Auto Train extension?

[tgstubbs1]

The idea of a private autorack attached to Amtrak is interesting. I wonder what kind of regulations would be involved.

If they need to economize they could try to find a facility that already has a a switch engine. Maybe they could design a facility they use back into and just detach the cars?

 

[west point]

1. Detaching cars is easy if the train can pull into a siding uncouple after disconnecting HEP and pull on out.
2. Attaching cars is somewhat more complicated. Train has to either back into cars or wait for cars to be switched onto end of train with auto carrier at back.
3. Both 1 and 2 have to be carried out under blue flag protection front and back. Do not believe engineer and conductor can do it. Anyone know?
4. Then we have the necessity of backing the auto carrier to the stub track's auto boarding ramp(s).
5. A switch engine is needed to place the cars at those position or the train will have to do it. Maybe a track mobile would be all that is needed if there is very little grade at the unloading ramp.
6. The passenger car(s) and auto car(s) will have to have ends swapped by some kind of switch engine.
7. Attaching cars requires coupling, then blue flag protection to connect HEP and a complete class 1 brake test.
8.. Can you imagine the amount of switching that would be needed if any train had to make two stops?
9. There will need for someone or more to move cars around and attach ground HEP. Also unload autos.
10. All this takes time. Remember the Mail contract had problems because of long times attaching mail cars.
11. Handling the cars can only be processed as quick as possible with a proper layout of the trackwork anything else just adds more time getting every step done. IMO what would be needed is a run thru siding (to not block main track's freights) more than 2 train's ultimate length with a stub track about midway, for storing all dropped cars. Probably 2 locations for ground HEP.

GOT buckets of money?

 

[cirdan]

I think one of the problems with having auto carriers that load and unload at intermediate stops is the need to switch those cars and to have suitable ramps to on and offload vehicles. This would require having switching engines sitting around doing nothing for most of the day plus those extra tracks etc.

Maybe a solution would be having auto carriers that can unload without being switched. The channel tunnel for example uses vehicles that can load and unload through side doors. We could also consider placing automobiles inside container-like boxes that can be lifted onto and off trains using cranes or forklifts. Lastly, many micro cars are sufficuently short to be stowed onto a train breadthways, which means you can drive them on and off straight from a platform if the height is correct.

 

[me_little_me]

I think one of the problems with having auto carriers that load and unload at intermediate stops is the need to switch those cars and to have suitable ramps to on and offload vehicles. This would require having switching engines sitting around doing nothing for most of the day plus those extra tracks etc.

Maybe a solution would be having auto carriers that can unload without being switched. The channel tunnel for example uses vehicles that can load and unload through side doors. We could also consider placing automobiles inside container-like boxes that can be lifted onto and off trains using cranes or forklifts. Lastly, many micro cars are sufficuently short to be stowed onto a train breadthways, which means you can drive them on and off straight from a platform if the height is correct.

There are places where, I believe, it is not unreasonable to do fairly inexpensively. Albuquerque is one. It is a long stop anyway. It has extra tracks, Rio Metro there, and more.
Unlike previously mentioned mail cars, nobody rides in a car carrier. So it's a matter of stopping for a few moments before entering station, uncoupling the last car (car carrier, moving forward a bit to insure a safe distance. Now the car is clear. The switcher or mini-engine (battery electric?) connects to car carrier, tests brakes then pulls it further from the train. None of that involves the Amtrak train. The car carrier is switched to a stub track and unloaded, again w/o interfering with the train which continues after all passengers are unloaded, new ones boarded, fuel and water/septic taken care of as is already done in Albuquerque. Albuquerque is one of those stops that PVs can disconnect or connect, I believe, and that takes more time than a car car carrier.

Doing the same thing in Denver or in other cities may not be so easy. However, given that there is room outside a city, say in the burbs, the train would have to stop (at possibly an Amshack built for the purpose), do the same disconnection as above, then unload ONLY the passengers who have cars dropped off there. More of a delay than at a station like Albuquerque.

The bigger issue would be attaching a car carrier because that involves the train waiting for the car carrier to be moved into position and attached before doing a brake test and having to load passengers.

So the choices would initially best be places that have the conditions to minimize Amtrak delays:
Available space/tracks to store, load, unload car carrier
Available engine or mini-engine
Personnel (contractors?)
Minimal amount of extra time needed because train is already scheduled to be sitting for a while
Passenger terminal
??

