Other Auto Train routes?

[Irv]

It's pretty clear that the only destination where people intend to STAY for months is Florida.

Thus paying to transfer their own automobile is practical.

LA, Denver, etc get plenty of travellers - business and 1 - 2 week vactioning families.

Rental is more practical for that short period of time.

As to where these people come from, my own experience is that there are far more midwest and Canadian autos in Fla. than NY/NJ.

From those areas - Chicago, say - it's a LONG drive to Fla.

So if there was a comfortable - perhaps almost luxurious - overnight to Fla., I think it would get lots of business. Even if if took 24 hrs.

People have to sleep anyway.

If you've ever driven I-75 through GA around Christmas time, you'll see long "trains" of RV's headed for the Fla. sun.

If there was a way to load THOSE gas-guzzling things onto a rail car - people could save a fortune.

 

[JAChooChoo]

It's pretty clear that the only destination where people intend to STAY for months is Florida.Thus paying to transfer their own automobile is practical.

Taking your own car and avoiding the I=95 hassle makes the Auto Train practical.

 

[railiner]

I seriously doubt whether there exists another market that has the unique attributes that the Auto Train currently serves. No other market has its unique demographic. That said, I still think it would be a good idea to bring back direct midwest to Florida service on a regular train on a route that approximates that old Floridian where it is still possible.

I just don't think that there is enough demand on that route for car carriers.

 

[PaulM]

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 - - - -

A lot of the early bridges were private and tolled.

The first bridge across the lower Mississippi, the Memphis Bridge, - - - - -

The next bridge opened across the Mississippi River, in 1930 at Vicksburg was also built privately, - - - -

I guess I should change that to: If interstate highways, or any road for that matter, is such a necessity, why are they NO LONGER financed by private enterprise?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

LA, Denver, etc get plenty of travellers - business and 1 - 2 week vactioning families. Rental is more practical for that short period of time.

If transfering your car under its own power for 6 hours is an option, that can turn out to be more practical than flying to a hub, changing planes, getting on another plane, and renting a car, even if you'd only need the rental car for half a week.

What isn't practical is the Auto Plane. Our current 550 MPH transportation infrastructure is built with the idea that anything that's heavy or low value just doesn't need to travel at 550 MPH. Even the An-225 is limited to 550,000 pounds of cargo, which you could probably put on about four freight cars on the US railroads.

If we could figure out how to built trains that ran at 550 MPH, I think a lot of lower value cargo might travel faster, and this might lead to safer and faster travel for vacationing families who want their cars at their destinations, and fresher food such as fruit from the opposite side of the country. Even a national 220 MPH rail network could go along way towards improving transportation options.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

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).

Is that requirement in the US Constitution?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Let's see what the problems would be with a transcontinental Auto Train. First, that 855 miles becomes 2800 miles. 17 hours on the train becomes 54 hours.

What if you notice that your calendar says it's now the 1980s or later and trains can run at 186 MPH or faster?

 

[George Harris]

Let's see what the problems would be with a transcontinental Auto Train. First, that 855 miles becomes 2800 miles. 17 hours on the train becomes 54 hours.

What if you notice that your calendar says it's now the 1980s or later and trains can run at 186 MPH or faster?

IF you build a new track that would be mostly on a new alignment that could handle it. If you are talking using existing railroad lines and track, think 70 to 90 mph for your maximums, with lesser speeds due to curves and other factors for much of the length.

 

[AlanB]

Let's see what the problems would be with a transcontinental Auto Train. First, that 855 miles becomes 2800 miles. 17 hours on the train becomes 54 hours.

What if you notice that your calendar says it's now the 1980s or later and trains can run at 186 MPH or faster?

IF you build a new track that would be mostly on a new alignment that could handle it. If you are talking using existing railroad lines and track, think 70 to 90 mph for your maximums, with lesser speeds due to curves and other factors for much of the length.

I suspect that you'd also need an FRA waiver to run an Auto Train at 186 MPH, since the car carriers are considered freight cars and the FRA doesn't allow freight to move that fast.

Even now, top speed on the Auto Train is 70 MPH, because the auto carriers aren't allowed to go 79MPH.

