Auto Trains for Everyone?

[colobok]

It's been done from the Midwest before. The only reason that the Auto Train works now is that there is a huge population in the NEC of snowbirds and others that travel to essentially one place; being namely, Florida.

With extended stays and spread out over that one place, they want their cars. So, it works.

No other run in the US would have such demographics.

If Auto Train is a Train-for-Snowbirds then it must be extended to Canada, New England and MidWest.

Washington DC is not the place where snowbirds live.

 

[Ryan]

It's within a days drive and there's no good route to the north...

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

It's been done from the Midwest before. The only reason that the Auto Train works now is that there is a huge population in the NEC of snowbirds and others that travel to essentially one place; being namely, Florida.

With extended stays and spread out over that one place, they want their cars. So, it works.

No other run in the US would have such demographics.

If Auto Train is a Train-for-Snowbirds then it must be extended to Canada, New England and MidWest.

Washington DC is not the place where snowbirds live.

It can't operate North of DC on the NEC, if you want to go North you'll have a lot of problems-- namely decapitation of passengers.

 

[Green Maned Lion]

Additionally, unless you want an average speed similar in time to people walking, you can only have one origin and one destination, otherwise you'd spend hours reshuffling cars around at each stop.

 

[railiner]

Perhaps the answer may be something on a much smaller scale than the Auto Train.

Instead of a dedicated operation like the current one, how about simply adding a small number of car carriers to an existing train. For example,the Southwest Chief from Chicago to Los Angeles, perhaps only on one or two consists to suit market demand. A small auto loading facility could be built either in current Amtrak yard or some leased facility. The passengers would bring their car there in advance, and then either be boarded at that facility or be transported to the station. Same at other end. In this way, there would be very little if any need to purchase additional rolling stock, and the cost of the trial would be minimal. If it is successful, number and frequency could be increased, up to the point where it would be desirable to make a separate auto train.

IIRC, there were examples of this back in the sixties. Didn't CN have something called Car-Go-Rail on their transcon? And didn't the C&O/B&O also have something similar in their Paul Reistrup era?

 

[colobok]

Perhaps the answer may be something on a much smaller scale than the Auto Train.

Instead of a dedicated operation like the current one, how about simply adding a small number of car carriers to an existing train. For example,the Southwest Chief from Chicago to Los Angeles, perhaps only on one or two consists to suit market demand. A small auto loading facility could be built either in current Amtrak yard or some leased facility. The passengers would bring their car there in advance, and then either be boarded at that facility or be transported to the station. Same at other end. In this way, there would be very little if any need to purchase additional rolling stock, and the cost of the trial would be minimal. If it is successful, number and frequency could be increased, up to the point where it would be desirable to make a separate auto train.

Exactly. This is how this concept works in other countries. Few car carriers are simply attached to existing train and train carries both regular passengers and auto riders.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Exactly. This is how this concept works in other countries. Few car carriers are simply attached to existing train and train carries both regular passengers and auto riders.

Congress will get right on that one...

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Or Oprah.. Look under your seats everybody...

You get an Auto Train, and you get an Auto Train! Everybody gets an Auto Train! Wahhhooo!

 

[RobertB]

Exactly. This is how this concept works in other countries. Few car carriers are simply attached to existing train and train carries both regular passengers and auto riders.

Congress will get right on that one...

Yeah... not to get all political up in this place, but my town (Mesquite, a suburb of Dallas) just elected a Tea Party state rep who ran saying that we were becoming "too European". I still don't know what the hell that's supposed to mean -- does she still have something against French Fries, Swiss Cheese, and Danishes? -- but I can't imagine that attitude is conducive to learning from our foreign friends' endeavours.

 

[GlobalistPotato]

I actually was going to start a thread like this before, but...

Amtrak actually has looked at expanding new autotrains. The route they were thinking of was Chicago-Phoenix and Chicago-Florida, because both have their own "snow bird" market.

Of course, the problems facing making a new autotrain are:

The massive upfront costs for the equipment, stations, rolling stock, etc.

