Talk:Acela/Archive 1

New Acela outage due to brake problems
See...

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)

Schedules
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

Tilt

 * 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:.

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.


 * The problem, of course, is that the Northeast Corridor ISN'T superelevated for the speeds they'd like to achieve with the Acela. Tilting at least allows for passenger comfort, if not ideal operation of the trains-as-a-whole.


 * Atlant 22:41, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If the NEC isn't superelevated for higher speeds, then using a tilt train won't fix that fundamental problem. As for passenger comfort, conventional trains throughout the civilized world (well, Europe at least) commonly run at higher speeds and through the same radius as found on the NEC. Moreover, tilt trains are more expensive to purchase and maintain, so they are not an "ideal operation" either. Like I said, there was no rational engineering reason for using a tilt train.


 * Emccaughrin 3 Apr 2005


 * I'm not sure I understand your point. No, tilt-trains won't reduce the forces on the wheels/wheel-flanges/track that could be "zeroed out" by correct superelevation. But yes, tilt-trains will zero-out the forces on the passengers that are caused by incorrect superelevation by causing the carbodies to bank at the correct (coordinated) angle, and they can do this at a variety of speeds-around-the-curve rather than at just at one designed-for speed. So yes, as I stated, tilt-trains are a rational response to the demands for passenger-comfort. Whether that was worth the money is another debate, of course.


 * Atlant 12:28, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Given the huge number of modern NON-tilt trains running on a daily basis in places like France, Switzerland, Germany through higher curve speeds than Acela, it is very hard to make the case that there was a passenger-comfort issue -- unless you think the laws of Physics are different in Europe, or an American passenger is somehow different than a European. Furthermore, it has been reported on various rail-foamer newsgroups that the tilt mechanims on Acela has frequently cut out and as far as anyone knows, passengers never noticed the difference.


 * Incidentally, the entry also claims that Acela captured "nearly half" of the Boston-New York market. The latest data I've seen (2003) showed it has dropped to 37%. However, the "nearly half" claim might still hold for New York-Washington.


 * Emccaughrin


 * You're arguing at cross-purposes with yourself. The European trains you reference are probably running on trackway that is correctly superelevated for the speeds at which the train is travelling, hence no need for the tilt mechanism.


 * No, the comparison is ROW with same superlevation through the same radius. Apples vs. apples. -EM


 * I also wonder why this is such a big deal with you; are you trying to prove the point that the money spent on the tilting mechanism was wasted? If so, fine; "it was wasted". We should have built a TGV-class dedicated trackway with TGV-style trainsets running at 300 kph. But we're the United States and we don't "do" rail, so we consider ourselves lucky to have gotten the Acela, such as it is.


 * If your point is something else, perhaps you should make it plain.


 * Atlant 17:02, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * The "point" is accuracy in the Wiki entry. -EM


 * I guess I've lost your point again, then. There's no doubt that tilt-train technology can provide a better passenger ride than the equivalent ride on an track which is incorrectly-superelevated for the current train speed. You haven't provided us with any facts that argue against this, nor do your European examples of acceptable rides argue against the concept of better rides. If you'd like to advance the claim in the article that the tilt-train technology was a waste of money, go ahead; edit it in and we'll see who supports your claim and who rejects your claim. If you'd like to argue that the tilt-train technology is often broken, go ahead. If the fact that the tilt-train technology's tilt-angle was limited by errors in the loading gauge and that's not already in the article, go ahead and edit that in, too. But there's nothing wrong with the tilt-train technology, in principle.


 * Here's the claim the article actually makes:


 * These trains also tilt to negotiate the many curves on the densely populated route, permitting better passenger comfort and lower construction costs for the higher speeds.


 * Note the use of the word better with regard to comfort and lower with regard to construction costs. Both of these claims are true facts, supported by the physics of the situation. A train that is more-closely banked to the correct angle (whether through superelevation or through tilt-train technology) is more comfrtable than a train where the turns are not appropriately coordinated. And the roadbed construction costs (to do no special superelevation) are certainly lower than the roadbed construction costs to reconstruct all the turns to have the correct superelevation angle for the Acela Express.


 * Atlant 19:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * No, the statement is incorrect and should be changed.


