# Other Auto Train routes?



## colobok (May 26, 2009)

Anybody knows what "other places" for new Auto Train routes they are talking about (see bold)?

That would be an excellent plan!

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/prda...ws.asp?id=20445

Amtrak launches construction on new Auto Train station in Florida. Yesterday, Amtrak broke ground on a new Auto Train station in Sanford, Fla., the southern most terminus for the service, which enables passengers to travel with their own vehicles from Lorton, Va., to Sanford.

*Amtrak plans to seek other places throughout the country where it can launch other Auto Train services.*


----------



## TampAGS (May 26, 2009)

colobok said:


> Anybody knows what "other places" for new Auto Train routes they are talking about (see bold)?That would be an excellent plan!
> 
> http://www.progressiverailroading.com/prda...ws.asp?id=20445
> 
> ...


I too was intrigued by their announcement of additional possible Auto-Train routes. I guess they are hoping to create another cash-cow, seeing as the existing Lorton-Sanford route is one of Amtrak's most lucrative.

 

I've seen speculation in various parts of the web about possible routes from the *Chicago *area down *to Florida*, as well as *Michigan to Florida*. The Midwest in general seems to be the region most able to support a second Auto-Train. Are there any destinations outside of Florida that would have the demand for this service, either north-south or east-west routes?

 

I guess one place they won't be taking the Auto-Train to is *Louisville, KY*. Never mind the fact that trains don't serve Louisville now... Before Amtrak ran the service, when Auto-Train was a private company, they expanded by creating a second route from Louisville to Sanford. This turned out to be a mistake and the route cost the company millions of dollars, hastening their ultimate demise, which cleared the way for Amtrak to launch the Auto-Train we know today. I'm not sure what the exact nature of the problems were with the KY-FL route, but I've heard track problems were a big factor, which perhaps explains why Amtrak doesn't service Louisville by train today. I've also read criticism of the KY location being too far south and east, putting it too close to the Lorton facility to draw enough of its own business.


----------



## SUNSETLIMITED01 (May 26, 2009)

TampAGS said:


> colobok said:
> 
> 
> > Anybody knows what "other places" for new Auto Train routes they are talking about (see bold)?That would be an excellent plan!
> ...


I heard the Orginial also had derailments tha took place as well. This was also a factor as well.


----------



## WICT106 (May 26, 2009)

TampaGS has two of the reasons correct, in that for many Midwesterners, Louisville is already "South." The issues of dilapidated track in IN continue to exist for any service outside of a couple of well maintained main lines. Another reason that could be added to what TampAGS has already listed is the alignment through TN and GA, which would require considerable upgrades if not realignment or reconstruction, in order to increase speeds between Nashville and points southeast. Even during the "Glory Days" of the 1920's, 30's and through the 50's, the track speeds on considerable stretches of track between Nashville and the SE were in the 35 - 50 mph range. These segments of track would have to be upgraded, along with the track in AL and GA in order to allow average speeds in excess of 60 mph.

This poster has noticed that in order to get average speeds over 60 mph, it may be necessary to have top speeds in excess of 100 mph, necessitating FRA Class 6 track.

Also to be addressed is the fact that the Chicago Market is less than half the size (depending on how it is measured ) of the market of the NEC. This market also does not have the proportional affinity for going to FL that the Northeasterners do. Indeed, the question remains, "Where else can a service such as Auto - Train be placed?"


----------



## colobok (May 26, 2009)

WICT106 said:


> Indeed, the question remains, "Where else can a service such as Auto - Train be placed?"


What about East to West?

Basically it can be placed anywhere. Even without terminals.

How much spaces do you need to load autos to the train? Just a small parking lot.

Just load them somewhere near the station and connect this car to one of existing trains!

It's very easy and it's done this way in Europe.

Actually several major Amtrak trains can be also "Auto Trains" with "auto" service between terminuses.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (May 26, 2009)

SUNSETLIMITED01 said:


> TampAGS said:
> 
> 
> > colobok said:
> ...


Yes it it did have derailments and other problems. In fact its demise and history were kind of similar to that of the ill fated Floridian.


