible to everyone. Using non standard measurement units cripples this. We are in 2005, let's live in today's world. -- Ocollard 13:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
After all the changing of units here the version of 4.19.111.130 seemed like a fair compromise, Imp units first for an American subject, and a Metric conversion with no decimals. That is like most other articles. Wwoods’s innovation of replacing all the last significant figures with 0 or 5 is not mentioned in the measurement discussion. Would anyone support that as a general policy for all conversions on all other pages? Meggar 04:55, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
I made several corrections here. First, it is not limited to RI. It was initially MP 162-170 in RI, and MP 195-205 in MA. Second, it is now more than 18 miles of track; I have ridden in Acelas that have done 150 mph through Kingston, RI (which is around MP 158 or so - well outside of the former MP 162 cutoff). I am not sure exactly how much more though; someone would need to get the most up to date Amtrak employee timetable to find out.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mla ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
The Wireless Internet Access section of the Acela Express article seems misplaced. The section is not Acela Express specific. In fact, the section doesn't resolve itself in that after reading it I do not have a clear understanding of either Acela's or Amtrak's current wireless internet access plans. I think this section should be removed entirely. If discussion about Acela's wireless internet access were to be present I think it would be best presented in a section about amenities (food service, attendant service, etc.). Zanzibarbarians ( talk) 04:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been making a number of repairs and upgrades this page, proper formatting and adding more references, as well as instilling a proper structure of the article. I hope I can get some support on building up the level of material on the development of this service, I feel this is lacking in the article as it currently stands. Still, I'll do what I can to bring this up to a greater level of quality. Kyteto ( talk) 19:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Tobyw ( talk) 23:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The market share figures in the article seem a bit dodgy to me. As only 593000 people take the (EDIT:Acela Express) train each year ( source) and 988976 fly ( source) the maximum possible market share is 37.4% - even assuming no-one drives, goes by bus or takes a slower train between Boston and New York. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 23:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Why no mention of the Swedish X2000 train that was chartered by Amtrak for use in the US in the early 1990's and that is clearly the origin of the Acela trains? The Acelas are virtual copies of the X2000, in everything from appearance to tilt ride, which can't be a coincidence... Allan Akbar ( talk) 22:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking that there should be a separate page for the actual trainset used for Acela Express trains since it is a fairly unique vehicle. This could include fairly technical details that would probably just muddy up the present article which is more concerned with how the train service functions. However, I haven't been able to figure out if there's a specific model number for the existing rolling stock, so all I've ever been able to figure out for a new page title is Acela Express (trainset). Does anyone have any info on that or a good reference that might have it? — Mulad (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
Infobox Train}}
or {{
Infobox locomotive}}
, or even a main section for the trainset. I also find it confusing and odd that Amtrak only really refer to the Acela Express service, or very occasionally to Acela Express train (eg
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Content_C/1241267387279/es, where it almost shows that they have no real name for the trainset). I'm not sure what would happen if they ever buy more trainsets for use on other high speed routes, or newer stock for the existing route (with or without a cascade elsewhere).I was reading the "incidents" section and notice it covered some of the deaths caused by the acela...back in 2001, a friend of mine was killed by the acela while walking near the tracks with some other kids (they weren't on the tracks, just near them). The force of the train going by created a vacuum-effect and sucked them into the wheel-bed. I tried to find a story online about it, and all I could find was this: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-80725050.html ...this was back before everything was immediately posted online and, obviously, overshadowed by 9/11. I would add it myself, but I'm definitely biased against the acela. 72.60.62.111 ( talk) 10:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
No. In fact, I've commented out most of the "Incidents" section, other that the first, as they're not really particularly notable, even if sourced. These are, sadly, fairly routine trespasser fatalities (intentional or not) that could have been any train (Acela, Regional, SEPTA, etc.) on the NEC or any other line; they're neither specific to Acela (it's just coincidental that the train that hit them was an Acela), nor were the Acela's unique characteristics key to their occurrence. Likewise, the sources are routine local news coverage.
This contrasts with the first listed incident, the grade crossing accident. Not only did the Acela's high speed operations apparently play a part in the cause of the incident, but the incident prompted commentary specifically about the design, layout and presence of the crossings from outside the usual railroad press. This is the sort of material which elevates the incident above the routine, and therefore notable enough for inclusion.