 

[Qapla]

It would seem like connecting/disconnecting some sort of auto carrier could be accomplished at termination points of the routes - they are turning the train anyway. Intermediate points, like Denver, would be a little more difficult.

I there is only one auto carrier on a given train, disconnecting it from the back could be easy - connecting one would pose additional issues.

 

[mervrob]

The revenue enhancement idea below is meant to make more routes approach or exceed profitability and encourage more people to consider rail travel. This concept, expanding autotrain routes will add to the bottom line, but it requires an entrepreneurial mindset. I ran these numbers a few years back and sent the full plan to Amtrak leadership. They thanked me, but could not see the potential.

The Autotrain is one of the most profitable routes in the Amtrak system. An auto transport addition to the western routes would potentially make those routes significantly more profitable. This concept would be similar to the Australian Great Southern route, which adds autorack cars to the consist of a regular passenger train. The benefits, in addition to revenue increase, are an improved relevance of Amtrak to the general population. A test of the concept on the California Zephyr, offering limited auto transport for passengers between Chicago and Emeryville, CA. A mid-point service could later be added at Denver if the service appears warranted.
As of 2017, the California Zephyr carried 415,000 passengers annually. Route revenue was $58.4 million, losing $60 million per year, or 50.01 percent cost recovery. The potential additional revenue from this test is $10,912,040 to $18,635,440 per year. This yields a 58 to 64 percent cost recovery. It would also add more than 16,000 riders per year to the route.
If anyone would like the full plan or has comments, please let me know.

 

[zephyr17]

The revenue enhancement idea below is meant to make more routes approach or exceed profitability and encourage more people to consider rail travel. This concept, expanding autotrain routes will add to the bottom line, but it requires an entrepreneurial mindset. I ran these numbers a few years back and sent the full plan to Amtrak leadership. They thanked me, but could not see the potential.

The Autotrain is one of the most profitable routes in the Amtrak system. An auto transport addition to the western routes would potentially make those routes significantly more profitable. This concept would be similar to the Australian Great Southern route, which adds autorack cars to the consist of a regular passenger train. The benefits, in addition to revenue increase, are an improved relevance of Amtrak to the general population. A test of the concept on the California Zephyr, offering limited auto transport for passengers between Chicago and Emeryville, CA. A mid-point service could later be added at Denver if the service appears warranted.
As of 2017, the California Zephyr carried 415,000 passengers annually. Route revenue was $58.4 million, losing $60 million per year, or 50.01 percent cost recovery. The potential additional revenue from this test is $10,912,040 to $18,635,440 per year. This yields a 58 to 64 percent cost recovery. It would also add more than 16,000 riders per year to the route.
If anyone would like the full plan or has comments, please let me know.

Given the real estate costs in California where would you locate the load/unload facility? Bear in mind that the Central Valley has become Bay Area exurbs, with concomitant land prices. You cannot do it in Emeryville/Oakland, so you will have to acquire land for it elsewhere.

Also, AutoTrain had a built in snowbird clientele that wants their cars for extended periods. The CZ had no such base. The San Francisco Bay Area is not a destination for snowbirds. Tucson/Phoenix or Palm Springs would be destinations for snowbirds.

 

[Ryan]

As of 2017, the California Zephyr carried 415,000 passengers annually. Route revenue was $58.4 million, losing $60 million per year, or 50.01 percent cost recovery. The potential additional revenue from this test is $10,912,040 to $18,635,440 per year. This yields a 58 to 64 percent cost recovery. It would also add more than 16,000 riders per year to the route.

Yeah, we're going to need you to show your work on that one.

 

[George Harris]

Sometimes the bests option is, "If it works, don't fix it."
I think this definitely applies to the Autotrain. Think about its first incarnation.

 

[dlagrua]

As of 2017, the California Zephyr carried 415,000 passengers annually. Route revenue was $58.4 million, losing $60 million per year, or 50.01 percent cost recovery. The potential additional revenue from this test is $10,912,040 to $18,635,440 per year. This yields a 58 to 64 percent cost recovery. It would also add more than 16,000 riders per year to the route.
If anyone would like the full plan or has comments, please let me know.

The only reason that the long distance routes lose money is that Amtrak includes in their cost of operation a portion of the expense to operate the NE corridor and everything on the whole system, including stations, red caps, employees track etc. If those LD routes were judged on their own merit they would probaly be profitable.

