Amtrak to issue RFI for Acela II in early 2013

[NE933]

An AEM-7 with 6 coaches and an engineer with extensive and intimate knowledge of the territory( a rarity of late) can accomplish the same running time as the Acela with all it's bells and whistles.

Probably can, if you floor it and let it fly at it's true maximum of 150mph, and that might be straining.

If I can inject some peace in this, Acela the project, true, did fail to make 3 hrs. Boston to NY. But there are some caviats, some points to be remembered: one being that my very first trip on one we made Boston to NY in 3:15 (it was New Years' Eve so the tracks were almost empty), pretty good compared to 3:35 usual running times. Yes it's not 3:00, but you must contemplate the work that a 3:00 running time required and is only now starting to bear fruit, like the Connecticut bridge replacement, and the God-awful Metro North catenary and track renewal. The slowness of MetroNorth's replacement of catenary with constant tension has rightfully caused many here to believe they are doing the slowness on purpose, probably to penalize Amtrak for perception of not paying enough, or supposedly for their way of handling projects in tandem with MetroNorth. The Shell flyover, which later got changed to just plain Shell interlocking renewal, did not go over well. Similarly, Amtrak itself has not redone any of its catenary south of NYC into constant tension, save the test section at Princeton Jct., NJ, so trains are slower than they should be. Who to lay blame for lack of money (Iraq? Long distance trains? Congress? the polka dotted snail of Zog?) shall be in the realms of debates that have surface on AU before, and in the future.

So, Guest and Ryan and everyone else, the Acela turned out to be a pretty good train, albeit one that needs plenty of babying to stay running, but it needed lots of modifications after some scary moments (cracked trucks and brake rotors), and of course it would take the curves faster at a higher cant deficiency if them extra 4 inches were not there. In otherwords, the shortcomings of Acela has less to do with Acela and more to do with the origins of how the trains were designed and built. Hopefully with this next go around, we will have taken each of these and learned to avoid them in the new design.

If all the old bridges in Connecticut and at Harold Interlocking were replaced, and if MetroNorth got it's projects finished, and gave Amtrak a clear railroad, I am certain an Acela can make NY - Boston in 3:05. And really, Guest, you can't frown on a deviation from plan that is only five minutes.

 

[George Harris]

I have always felt that the cracked trucks, brake rotor problems and such like were due primarily to a builder that did not understand the railroad on which their trainsets would be operated. They were built for a railroad that was such that you could leave you start point, gitty up and go and run full speed until you needed to slow down for your next stop. That is not the northeast corridor. Here we have a railroad that was built to be a 75 yo 80 mph line where practical and slower where not, so when you are trying to go faster you are all but constantly accelerating and braking to squeeze as much speed out as possible. This wears out trucks and propulsion equipment a lot faster than steady speed running.

By now we have reached the point of diminishing returns on investment in the NEC. We are talking big bucks for small improvements in run time. Yes, full constant tension catenary would be nice on the south end, but think of this: If you could take 100 miles that can currently be run at 125 mph and run them at 160 mph instead, that would only save 10.5 minutes, less time required in acceleration and braking, so to be meaningful, it would need to be all in one to two chunks not a lot of short here and there segments. That sort of thing cannot even be found on the north end, and the south end is already better in run time, so to do so would be less critical. You could probably save the same 10 minutes, if not more, by developing a straight shot through Baltimore, but here we are truly talking about megabucks.

Yes, a lot need done between new York and New Haven, but it will take a lot more than catenary to make any real difference. The line is simply too stinking crooked.

 

[Guest]

If, if, if there are too many ifs. Wouldn't it have been prudent to do the research ahead of time? They did not and the result is a cluster^#!*

DEDICATED INFRASTRUCTURE is the only answer to allow these trains to perform as designed.

 

[Paulus]

If, if, if there are too many ifs. Wouldn't it have been prudent to do the research ahead of time? They did not and the result is a cluster^#!*

DEDICATED INFRASTRUCTURE is the only answer to allow these trains to perform as designed.

Do you happen to have anything meaningful to add or is it just complaints that things weren't done the way you think is proper or irrelevant observations that 60 years ago, with significantly less traffic on the lines and infrastructure that hadn't suffered major neglect, a whopping two trains a day, carrying far fewer passengers and making fewer stops, met the Acela's timing?

 

[TimePeace]

Is a locomotive engineer the same as an infrastructure engineer? Just wondering...