The assembly problem, as GML mentioned. Trains would have to be non-stop between their destinations (the exception being a service stop).

Travel times - the check-in and departure time has to be at a time that gives travelers enough time to drive from their homes to the station (sometimes up to a 4 hour drive) and then arrive at a conventient time at their desination. The arrival time also has to give enough time to turn the train around for the departure time.

Real estate - the facalities required for the Auto Train would be huge in comparsion to a conventional Amtrak train, taking up many acres. In addition, the space required would have to double if there is more than one train occuplying the station within 4-5 of each other.

Marketing - As others have said, the Autotrain works because it has a large, unique market that doesn't exist elsewhere in America.

So my solutions:

Potential routes would include:

Dallas-Chicago (running from an underused freight train facality in the Metroplex to one of Chicago's many underused rail yards), via the Texas Eagle's route, or the Lone Star's route to KCY then north on BNSF's southern transcon).

Chicago-Sanford.

Chicago-Pheonix, via the Southern Transcon then BNSF's Flagstaff-Pheonix line (Suck on that, UP!).

Chicago-LA, also via the Southern Transcon. The train would work best if it could be combined with the CHI-PHX train from Flagstaff.

Houston-Sanford, after the Sunset East returns. Serves the Texas-Disneyworld market.

In general, an autorack or unused freight yard would be a good place to have an Autotrain station.

If an Autotrain station is going to be a greenfield developement, it should have easy access to major highways.

 

[dlagrua]

I embrace the idea and would love to see the Autotrain concept being expanded to other Amtrak routes but as they say "it ain't gonna happen". It might prove to be very successful but it could also fail. Yes it would save fuel, get cars off the road and be a nice expereince but how many people would use the new service?

Amtrak is in no position financially to offer new services, to make capital investments on new equipment, loading/unloading facilities and to embark on a venture where the outcome is questionable. However, if the price of gas keep going up though anything is possible. Amtraks ridership is exploding. Many routes are frequently sold out. If it keep going like this who knows what will happen but IMO private industry has a better chance of starting new passenger routes/services than Amtrak does.

 

[henryj]

I actually was going to start a thread like this before, but...

Amtrak actually has looked at expanding new autotrains. The route they were thinking of was Chicago-Phoenix and Chicago-Florida, because both have their own "snow bird" market.

Potential routes would include:

Dallas-Chicago (running from an underused freight train facality in the Metroplex to one of Chicago's many underused rail yards), via the Texas Eagle's route, or the Lone Star's route to KCY then north on BNSF's southern transcon).

Chicago-Sanford.

Chicago-Pheonix, via the Southern Transcon then BNSF's Flagstaff-Pheonix line (Suck on that, UP!).

Chicago-LA, also via the Southern Transcon. The train would work best if it could be combined with the CHI-PHX train from Flagstaff.

Houston-Sanford, after the Sunset East returns. Serves the Texas-Disneyworld market.

In general, an autorack or unused freight yard would be a good place to have an Autotrain station.

If an Autotrain station is going to be a greenfield developement, it should have easy access to major highways.

Since we are living in fantasy land here, why some underused freight yard. Why not a nice clean new facility next to an Interstate so motorist have easy access.

Chicago to Phoenix is 36 hours whether you use UP or BNSF. That means two nights on the train. Chicago to LA is 40+ hours, also two nights on the train. Why not just dump them off at Flagstaff, they have their car. Then you serve the Grand Canyon and Phoenix. That saves the torturous rail route from Williams down to Phoenix. Driving it is a breeze as there is interestate 17 and it's only a two+ hour drive to Phoenix. It also makes the train trip a one nighter.

Houston to Sanford, the fastest time ever recorded on that slow as Christmas route was 26+ hours. According to Mapquest you can drive it in 15 hours. I drove it in one day stopping only for fuel and lunch. So I don't know how popular that one would be.