Just wanted to give my reasonings. oknazevad ( talk) 04:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems to suggest that technology in the 390 Pendolino trains was derived from the Acela, when actually it came from the APT developed by British rail some 15 years earlier. I intend to change the text to suggest a similarity between the technologies rather than suggesting that the 390 uses technology developed for the Acela project unless there are any objections.
Scratchedguitar ( talk) 23:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Acela_Express&diff=489393264&oldid=489391197
A template:tone tag was removed - I have to agree that the article has minor tone issues - though well written - it is not encyclopedic - to put iut simply it reads like a magazine article, slightly publicity material too. Possible minor wp:peacock too. I don't see the need for a tag, but it would help if it was cleaned. Oranjblud ( talk) 00:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The reference to the Wall Street Journal report that claims "crowding" a problem on the Acela makes no sense since the service limits the maximum number of fare sold to equal the number of available seats, such as an airline or movie theater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.227.240.0 ( talk) 19:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hop on the southbound Acela at Newark at 5:15 pm on a weekday, after 200 people have boarded the train in New York at 5 pm. and try to find one of the three available seats. Then you'll understand how a train can be crowded even if the train company guarantees your seat. -- Malatinszky ( talk) 17:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
There should be a section called something like Future Plans, development, replacement, upgrades, remodelings... something to talk about the future projects related to the line / service.
Take a look at all of the light rail / subway articles for Los Angeles metro as a guide. they all have a section on future projects for each line. Also refer to MBTA's articles. Even if there is nothing to report on, it is pertinent negative to state that there are no future planned projects.
163.40.12.37 ( talk) 04:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The introduction currently states:
In fiscal year 2006, a total of 2,668,174 passengers rode Acela, an 8.8% year-over-year increase.[3] and in 2008 Acela carried 3.399 million passengers between New York and Boston.
However this isn't backed up by the source, which says:
Ridership on the Acela/Metroliner, the busiest trains of all running from Washington, D.C., to Boston, grew by 8.8%. The line had 2,668,174 riders in 2006
(Emphasis mine). Now it is fairly misleading, but if you read it carefully the 2.6 million figure is for the whole line not for the Acela specifically - additionally even the 8.8% growth is for both the Metroliner and Acela trains. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Between New York and Boston the Acela express has less than a 37% share of the train and air market. "On One Key Route, Amtrak is Up, Airlines Down". Wired. Conde Nast Publications. March 21, 2008. Retrieved February 2, 2010. for Acela express passenger numbers only "The Information: Most popular airline routes". Financial Times. January 17, 2009. Retrieved February 2, 2010.
Amtrak has posted new Acela Express ridership of "nearly 3.4 million" passengers in the NEC for FY 2012 at:
Dick Kimball ( talk) 13:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
While editing, I noticed that the names of train services such as "Acela" and "Acela Express" are inconsistently italicized. I find the italicization somewhat distracting, but it's even more distracting to have a random mix. Let's work out a consensus on what to italicize, before I or anybody else put in the effort to make this consistent. Reify-tech ( talk) 05:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 |
Atlant 14:34, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Amtrak's service bulletin. I've added both to the (new) References section. slambo 15:44, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
The article states that you can now travel Boston-NYC in under four hours. Is this what it's supposed to say? I mean, the distance is about 300 kilometers, if you drive that distance doing 75 km/h (somewhat less than 50 mph) you could go by car in that time.
It's 3 hours 20-25 minutes. Boston to NYC is 346 km, giving a speed of 103 kph (64 mph). That's rarely doable on the Boston-NYC corridor. -- SPUI ( talk) 23:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Drive time does not account for stops both at stations and in traffic, the trains must run up and down the track at certain times and be in certain places at certian times because of track traffic. The NEC is used both as an intercity route and a commuter route. so train must be coordinated, that is why it takes so long. -- kev62nesl
To clear up any misinformation regarding the tilting, I am a high speed supervising technician, I work for Amtrak. I can be contacted at hammank@amtrak.com, the tilting is for passanger comfort only, the power cars do not having titling it is only for the trailing cars. There are no public source I can cite off hand, only proprietory sources of information in MGU-026 book for amtrak training. Further more tilting is not a safety critical component on a trainset, meaning it is not necessary for safe operation. this can be confirmed in FRA 238 Tier II HST Daily Inspection MECHANICAL book.
