Many are 300 kmh. Here mostly 127, a few 185kmh.
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=846065003548876&set=a.610868297068549&type=3&sfnsn=mo&mibextid=WgLyUM
PRIIA spec has been 125mph (a smidge over 200 km/h) for two decades. What is lacking is the requisite high-speed grade-separated track... and the need for 125mph over 110mph peak speed otherwise.
It's been established since at least the mid-Seventies that true high speed (over 150mph in this country; "186mph" now about the minimum for Europe) requires new construction, with elevated/separated grading comparable to Interstates or extensive use of viaducting as in recent Chinese construction. As Joe noted, the new Avelia Liberty sets for Acela will go their entire design lifetime without having significant parts of the NEC to run on at their (expensive) high peak speed.
There is another part of this, which more than nominally involves electrification. A PRIIA consist that reaches 100mph with one locomotive just reaches 125mph with two. Now figure out the number of locomotives to take that speed to 150 and then 186mph, and calculate the amount of fuel needed for them... for fun, the amount of zero-carbon fuel or stored charge that would be necessary. Technically TGV001 and the original English APT were turbine-powered, but as with the Bombardier JetTrain there are no modern customers for that, even with much more efficient modern gas-turbine construction. That implies not only constant-tension catenary, but catenary operating at very high AC voltage (probably 50kV for sustained speed above 300 km/h).
Note that an enhanced version of dual-mode-lite would support the necessary current for substantial high speed in a locomotive otherwise equipped with nothing much more potent than a couple of Cummins QSK95s...
I rode on an ICE train at 300kms an hour alongside a no speed limit stretch of the autobahn. The Audis and Mercedes looked like they were parked. Smooth as silk. This was the neubaustrecke from Nuremberg to Munich as I recall but I could be wrong about just what stretch of track that was as it's been a few years.
OM: Maybe just contract with some consortium, Siemens, DB, or CR.
Long ago, when American rails were progressive:
https://www.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0227iCkj3pEXCyjgevgLe4ffPNB25yypFM8NokKLssoe8bmaMXifUXyZUofaCLc5nSl&id=100069536050770&post_id=100069536050770_pfbid0227iCkj3pEXCyjgevgLe4ffPNB25yypFM8NokKLssoe8bmaMXifUXyZUofaCLc5nSl&mibextid=DcJ9fc
I recall being oddly disappointed on my European Grand Tour because the trains don't really cruise at their max speed.
Like, yeah, the max design speed for the Frecciarossas is 400 and they're approved for 360, but have a listed operational max of 300. But, they actually cruise at around 250. I'm not saying they're not faster than the US, but it isn't like they're going twice as fast at every second of the trip.
NittanyLionI recall being oddly disappointed on my European Grand Tour because the trains don't really cruise at their max speed. Like, yeah, the max design speed for the Frecciarossas is 400 and they're approved for 360, but have a listed operational max of 300. But, they actually cruise at around 250. I'm not saying they're not faster than the US, but it isn't like they're going twice as fast at every second of the trip.
This is particularly true in the "improvement projects" for 110mph nominal that are built out in expensive sections, none long enough for more than a few minutes' operation at peak speed, with the rest of the stretch partly wasted in acceleration and deceleration, and meaningful gain on the investment only realized when substantial linked route-miles are fully complete.
I reiterate Joe's point about the Avelia Liberty nominal peak speeds, unlikely to be reached for more than a few seconds on most parts of any American system for the projected operating lifetime of the equipment.
Overmod NittanyLion I recall being oddly disappointed on my European Grand Tour because the trains don't really cruise at their max speed. Like, yeah, the max design speed for the Frecciarossas is 400 and they're approved for 360, but have a listed operational max of 300. But, they actually cruise at around 250. I'm not saying they're not faster than the US, but it isn't like they're going twice as fast at every second of the trip. The same is true for the much-slower-but-still-vaunted American peak speeds. The old Acelas were rated up to 150mph, and the first rebuilding of the NEC in the Carter Administration was to improve it to '150mph' speed -- but in neither case was more than a few miles actually done to that speed, with average speeds (and hence reduction in point-to-point times, which are the only justification for high speeds) much -- sometimes considerably much -- less. This is particularly true in the "improvement projects" for 110mph nominal that are built out in expensive sections, none long enough for more than a few minutes' operation at peak speed, with the rest of the stretch partly wasted in acceleration and deceleration, and meaningful gain on the investment only realized when substantial linked route-miles are fully complete. I reiterate Joe's point about the Avelia Liberty nominal peak speeds, unlikely to be reached for more than a few seconds on most parts of any American system for the projected operating lifetime of the equipment.
NittanyLion I recall being oddly disappointed on my European Grand Tour because the trains don't really cruise at their max speed. Like, yeah, the max design speed for the Frecciarossas is 400 and they're approved for 360, but have a listed operational max of 300. But, they actually cruise at around 250. I'm not saying they're not faster than the US, but it isn't like they're going twice as fast at every second of the trip.
The same is true for the much-slower-but-still-vaunted American peak speeds. The old Acelas were rated up to 150mph, and the first rebuilding of the NEC in the Carter Administration was to improve it to '150mph' speed -- but in neither case was more than a few miles actually done to that speed, with average speeds (and hence reduction in point-to-point times, which are the only justification for high speeds) much -- sometimes considerably much -- less.
The CHI - StL corridor is now 110 mph Joliet to Alton, which is most of the distance. If the trains Joliet to Chicago can be rerouted to the old Rock Island Metra route, that portion's time can be cut. The Alton - StL stretch also is currently bad.
Overmodunlikely to be reached for more than a few seconds on most parts of any American system for the projected operating lifetime of the equipment.
In part, this is why I think the general interest in designed maximum speed is a waste of energy and not an interesting point of comparison. I'd much rather throw schedule keeping and frequency at the problem, like the Swiss, than speed.
For instance, I know that the TGV Lyria between Paris and Zurich averages 74 mph (489km, 4 hr 4min trip). That's only modestly faster than the average speed on the NEC. The 6:00AM Acela will average 71 mph, assuming it actually keeps schedule, between DC and NYP tomorrow. The TGV Lyria is undoubtedly doing it over a longer run, but I believe it is making a lot fewer stops too.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.