You left out the obvious, Texas to Colorado, the most popular destination of Texans period. Load somewhere south of Dallas to pick up the Houston trade and off load between Co Sprgs and Denver. It would be a one night train. Route either the BNSF through Amarillo or the Heartland Flyer route to Newton then over to Pueblo via La Junta. Either works and timings are about the same.

And, It's not Dallas to Chicago it's Texas to the Chicago area. Start thinking like an auto train, not a regular passenger train. Load at the same facility as the Colorado train. This train is also a one nighter.

Chicago to Florida.......that's already been tried. You need to find some fast track to make that one work.

Aren't you going to give the Northeast a train west?

Finally, why trash the UP? None of these freight railroads are going to haul your auto train for free. You will have to pay no matter which route you take. The Transcon sees 80-100 trains a day. You want to take up one of those slots that a money making freight could use. They will want money. Will auto train bring in as much revenue as an intermodal hot shot? Use the Raton Pass line.

 

[VrmlBasic]

Perhaps instead of calling for a new autotrain, we should be calling for Amtrak to actually run its normal trains on a usable schedule.

Outside of the NE corridor, I have not encountered a usable schedule. 3 days a week, once a day, per direction is not usable. That's barely even service.

If Amtrak could run a train like the Cardinal at least 5 days a week, 2x a day (once per direction), minimum, then that would be a great leap forward. Unless I'm going to a park, my destination is going to be in a city. Amtrak almost always goes to those cities, and train stations are almost always more convenient than landing at airports. Some places I have driven/trained to are over an hour away from the nearest major airport. If Amtrak would just RUN REGULARLY, it would be more convenient than driving for most of my trips. I wouldn't be the only one who would experience this convenience. If Amtrak could get its service in gear, we wouldn't need these advocated autotrains as the train would largely cancel out the need for driving. If, once one arrives at his destination, light rail or foot wouldn't get him to where he needs to go, there is always car renting.

I found that I had need to go to Huntington, WV for a weekend in the future. So I checked Amtrak, remembering that I had been there when I rode the Cardinal a while back. The best Amtrak could give me is a Wednesday departure, with an incredibly late arrival, and there was no way back until the middle of the next week.

While Amtrak would be far cheaper than driving (unless you're carpooling, it almost always is), the extra hotel fees would cost far more than the gas would.

While we're at it, we need to get Amtrak's speed up. I recall seeing an Amtrak average speed listing of 48 mph, and that calculation was made only when the trains were actually moving. (ie: only the time in motion was used, not the time sitting stationary on sidings or at stations, so this average is actually higher than it could be.)

Few car carriers are simply attached to existing train and train carries both regular passengers and auto riders.

Forget that, instead put on more sleeper cars so that long-distance train travel is practical for the "average joe". Long distance coach isn't a real selling point, and on certain trips even a roomette can cost 3x as much as a coach trip. A sleeper car makes more sense, as it doesn't take a beaucoup of extra time nor special facilities to load up. Unlike auto carriers, there's a much greater demand throughout the Amtrak system for sleeper cars.

I find it ironic that the heavy-handed government regulations of yesteryear are holding back the government transit venture (Amtrak) of the present.

 

[zephyr17]

Perhaps instead of calling for a new autotrain, we should be calling for Amtrak to actually run its normal trains on a usable schedule.

Outside of the NE corridor, I have not encountered a usable schedule. 3 days a week, once a day, per direction is not usable. That's barely even service.

If Amtrak could run a train like the Cardinal at least 5 days a week, 2x a day (once per direction), minimum, then that would be a great leap forward. Unless I'm going to a park, my destination is going to be in a city. Amtrak almost always goes to those cities, and train stations are almost always more convenient than landing at airports. Some places I have driven/trained to are over an hour away from the nearest major airport. If Amtrak would just RUN REGULARLY, it would be more convenient than driving for most of my trips. I wouldn't be the only one who would experience this convenience. If Amtrak could get its service in gear, we wouldn't need these advocated autotrains as the train would largely cancel out the need for driving. If, once one arrives at his destination, light rail or foot wouldn't get him to where he needs to go, there is always car renting.