There is an error in the article regarding the decision to use a tilt train for Acela. In fact, there was no rational engineering or technical reason to use a tilt train on the route. It was done for purely propaganda reasons. There are plenty of NON-tilt passenger trains in use today that operate on tighter curves (and at higher speeds) than Acela.
The real determining factor for curve speed is superevelation. Hans-Joachim Zierke has an excellent write-up on this. A good starting point is: [1].
Oh, and given the abysimal 60% on-time performance of NY-Boston Acela, the article should be careful in claiming a 3.5hr travel time.
Re -- Tilting My understanding (Mostly from NY Times articles I believe) is that the tilting is off on the curviest sections because of an error in design or communication which was discovered before the train went into service. It seems that there is not enough clearance on those sections between northbound and southbound trains in the case where one train is tilting and the train in the opposite direction is not not tilting. This could occur if there was a fault in the tilting mechanism. Unable to meet the clearance requirements in the case of a single fault, the tilting was permanently turned off on those sections of track. I am working from memory, but if this is correct, I think it is relevant and should be included. Perhaps someone has more information?
There should also be a mention of the problems with the brake design. The Acela design was modified to meet US crash standards (as mentioned in the article) and this exceeded the design capacity for the brakes. jcp 02:41, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
It previously stated the CDOT owns the MNCR track, seemingly implying that they owned all of it. In fact, the CT part is owned by CDOT and the NY part is owned by NYDOT. Furthermore, the 90 mph max is only on NYDOT track. CDOT track is limited to 75 mph. I have cleared up the ambiguity/potential errors here.
I have also added a section explaining that the 135 mph limit south (west, really) of NYP is due to catenary issues, not track issues. The track is in fact straighter on the ex-Pennsy than on the ex-New Haven, as most here probably know. I do not believe this is readily apparent in the article, since no NYP-WAS timings are cited.
I may be wrong, but... in Europe and Japan the definition of high speed train is for vehicles running at over 250 km/h. Italian ETR 450 is NOT a HST. ETR 500 is. If the american definition is similar to the international one, Acela is not technically speaking an HST (his commercial speed is far lower than the europeans' one). 82.51.126.65 21:27, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
The American Definition is anything running over 125mph, someone please convert, anything over that speed is what we call a Tier II railroad and operate under strict standards than a Tier II, we do not have the same well maintianed tracks as in Europe or Japan, which can be attributed to our love of our automobiles and shear size of our country. Kev62nesl
I’d say that the Acela Express is the U.S. definition of high-speed train. David Arthur 01:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
I just did some checking after it was claimed that Trenton was discontinued as an Acela stop after the brake repairs. As per Amtrak's website, there's only one Acela that stops at Trenton (scheduled arrival at 6:47am from New York, Monday-Thursday), so while Acela service at the station is quite limited, it hasn't technically been "eliminated" yet. — LrdChaos 14:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
Changed "North America's more stringent crash standards" to "North America's different approach to crash standards". This sentence was misleading, as North America and Europe have two opposite strategies to crash safety. While North American standards emphasize the robustness of the structures, Europe prefers lighter structures that distorts during crash to absorb the energy leaving a a "survival cell" made of very strong frame that protects passengers. This approach is used in the design of the TGV and European standards are no way less stringent than North Americans. Blastwizard 10:42, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't mean to argue but the high speed trainset, aka acela express, are designed with the same survival cell that you refer to. On the HST anything outside of the interior doors (trailer car) are deisgned to crumple and the nose of the power cars are suppose to crumple. The engineers are suppose to dive into a little section behind his seat that are equiped with crash pads. These crumple zone are suppose to absorb over 50 megajewels.
kev62nesl
Yes, this is an error. The US standard includes the head on crash protection, (with more stringent anti-telescoping provisions I believe but not certain.) In addition, the US standard requires structural integrity to be maintained in the instance of a rollover or side impact due to jackknifing or collision with a stationary object (building.)
jcp
03:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)
The article says that the Acela Express cars have "identical 6000-horsepower power cars at each end", a statement reconfirmed at one of the external links. However, the HHP-8 article says that the 8000-hp locomotives have engines that are "very similar to the Acela Express power cars". Can somebody explain this discrepancy? C. M. Harris 20:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
Note: One trainset has 9 cars, the extra geometry car is next to the south power car (unless turned) : Keo 00:08, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Power Car
HHP-8 | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
|
The last edit removed too much information from the article. There is a known issue with Firefox and Google Toolbar. Slambo (Speak) 01:55, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
"With the completion of electrification between New Haven and Boston, all trains on the line have become faster; one can travel between Boston and New York in just over three and a half hours (an improvement of half an hour). New York to Washington runs take about two and three-quarters hours."