I have no dog in this fight. I do suggest that it is the nature of posts that causes lack of credibility rather than guest status or member status...

And as is often mentioned... it helps everyone to become a member: after all, I can post anything I want as "Guest_Guest*" too... so can anyone. Why not let everyone know it is one voice.

 

[George Harris]

If, if, if there are too many ifs. Wouldn't it have been prudent to do the research ahead of time? They did not and the result is a cluster^#!*

DEDICATED INFRASTRUCTURE is the only answer to allow these trains to perform as designed.

Yes, there was not sufficient research. However, reality says the equipment manufacturer should be building trains for the railroad that they will run on, not for the railroad as they would like it to be. They are the ones who should have done the research, not Amtrak. That was the primary problem. Amtrak did not have "Dedicated Infrastructure" then, which should have been obvious to all, and we will not in the forseeable future unless someone drops a trillion or so onto Amtrak and designates it for the NEC. And, by the way, there is already the feeling that the NEC gets favored treatment while all else Amtrak gets the unwanted stepchild treatment.

 

[NE933]

If, if, if there are too many ifs. Wouldn't it have been prudent to do the research ahead of time? They did not and the result is a cluster^#!*

DEDICATED INFRASTRUCTURE is the only answer to allow these trains to perform as designed.

There are lots of hurdles to this: money, of course, but also where's the straight right of way on which to build this infrastructure? Do you possess the leaderships skills to convince people and businesses to move out of the way and if not to litigate quickly to completion? Ya better, because those are just a few things necessary to get straight dedicated track. Amtrak is given a hard time just to perform safety projects, like replacing a century old bridge. Want to tell them yacht owners they can't go fishing or have adulterous sex on the ocean while the wives and husbands aren't looking, just so Amtrak can safely replace a bridge? If you're the one who'll do this, or whomever, be prepared to stock up on your psych meds because brain will melt down when the energy is shot back.

BTW, does anyone know WHY the Pennsy needed an S-curve at Elizabeth? What were the surveyors possible trying to avoid with this kink in the tracks?

 

[Guest]

If, if, if there are too many ifs. Wouldn't it have been prudent to do the research ahead of time? They did not and the result is a cluster^#!*

DEDICATED INFRASTRUCTURE is the only answer to allow these trains to perform as designed.

Do you happen to have anything meaningful to add or is it just complaints that things weren't done the way you think is proper or irrelevant observations that 60 years ago, with significantly less traffic on the lines and infrastructure that hadn't suffered major neglect, a whopping two trains a day, carrying far fewer passengers and making fewer stops, met the Acela's timing?

Another poster with a fiber deficiency

OK Paulus what issues/statements that I have touched on do you find meaningless? We can discuss them one by one. Let's start by discussing my "irrelevant observations" and your less traffic, neglected infrastructure,two trains a day(?), fewer passengers etc.

As a side note the "60 years ago" statement? I have been working on what is now the NEC for a goodly portion of that 60 years. The floor is yours.

 

[Guest]

If, if, if there are too many ifs. Wouldn't it have been prudent to do the research ahead of time? They did not and the result is a cluster^#!*

DEDICATED INFRASTRUCTURE is the only answer to allow these trains to perform as designed.

There are lots of hurdles to this: money, of course, but also where's the straight right of way on which to build this infrastructure? Do you possess the leaderships skills to convince people and businesses to move out of the way and if not to litigate quickly to completion? Ya better, because those are just a few things necessary to get straight dedicated track. Amtrak is given a hard time just to perform safety projects, like replacing a century old bridge. Want to tell them yacht owners they can't go fishing or have adulterous sex on the ocean while the wives and husbands aren't looking, just so Amtrak can safely replace a bridge? If you're the one who'll do this, or whomever, be prepared to stock up on your psych meds because brain will melt down when the energy is shot back.

BTW, does anyone know WHY the Pennsy needed an S-curve at Elizabeth? What were the surveyors possible trying to avoid with this kink in the tracks?

I have posted previously that to build a dedicated infrastructure given the real estate values here in the northeast would render that venture cost prohibitive.

You folks here on quick to go on the attack I see. You have the home field advantage so if you want to set the tone I'm perfectly willing to play.

 

[Paulus]

If, if, if there are too many ifs. Wouldn't it have been prudent to do the research ahead of time? They did not and the result is a cluster^#!*

DEDICATED INFRASTRUCTURE is the only answer to allow these trains to perform as designed.

