Other Auto Train routes?

[colobok]

This has been pounded to death in other threads, but the conclusion I have come to is that for the Auto Train to work, you have to have a route short enough to make daily non-stop round trips with enough time for basic maintenance, loading and unloading at either end, and schedule pad to be successful. In addition, you have to place that defined trip time (mileage is not as important as is a guaranteed trip time) in between MAJOR human migratory routes. That's why the Auto Train today works - it's a 17 hour trip between the heavily populated NE and the heavily populated SE.

I think it's mistake. The current Auto Train route is too short. Most of people will prefer to drive WAS-ORL in one day than pay several hundred dollars one way for Auto Train. Auto Train will work better for real long distance. Driving CHI-ORL or West Coast to East Coast is really a pain.

Actually you could not be more incorrect. The Auto Train continues to be the most successful train in the Amtrak system and the demographic for that train does not "prefer to drive WAS-ORL in one day" - that is why they take Auto Train.

Your statement is incorrect. AutoTrain is the most successfull Amtrak train not because it's running WAS-ORL, but because it's the only one auto train. You can't compare auto train to other (non-auto) trains.

My point is that auto trains in USA would be much more successfull than regular trains, because USA is "auto" country. Most of people don't even think about trains because they don't know what to do when they get to the destination without a car.

I am pretty sure that auto trains for longer distances like CHI-ORL, BOS-ORL or CHI-DEN would be even more successful than short WAS-ORL route.

 

[jis]

I f we were more accustomed to doing a quick testing of an idea instead of building up fancy plans until they cost so much that they don't get done at all this is what we'd do. Instead of calculating how many new train sets would be needed to provide say a Chicago to Florida Auto Train, we'd buy a bunch of Auto Racks which fit within the Superliner loading gauge and simply start up a trial service by attaching say two or three of them to the tail of the Cap and transfer to the Meteor at WAS. The sell the few auto spaces available as an upgrade to anyone traveling via that route for a reasonable upgrade price and see how that goes.

The immediate cost will be building an auto loading siding in Chicago and Orlando, and some additional M&E folks and a shunter in Orlando to take off the racks and bring them to the loading siding siding and back.

This is just a rough sketch of an idea of how incrementalism can be used to try such things out before spending grand sums of money.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Hell, ya don't even need to buy auto racks. Start with two racks, you need about 6 sets to make that to Sanford, thats 12 auto-racks. I'm sure Amtrak can spare 12 Auto racks from the current Auto Train set, cuz I know we leave tons behind on fully packed trains.

 

[Tony]

I'd rather drive my own car, and I'm willing to pay a considerable amount for that privilege.

Can you name, say, 6 million others who feel the exact same way, and are willing put down money today to prove it? :lol:

The problem is that the last thing Amtrak needs, is yet another route that doesn't at least break even. Just because the route is new, connects to places which currently aren't connected, or is a route once served by some bankrupt railroad company, doesn't mean it is a sure-fire money maker.

 

[Ryan]

You would have to buy auto racks, because the existing ones won't fit through WAS.

If you wanted to try this on the cheap, try CHI-ATL and switch the autoracks from the Cardinal to the Crescent @ CVS.

 

[Tony]

... simply start up a trial service by attaching say two or three of them to the tail of the Cap and transfer to the Meteor at WAS.

Why not, instead, transfer them to the existing Autotrain at LOR? LOR isn't all that further than WAS.

Besides, the Meteor is current a single-level trainset, no?

 

[Ryan]

That'd be a great idea, if they fit through the tunnels.

Edit: And the timing would be crap. Afternoon arrival at WAS is too late to make the Auto Train's departure. They'd have to jigger things around some.

 

[haolerider]

This has been pounded to death in other threads, but the conclusion I have come to is that for the Auto Train to work, you have to have a route short enough to make daily non-stop round trips with enough time for basic maintenance, loading and unloading at either end, and schedule pad to be successful. In addition, you have to place that defined trip time (mileage is not as important as is a guaranteed trip time) in between MAJOR human migratory routes. That's why the Auto Train today works - it's a 17 hour trip between the heavily populated NE and the heavily populated SE.