 * As described above, the reconstructed track geometry did not require the use of a tilt train. Thus, the decision to purchase an active-tilt system did not in any way lower construction costs (in fact, the Acela will end up increasing the track costs too due to it being grossly overweight, but that is a whole other discussion).


 * I don't want to get into an argument over pedantics, but anything is true in principle. So, yes, in principle a tilt system would be more comfortable, just as in principle Peewee Herman could beat Shaq O'Neil in a game of one-on-one. In practice the tilt system isn't even switched on along the curviest segment of the line -- ever. In practice the industry has spent a lot of time measuring the amount of lateral acceleration that would be noticed by passengers. With Acela operating under that threshold, any gain from tilt is going to be theoretical. Thus, based on the engineering data, and the overall incompetance of the Acela project, many observers have said that the only reason for using tilt was only for its "gee-whiz" appeal.


 * Anyway, that is all I am going to say on the topic. If I modify the page, it will be to add external links to web pages that discuss the issue further.


 * -EM


 * "In practice the tilt system isn't even switched on along the curviest segment of the line -- ever." AM I right in assuming that the curviest section is near a station or other feature that requires slow speeds? --SPUI (talk) 21:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)


 * S/he's presumably referring to the fact that the tilt is inactive on MNCR territory from New Rochelle to New Haven. I have update the article to note that fact.


 * kev62nesl you are incorrect about the on time performance of Boston to Mew York, the entire amtrak system has a on time performace of 70%, the Boston to NYC has over 90% and yes a 3.5 hour travel time is correct However you are correct about the titling. the tilting is only for passanger comfort. It is self-evident by the fact there is no tilting on the power cars, however tilting cannot be cut out as some claim. Through metro north territory tilting is disabled, not cutout. Metro north does not allow tilting because they the believe the tracks are too close together, however you can only run at 85mph anyway so titling is not necessary. However you do notice the difference in tilting when it is activated.

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)


 * That NYT article is a major vector for the "slow because it was built too-wide" popular legend about Acela. Everyone seems to state this fallacy.  Tilting is not required for high-speed rail but it is provided for the comfort of passengers.   The tilt was reduced from 6.8 degrees to 4.2 degrees due to its not being needed to provide comfort at the 150 mph speeds possible on the Northeast Corridor, and in return the cars are wider to add room for wider seats and aisles.  The constant-tension catenary, only available north of Metro-North, is a requirement for high speed, too.  South of New York the train regularly reaches 135 mph (even Metroliner was regularly 125 mph on the same track since the 1960s and it didn't tilt, either).  Everyone just assumes that government meddlers screwed up a good train and we're left with a dog.  It's just not true and if you truly believe otherwise you need to CITE it from the train's design specifications documents and I've never seen anyone do that.--KJRehberg (talk) 19:46, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Misc improvements/corrections
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.


 * Are we sure that NYDOT owns the trackage in N.Y.? I thought it was the MTA. Nelson Ricardo 02:55, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I would concur on that. Amtrak's timetable cites MNRR as the host railroad, and MNRR is a division of the MTA. --Adam613 15:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

High speed?
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


 * It's the best we can do. :-( America, in general, wishes railroad service dead.
 * Atlant 00:07, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I’d say that the Acela Express is the U.S. definition of high-speed train. David Arthur 01:45, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Acela -> 110 km/h mean speed...
 * ETR200 -> 165 km/h mean on a 310 km/track from Milan to Florence, with a top of 203 on a bloody curvy line with slow trains, partly single track, with lots of tiny stations on it and one stop at Bologna. Impressive for 1939. Benito Mussolini almost cried for joy! And normal non-test runs were just a bit slower. Maybe that's why Allied bombed all of them: envy. ;-P


 * Ok, ok, just kidding. No offence intended. Acela is a good train after all. 82.61.131.41 00:35, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * (oh, and we have Ferrari too!)

Trenton station
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. &mdash;LrdChaos 14:37, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Crash standards
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


 * I suppose you mean 50 Megajoules, at top speed for Acela which is 241 $$Km.h^{-1}$$ or 67 $$m.s^{-1}$$, given that the energy is calculated as $$E=\frac{1}{2}mv^{2}$$ (with the E energy in Joules, m the mass in Kg, and v the speed in metres per second), this correspond to a mass of 22 metric tons far from being impressive if your information about the energy dissipated is correct! Also because of the relation between mass and energy and speed the lighter you are the safer you are at high speed. Blastwizard 10:06, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

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)

6000 horsepower?
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)


 * No error, two different types of equipment. The trainset power cars (6000 hp) have a long, sloping nose and a squared rear, close-coupled to the next car. Thus, each trainset has 12000 hp, 2 x 6000. The HHP locomotives(8000 hp) have a shorter sloped nose, at each end, and are used to haul various standard equipment coaches, such as the AEM-7 locomotive hauls. Each consist has 8000hp. Kev62nesl explained that they have one more inverter than the power cars. They can frequently be seen running light, especially in yards, on the NEC.