 

[CaptPete 43]

AMTRAK tried AutoTrain from Chicago decades back and it failed.

 

[tgstubbs1]

The revenue enhancement idea below is meant to make more routes approach or exceed profitability and encourage more people to consider rail travel. This concept, expanding autotrain routes will add to the bottom line, but it requires an entrepreneurial mindset. I ran these numbers a few years back and sent the full plan to Amtrak leadership. They thanked me, but could not see the potential.

The Autotrain is one of the most profitable routes in the Amtrak system. An auto transport addition to the western routes would potentially make those routes significantly more profitable. This concept would be similar to the Australian Great Southern route, which adds autorack cars to the consist of a regular passenger train. The benefits, in addition to revenue increase, are an improved relevance of Amtrak to the general population. A test of the concept on the California Zephyr, offering limited auto transport for passengers between Chicago and Emeryville, CA. A mid-point service could later be added at Denver if the service appears warranted.
As of 2017, the California Zephyr carried 415,000 passengers annually. Route revenue was $58.4 million, losing $60 million per year, or 50.01 percent cost recovery. The potential additional revenue from this test is $10,912,040 to $18,635,440 per year. This yields a 58 to 64 percent cost recovery. It would also add more than 16,000 riders per year to the route.
If anyone would like the full plan or has comments, please let me know.

If they develope this I would be glad to try it out. I can see why going through Denver is a good idea, but maybe they could detour south from Salt Lake City towards Las Vegas. That would be an adventure.

 

[Bostontoallpoints]

AMTRAK tried AutoTrain from Chicago decades back and it failed.

AMTRAK never ran a midwest AutoTrain. A private rail company Autotrain did run a train between Louisville, Kentucky and Florida. The poor conditions of the track caused derailments which bankrupted the company. Amtrak thus revived the Autotrain 2 years after the private company stopped the service but dropped the midwest route.

 

[mervrob]

Yeah, we're going to need you to show your work on that one.

Thanks for the comments and I would love to share the calculations. I originally worked this out in 2018, so it reflects pre-Covid ridership numbers and costs. I will relook it and try to post by next week.

BLUF: I am sure we have the same interests in mind—how to improve Amtrak. This concept is not meant to solve all Amtrak’s problems, but should have two positive impacts:

1. Improve revenue for long distance routes and the percentage of cost recouped per trip.
2. Improve/expand Amtrak image and the public’s view of the system as financially viable and pertinent to their lives, thereby ensuring broader political support.

This plan as I conceive it is not a copy of the Autotrain, only adding an ‘Autotrain’ adjunct to existing routes to improve their revenue intake. I mentioned the Zephyr for reasons found in the main plan, but any of the long-distance routes could be selected for a one-year test of feasibility. If it works, it could be expanded. If not, the concept cancelled.

Once you review the concept, I would love to hear constructive criticism and discover any holes in the plan, or other options to improve it. I am trying to think entrepreneurially, rather than bureaucratically in the box, as it often the case with Amtrak. It may be true that Amtrak ‘cooks the books’ regarding the costs of the Long-distance routes, but still that is how the public perceives them. Adding revenue would minimize that image. And, lastly, just because it failed ‘years ago’ doesn’t mean the concept does not have possibilities to impact points 1 and 2 above now.

Thanks for any input. Hope to have figures up in a week or so.

 

[mervrob]

Thanks for all the comments to my suggestion, I would love to share the calculations. I originally worked this out in 2018, so it reflects pre-Covid ridership numbers and costs. I will relook it and try to post by next week. will need to review all the comments, once I post would appreciate any help in fleshing out the concept.

BLUF: I am sure we have the same interests in mind—how to improve Amtrak. This concept is not meant to solve all Amtrak’s problems, but should have two positive impacts:

• Improve revenue for long distance routes and the percentage of cost recouped per trip.
• Improve/expand Amtrak image and the public’s view of the system as financially viable and pertinent to their lives, thereby ensuring broader political support.

This plan as I conceive it is not a copy of the Autotrain, only adding an ‘Autotrain’ adjunct to existing routes to improve their revenue intake. I mentioned the Zephyr for reasons found in the main plan, but any of the long-distance routes could be selected for a one-year test of feasibility. If it works, it could be expanded. If not, the concept cancelled.