I found that I had need to go to Huntington, WV for a weekend in the future. So I checked Amtrak, remembering that I had been there when I rode the Cardinal a while back. The best Amtrak could give me is a Wednesday departure, with an incredibly late arrival, and there was no way back until the middle of the next week.

While Amtrak would be far cheaper than driving (unless you're carpooling, it almost always is), the extra hotel fees would cost far more than the gas would.

While we're at it, we need to get Amtrak's speed up. I recall seeing an Amtrak average speed listing of 48 mph, and that calculation was made only when the trains were actually moving. (ie: only the time in motion was used, not the time sitting stationary on sidings or at stations, so this average is actually higher than it could be.)

Few car carriers are simply attached to existing train and train carries both regular passengers and auto riders.

Forget that, instead put on more sleeper cars so that long-distance train travel is practical for the "average joe". Long distance coach isn't a real selling point, and on certain trips even a roomette can cost 3x as much as a coach trip. A sleeper car makes more sense, as it doesn't take a beaucoup of extra time nor special facilities to load up. Unlike auto carriers, there's a much greater demand throughout the Amtrak system for sleeper cars.

I find it ironic that the heavy-handed government regulations of yesteryear are holding back the government transit venture (Amtrak) of the present.

Pretty much agree. If we are going to spend (non-existant) money, bringing all the LDs to a 2x/day schedule so as to give all stations decent times would be the place to put it, rather than a helter-skelter system of auto carriers.

 

[ALC Rail Writer]

Pretty much agree. If we are going to spend (non-existant) money, bringing all the LDs to a 2x/day schedule so as to give all stations decent times would be the place to put it, rather than a helter-skelter system of auto carriers.

So to make sure that CLE and ALC get a "reasonable" hour... say-- 9PM for 29 for ALC, then we'd get into CHI around 5AM and DC around 7AM. 7AM is reasonable, but said hypothetical train 30(X) would have to leave CHI at 1PM before any Western LDs get into the station for connections.

I'd rather get to my destination at a reasonable hour than board at a reasonable hour, that makes sense to me. It would get even worse on the Western LDs. No matter how you work the schedules SOMEBODY has to be out in the dark. And honestly, I don't see the point in trying to mess with the schedules as they are-- the connections are good.

 

[railiner]

Where and how Amtrak spends its limited funds, while certainly an important subject, is not the subject of this thread.

That said, I would like to answer those saying Amtrak can't afford to expand the auto-train service due to the cost of additional equipment.

In my proposal in post #30, there would be no expense for passenger cars. And I think there may be a handful of spare auto-carriers that could be 'borrowed' from the Autotrain to run the trial. If not, regular freight auto carriers may be leased and adapted for autotrain use.

 

[dlagrua]

Where and how Amtrak spends its limited funds, while certainly an important subject, is not the subject of this thread.

That said, I would like to answer those saying Amtrak can't afford to expand the auto-train service due to the cost of additional equipment.

In my proposal in post #30, there would be no expense for passenger cars. And I think there may be a handful of spare auto-carriers that could be 'borrowed' from the Autotrain to run the trial. If not, regular freight auto carriers may be leased and adapted for autotrain use.

Any Autotrain needs to be a "point to point" non stop run. The passengers that you attract for this service are ones that have their cars loaded at the point of origin and continue to the final destination point where the auto carriers are uncoupled and unloaded. The old Autotrain Corporation once had a midwest service that boarded at a rail yard outside Louisville, KY and was it coupled on to the Amtrak Chicago-Florida train , it made stops (for regular passengers) it was not successful and it probably influenced the discontinuance of the South Wind. Point is that you need dedicated station/car loading facilities to assemble an Autotrain and they cost millions to build. Millions that Amtrak doesn't have. Heck if the mid-west could get back the basic South Wind/Floridian service most of us would be thrilled.

 

[railiner]

Where and how Amtrak spends its limited funds, while certainly an important subject, is not the subject of this thread.

That said, I would like to answer those saying Amtrak can't afford to expand the auto-train service due to the cost of additional equipment.