The semicolon here implies that any train on the NEC can get you from Boston to Penn Station in 3 1/2 hours, when in reality, only the Acela goes this fast. The Amtrak website shows a scheduled time of 4:15 for a Regional NEC train. I'm sure the article is is wrong here (unless I'm just reading the sentence wrongly), but I'm wondering whether the improvement of half an hour over earlier diesel to electric switches is still correct. Anyone have any thoughts? Mjl0509 19:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I notice that we're coming close to an edit war on whether or not to include the May 25 NEC power outage in the "Outages" section of the article (namely, 84.49.106.92 and I have removed it, and Atlant has restored it).
I don't think that the power outage has any place in this article. Power outages on the NEC affect nearly all service, not just the Acela, as opposed to the other outages. The fact that several trains, including Acela trainsets, were stranded is hardly worth mentioning as part of this article; it's not the Acela's fault, it's not unique to the Acela, and power outages are not rare on Amtrak. Especially considering the magnitude of the other outages, which occured when defects were found solely with the Acela, including a paragraph about an electric locomotive being stuck when the power went out doesn't seem in the same league. — LrdChaos ( talk) 15:56, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
Gentlemen, I'm certainly no fan of Acela, but it wasn't "Acela's" outage, it was Amtrak's, or the NEC's, or NJ. I thought that LrdChaos made a good point about that.
In a similar way, when an Acela train came nose-to-nose (almost) with a commuter train at S.Norwalk,CT, it wasn't because of an Acela flaw (although that was the train at fault), it was a flaw with the Amtrak engineer that had been running with the safety mechanisms cut out! That's why ALL Amtrak trains, not just Acelas, have to report the condition of their cab signal & automatic train stop apparatus when they enter Metro North territory at New Haven,CT, or New Rochelle,NY. You wouldn't want "fatal safety flaw" listed under Acela's disadvantages, would you? Peace. Keo 21:44, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
This article is one of thousands on Wikipedia that have a link to YouTube in it. Based on the External links policy, most of these should probably be removed. I'm putting this message here, on this talk page, to request the regular editors take a look at the link and make sure it doesn't violate policy. In short: 1. 99% of the time YouTube should not be used as a source. 2. We must not link to material that violates someones copyright. If you are not sure if the link on this article should be removed, feel free to ask me on my talk page and I'll review it personally. Thanks. --- J.S ( t| c) 07:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Notice on linking to YouTube, Google Video, and other similar sites:
There is no ban on linking to these sites as long as the links abide by these guidelines. From Wikipedia:Copyright: If you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work.
The videos in question are the uploader's own work. This is permitted. Daniel Case 04:46, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Is it really the case (as indicated by New Haven being unbolded in the station list) that not all Acela trains stop in New Haven? Mjl0509 20:27, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Was there any such thing as a turbo Acela that was being tested? I heard rumors of an Acela Turbotrain that didn't pan out because it guzzled too much fuel and accelerated too slowly. I guess Lady Acela will long be an electric lady, then. 204.52.215.107 14:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Similar to what was being discussed with the electric outages, I think we should be careful not to simply list any incident where someone wandered onto the tracks and the train that struck them happened to be an Acela. There are times when it's relevant that an Acela train (vs. any other) hit someone, like the story about the grade crossing in Stonington (since Acela is unique among high speed rail for having them) or, in my judgment, the kid who crossed the tracks in Mansfield and was killed at 130 mph (since a different train would have been proceeding more slowly, I think.) The incident with the guy walking on the tracks in New Haven being hit seems not relevant to an article about Acela's specific design and characteristics, unless we are prepared to add a list of such events to every Amtrak line ever, which would be silly. Mjl0509 16:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
A post of mine from a couple of days ago that might shed some light on my the Acela sucks:
(a bit of background: I've done a lot of environment work for Amtrak in the past and worked on the Acela Express during the environmental phase - specifically I worked on the Acela prototypes that ran on the NJ "racetrack" through Princeton and Pueblo CO. During that time I spent a lot of time with Amtrak & FRA officials as well as various rail consultants and Alstom-Bombardier staff)
Why not have the French, the Germans or the Japanese bid for the right to supply high speed rail for the northeast corridor? We'd get better, faster service, without Congress having to bail out the project.