Once you review the concept, I would love to hear constructive criticism and discover any holes in the plan, or other options to improve it. I am trying to think entrepreneurially, rather than bureaucratically in the box, as it often the case with Amtrak. It may be true that Amtrak ‘cooks the books’ regarding the costs of the Long-distance routes, but still that is how the public perceives them. Adding revenue would minimize that image. And, lastly, just because it failed ‘years ago’ doesn’t mean the concept does not have possibilities to impact points 1 and 2 above now.

Thanks for any input. Hope to have figures up in a week or so.

 

[west point]

Lets work backwards. Where have you seen the most out of state cars? My limited observations have been the Phoenix / Tucson area in the winter only, and Florida. For Florida it has been The west coast . That west coast has been a lot of Canadian autos. How could Auto Train cover this probable partial demand? After some digging found that during legacy days there were more sleeper cars from Detroit area than the CHI trains (City of Miami,. South wind, Dixie Flagler).

The Royal Palm a FEC, SOU RR and NY Central train(s). The train had thru coaches Detroit - MIA. Coach connections to NY Central trains Buffalo, Cleveland, CHI, Cincinnati, with thru sleepers to JAX, TPA, Mia. So, 8 sleepers from Detroit area IMO a large catchment for an auto train.

The RR land from Detroit - Toledo should have enough length and width to locate an ideal terminal. Will use TOL for times even though auto terminal should be north.

Now getting an ideal Sanford arrival time is somewhat difficult. 0700 = OK if Lorton does not arrive too early Leave TOL 2100.

Now if Amtrak has already restored the Royal Pal the question becomes separate train or attached to end of RP? That would also allow for Cardinal from CHI would provide connecting passengers and /or cars at Cincinnati from CHI and Charleston, WA. 1200 leave TOL arr Sanford 0400 ???. Arr Sanford 1800 leave TOL 1300 might be best?

The New Royal Palm - March, 1951 - Streamliner Schedules

 

[MARC Rider]

Actually, there was at least one place that you could...until 2000, when they converted the Anton Anderson Tunnel between Portage and Whittier, Alaska into a dual use, railroad/highway tunnel, used alternately, the only way to get your vehicles into Whittier was to drive onto the Car Shuttle Train run by the ARR. Cars, buses, semi's, everything. And you remained in your vehicle for the short ride....

Isn't that what you do when taking your car through the Eurotunnel?

 

[Bostontoallpoints]

I take the Auto Train every year round trip. Both train yards are at capacity. There is also a traffic back-up at both locations during loading and unloading times. If a train is late arriving the traffic jam is ten fold as there is limited places to put arriving autos. Late arriving trains also congest the passenger station as now there are now 2 sets of passengers waiting. From start to finish Amtrak takes 7 hours to unload and load the auto train today from the hours 10:00 am to 5:00 pm. A second train would need to be serviced outside these hours.

 

[zephyr17]

Isn't that what you do when taking your car through the Eurotunnel?

Yes

 

[zephyr17]

Thanks for all the comments to my suggestion, I would love to share the calculations. I originally worked this out in 2018, so it reflects pre-Covid ridership numbers and costs. I will relook it and try to post by next week. will need to review all the comments, once I post would appreciate any help in fleshing out the concept.

BLUF: I am sure we have the same interests in mind—how to improve Amtrak. This concept is not meant to solve all Amtrak’s problems, but should have two positive impacts:

• Improve revenue for long distance routes and the percentage of cost recouped per trip.
• Improve/expand Amtrak image and the public’s view of the system as financially viable and pertinent to their lives, thereby ensuring broader political support.

This plan as I conceive it is not a copy of the Autotrain, only adding an ‘Autotrain’ adjunct to existing routes to improve their revenue intake. I mentioned the Zephyr for reasons found in the main plan, but any of the long-distance routes could be selected for a one-year test of feasibility. If it works, it could be expanded. If not, the concept cancelled.

Once you review the concept, I would love to hear constructive criticism and discover any holes in the plan, or other options to improve it. I am trying to think entrepreneurially, rather than bureaucratically in the box, as it often the case with Amtrak. It may be true that Amtrak ‘cooks the books’ regarding the costs of the Long-distance routes, but still that is how the public perceives them. Adding revenue would minimize that image. And, lastly, just because it failed ‘years ago’ doesn’t mean the concept does not have possibilities to impact points 1 and 2 above now.