I think it's mistake. The current Auto Train route is too short. Most of people will prefer to drive WAS-ORL in one day than pay several hundred dollars one way for Auto Train. Auto Train will work better for real long distance. Driving CHI-ORL or West Coast to East Coast is really a pain.

Actually you could not be more incorrect. The Auto Train continues to be the most successful train in the Amtrak system and the demographic for that train does not "prefer to drive WAS-ORL in one day" - that is why they take Auto Train.

Your statement is incorrect. AutoTrain is the most successfull Amtrak train not because it's running WAS-ORL, but because it's the only one auto train. You can't compare auto train to other (non-auto) trains.

My point is that auto trains in USA would be much more successfull than regular trains, because USA is "auto" country. Most of people don't even think about trains because they don't know what to do when they get to the destination without a car.

I am pretty sure that auto trains for longer distances like CHI-ORL, BOS-ORL or CHI-DEN would be even more successful than short WAS-ORL route.

I'm sorry, but Amtrak does compare Auto Train to other Amtrak trains and it is the best performer and recovers more of its costs than any other train. I don't know where you get your information about not being able to compare auto train to non-auto trains. USA may be auto country, but to be successful with a product like auto train you need a unique set of circumstances - a corridor that will allow you to transport people and their autos to a destination that is popular - hence the northeast to Florida corridor. Other corridors may come to mind - i.e. mid-west to Florida or mid-west to the southwest and they also have to provide a convenient and sensible length of time on the train. If you go back in history and look at the attempt to provide this service from Louisville to Florida you will see a complete failure - based on lack of potential passengers from that region. The current Auto Train is able to provide a dinner for both coach and sleeping car passengers and a continental breakfast the morning of arrival. A longer trip length puts you into the situation of providing additional meals with associated additional costs - building a higher price - which may not sell.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I'd rather drive my own car, and I'm willing to pay a considerable amount for that privilege.

Can you name, say, 6 million others who feel the exact same way, and are willing put down money today to prove it? :lol:

The problem is that the last thing Amtrak needs, is yet another route that doesn't at least break even. Just because the route is new, connects to places which currently aren't connected, or is a route once served by some bankrupt railroad company, doesn't mean it is a sure-fire money maker.

The concept of insisting on making money on a public service is not only ridiculous, but the very concept of trying is abhorrent. Would you suggest that we should not operate, say, sewage treatment plants if they do not turn a profit?

 

[AAARGH!]

The concept of insisting on making money on a public service is not only ridiculous, but the very concept of trying is abhorrent. Would you suggest that we should not operate, say, sewage treatment plants if they do not turn a profit?

But the (BIG) difference is that a sewage treatment plant is a necessity while trains are not.

 

[AlanB]

This has been pounded to death in other threads, but the conclusion I have come to is that for the Auto Train to work, you have to have a route short enough to make daily non-stop round trips with enough time for basic maintenance, loading and unloading at either end, and schedule pad to be successful. In addition, you have to place that defined trip time (mileage is not as important as is a guaranteed trip time) in between MAJOR human migratory routes. That's why the Auto Train today works - it's a 17 hour trip between the heavily populated NE and the heavily populated SE.

I think it's mistake. The current Auto Train route is too short. Most of people will prefer to drive WAS-ORL in one day than pay several hundred dollars one way for Auto Train. Auto Train will work better for real long distance. Driving CHI-ORL or West Coast to East Coast is really a pain.

Actually you could not be more incorrect. The Auto Train continues to be the most successful train in the Amtrak system and the demographic for that train does not "prefer to drive WAS-ORL in one day" - that is why they take Auto Train.

Your statement is incorrect. AutoTrain is the most successfull Amtrak train not because it's running WAS-ORL, but because it's the only one auto train. You can't compare auto train to other (non-auto) trains.

My point is that auto trains in USA would be much more successfull than regular trains, because USA is "auto" country. Most of people don't even think about trains because they don't know what to do when they get to the destination without a car.

I am pretty sure that auto trains for longer distances like CHI-ORL, BOS-ORL or CHI-DEN would be even more successful than short WAS-ORL route.