It's not that simple. First of all, when Amtrak was choosing which technology to use for its HSR service, they actually brought over several HRS trainsets from European countries including the TGV, Eurostar, and ICE. Amtrak had a wishlist of features for their trains - all but Alstom-Bombardier (TGV) said they couldn't meet them. Siemens (ICE) said that if Amtrak could be a little flexible with their specs, the ICE could work with very little changes. But since AB said they could meet the specs, Amtrak went with them. If you talk with Amtrak officials today, they'll tell you that was a huge mistake.
But the biggest impediment to good HSR service on the NE corridor is not the technology, it's the infrastructure. The NE corridor has too may curves which limit the highest speeds. Straightening out those curves would require the acquisition of hundreds of thousands of square miles of land, and the pricing for the land along would be astronomical (not even counting construction and environmental assessment costs).
The second problem is that speed is limited by the number of grade-crossings along the line - can't have a train speeding through a busy intersection at 150mph. Grade separating these crossings would cost on the order of $1 million per, not including the cost of rerouting train/auto traffic during construction.
The third problem is that the catanary south of New Haven dates from the 19th century and can't handle the highest speeds. As I mentioned before, I was present during some of the high speed testing through New Jersey where they ran the train at top speeds. Seriously, I though the catanary was going to fall down everytime the train passed.
The fourth problem is that a good portion of the NE corridor south of Philadelphia is owned and dispatched by CSX and Norfolk Southern (freight lines). And the freight companies have the annoying habit of prioritizing their trains over Amtrak train. If you've ridden an Acela north out of DC and found yourself waiting on a stopped train, it's because NS has decided that a 10,000-ft freight train moving at 25 mph should have priority over your Acela.
Again, these are the biggest problems on the NE corridor. FRA/Amtrak could ship over a TGV tomorrow, plop it down on the NE corridor and the service would still be crap. If we want world-class high-speed rail service, we're going to have to pay for the infrastructure costs. But every politician knows it would be political suicide to advocate sinking 10's of billions of dollars into Amtrak. As an order of magnitude - 1 mile of single tracks costs $1 million - not including environmental assessment, land, or special mitigation costs.
Funny enough - the $150 billion "stimulus" package would probably be better off being invested in completely redoing the NE corridor, and maybe expanding it to the south and midwest. It would be a mega-project that would provide thousands of white and blue collar jobs, it would improve mobility, take some strain off the airspace and probably result in technology improvements that could be applied to other industries. But that would mean taking a long term view of things, and we don't do that in the U.S.
(end quote)
FWIW, I know folks working on the CA HSR study, and things are looking a little bleak there also. It costs money, and no one wants to go out on a limb and spend it.
-- TIB ( talk) 02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"There are also many miles of track, especially east of New Haven, that have been upgraded to 110 mph and 125 mph (177 km/h and 201 km/h)." Does anyone have more specific information? How many miles are 110 and how many are 125? Where are these sections located? The distinction between 110 and 125 is important, because the 200km/h definition of high-speed rail includes one but not the other.-- Bhuck ( talk) 14:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not supposed to usually be a picture gallery, especially in an article that is not List-class. As such, pictures with acceptable licenses on the Commons are accessible via the link, and thus have been commented out. -- AEMoreira042281 ( talk) 21:50, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
"Amtrak has captured over half of the market share of travelers between Washington and New York.[1] "
does this mean half the share of rail travel or travel in general? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.83.117.192 ( talk) 20:25, 14 July 2008 (UTC)
The article on Acela has been merged into this one. Here is the link to its old talk page. Murjax ( talk) 23:31, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps include a section or mention of ticket prices? 208.203.88.3 ( talk) 17:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Are there any plans for future upgrades of the track to make all (or most) sections of it high speed rail? gren グレン 06:35, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
"There was little support for building an entirely new railway as had been done for Japan's Shinkansen ("Bullet Train"), France's TGV and Germany's Intercity-Express." -- Only partly true. The German ICE was designed to run on old railways as well, at much lower speed of course, but this helped reducing costs as new high speed parts could be installed later where desired. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.94.108.66 ( talk) 12:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Please use miles, gallons, or other medieval units in the Encyclopedia when dealing with topics where the standards are set in those units. We are in 2006 and there is no universal unit system, being not everyone uses the same units. If they did we wouldn't even be talking about this. -- Kev62nesl 09:08, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Please don't use miles, gallons, or other medieval units in an Encyclopedia. We are in 2005, the universal unit system is the metric system. There could be some local variations in a few countries, but this should not appear in Wikipedia articles. -- Ocollard 11:42, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I've read Wikipedia:Measurements Debate and it is clear that the metric system should be used as measurement units. About 90% of the world population use this convenient system. If a few countries use a different system this should not interfere. The goal of this encyclopedia is to inform, not to not to make USAians think they ought to do. I don't think there is a "home" for this article, nor for any article. Every article in this encyclopedia is global, not local. It should use the units that everyone uses, not the units that locals use. I'm switching back to the metric system on this article, unless there is a clear policy that differs -- Ocollard 12:57, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