----------



## henryj (May 26, 2009)

The obvious first choice is Chicago(Midwest) to Florida as the Sanford terminal is already available. Historically there were three main routes and three delux trains that ran on alternate days plus a fourth route we shall look at later. First was the 'City of Miami' which ran down the IC as far as Fulton, a route still used by the CONO. It then diverted to Birmingham and used CofGa and ACL to get to Jacksonville. The L&N ran the 'South Wind' which used the Pennsy Chi to Cincinnati then went via Louisville, Nashville, Birmingham and Montgomery. This seems to be the route that Amtrak's Floridian and Auto Train used(the two trains were combined beyond Louisville). The L&N also ran two more trains through Knoxville and Atlanta. Then the C&EI ran the Dixie Flyer via Evansville, Nashville, Chattanooga, Atlanta and Waycross. Some of you experts would have to speak as to the condition of these routes today.

But, the Southern, now NS ran it's own trains the 'Royal Palm' and the 'Ponce De Leon' from Cincinnati down the 'rat hole' via Lexington, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Macon and Valdosta. NS tracks all the way. A look at the NS route map show these tracks still shown as main lines. We know the 'rat hole' as far as Chattanooga is in excellent condition. What about the rest of the route? Total route miles from Cincinnati is 840 and took 22hours. Currently Amtrak has service as far as Cincinnati as the Cardinal. It takes 8 1/2 hours to go the 319 miles. Perhaps this route would work for Chi to Florida service plus Auto Train. Timing was overnight Chi to Cincinnati, day service thru Chattanooga and Atlanta and overnight between Atlanta and Jacksonville. The Southern also ran the 'Ponce De Leon' on an opposite schedule which would be more usable for an Auto Train. Interesting and amazing that all these trains were available from the Midwest to Florida and now there are none.

Other routes that cry out for Auto Train service are out West. Chi to Glacier Park/Yellowstone Park area, Chi to Colorado, Chi to the west coast, Texas(DFW) to Colorado and Calif to the Pacific NW.


----------



## wayman (May 26, 2009)

WICT106 said:


> Also to be addressed is the fact that the Chicago Market is less than half the size (depending on how it is measured ) of the market of the NEC. This market also does not have the proportional affinity for going to FL that the Northeasterners do.


On a one-week trip to the Tampa area in spring 2001, my friend and I kept an informal tally of license plates by state/province. After Florida, the most common two license plates were Michigan and Ontario, by a pretty wide margin over anything in the northeast. Of course, this doesn't mean midwesterners outnumbered northeasterners in Florida that week--I'm sure tons of northeasterners did just what my friend and I did, fly down and rent a car (with Florida license plates, of course). But it does mean that lots and lots of midwesterners love their cars enough that they're willing to drive to Florida ... and they would probably be very happy to take an Auto Train from the midwest.


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (May 26, 2009)

henryj said:


> The obvious first choice is Chicago(Midwest) to Florida as the Sanford terminal is already available. Historically there were three main routes and three delux trains that ran on alternate days plus a fourth route we shall look at later. First was the 'City of Miami' which ran down the IC as far as Fulton, a route still used by the CONO. It then diverted to Birmingham and used CofGa and ACL to get to Jacksonville. The L&N ran the 'South Wind' which used the Pennsy Chi to Cincinnati then went via Louisville, Nashville, Birmingham and Montgomery. This seems to be the route that Amtrak's Floridian and Auto Train used(the two trains were combined beyond Louisville). The L&N also ran two more trains through Knoxville and Atlanta. Then the C&EI ran the Dixie Flyer via Evansville, Nashville, Chattanooga, Atlanta and Waycross. Some of you experts would have to speak as to the condition of these routes today.
> But, the Southern, now NS ran it's own trains the 'Royal Palm' and the 'Ponce De Leon' from Cincinnati down the 'rat hole' via Lexington, Chattanooga, Atlanta, Macon and Valdosta. NS tracks all the way. A look at the NS route map show these tracks still shown as main lines. We know the 'rat hole' as far as Chattanooga is in excellent condition. What about the rest of the route? Total route miles from Cincinnati is 840 and took 22hours. Currently Amtrak has service as far as Cincinnati as the Cardinal. It takes 8 1/2 hours to go the 319 miles. Perhaps this route would work for Chi to Florida service plus Auto Train. Timing was overnight Chi to Cincinnati, day service thru Chattanooga and Atlanta and overnight between Atlanta and Jacksonville. The Southern also ran the 'Ponce De Leon' on an opposite schedule which would be more usable for an Auto Train. Interesting and amazing that all these trains were available from the Midwest to Florida and now there are none.
> 
> Other routes that cry out for Auto Train service are out West. Chi to Glacier Park/Yellowstone Park area, Chi to Colorado, Chi to the west coast, Texas(DFW) to Colorado and Calif to the Pacific NW.