I'm sorry, but Amtrak does compare Auto Train to other Amtrak trains and it is the best performer and recovers more of its costs than any other train. I don't know where you get your information about not being able to compare auto train to non-auto trains. USA may be auto country, but to be successful with a product like auto train you need a unique set of circumstances - a corridor that will allow you to transport people and their autos to a destination that is popular - hence the northeast to Florida corridor. Other corridors may come to mind - i.e. mid-west to Florida or mid-west to the southwest and they also have to provide a convenient and sensible length of time on the train. If you go back in history and look at the attempt to provide this service from Louisville to Florida you will see a complete failure - based on lack of potential passengers from that region. The current Auto Train is able to provide a dinner for both coach and sleeping car passengers and a continental breakfast the morning of arrival. A longer trip length puts you into the situation of providing additional meals with associated additional costs - building a higher price - which may not sell.

Not only does Amtrak compare the AT to other Amtrak trains, I think that it speaks volumes that the Auto Train is the only long distance train that produces an above the rails profit. And consider that the AT has many, many more expenses than the rest of the LD's. The AT has a seperate reservations center charged only to the AT's budget. The AT has to hire drivers to load the autos onto the auto racks. They have to hire switching crews. They have to hire check-in agents. They have a higher ratio of staff on board than any other LD. They burn more fuel hauling all that extra weight of the auto racks.

So for the AT to be the only LD train that makes a profit over its direct expenses is significant in my mind, and good enough to declare it a sucess against all LD trains. The next closest LD is the Palmetto and it only covers about 90% of its direct costs.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

But the (BIG) difference is that a sewage treatment plant is a necessity while trains are not.

Public transportation is no less needed then treating sewage before dumping it into the ocean. We can survive both. Either lacking, however, produces a monumental burden on the economy, environment, and other infrastructure.

Amtrak is a needed public utility. You can argue the need for sleeping cars (which cover their costs completely, by the way) or full service dining, or perhaps even food service at all. I think it needs them all, but thats besides the point. It is arguable. This is not: our rail network is essential to the economy and well being of the United States.

We need more trains. We need more routes, more frequency, and better equipment. Its return on investment can't be directly measured anymore than you can measure the return on investment of an interstate. How it effects and provides for the economy of the areas it serves can not be measured on Amtrak's balance sheet. But it is the major reason Amtrak is still here.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

The concept of insisting on making money on a public service is not only ridiculous, but the very concept of trying is abhorrent. Would you suggest that we should not operate, say, sewage treatment plants if they do not turn a profit?

After having been the chairman of a Water and Sewer system, I can say with authority, that a sewage treatment plant could not loose even a penny. We would be required to either raise rates (if an operating deficit was projected) or raise taxes (if a capital deficit was projected).

 

[AliceIn]

I would love it if there were Auto Train service from the midwest to Florida. Renting a car adds such a huge expense to a trip, and driving all the way to Florida would be awful with three small children in the car. I'd definitely use the train if that were an option to go to Orlando!

 

[ScottC4746]

I would love it if there were Auto Train service from the midwest to Florida. Renting a car adds such a huge expense to a trip, and driving all the way to Florida would be awful with three small children in the car. I'd definitely use the train if that were an option to go to Orlando!

Here is the full news release from Amtrak. From what it says it is not adding more Autotrains, but refurbishing what they have already. It does say they are looking, but that could be decades from now:

News Release

National Railroad Passenger Corporation

60 Massachusetts Avenue NE

Washington, DC 20002

www.amtrak.com

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

ATK-09-040

Contact: Media Relations (202) 906-3860

May 18, 2009

Amtrak Celebrates Groundbreaking For New Auto Train Station In Sanford, Fla.

New Facility Will Improve Passenger Service

WASHINGTON & SANFORD, FLA. - Today Amtrak is beginning to put into place the last piece of a multi-year plan to bring increased convenience, improved service and more station amenities to passengers who ride our popular Auto Train.

The new, larger and up-to-date passenger station being built in Sanford, Fla., fulfills our vision for the Auto Train which added new passenger equipment in the 1990s, new car carriers in July 2005 and built a new station and mechanical facility at the northern end of the route near Washington, D.C., in 2000. It's a plan that is working. During fiscal year 2008, ridership on the Auto Train increased 7.8 percent over the previous year.

As Americans have sought alternatives to crowded highways, Amtrak is — and has been — providing another way. The success of the Auto Train shows in a very direct manner that Amtrak is part of the travel solution and is taking cars off the road every day of the year.