Do you happen to have anything meaningful to add or is it just complaints that things weren't done the way you think is proper or irrelevant observations that 60 years ago, with significantly less traffic on the lines and infrastructure that hadn't suffered major neglect, a whopping two trains a day, carrying far fewer passengers and making fewer stops, met the Acela's timing?

Another poster with a fiber deficiency

Quite regular, but thank you for your concern about my health.

OK Paulus what issues/statements that I have touched on do you find meaningless? We can discuss them one by one. Let's start by discussing my "irrelevant observations" and your less traffic, neglected infrastructure,two trains a day(?), fewer passengers etc.

As a side note the "60 years ago" statement? I have been working on what is now the NEC for a goodly portion of that 60 years. The floor is yours.

You have, unless you're some other random guest, complained that Acela is a "horrible failure" because it doesn't quite meet all the initial time expectations (despite, as mentioned by others, that not all the infrastructure work necessary was done due to cost overruns on electrification) and because the Merchants Limited had a similar schedule time.

 

[Ryan]

I'm still left wondering what any of this has to do with the Acela II.

Are they going to be a failure out of the gate if they never get a dedicated ROW to run on?

 

[Guest]

If, if, if there are too many ifs. Wouldn't it have been prudent to do the research ahead of time? They did not and the result is a cluster^#!*

DEDICATED INFRASTRUCTURE is the only answer to allow these trains to perform as designed.

Do you happen to have anything meaningful to add or is it just complaints that things weren't done the way you think is proper or irrelevant observations that 60 years ago, with significantly less traffic on the lines and infrastructure that hadn't suffered major neglect, a whopping two trains a day, carrying far fewer passengers and making fewer stops, met the Acela's timing?

Another poster with a fiber deficiency

Quite regular, but thank you for your concern about my health.

OK Paulus what issues/statements that I have touched on do you find meaningless? We can discuss them one by one. Let's start by discussing my "irrelevant observations" and your less traffic, neglected infrastructure,two trains a day(?), fewer passengers etc.

As a side note the "60 years ago" statement? I have been working on what is now the NEC for a goodly portion of that 60 years. The floor is yours.

You have, unless you're some other random guest, complained that Acela is a "horrible failure" because it doesn't quite meet all the initial time expectations (despite, as mentioned by others, that not all the infrastructure work necessary was done due to cost overruns on electrification) and because the Merchants Limited had a similar schedule time.

Thirty years ago Amtrak predicted 3 hour service BOS- NYP and 2hour 30 minute service NYP-WAS. This has never happened due to lack of and poor planning, shortsightedness and underestimated costs.In 50 years it has only bested the running time of the Merchants Limited by 12 minutes. Billions invested in the Corridor Improvement Project and 12 minutes is all that was saved? What else can you call it but a failure.

 

[Guest]

I'm still left wondering what any of this has to do with the Acela II.

Are they going to be a failure out of the gate if they never get a dedicated ROW to run on?

Exactly. Acela I and all it's 'high speed' predecessors couldn't get it done so what makes you think Acela II will?

 

[Paulus]

Thirty years ago Amtrak predicted 3 hour service BOS- NYP and 2hour 30 minute service NYP-WAS. This has never happened due to lack of and poor planning, shortsightedness and underestimated costs.In 50 years it has only bested the running time of the Merchants Limited by 12 minutes. Billions invested in the Corridor Improvement Project and 12 minutes is all that was saved? What else can you call it but a failure.

As has been mentioned, a significant portion of the required infrastructure has not been completed. While the Acela does not meet the promised 3 hours between Boston and New York, it is 23 minutes faster than the Turboservice which existed on A-Day and it has proven to be a significant financial success (the Merchants Limited, by that time, took 4.5 hours). Perhaps more importantly, there exists more Acela Express trains BOS-NYP than existed trains period BOS-NYP on A-Day (10 v 8). An additional 9 NERegionals also run with times of 4:00-4:15 (with the exception of 67 at 4:45), substantially faster than all trains except the Turboservice.

Could the upgrades have been better managed? Quite probably. But to call Acela a failure because other upgrades went over budget and were not completed is absolutely absurd.

 

[NE933]

I'm still left wondering what any of this has to do with the Acela II.

Are they going to be a failure out of the gate if they never get a dedicated ROW to run on?

Exactly. Acela I and all it's 'high speed' predecessors couldn't get it done so what makes you think Acela II will?