 

[George Harris]

Alan: The 70 mph may be a CSX restriction based on them being freight cars. From a railroad perspective, this train would probably be classified as a mixed train, and therefore limited to freight train speeds, which for this line is 70 mph. Even with a speed limit of 70 mph, the track has to be maintained to FRA class 5, which permits freight to run at 80 mph, as the limits on FRA class 4 are 80 passenger and 60 frieight. From the horse's mouth, here is what it would take to run the auto carriers faster than 80 mph:

The following is from the Code of Federal Regulations, referenced as 49 CFR 213:

Subpart G_Train Operations at Track Classes 6 and Higher

Sec. 213.301 Scope of subpart.

This subpart applies to all track used for the operation of trains at a speed greater than 90 m.p.h. for passenger equipment and greater than 80 m.p.h. for freight equipment.

. . . .

Sec. 213.307 Class of track: operating speed limits.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph ( b ) of this section and Sec. Sec. 213.329, 213.337(a) and 213.345©, the following maximum allowable operating speeds apply:

Class 6 track............................ 110 m.p.h.

Class 7 track............................ 125 m.p.h.

Class 8 track............................ 160 m.p.h.\2\

Class 9 track............................ 200 m.p.h.

Footnotes:

\1\ Freight may be transported at passenger train speeds if the following conditions are met:

....(1) The vehicles utilized to carry such freight are of equal dynamic performance and have been qualified in accordance with Sections 213.345 and 213.329(d) of this subpart.

....(2) The load distribution and securement in the freight vehicle will not adversely affect the dynamic performance of the vehicle. The axle loading pattern is uniform and does not exceed the passenger locomotive axle loadings utilized in passenger service operating at the same maximum speed.

....(3) No carrier may accept or transport a hazardous material, as defined at 49 CFR 171.8, except as provided in Column 9A of the Hazardous Materials Table (49 CFR 172.101) for movement in the same train as a passenger-carrying vehicle or in Column 9B of the Table for movementin a train with no passenger-carrying vehicles.

\2\ Operating speeds in excess of 150 m.p.h. are authorized by this part only in conjunction with a rule of particular applicability addressing other safety issues presented by the system.

( b ) If a segment of track does not meet all of the requirements for its intended class, it is to be reclassified to the next lower class of track for which it does meet all of the requirements of this subpart. If

a segment does not meet all of the requirements for Class 6, the requirements for Classes 1 through 5 apply.

**********

Need I say more?

George

 

[Hanno]

Alan: The 70 mph may be a CSX restriction based on them being freight cars. From a railroad perspective, this train would probably be classified as a mixed train, and therefore limited to freight train speeds, which for this line is 70 mph. Even with a speed limit of 70 mph, the track has to be maintained to FRA class 5, which permits freight to run at 80 mph, as the limits on FRA class 4 are 80 passenger and 60 frieight. From the horse's mouth, here is what it would take to run the auto carriers faster than 80 mph:
The following is from the Code of Federal Regulations, referenced as 49 CFR 213:

Subpart G_Train Operations at Track Classes 6 and Higher

Sec. 213.301 Scope of subpart.

This subpart applies to all track used for the operation of trains at a speed greater than 90 m.p.h. for passenger equipment and greater than 80 m.p.h. for freight equipment.

. . . .

Sec. 213.307 Class of track: operating speed limits.

(a) Except as provided in paragraph ( b ) of this section and Sec. Sec. 213.329, 213.337(a) and 213.345©, the following maximum allowable operating speeds apply:

Class 6 track............................ 110 m.p.h.

Class 7 track............................ 125 m.p.h.

Class 8 track............................ 160 m.p.h.\2\

Class 9 track............................ 200 m.p.h.

Footnotes:

\1\ Freight may be transported at passenger train speeds if the following conditions are met:

....(1) The vehicles utilized to carry such freight are of equal dynamic performance and have been qualified in accordance with Sections 213.345 and 213.329(d) of this subpart.

....(2) The load distribution and securement in the freight vehicle will not adversely affect the dynamic performance of the vehicle. The axle loading pattern is uniform and does not exceed the passenger locomotive axle loadings utilized in passenger service operating at the same maximum speed.