As Amtrak actively moves forward with plans for a greener, safer and healthier future, we will be looking for other places around the country where an Auto Train service can be started.

About Amtrak

Amtrak has posted six consecutive years of growth in ridership and revenue, carrying more than 28.7 million passengers in the last fiscal year. Amtrak provides intercity passenger rail service to more than 500 destinations in 46 states on a 21,000-mile route system. For schedules, fares and information, passengers may call 800-USA-RAIL or visit Amtrak.com.

Amtrak's Auto Train Station

New Facility Construction in Sanford, Fla.

Fact Sheet

Amtrak's Sanford Auto Train Station

*

The Sanford Auto Train Station serves as the southernmost terminus of Amtrak's Auto Train, a unique service that allows passengers to travel with their personal vehicles between Lorton, Va. (near Washington, D.C.) and Sanford, Fla.

*

The station was built in 1971 when the Auto Train operation was a private enterprise. Amtrak began operating the service in October, 1983 and renovated the station in 1995.

*

In addition to cars, vans and SUVs, the Auto Train also transports motorcycles, small boats, U-haul trailers and jet-skis.

*

In fiscal year 2008, 234,839 passengers traveled on the Auto Train, an increase of 7.8 percent over the previous year.

*

Last fiscal year, the Auto Train carried 112,188 cars and 1,757 motorcycles, resulting in a gasoline savings of about 5,048,460 gallons (20 mpg at 900 miles)

*

With more than 40 passenger rail cars and auto carriers, the Auto Train is the longest passenger train in the world.

Plans for Renovation

*

The $10 million renovation of Amtrak's Sanford Auto Train Station will be funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act.

*

The current 2,500 sq. ft. station configuration of three separate structures will be replaced with a 10,000 sq. ft. facility with a passenger waiting area, ticket counter, gift shop, café and restrooms.

*

The new, larger station will include a waiting area with seating for 600, an increase of 370 over the current waiting area, which is partially housed in a tent.

*

A new traffic flow will provide easier access for passengers as they drop off their vehicles under a large canopy prior to boarding the train.

Passenger Impact During Construction

*

During construction, the station will remain open.

*

The current tented waiting area will be relocated from the north end of the station to the south end to make way for the new building.

*

The existing gift shop will be demolished and the current station will be renovated to accommodate administration offices.

*

The renovation project is scheduled to begin in mid-June 2009 and is targeted for completion in the fall of 2010.

 

[amtrak51]

I think a Midwest line would be the most preferred. I think some where near Indy IN, Cincy OH, Northern KY, or Fort Wayne IN would be the best.

I like the Idea of a Chicago stop, but where would you put it? In the Chicago area Interstate + RR = Developed Area or $$$ land

AND

In Northern KY, Cincy OH you have nice NS operated (City of Cincinnati owned*) main line track

In Fort Wayne IN you have NS main line track to and closer the Chicago, Michigan, Indy...

In Indy IN you have a close prox. to Beech Grove

*Cincinnati Southern Railway Owned by City of Cincinnati Leased to NS for $19,000,000 a year!!!! Cincy OH - Chattanooga TN

Also See

 

[AAARGH!]

But the (BIG) difference is that a sewage treatment plant is a necessity while trains are not.

Public transportation is no less needed then treating sewage before dumping it into the ocean. We can survive both. Either lacking, however, produces a monumental burden on the economy, environment, and other infrastructure.

Amtrak is a needed public utility. You can argue the need for sleeping cars (which cover their costs completely, by the way) or full service dining, or perhaps even food service at all. I think it needs them all, but thats besides the point. It is arguable. This is not: our rail network is essential to the economy and well being of the United States.

We need more trains. We need more routes, more frequency, and better equipment. Its return on investment can't be directly measured anymore than you can measure the return on investment of an interstate. How it effects and provides for the economy of the areas it serves can not be measured on Amtrak's balance sheet. But it is the major reason Amtrak is still here.

I would argue the freight trains are a necessity, but that passenger trains are not. Not with the interstate system we have and the airline network. I do not believe in any way that passenger trains are essential to our economy as freight trains are. Of course if you must have rails for the freight trains to run on, you might as well run frequent, well-run passenger service on it!