Brain alchemy. A tornado in my head is going to pick you off from whereever you are and bring to the ethereal womb where trains, rails, schedules, and the like are born, which is in God's and other men's minds. Your arteries and veins shall exchange the blood that beats thru the hearts train creators and the like; and in return you'll inject some of your source blessing back to them. In this divine region the charter of our destiny of humans and trains will weave into a comet like streak that will cause the minds of human creators to build the Acela II you and I salivate for. And I have some additional conditions of my own, namely many railcars for long distances, namely the Superliner III's many have been eager to get, and Viewliner II's, so that a NY to Florida train can fly at 125mph (something not legally done before on the NEC) on one track, and a 170mph Acela overtakes it. Both arrive in Philly, passengers are happy with the trains they are on.

You do care about happiness, don't you GG? Without that all of this is pointless, we might as well inject a lethal mojo of tranquilizers and booze.

 

[Ryan]

I'm still left wondering what any of this has to do with the Acela II.

Are they going to be a failure out of the gate if they never get a dedicated ROW to run on?

Exactly. Acela I and all it's 'high speed' predecessors couldn't get it done so what makes you think Acela II will?

At the risk of trying to keep this on topic and not rehash the Acela I debate, do you have any actual productive suggestions or is your repertoire limited to just talking trash about your employer? Since a new dedicated High Speed ROW is pretty much a pipe dream, just do nothing on an Acela follow on, retire the current Acela? Would you replace them with something, or just suffer the loss of capacity? How do you think that whatever course of action you're advocating for is going to impact the revenue brought in by your employer (and what do you think that would do to your job security)?

 

[Guest]

Thirty years ago Amtrak predicted 3 hour service BOS- NYP and 2hour 30 minute service NYP-WAS. This has never happened due to lack of and poor planning, shortsightedness and underestimated costs.In 50 years it has only bested the running time of the Merchants Limited by 12 minutes. Billions invested in the Corridor Improvement Project and 12 minutes is all that was saved? What else can you call it but a failure.

As has been mentioned, a significant portion of the required infrastructure has not been completed. While the Acela does not meet the promised 3 hours between Boston and New York, it is 23 minutes faster than the Turboservice which existed on A-Day and it has proven to be a significant financial success (the Merchants Limited, by that time, took 4.5 hours). Perhaps more importantly, there exists more Acela Express trains BOS-NYP than existed trains period BOS-NYP on A-Day (10 v 8). An additional 9 NERegionals also run with times of 4:00-4:15 (with the exception of 67 at 4:45), substantially faster than all trains except the Turboservice.

Could the upgrades have been better managed? Quite probably. But to call Acela a failure because other upgrades went over budget and were not completed is absolutely absurd.

Your information is flawed.

Infrastructure? Other than eliminating the many curves there would be minimal time saved by bridge replacement etc.

Turbo service a success? Where is it? If something is successful you go with it don't you?

Merchants Limited 4.5 hours is incorrect. In 1963 the running time was 3hours 55minutes wiith an engine change in New Haven

More trains today? Did your research show that the New Haven ran through and local freight interspersed with passenger service?

Traffic density? Amtrak cannot take credit for the increase. Skyrocketing fuel prices and an outdated Interstate system are responsible for the public seeking an alternate form of transportation.

Poor planning is the reasons the upgrades you speak of were not completed and over budget.

Absurd? That applies to your definition of failure.

I'm still left wondering what any of this has to do with the Acela II.

Are they going to be a failure out of the gate if they never get a dedicated ROW to run on?

Exactly. Acela I and all it's 'high speed' predecessors couldn't get it done so what makes you think Acela II will?

At the risk of trying to keep this on topic and not rehash the Acela I debate, do you have any actual productive suggestions or is your repertoire limited to just talking trash about your employer? Since a new dedicated High Speed ROW is pretty much a pipe dream, just do nothing on an Acela follow on, retire the current Acela? Would you replace them with something, or just suffer the loss of capacity? How do you think that whatever course of action you're advocating for is going to impact the revenue brought in by your employer (and what do you think that would do to your job security)?

No trash talking here I'm just telling it like it is. I would replace the Acela with updated equipment and provide frequent and dependable service. Folks are not in that much of a hurry for transportation that cost more with minimal time saved over the regular cheaper service. The demise of the Supersonic Transport proves that.
Now let me say a word about your 'attitude'. I have tried to be respectful and civil and because I post what you don't want to hear about the Acela Express you reply in a sarcastic tone to my posts. That being said it leads me to believe that you are one who stands near the roadbed sporting 'wood' when the faux speedster roars by.