In my proposal in post #30, there would be no expense for passenger cars. And I think there may be a handful of spare auto-carriers that could be 'borrowed' from the Autotrain to run the trial. If not, regular freight auto carriers may be leased and adapted for autotrain use.

Any Autotrain needs to be a "point to point" non stop run. The passengers that you attract for this service are ones that have their cars loaded at the point of origin and continue to the final destination point where the auto carriers are uncoupled and unloaded. The old Autotrain Corporation once had a midwest service that boarded at a rail yard outside Louisville, KY and was it coupled on to the Amtrak Chicago-Florida train , it made stops (for regular passengers) it was not successful and it probably influenced the discontinuance of the South Wind. Point is that you need dedicated station/car loading facilities to assemble an Autotrain and they cost millions to build. Millions that Amtrak doesn't have. Heck if the mid-west could get back the basic South Wind/Floridian service most of us would be thrilled.

I agree with you if you run a train on the scale of the Auto Train. But if you only wanted to attract enough passengers to only fill what two or three autoracks could hold in the way of auto's coupled onto an existing train, and ran only from origin to destination of said train, it could be done with a very minimal auto loading facility.

 

[jphjaxfl]

Where and how Amtrak spends its limited funds, while certainly an important subject, is not the subject of this thread.

That said, I would like to answer those saying Amtrak can't afford to expand the auto-train service due to the cost of additional equipment.

In my proposal in post #30, there would be no expense for passenger cars. And I think there may be a handful of spare auto-carriers that could be 'borrowed' from the Autotrain to run the trial. If not, regular freight auto carriers may be leased and adapted for autotrain use.

Any Autotrain needs to be a "point to point" non stop run. The passengers that you attract for this service are ones that have their cars loaded at the point of origin and continue to the final destination point where the auto carriers are uncoupled and unloaded. The old Autotrain Corporation once had a midwest service that boarded at a rail yard outside Louisville, KY and was it coupled on to the Amtrak Chicago-Florida train , it made stops (for regular passengers) it was not successful and it probably influenced the discontinuance of the South Wind. Point is that you need dedicated station/car loading facilities to assemble an Autotrain and they cost millions to build. Millions that Amtrak doesn't have. Heck if the mid-west could get back the basic South Wind/Floridian service most of us would be thrilled.

The Autotrain from Louisville area to Sanford ran as a seperate train by Autotrain Corporation for a few years so it was not always combined with the Floridian. The combination in the last year of the Autotrain Operation was an attempt to save two dying trains. The Floridian died because of bad track and lengthy schedule in Indiana combined with frequent late running. The South Wind was discontinued in 1973 and was never combined with Auto train. Please try to get your facts correct before posting.

 

[dlagrua]

Where and how Amtrak spends its limited funds, while certainly an important subject, is not the subject of this thread.

That said, I would like to answer those saying Amtrak can't afford to expand the auto-train service due to the cost of additional equipment.

In my proposal in post #30, there would be no expense for passenger cars. And I think there may be a handful of spare auto-carriers that could be 'borrowed' from the Autotrain to run the trial. If not, regular freight auto carriers may be leased and adapted for autotrain use.

Any Autotrain needs to be a "point to point" non stop run. The passengers that you attract for this service are ones that have their cars loaded at the point of origin and continue to the final destination point where the auto carriers are uncoupled and unloaded. The old Autotrain Corporation once had a midwest service that boarded at a rail yard outside Louisville, KY and was it coupled on to the Amtrak Chicago-Florida train , it made stops (for regular passengers) it was not successful and it probably influenced the discontinuance of the South Wind. Point is that you need dedicated station/car loading facilities to assemble an Autotrain and they cost millions to build. Millions that Amtrak doesn't have. Heck if the mid-west could get back the basic South Wind/Floridian service most of us would be thrilled.