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

rollback reason
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)

Travel Time on Regional Trains
"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)

Include power outage in "Outages" section?
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)


 * As I stated in my edit summary, though, it was primarily Amtrak's Acela service that took the bad press on this most-recent deep outage. And an outage is an outage, whether it's caused by falling-apart damper brackets, falling apart brake discs, or falling-apart electrical infrastructure.


 * Atlant 16:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Regardless of where the media focused its attention, the fact is that the power outage was not unique to the Acela Express. It stranded AEM-7s and HHP-8s, as well as New Jersey transit and SEPTA equipment. The outage was the result of a power system problem, not a fault in the Acela Express, and it only lasted a few hours. It was newsworthy at the time, but in a historical context, the affect of the outage on the AE was no different than it was on any other locomotive in use at the time, none of which have any mention of the outage.
 * You say that "an outage is an outage, whether it's caused by falling-apart damper brackets, falling apart brake discs, or falling-apart electrical infrastructure." What sets the "electrical infrastructure" item apart from the damper brackets and the brake discs is that those are internal components of the Acela Express; the electrical infrastructure is a larger, external problem that affects everything. It may have a place in an article for the incident, or in Northeast Corridor, but it has no place being listed along with internal flaws/defects/problems with the AE. —LrdChaos (talk) 17:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess I'll chalk this up as another instance of "partisans defending their party".
 * Atlant 12:36, 20 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)

YouTube links
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)


 * From that policy:

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)

New Haven Station
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)

Turbo Acela that flunked test?
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)


 * That was the Rohr Turboliner, a high speed set that ran from Penn Station on the Empire Corridor. It was basically a diesel Acela with third rail shoes. They are all retired due to mechanical issues. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.103.41 (talk) 04:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)


 * No, that is not the Turbolinger. The diesel-electric Acela is an entirely new locomotive.  It is NOT the Rohr Turboliner you described which was retired after running millions of miles in upstate NYC (and a refurbishment program was started but cancelled before completion due to a dispute between Amtrak and New York State).  The diesel-electric Acela is an entirely new locomotive just like the Acela power car but with a diesel-fueled turbine engine instead of a transformer.  It is not cancelled but it's not likely to get past prototype stage.  It's part of the US High Speed Non-Electric Train project that is sort of in hiatus.  There is a picture in a recent Trains Magazine article and here are other pictures: http://rrpicturearchives.net/locoPicture.aspx?id=100070 --KJRehberg (talk) 21:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Incidents
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 person who worked on developing Acela Express discusses it
on reddit 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)


 * Someone who worked on an environmental study and rode test trains is hardly more qualified to discuss the technical engineering of the train than any of us. There are still 150 mph grade crossings in 2008.  I'm also very doubtful that the Northeast Corridor is owned/dispatched by NS and CSX "south of Philadelphia" and how this affects Acela Express, as all the literature I've been able to find states that the entire NEC between NYC and DC is owned and dispatched by Amtrak--maybe the writer is talking about the Keystone Corridor line (which is also Amtrak). --KJRehberg (talk) 20:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The catenary south of New Haven is from the 20th century, not from the 19th and it is spelled catenary. --Rent A Troop (talk) 14:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

More specific?
"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)

Gallery
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)

First Citation
"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)


 * Half the share in general, meaning that the airlines have the other half. Amtrak are the only real operators of inter-city trains in the United States. David Arthur (talk) 21:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Merger complete
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)

Costs
Perhaps include a section or mention of ticket prices? 208.203.88.3 (talk) 17:09, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's not a good idea. It wouldn't work because ticket prices are always changing as ridership numbers and seasons fluctuate. Amtrak doesn't have a steady rate like commuter rail does. Murjax (talk) 21:32, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Future expansion / upgrades
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)