I disagree when you say we could survive without a sewage treatment system. Given what we know now about the impact of doing so, it is an absolute necessity - unlike passenger trains which we could live without, but not happily of course.

I do not argue that we need more trains, frequency, and equipment. I love trains (that's why I frequent this (fantastic) site), but don't believe them to be a public necessity.

 

[jis]

I do not argue that we need more trains, frequency, and equipment. I love trains (that's why I frequent this (fantastic) site), but don't believe them to be a public necessity.

Not even on the NEC and as commuter service around the large eastern cities? Or would you perhaps make selective exceptions to the rather sweeping statement you have made on this matter so far? I am just trying to assess credibility of your position in my mind, that's all.

 

[AAARGH!]

I do not argue that we need more trains, frequency, and equipment. I love trains (that's why I frequent this (fantastic) site), but don't believe them to be a public necessity.

Not even on the NEC and as commuter service around the large eastern cities? Or would you perhaps make selective exceptions to the rather sweeping statement you have made on this matter so far? I am just trying to assess credibility of your position in my mind, that's all.

You bring up a good point. There are shaded of gray in this.

I'll classify it in three ways:

1. I would say that commuter lines (Metro North, Metra, MBTA, PATH, LIRR, SEPTA, etc..) are a necessity. This is due to the lack of other effective modes of transit that can move that many people. The highways can't support the numbers without massive traffic jams (that already are occuring). Amtrak in those areas is in addition (for the most part), so I don't think Amtrak is a necessity, but passenger rail of some sort is.

2. NEC and other "corridors" (I'll add Amtrak California to this class also as well as the Sounder, etc... in the Northwest): I would argue that there are other options (I-95) and air shuttles, so IMHO this is not a necessity, but certainly a more efficient option to automobiles and airplanes. Again, not a necessity, but less needed than commuter and much more needed than my third classification...

3. Mid/Long Distance (IE, the rest of the Amtrak system): In my opinion, not a necessity at all. Not with the interstate highway system as another viable option. I am NOT saying it isn't efficient or effective, but rather it is not a public necessity as GML claims it to be.

Does that help clarify my position?

 

[wayman]

2. NEC and other "corridors": I would argue that there are other options (I-95) and air shuttles, so IMHO this is not a necessity, but certainly a more efficient option to automobiles and airplanes. Again, not a necessity, but less needed than commuter and much more needed than my third classification... I'll add the Amtrak California to this class also as well as the Sounder, etc... in the Northwest.

I could just as well argue that air shuttles between NEC cities are not a necessity, because rail travel exists and is more efficient, greener, and in fact preferred by more travelers; and thus public money should be spent improving the rail infrastructure, purchasing more and newer equipment, and increasing frequencies, instead of on airport maintenance, air traffic control and other personnel, and airline subsidies and bailouts.

 

[AAARGH!]

I could just as well argue that air shuttles between NEC cities are not a necessity, because rail travel exists and is more efficient, greener, and in fact preferred by more travelers; and thus public money should be spent improving the rail infrastructure, purchasing more and newer equipment, and increasing frequencies, instead of on airport maintenance, air traffic control and other personnel, and airline subsidies and bailouts.

I do not think air shuttles are a necessity either. I do think the interstate highway system is though. In my opinion, a mix of the three is best, but you could get rid of either air shuttles or trains and still be OK (but not both).

I agree that it would be better to place resources with rail in 'corridor' areas for the reasons you give.

Necessity is such a subjective term isn't it?

 

[henryj]

I could just as well argue that air shuttles between NEC cities are not a necessity, because rail travel exists and is more efficient, greener, and in fact preferred by more travelers; and thus public money should be spent improving the rail infrastructure, purchasing more and newer equipment, and increasing frequencies, instead of on airport maintenance, air traffic control and other personnel, and airline subsidies and bailouts.

I do not think air shuttles are a necessity either. I do think the interstate highway system is though. In my opinion, a mix of the three is best, but you could get rid of either air shuttles or trains and still be OK (but not both).

I agree that it would be better to place resources with rail in 'corridor' areas for the reasons you give.

Necessity is such a subjective term isn't it?