 

[Ryan]

Now let me say a word about your 'attitude'. I have tried to be respectful and civil and because I post what you don't want to hear about the Acela Express you reply in a sarcastic tone to my posts. That being said it leads me to believe that you are one who stands near the roadbed sporting 'wood' when the faux speedster roars by.

I suspect that most of the posters here are railfans, which is a nice hobby, and they too are awed by the hi-tech faux speedster and cannot see from a practical standpoint the shortcomings of high speed in the NEC.

which leads me to believe that you are in fact a railroad buff ergo you are one who is awed by the hi-tech faux speedster. I equate you with someone who speaks of the horrors of combat yet was never in the miltary.

Another poster with a fiber deficiency

If that's what passes for "respectful and civil", your views on that are about as screwed up as your views on what constitutes failure.

No sarcasm here, just a genuine desire to see if you have a point beyond badmouthing your employer anonymously on the internet.

Edit: My original question still stands. Will you consider the Acela II a failure if it never gets a dedicated ROW to run on, but provides the same financial results as the Acela I?

 

[AlanB]

Traffic density? Amtrak cannot take credit for the increase. Skyrocketing fuel prices and an outdated Interstate system are responsible for the public seeking an alternate form of transportation.

Sorry, but NO!

You might be able to claim that for Amtrak in general; but it doesn't wash for Acela. First off, most Acela passengers weren't drivers on I-95 before Acela. They were fliers who moved to Acela. This is why Amtrak's market share has gone up and the airlines market share has gone down.

Second, the proof is in the pudding as they say. Fuel prices really spiked to current levels with the big run up to the $4+ gallon of gas that occurred in the summer of 2008. So if fuel was a major reason for increasing ridership on Acela, we'd have a major jump in ridership from 2007 to date. However, we don't! In fiscal 2007 Acela carried 3,191,321 rides. As of fiscal 2012, Acela had only increased to 3,395,354, a minuscule 200K increase.

Now if you told me that fuel costs had helped the Regional's, that I'd buy. Regional's went from 6,836,646 in 2007 to 8,014,175, and increase of 1.78 million riders.

Acela's growth on the other hand came much earlier and before $3 & $4 gas hit us. Back in 2003 Acela only carried 2,363,454 passengers. It's growth had very little to do with fuel prices or I-95.

So while perhaps you can declare Acela a failure because it didn't live up to it's speed promises; it is most certainly a success when it comes to attracting ridership. People are willing to pay for it and its slight speed advantage over the Regionals. If they weren't, then either prices on Acela would be going down and they're not or ridership would be going down and its not.

 

[Guest]

Now let me say a word about your 'attitude'. I have tried to be respectful and civil and because I post what you don't want to hear about the Acela Express you reply in a sarcastic tone to my posts. That being said it leads me to believe that you are one who stands near the roadbed sporting 'wood' when the faux speedster roars by.

I suspect that most of the posters here are railfans, which is a nice hobby, and they too are awed by the hi-tech faux speedster and cannot see from a practical standpoint the shortcomings of high speed in the NEC.

which leads me to believe that you are in fact a railroad buff ergo you are one who is awed by the hi-tech faux speedster. I equate you with someone who speaks of the horrors of combat yet was never in the miltary.

Another poster with a fiber deficiency

If that's what passes for "respectful and civil", your views on that are about as screwed up as your views on what constitutes failure.

No sarcasm here, just a genuine desire to see if you have a point beyond badmouthing your employer anonymously on the internet.

Edit: My original question still stands. Will you consider the Acela II a failure if it never gets a dedicated ROW to run on, but provides the same financial results as the Acela I?

What you have failed to show are your posts that elicited those responses.

I am not badmouthing my employer when I speak the truth.

As far as your original question if you can't shake the romance of the rails and see the picture realistically there is nothing I can say that will satisfy you. You consider my views (from the inside I might add) screwed up because I don't contribute to the love fest.

The Acela Express I II III IV etc. will not succeed, it will be force fed to the traveling public until someone in Congress wises up. It doesn't do what it was designed to do and it won't on the the existing "ROW".

As far as a money maker I'll be from Missouri on that one.

 

[Ryan]

There are plenty of people that don't "contribute to the love fest" whose views are perfectly welcomed here.