The Autotrain from Louisville area to Sanford ran as a seperate train by Autotrain Corporation for a few years so it was not always combined with the Floridian. The combination in the last year of the Autotrain Operation was an attempt to save two dying trains. The Floridian died because of bad track and lengthy schedule in Indiana combined with frequent late running. The South Wind was discontinued in 1973 and was never combined with Auto train. Please try to get your facts correct before posting.

I had no idea that this is adademia professor!!! BTW where do the forum rules state that all info here has to be 100% accurate? If you want to cut it that fine, you made a spelling mistake in the word separate, so please make sure your spelling is corredt before posting!

 

[Ryan]

If you're going to correct someone else's spelling, the lease you ca do is spell your post correctly.

Most people attempt to post info thats correct. What's the use of a conversation filled with false information? You'd be taken a little more seriously if you'd make an effort to post accurate information.

 

[George Harris]

The Autotrain from Louisville area to Sanford ran as a seperate train by Autotrain Corporation for a few years so it was not always combined with the Floridian. The combination in the last year of the Autotrain Operation was an attempt to save two dying trains. The Floridian died because of bad track and lengthy schedule in Indiana combined with frequent late running. The South Wind was discontinued in 1973 and was never combined with Auto train. Please try to get your facts correct before posting.

The South Wind as a through train was dead before Amtrak. The last couple of years pre-Amtrak, north of Louisville it was a coaches only train operated by Penn Central. Between Louisville and Montgomery AL, it was combined with the Pan American, and L&N train that ran Cincinatti to New Orleans, which was the last train on that route. South of Montgomery, it ran every other day between there and Jacksonville. Between Jacksonville the train was daily, with one day being the City of Miami and the other day being the South Wind. Through equipment ran Louisville KY to Miami.

At this late date, I do not remember whether Amtrak kept the South Wind name in its eary years or not. They made the choice to reinstate it as a through train and run it daily and to drop the City of Miami altogether. I think the choice was made by adding the population of the on line cities. It certainly was not based on which train had the largest ridership. That always belonged to the City of Miami. For both routes the track condition was going down the tubes in the late 60's early 70's for most of the lengths of their runs.

 

[rtabern]

I wish they had the Auto Train between Chicago and Florida... One day, I'd like to get all Amtrak routes under my belt (I have all of them except like 5 now) but think the Auto Train is going to be the hardest. I'd have to take the train to Washington, rent a car that I didn't really want, and put it on the train... and then have to pay the one-way rental fee for the car ($250+) unless I want to take it back. One day, I'll have to do it though just to check out the Auto Train, but it will probably be the last one I do.

 

[oldtimer]

I wish they had the Auto Train between Chicago and Florida... One day, I'd like to get all Amtrak routes under my belt (I have all of them except like 5 now) but think the Auto Train is going to be the hardest. I'd have to take the train to Washington, rent a car that I didn't really want, and put it on the train... and then have to pay the one-way rental fee for the car ($250+) unless I want to take it back. One day, I'll have to do it though just to check out the Auto Train, but it will probably be the last one I do.

You might want to check with some of the major rental company as in spring they sometimes waive the one way fee for northbound cars and in fall they do the same with cars going to Florida.

Hope that can help you and hope to see you Saturday.

OT2

 

[Alice]

I wish they had the Auto Train between Chicago and Florida... One day, I'd like to get all Amtrak routes under my belt (I have all of them except like 5 now) but think the Auto Train is going to be the hardest. I'd have to take the train to Washington, rent a car that I didn't really want, and put it on the train... and then have to pay the one-way rental fee for the car ($250+) unless I want to take it back. One day, I'll have to do it though just to check out the Auto Train, but it will probably be the last one I do.

Hertz has a seasonal deal to and from Florida where they have really low daily rates and no one-way charges to move the fleet. I tried it the spring after Katrina to drive between Florida (from one of the silver trains) and New Orleans (to continue to LA). I had plenty of time to visit Everglades, Keys, and other Florida attractions before heading west. Right now, Hertz wants their cars out of Florida between April 24 and June 12, starting at $5/day + airport fees and taxes. When I looked at this before, it didn't work except with airport locations. Google will find you the page if you can't find it from Hertz's website.