Thanks for any input. Hope to have figures up in a week or so.

The biggest single issue are facilities to load and unload cars, in Chicago, the Bay Area, and Denver. You cannot do it at stations. That is a pretty big capital investment right there.

While you have the calculations, do you have the market studies backing up there is a large enough market to justify the investment? Or are you just assuming it would materialize similar to the existing Autotrain and calculate based on that? The Autotrain's foundational market is snowbirds who want their own cars for long periods. Most vacationers of around a week just rent cars if they want them. That looks a lot more like the CHI-DEN-EMY market than snowbirds do, at least to me. You might be able to extrapolate the Autotrain numbers to a snowbird area like Tucson or Palm Springs with some justification, doing so with San Francisco Bay Area would seem dubious at best.

 

[tgstubbs1]

Improve/expand Amtrak image and the public’s view of the system as financially viable and pertinent to their lives, thereby ensuring broader political support.

I think this is true, but it would help if Amtrak actually was financially viable and pertinent to their lives.

 

[jiml]

Probably the largest unserved snowbird destination is NW Florida/Eastern Alabama. I have been wintering there for 30 years and it is a popular place with Canadians and Americans from the Midwest. Having your own vehicle is pivotal to the "snowbird experience" since no one wants to rent a car for a month or longer. The existing Auto Train terminals are a good 8-10 hour drive at either end from where we need to be, so no matter how much my inner railfan would love to try it the cost and distance doesn't stack up against even 4 or 5 roadside hotel nights plus gas and meals enroute. (Everyone budgets an extra night or two in case of inclement weather in Ontario and the northern states.) That said, some of our group's Eastern US members do use it but a discussion subject this past winter was how useful a southern terminus somewhere near Pensacola or Mobile would be. Not everyone is headed to Orlando.

 

[MARC Rider]

Even though I live close enough, the Auto Train is not in my future. Although the trip to get on it is less than 3 hours, driving in the D.C. area can be a nightmare. Then, once there, it's a 4 hour drive to Ft. Lauderdale. Here is how we go: We walk 10 minutes to our local station. Arrive Philadelphia 30th Street and give bags to red cap. Get on train. Get picked up in Ft. Lauderdale. ZERO driving.

That's sort of what we found on our Auto-train trip last spring. Surprisingly, the drive through DC wasn't that bad. The real killer was the drive from Sanford to Miami, dealing with Florida Man at the controls of all the other cars. However, I can see it as a viable option if you're coming down for more than a few days, as rental car prices have become very expensive.

 

[jis]

That's sort of what we found on our Auto-train trip last spring. Surprisingly, the drive through DC wasn't that bad. The real killer was the drive from Sanford to Miami, dealing with Florida Man at the controls of all the other cars. However, I can see it as a viable option if you're coming down for more than a few days, as rental car prices have become very expensive.

I agree, I-95 is horrendous, and the Turnpike is not far behind. And they are getting worse every year. I, who lives in Brevard County one mile from the Palm Bay Road Exit, avoid I-95 like the plague. Fortunately around here there are multiple alternate routes to work around it. But if one is going long distance you are out of luck. It is either I-95 or the Turnpike, though oddly sometimes the congested US Route 1 is not much slower if there are multiple accident related blockages on I-95.

But the problem is not enough I am afraid to make an additional Auto Train to the Miami area quite viable yet.

 

[MARC Rider]

Surely you meant to say Sanford to Miami?

I agree, I-95 is horrendous, and the Turnpike is not far behind. And they are getting worse every year. I, who lives in Brevard County one mile from the Palm Bay Road Exit, avoid I-95 like the plague. Fortunately around here there are multiple alternate routes to work around it. But if one is going long distance you are out of luck. It is either I-95 or the Turnpike, though oddly sometimes the congested US Route 1 is not much slower if there are multiple accident related blockages on I-95.

But the problem is not enough I am afraid to make an additional Auto Train to the Miami area quite viable yet.

On our way back north to Sanford, we took US 27 to Okeechobee, then 441 north to Yeehaw Junction to get back on the turnpike and on to Orlando. Except for the lights going through a few of the towns, I think it was a better ride. However, I think it is slower overall, though that didn't bother us, as we were satying overnight in Orlando rather than trying to rush and make the train the same day we left Maimi.