This link refers to spelling, not to measurement units. This Encyclopedia is aimed for the world, not just for one country. In a special Wikipedia for USA, the use of miles is ok, but not here. I cannot understand how we can support a measurement units that means nothing for 95% of the world population. I think this article is informative, and should be accessible to everyone. Using non standard measurement units cripples this. We are in 2005, let's live in today's world. -- Ocollard 13:39, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
After all the changing of units here the version of 4.19.111.130 seemed like a fair compromise, Imp units first for an American subject, and a Metric conversion with no decimals. That is like most other articles. Wwoods’s innovation of replacing all the last significant figures with 0 or 5 is not mentioned in the measurement discussion. Would anyone support that as a general policy for all conversions on all other pages? Meggar 04:55, 2005 Jun 2 (UTC)
I made several corrections here. First, it is not limited to RI. It was initially MP 162-170 in RI, and MP 195-205 in MA. Second, it is now more than 18 miles of track; I have ridden in Acelas that have done 150 mph through Kingston, RI (which is around MP 158 or so - well outside of the former MP 162 cutoff). I am not sure exactly how much more though; someone would need to get the most up to date Amtrak employee timetable to find out.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mla ( talk • contribs) 00:45, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
The Wireless Internet Access section of the Acela Express article seems misplaced. The section is not Acela Express specific. In fact, the section doesn't resolve itself in that after reading it I do not have a clear understanding of either Acela's or Amtrak's current wireless internet access plans. I think this section should be removed entirely. If discussion about Acela's wireless internet access were to be present I think it would be best presented in a section about amenities (food service, attendant service, etc.). Zanzibarbarians ( talk) 04:36, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been making a number of repairs and upgrades this page, proper formatting and adding more references, as well as instilling a proper structure of the article. I hope I can get some support on building up the level of material on the development of this service, I feel this is lacking in the article as it currently stands. Still, I'll do what I can to bring this up to a greater level of quality. Kyteto ( talk) 19:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Tobyw ( talk) 23:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
The market share figures in the article seem a bit dodgy to me. As only 593000 people take the (EDIT:Acela Express) train each year ( source) and 988976 fly ( source) the maximum possible market share is 37.4% - even assuming no-one drives, goes by bus or takes a slower train between Boston and New York. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 23:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
Why no mention of the Swedish X2000 train that was chartered by Amtrak for use in the US in the early 1990's and that is clearly the origin of the Acela trains? The Acelas are virtual copies of the X2000, in everything from appearance to tilt ride, which can't be a coincidence... Allan Akbar ( talk) 22:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
I've been thinking that there should be a separate page for the actual trainset used for Acela Express trains since it is a fairly unique vehicle. This could include fairly technical details that would probably just muddy up the present article which is more concerned with how the train service functions. However, I haven't been able to figure out if there's a specific model number for the existing rolling stock, so all I've ever been able to figure out for a new page title is Acela Express (trainset). Does anyone have any info on that or a good reference that might have it? — Mulad (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
{{
Infobox Train}}
or {{
Infobox locomotive}}
, or even a main section for the trainset. I also find it confusing and odd that Amtrak only really refer to the Acela Express service, or very occasionally to Acela Express train (eg
http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/AM_Content_C/1241267387279/es, where it almost shows that they have no real name for the trainset). I'm not sure what would happen if they ever buy more trainsets for use on other high speed routes, or newer stock for the existing route (with or without a cascade elsewhere).I was reading the "incidents" section and notice it covered some of the deaths caused by the acela...back in 2001, a friend of mine was killed by the acela while walking near the tracks with some other kids (they weren't on the tracks, just near them). The force of the train going by created a vacuum-effect and sucked them into the wheel-bed. I tried to find a story online about it, and all I could find was this: http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-80725050.html ...this was back before everything was immediately posted online and, obviously, overshadowed by 9/11. I would add it myself, but I'm definitely biased against the acela. 72.60.62.111 ( talk) 10:33, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
No. In fact, I've commented out most of the "Incidents" section, other that the first, as they're not really particularly notable, even if sourced. These are, sadly, fairly routine trespasser fatalities (intentional or not) that could have been any train (Acela, Regional, SEPTA, etc.) on the NEC or any other line; they're neither specific to Acela (it's just coincidental that the train that hit them was an Acela), nor were the Acela's unique characteristics key to their occurrence. Likewise, the sources are routine local news coverage.