Both the existing Acela and future Acela were designed primarily to make money for Amtrak. Acela I is knocking the ball out of the park, and I expect Acela II to do the same, regardless of where or how fast it runs.

But at the end of the day, I think that PRR 60 said all that needed to be said on the topic.

The somewhat related discussion of the relative success of the existing Acela trainsets and service has run its course. Each side has had multiple opportunities to express opinions, and express opinions about the other side’s opinions.

 

[leemell]

Folks are not in that much of a hurry for transportation that cost more with minimal time saved over the regular cheaper service. The demise of the Supersonic Transport proves that.

You are quite wrong about that. The SST never got built, the US government pulled the funding. The Concorde never failed to have very high load factors and good profitably, until the end of it's service when load factors dropped disastrously for all premium air service. What caused the British and French airlines to end the service was that it was economic, the costs were too high to operate this airplane even with premium pricing, it was at the end of it's service life and maintenance costs were climbing precipitously. .

 

[Trogdor]

Folks are not in that much of a hurry for transportation that cost more with minimal time saved over the regular cheaper service. The demise of the Supersonic Transport proves that.

Going around in circles here, but why are you complaining about Acela and the inability to improve trip times when you say right here that people wouldn't care about saving a little bit of time (using the SST as an example, when it cut trip times on the routes it did serve by half, and what we're talking about with Acela is maybe a 10-15% improvement over current trip times).

If Acela failed to meet original trip time goals (and reasons why are a separate issue), but instead manages to meet travelers' needs in other ways, then is it really a failure?

Passengers seem happy with it. Enough so that they've left the airlines in droves on the air shuttle routes, and caused the airlines to significantly downgauge capacity on those routes.

 

[Guest]

Folks are not in that much of a hurry for transportation that cost more with minimal time saved over the regular cheaper service. The demise of the Supersonic Transport proves that.

You are quite wrong about that. The SST never got built, the US government pulled the funding. The Concorde never failed to have very high load factors and good profitably, until the end of it's service when load factors dropped disastrously for all premium air service. What caused the British and French airlines to end the service was that it was economic, the costs were too high to operate this airplane even with premium pricing, it was at the end of it's service life and maintenance costs were climbing precipitously. .

The SST never got built??? What were the British and French flying? Acela I is at the end of it's service life is it not? Why purchase Acela II when the same speeds, excepting the 150mph short spurt here and there, can be achieved with standard equipment at far less cost? All of you admit it has not achieved high speed status so why bother buying a new one? The bells, whistles and gadgets can be installed on standard coaches.

 

[Guest]

Traffic density? Amtrak cannot take credit for the increase. Skyrocketing fuel prices and an outdated Interstate system are responsible for the public seeking an alternate form of transportation.

Sorry, but NO!

You might be able to claim that for Amtrak in general; but it doesn't wash for Acela. First off, most Acela passengers weren't drivers on I-95 before Acela. They were fliers who moved to Acela. This is why Amtrak's market share has gone up and the airlines market share has gone down.

Second, the proof is in the pudding as they say. Fuel prices really spiked to current levels with the big run up to the $4+ gallon of gas that occurred in the summer of 2008. So if fuel was a major reason for increasing ridership on Acela, we'd have a major jump in ridership from 2007 to date. However, we don't! In fiscal 2007 Acela carried 3,191,321 rides. As of fiscal 2012, Acela had only increased to 3,395,354, a minuscule 200K increase.

Now if you told me that fuel costs had helped the Regional's, that I'd buy. Regional's went from 6,836,646 in 2007 to 8,014,175, and increase of 1.78 million riders.

Acela's growth on the other hand came much earlier and before $3 & $4 gas hit us. Back in 2003 Acela only carried 2,363,454 passengers. It's growth had very little to do with fuel prices or I-95.

So while perhaps you can declare Acela a failure because it didn't live up to it's speed promises; it is most certainly a success when it comes to attracting ridership. People are willing to pay for it and its slight speed advantage over the Regionals. If they weren't, then either prices on Acela would be going down and they're not or ridership would be going down and its not.

Alan, most of the folks who ride the Acela Monday through Friday are business people who do not care about the fare. They are on an expense account and the enjoy all the little perks that blind folks to the fact that the Acela is not much faster than the regionals. The weekend travelers are folks who ride the train for fun. Familes who are curious about the sleek new shiny train, railfans and the general public. Excepting the railfans very few return opting instead for the cheaper regionals.