You could even argue that automobiles and interestate highways are not a necessity. Certainly they are not thought of that way in Europe. Here in the US we have come to believe that cars and highways are some kind of God given right. Eisenhour justified the interstate highway system as a defense necessity. It all costs money, Government money. When the Government subsidizes one form at the expense of another it creates an artificial demand that does not reflect true costs and thus does not reflect the actual market place. We are here because we like trains. But in the real world any form of transportation should justify it's existance economically. That is hard to do in an environment where subsidies are passed around like candy and projects are the product of the latest pork barrel politics. The real question you have to ask is if the government backed out of all this, what forms of transportation would survive economically? Would we still prefer highways if we had to pay everytime we backed out of our garage? What if your car costs you as much as a rent car everyday? Would privately run railroads consider the passenger business a viable part of their business? Would airlines serve anything but the largest cities? Remember, they would have to build and maintain their own airports. Would long distance trucks and buses make sense if they had to build and maintain their own roads? Would a private city transit system consider 'light rail' a good alternative if they had to pay for the roads their buses ran on? The true costs of all these forms of transportation are conveniently hidden away in the form of taxes and subsidies. What does a highway really costs when you consider the land it gobbles up and the damage to the environment in addition to it's construction and maintenance costs. What if privately owned highways and airports had to pay property taxes on all their assets as railroads do? If your are going to debate 'necessity' these are the types of questions you have to answer. Otherwise lets just lobby for more money for passenger rail so we can play with and ride our trains. Who cares if they make any economic sense in the current environment.

 

[PaulM]

If interstate highways, or any road for that matter, is such a necessity, why why are they not financed by private enterprise?

 

[Green Maned Lion]

I could just as well argue that air shuttles between NEC cities are not a necessity, because rail travel exists and is more efficient, greener, and in fact preferred by more travelers; and thus public money should be spent improving the rail infrastructure, purchasing more and newer equipment, and increasing frequencies, instead of on airport maintenance, air traffic control and other personnel, and airline subsidies and bailouts.

I do not think air shuttles are a necessity either. I do think the interstate highway system is though. In my opinion, a mix of the three is best, but you could get rid of either air shuttles or trains and still be OK (but not both).

I agree that it would be better to place resources with rail in 'corridor' areas for the reasons you give.

Necessity is such a subjective term isn't it?

Not right. You shouldn't make owning a car and being able to drive a requirement for surviving in this country. Public transit is not only needed, it is MORE needed then the interstates. I have labored for years to get this horrible eye sores dynamited, and I will continue to do so.

 

[George Harris]

If interstate highways, or any road for that matter, is such a necessity, why why are they not financed by private enterprise?

In rural areas up until sometime at least in the 1920's, in Tennessee for sure and I think also eleswhere, it was a requirement of the county that the adjancent landowners spend at least one week a year working on maintaining the roads in their area, or providing a wagon and team of mules for the same duration for that purpose. Would you consider that privitizing the road maintenance. The road rigth of way was accessible to the public, but the deeds for the land were defined by the center of the road where there was a road adjacent to the land. When the FAS program (Federal Aid Secondary road system) began, the landowners had to make a formal easement to the county sufficient to provide for a 50 foot right of way before any paving would be done.

Would these maintenance requirements indicate a partial privitization of the roads?

A lot of the early bridges were private and tolled.

The first bridge across the lower Mississippi, the Memphis Bridge, commonly called the Frisco Bridge, opened in 1892, and was planked level with the top of rails with 23 feet between railings. Between trains, wagons were allowed to cross at a toll of 25 cents each. Remember, in 1892, 25 cents was serious money to most people. The next bridge, which had "wagonways" outside the rails, in fact outside the truss, was also a toll bridge up until the 1940's. The highway bridge opened in 1949 was free. Both the railroad bridges were and are still privately financed,, built, and maintained.

The next bridge opened across the Mississippi River, in 1930 at Vicksburg was also built privately, consists of one railroad and two lanes of road, all inside the truss. After the original builders went bankrupt or came close, they sold the bridge to Warren County, Mississippi, which still owns it. The roadway is now closed, but still there. The bridge's maintenance cost is covered by per car charges to Kansas City Southern, and these costs include paying property taxes to the Lousiana side county. If the Meridian - Dallas train had ever come about, it would cross this bridge.