 * Certainly nothing definite - that would require tens of billions of dollars of federal funding, something that Congress would spend a lot of time debating. It's true that the lack of a true high-speed train on the NE corridor, in the U.S., is more and more embarrassing compared to what other countries, particularly Japan and France have done, but the airlines in the U.S. have a vested interest in fighting against "rail subsidies" for high-speed rail, so you can be sure that there will be a lot of publicity if Congress ever seriously considers funding this.  -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 19:33, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * If they do get the money, the biggest thing on Amtrak's "wish list" is an extension of the Northeast Corridor to Charlotte, NC. Murjax (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah, having said what I did, I'm now going to backtrack a bit: the stimulus bill includes $8 billion for high-speed rail. But it's not allocated for anything in particular.  I don't think that the total amount would come close to what it would cost to modify the entire rail line between Boston and Washington D.C., and since California seems bent on building high-speed rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco, that state will probably get some money, but still ... -- John Broughton  (♫♫) 02:52, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

New railways
"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)

Metric system
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)


 * While SI units are preferred, this is obviously still a matter of debate. See:


 * Manual of Style (dates and numbers):


 * The issue of whether all units should be metric (SI), Imperial, or American units is being debated at Measurements Debate.


 * I think for now we're better-off using the units, spelling, etc. that are conventional for the "home" country of the article (and to give the alternative units as well). In general, I really don't care which order they come in and have no concerns about SI coming first but in this case, it looks like the "original" units for most of the numbers were American units (miles) so I think we should leave them as they were. (The fact that the "abouts" changed place from hard American units and "about" metric units to hard metric units and "about" American units supports this contention.)


 * Unfortunately, it is sad but true that America is a holdout on metrication and quite backwards in this area, but don't look for any improvement anytime soon. If you want the article to make any sense to the folks who watch Fox News, it'll have to be good-ole American units for now.


 * Atlant 11:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I've read 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)


 * If you think there's no "home" country for an article, then you haven't read this entry in Manual of Style:


 * Articles that focus on a topic specific to a particular English-speaking country should generally conform to the spelling of that country.


 * It's referring to spelling, but it still makes the point. The Acela Express is clearly a topic that is specific to the United States and to use the spelling "colour" would be improper. I believe the same principle applies to respecting the customary units used by a country, even if those units are old and obsolete. By the way, there's essentially NO support for using the pseudo-SI 'mi/h' over the customary 'mph'.


 * Atlant 13:27, 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)


 * What a silly argument. Amtrak, and all North American railroads, use the  Imperial system of units (tho' I presume that US roads use US gallons).  The speeds listed are from timetables - convert at your own risk.  As for using decimals in the conversions, that's just foolish!  Unless you have an Amtrak NEC timetable, how would you know if the distances are are correct in US units?  And you want to convert to multiple decimal places?  Not. --Plaws 22:00, 2005 May 31 (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)


 * "... reaches a top speed of 150 mph (about 241 km/h) only on on two sections of track in Rhode Island totalling 18 miles (about 29 km). ..."
 * Those speeds aren't really accurate ±1 km/h, or even ±1 mph. Note that all of them are in increments of 5 mph (~10 km/h). To say "about 241 km/h" is self-contradictory. On the other hand, when they give a distance of 18 miles, that implies it has been measured to the mile, so a more precise translation--29 or even 29.0 km--is warranted.
 * &mdash;wwoods 06:02, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I see now that the way it was worded, "reaches a top speed", would have given the impression that they were ballpark figures. The numbers, 150, 135, 125, 110, though they end with zeros or fives are not approximations, but defined maximum speeds over certain stretches of track, so are exact numbers and not roundable. The equipment itself is capable of going faster, but then the engineer gets fired. Railroaders take the last digit seriously. For example, by federal regulation in the United States the max speed for any passenger train without supplementary automatic cab control is 79 mph. Not 80 but 79, it says so in 49 CFR(236.567). The event recorders on board trains have high resolution and their outputs are reported to ±1 mph in accident investigations. Meggar 02:21, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)


