America’s New “High-Speed” Trains Are Slower Than the Old Ones 🚄🇺🇸

[kevin1]

The U.S. has finally rolled out its long-awaited NextGen Acela high-speed trains — but there’s a catch: for now, they run as slow as (or slower than) the old models, thanks to outdated rail infrastructure.

What’s Happening

Amtrak has deployed five NextGen Acela trains on the Washington–Boston route.

Trains are capable of hitting 160 mph (257 km/h) — about 10 mph faster than the previous Acela.

Reality check: according to WSJ, two trains will actually take longer than their predecessors.

NextGen Acela trip time: 7h 05m

Old Acela average: 6h 56m

️ Why So Slow?

Amtrak says the limiting factor is infrastructure, not the trains:

Aging tracks, switches, signals, and overhead power lines.

Shared lines with commuter and freight trains — instead of dedicated high-speed rail corridors.

Until upgrades are complete, the NextGen Acela can’t reach its full potential.

What’s Next

Amtrak plans to roll out 28 new Acela trains within two years, phasing out the old fleet.

Infrastructure modernization is scheduled in the coming years to boost speed and reliability.

Fun fact: The launch was originally slated for 2021, but testing issues and the pandemic pushed it back.

🧩 The Takeaway

The NextGen Acela shows the U.S. can build faster trains — but without modernized infrastructure, they’re stuck crawling like the old ones.

Question: Should the U.S. prioritize faster trains first or new tracks first — or is this proof that both need to happen together?

[Nahid10]

This feels like peak “America problem.” We can design 160 mph trains but run them on 1950s tracks. Without dedicated corridors, it’s like putting a Ferrari on a dirt road — the potential is wasted. New trains are nice optics, but until the infrastructure matches, the upgrade is basically cosmetic.

[jacson4]

I think rolling out the new trains first makes sense — at least passengers get upgraded comfort and reliability while the infrastructure slowly catches up. Sure, trip times aren’t much faster yet, but modern trains are a step toward a true high-speed network. Sometimes you have to lay the rolling stock foundation before you justify billions in track upgrades.

[emranrx]

The U.S. should have flipped the priorities: fix the tracks first, then bring in the trains. Right now it looks like a marketing stunt — “NextGen” in name only. Europe and Asia invested in full high-speed corridors decades ago, and that’s why their trains actually deliver the advertised speeds. Without that, we’re just patching over deeper issues.

[kelson10]

Even if the first runs are slower, I see this as progress. It took years of delays just to get these trains on the rails, and now at least there’s momentum. The infrastructure projects are already in the pipeline, and once they finish, the U.S. could finally have a high-speed corridor to be proud of. It’s not perfect, but it’s a start.