This contrasts with the first listed incident, the grade crossing accident. Not only did the Acela's high speed operations apparently play a part in the cause of the incident, but the incident prompted commentary specifically about the design, layout and presence of the crossings from outside the usual railroad press. This is the sort of material which elevates the incident above the routine, and therefore notable enough for inclusion.
Just wanted to give my reasonings. oknazevad ( talk) 04:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
Seems to suggest that technology in the 390 Pendolino trains was derived from the Acela, when actually it came from the APT developed by British rail some 15 years earlier. I intend to change the text to suggest a similarity between the technologies rather than suggesting that the 390 uses technology developed for the Acela project unless there are any objections.
Scratchedguitar ( talk) 23:34, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Acela_Express&diff=489393264&oldid=489391197
A template:tone tag was removed - I have to agree that the article has minor tone issues - though well written - it is not encyclopedic - to put iut simply it reads like a magazine article, slightly publicity material too. Possible minor wp:peacock too. I don't see the need for a tag, but it would help if it was cleaned. Oranjblud ( talk) 00:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
The reference to the Wall Street Journal report that claims "crowding" a problem on the Acela makes no sense since the service limits the maximum number of fare sold to equal the number of available seats, such as an airline or movie theater. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.227.240.0 ( talk) 19:48, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
Hop on the southbound Acela at Newark at 5:15 pm on a weekday, after 200 people have boarded the train in New York at 5 pm. and try to find one of the three available seats. Then you'll understand how a train can be crowded even if the train company guarantees your seat. -- Malatinszky ( talk) 17:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
There should be a section called something like Future Plans, development, replacement, upgrades, remodelings... something to talk about the future projects related to the line / service.
Take a look at all of the light rail / subway articles for Los Angeles metro as a guide. they all have a section on future projects for each line. Also refer to MBTA's articles. Even if there is nothing to report on, it is pertinent negative to state that there are no future planned projects.
163.40.12.37 ( talk) 04:57, 14 October 2012 (UTC)
The introduction currently states:
In fiscal year 2006, a total of 2,668,174 passengers rode Acela, an 8.8% year-over-year increase.[3] and in 2008 Acela carried 3.399 million passengers between New York and Boston.
However this isn't backed up by the source, which says:
Ridership on the Acela/Metroliner, the busiest trains of all running from Washington, D.C., to Boston, grew by 8.8%. The line had 2,668,174 riders in 2006
(Emphasis mine). Now it is fairly misleading, but if you read it carefully the 2.6 million figure is for the whole line not for the Acela specifically - additionally even the 8.8% growth is for both the Metroliner and Acela trains. -- Eraserhead1 < talk> 17:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Between New York and Boston the Acela express has less than a 37% share of the train and air market. "On One Key Route, Amtrak is Up, Airlines Down". Wired. Conde Nast Publications. March 21, 2008. Retrieved February 2, 2010. for Acela express passenger numbers only "The Information: Most popular airline routes". Financial Times. January 17, 2009. Retrieved February 2, 2010.
Amtrak has posted new Acela Express ridership of "nearly 3.4 million" passengers in the NEC for FY 2012 at:
Dick Kimball ( talk) 13:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)
While editing, I noticed that the names of train services such as "Acela" and "Acela Express" are inconsistently italicized. I find the italicization somewhat distracting, but it's even more distracting to have a random mix. Let's work out a consensus on what to italicize, before I or anybody else put in the effort to make this consistent. Reify-tech ( talk) 05:21, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\brailway-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 12:09, 3 April 2014 (UTC)