 * Despite the previous, I have a remark on specifically this section: "High-speed rail is usually defined as traveling faster than 124 miles per hour (200 km/h), such as found on Japan's Shinkansen trains which run up to 186 miles per hour (299 km/h), France’s high speed TGV trains which run up to 199 miles per hour (320 km/h), Germany’s Intercity-Express trains which run up to 186 miles per hour (299 km/h) and average 153 miles per hour (246 km/h), and South Korea’s KTX trains which average 125 miles per hour (201 km/h)." Am I the only one who thinks this is a bit silly? ICEs run at 300 km/h, not 299 km/h (or thereabouts, apparently you can do 301 km/h if the information display in an ICE-3 trainset is to be believed). What has happened is that metric units were converted to imperial units, rounded, and converted back to metric units again, and again rounded. Given that of the countries mentioned only the US uses the imperial system, it would make more sense to take the metric units as the source, and derive the imperial units from there. Keep the order of '... mph (... km/h)', but get the numbers right. SeverityOne (talk) 22:13, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The -template doesn't convert correctly from km/h to mph, nevertheless I changed the speeds of non-USA trains to their usual unit, thus erasing the problem mentioned above. a x p de  Hello!  19:21, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

18 miles of 150 mph in RI
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 actual mileage is 32.3 miles of 150 mph track, from an Amtrak NEC employee timetable from July 13, 2009. The mileposts of 150 mph track is as follows:


 * MP 154.3 - 159.7 (5.4 mi)
 * MP 160.5 - 170.5 (10.0 mi)
 * MP 170.9 - 171.7 (0.8 mi)
 * MP 174.5 - 180.1 (5.6 mi)
 * MP 194.5 - 205.0 (10.5 mi)
 * Total: 32.3 mi


 * Unfortunately, as employee timetables are generally not available to the public, this information does not have much verifiability (despite it coming from an official source). Jersey emt (talk) 21:15, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Wireless Internet Access Section Removal
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)

Overhauling
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)


 * Well from 24 inline citations to 54, that's not a bad start. I'll try and find sometime again another day to sharpen this further, there is much more that could and should be referenced down. Kyteto (talk) 00:50, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Why no discussion of cost of operation per passenger mile or per trip?
Tobyw (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You can feel free to look up the information, write up a section, and source it. Likely as some sort of comparison with other services on the compariable route, like planes, cars, and traditional commuter trains. Look at what has happened over on the KTX article if you need inspiration. This section would be far, far more useful that some aspects of the current article such as one dedicated to WiFi, a pretty mundane and ordinary user feature on nearly all trains these days, at least in Britain and apparently in the US now. Perhaps there is no discussion because nobody particularly cared, or could gather together the information to do so. I created the existing Development section and took it to what it is now, so it is highly possible for one user to focus on a subaspect of the Acela and grow something from nothing. Just takes a little searching, some interest and will power, and its done. Kyteto (talk) 00:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Market Share
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 &lt;talk&gt; 23:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To clarify the above, by train I mean't the Acela Express trains. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:53, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

X2000
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)
 * Do you have a source? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just follow the link to the X2000 page... Allan Akbar (talk) 23:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I could add that the X2000, which is in widespread use in Sweden, was designed and built by ABB-Sweden which was later bought by Bombardier, meaning that Bombardier bought the design. But Bombardier did NOT design the train, ABB-Sweden did, and it was ABB-Sweden that prior to being bought by Bombardier brought the X2000 to the US in 1993, where it was used by Amtrak... Allan Akbar (talk) 23:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And here's a Youtube-clip of the X2000 in Amtrak livery in the Northeast Corridor: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Wkh9PZUshI&feature=related and another clip of the X2000 in Amtrak livery in Buffalo, NY: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X95sBpBMZsQ&NR=1 Allan Akbar (talk) 09:59, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Trainset page
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? &mdash;Mulad (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd agree with that suggestion. I came to this article to find out how heavy the power cars are (c92t), but was disappointed to find no or, 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).
 * As for the title, I'd probably just entitle it Acela Express trainset, as used on pages such as Amtrak rolling stock. Even if you could find a model number somewhere, it would be so obscure that no-one would ever find the page without following links (you could always redirect its model number to its vernacular trainset page. Tim PF (talk) 13:31, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure there's sufficient independent notability for a separate article. These trainsets have never operated any other service, and this service has never been operated with any other trainsets. (Contrast that with the predecessor Metroliner service and the Budd Metroliner EMUs; the former continued with AEM-7s and Amfleets, while the cars were repurposed on other routes and eventually became cab cars.) I think a beefed-up section in this article, including the aforementioned infobox, would be a better solution. oknazevad (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I'll go along with that, at least for the moment. If the trainset information can be separated into its own section (with infobox), it might make it a more logically laid out article, and it would be easier to split it later if and when Amtrak change the stock usage. I'll make a note to tackle it at some time (if no-one get there first). Tim PF (talk) 16:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I just created an infobox for the power car. Mulad, I found that "http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/acela.html" as well as "http://www.rrpicturearchives.net/locoList.aspx?mid=860" act as good sources for data. user formally known as KB1KOI 17:15 (UTC), 2012 May 15, 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.0.234.210 (talk)