....(3) No carrier may accept or transport a hazardous material, as defined at 49 CFR 171.8, except as provided in Column 9A of the Hazardous Materials Table (49 CFR 172.101) for movement in the same train as a passenger-carrying vehicle or in Column 9B of the Table for movementin a train with no passenger-carrying vehicles.

\2\ Operating speeds in excess of 150 m.p.h. are authorized by this part only in conjunction with a rule of particular applicability addressing other safety issues presented by the system.

( b ) If a segment of track does not meet all of the requirements for its intended class, it is to be reclassified to the next lower class of track for which it does meet all of the requirements of this subpart. If

a segment does not meet all of the requirements for Class 6, the requirements for Classes 1 through 5 apply.

**********

Need I say more?

George

Having made several trips on the Auto Train I would really be surprised if the entire route is Class 5. There were times where I was almost thrown out of bed at night. I was surprised (and very happy) that we didn't derail!

 

[henryj]

Having made several trips on the Auto Train I would really be surprised if the entire route is Class 5. There were times where I was almost thrown out of bed at night. I was surprised (and very happy) that we didn't derail!

Typical CSX track. I had the same experience riding the Lake Shore Limited from Chicago to Buffalo. At times it was downright scarry. I don't think I have ever experience track as rough as that. And they didn't slow down a bit. The train was tearing through the night, lurching and pitching and bottoming out at every grade crossing. About the only time I could really sleep was at station stops.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

....(3) No carrier may accept or transport a hazardous material, as defined at 49 CFR 171.8, except as provided in Column 9A of the Hazardous Materials Table (49 CFR 172.101) for movement in the same train as a passenger-carrying vehicle or in Column 9B of the Table for movementin a train with no passenger-carrying vehicles.

Is gasoline in the tank of an automobile considered a hazardous material? What about the lithium ion battery pack in a Tesla Roadster?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Let's see what the problems would be with a transcontinental Auto Train. First, that 855 miles becomes 2800 miles. 17 hours on the train becomes 54 hours.

What if you notice that your calendar says it's now the 1980s or later and trains can run at 186 MPH or faster?

IF you build a new track that would be mostly on a new alignment that could handle it. If you are talking using existing railroad lines and track, think 70 to 90 mph for your maximums, with lesser speeds due to curves and other factors for much of the length.

I think I'm only assuming the track infrastructure in this country should be as modern as the roads or the airports. Will a modern Boeing or Airbus operate from the typical runway length that was common when the DC-3 was introduced? Does the typical Californian automobile commute today happen at the same speed that was the typical speed for automobiles immediately prior to WWII?

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Having made several trips on the Auto Train I would really be surprised if the entire route is Class 5. There were times where I was almost thrown out of bed at night. I was surprised (and very happy) that we didn't derail!

I'd be surprised if every mile covered by the Acela Express is class 5 or better. There are probably some sections where curves restrict the speeds to an extent that the train can't possibly reach even the class 3 maximum speeds. The 90 degree curve between South Station and Back Bay in Boston certainly comes to mind...

 

[George Harris]

I think I'm only assuming the track infrastructure in this country should be as modern as the roads or the airports. Will a modern Boeing or Airbus operate from the typical runway length that was common when the DC-3 was introduced? Does the typical Californian automobile commute today happen at the same speed that was the typical speed for automobiles immediately prior to WWII?

It took megabillions and 60 years of high investment to get there. Thus, if we start today, it will be many years before true high speed on multiple routes is possible.

Also: To run a high speed large capacity airplane between two points, you need two long heavy duty runwasy. Thus, you need only about four to six miles of runway construction to do a high speed large capacity place across the country. You would need 3,000 miles of high speed railroad construction to run a high speed train across the country.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Also: To run a high speed large capacity airplane between two points, you need two long heavy duty runwasy. Thus, you need only about four to six miles of runway construction to do a high speed large capacity place across the country. You would need 3,000 miles of high speed railroad construction to run a high speed train across the country.

But don't forget that the paved area of a typical runway is wide enough for at least four tracks. And that you usually end up with crosswind runways and taxiways, and sometimes parallel runways.