Incidents
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)
 * Sad as it is kids playing on the train tracks die sometimes, if there aren't lots of stories talking about it it probably isn't notable enough. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 18:19, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * they weren't playing on the tracks...they were walking home NEXT TO the tracks (this all came out after the fact and led to a huge anti-amtrak sentiment in the area which just died down after a few months of inaction). In the levittown area, the train tracks bisect the whole area and it seriously interferes with pedestrian traffic...kids are forced to walk across and along the tracks to get to certain areas (which are otherwise only accessible by highway). To date, I've had 3 friends die on those train tracks, all at different times (though, one was a suicide). There isn't much mention of it online...because it happened in 2001, just after 9/11. Look I understand if it can't be added because highbeam.com isn't considered a valid source or whatever...that's fine, but the death most definitely was "notable" (I remember seeing a story on it on one of the local news channels. Anyway, thanks for taking the time to read what I wrote. 72.60.62.111 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:19, 5 November 2010 (UTC).
 * The source you provided says they were walking on the tracks. DC   T • C  17:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Here is a New York Times mention of the incident. Also, there was a 2008 incident that is not on the list: see the NTSB report here. Should these be added or not?—Diiscool (talk) 19:46, 19 January 2011 (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)


 * I think that sounds like perfectly good reasoning. Only include incidents that are specific to Acela's being Acela. —Diiscool (talk) 13:23, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Except that at about 70 mph, it could have been almost any passenger train, or even a freight train. I don't know what the line speed is there, but I suppose there could be similar crossing where the Acela would travel much faster, but then again, there are still many grade crossings on the 125 mph East Coast Main Line in Britain. Tim PF (talk) 14:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Technology used in British locomotives
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)
 * Removed - possibly (ie probably irrelevant or WP:OR) unless proved otherwise with a reliable source - the link given didn't even mention the acela in passing.Mddkpp (talk) 11:06, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Tone
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?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)

RE: "crowding"
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)

Future plans
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 Acela Express is just a service which operates on the Northeast Corridor. There's plenty on future plans there. Mackensen (talk) 05:10, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Acela ridership
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 &lt;talk&gt; 17:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PS Therefore I propose to remove that content and add the following instead:

"Between New York and Boston the Acela express has less than a 37% share of the train and air market.for Acela express passenger numbers onlyundefined"


 * -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, there is no such thing as the Metroliner any longer. It's all Acela, although not all Acela is Acela Express. NewEnglandYankee (talk) 17:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair enough though FWIW according to Amtrak's website the services are either Acela Express or Northeast regional now. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've made the changes as it was discussed on User talk:Wuhwuzdat. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 19:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Amtrak has posted new Acela Express ridership of "nearly 3.4 million" passengers in the NEC for FY 2012 at:
 * http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/636/294/Amtrak-Sets-New-Ridership-Record-FY2012-ATK-12-092.pdf

Dick Kimball (talk) 13:06, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Italics
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)
 * If it would have been an article about something else and Acela is mentioned for the first time then it is understandable to put it in italic to indicate that it is a name. But this article is all about Acela (or Acela Express) services and it got the bold name in the first sentence already, so I would think that it is more preferable not to keep italicized throughout the article. Z22 (talk) 12:16, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Generally the preference for Amtrak train is to italicize the name of services (Northeast Regional) for every use, but not of equipment. The Acela makes this difficult - the Acela Express is a named service operated with Acela trainsets. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:14, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page
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:


 * http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/amtrak/specs.html
 * Triggered by  on the local blacklist

If 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)


 * The blacklisted link is also a dead link and should be replaced with a citation to another authoritative source by an editor familiar with the body of documentation available. Fortguy (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2014 (UTC)