Just a slight note.You refer to the Dixie Flyer as one of the deluxe trains from CHI to Miami.Well, the Dixie Flyer did run that route, but the deluxe train was the Dixie Flagler.In 1954 it was re equipped and renamed the Dixieland.But in November 1957 it was discontinued. The Dixie Flyer and also the Dixie Limited had been grand and glorious trains during the steam engine heavyweight days. But with the coming of the Dixie Flagler (and also the Georgian from Chicago/ST.Louis to ATL) their status declined signifcantly.

My apology if you already knew this, the alliteration sort of does its thing between Flyer and Flagler.

And yes, the Floridian inherited the South Wind route. In fact in the original days of Amtrak the name South Wind was kept.


----------



## wayman (May 26, 2009)

WICT106 said:


> TampaGS has two of the reasons correct, in that for many Midwesterners, Louisville is already "South."


What about Indianapolis/Beech Grove as a midwestern terminus? Well-positioned--3 hrs from Chicago, 4 from St. Louis, 5 from Detroit, 5 from Milwaukee, 4 from Toledo, 2 from Cincinnati, 2 from Louisville....

Would it be possible to run it on the Cardinal's route to Cincinnati, then on the old Powhatan Arrow route from Cincinnati through Bluefield, Christiansburg, Roanoke, Lynchburg to Petersburg, where it would turn south and follow the existing Silver/AutoTrain route to Sanford? I don't know what the track condition and speed restrictions are from Cincinnati to Roanoke along that route today, but I'm guessing it's not bad.... I'm not suggesting the train make stops at those intermediate cities, I'm just listing them to make the route clear.

The Mountaineer did Chicago to Petersburg in 24 hrs 30 min; without stops, without splitting off the JWR, perhaps it could do that stretch in 22 hrs? And then from Petersburg to Sanford is another ... 16 hrs? 38 hrs total, scheduled to depart 5pm on Monday and arrive 7am on Wednesday? It's a long train ... it's anything but efficient, but it's probably smoother than the Kentucky route by far. You'd have to have some sort of substantial on-board entertainment, an amusement car for kids. But maybe you could get Disney to sponsor the amusement car....


----------



## henryj (May 26, 2009)

Bill Haithcoat said:


> Just a slight note.You refer to the Dixie Flyer as one of the deluxe trains from CHI to Miami.Well, the Dixie Flyer did run that route, but the deluxe train was the Dixie Flagler.In 1954 it was re equipped and renamed the Dixieland.But in November 1957 it was discontinued. The Dixie Flyer and also the Dixie Limited had been grand and glorious trains during the steam engine heavyweight days. But with the coming of the Dixie Flagler (and also the Georgian from Chicago/ST.Louis to ATL) their status declined signifcantly.
> My apology if you already knew this, the alliteration sort of does its thing between Flyer and Flagler.
> 
> And yes, the Floridian inherited the South Wind route. In fact in the original days of Amtrak the name South Wind was kept.


Sorry Bill. I misstated. I was using the 1956 Official Guide and you are correct the flagship was the Dixieland. The Dixie Flyer was a secondary train on the route which also carried the Hummingbird and the Georgian.

Have any idea what the status is of the NS route or if it could be used?


----------



## Bill Haithcoat (May 26, 2009)

henryj said:


> Bill Haithcoat said:
> 
> 
> > Just a slight note.You refer to the Dixie Flyer as one of the deluxe trains from CHI to Miami.Well, the Dixie Flyer did run that route, but the deluxe train was the Dixie Flagler.In 1954 it was re equipped and renamed the Dixieland.But in November 1957 it was discontinued. The Dixie Flyer and also the Dixie Limited had been grand and glorious trains during the steam engine heavyweight days. But with the coming of the Dixie Flagler (and also the Georgian from Chicago/ST.Louis to ATL) their status declined signifcantly.
> ...


I think it still sees a lot of freights through Atlanta and Chattanooga.


----------



## DAWall (May 26, 2009)

henryj said:


> Bill Haithcoat said:
> 
> 
> > Just a slight note.You refer to the Dixie Flyer as one of the deluxe trains from CHI to Miami.Well, the Dixie Flyer did run that route, but the deluxe train was the Dixie Flagler.In 1954 it was re equipped and renamed the Dixieland.But in November 1957 it was discontinued. The Dixie Flyer and also the Dixie Limited had been grand and glorious trains during the steam engine heavyweight days. But with the coming of the Dixie Flagler (and also the Georgian from Chicago/ST.Louis to ATL) their status declined signifcantly.
> ...


I had this posted on another thread on midwest Florida service:

I would enjoy seeing a Chicago-Florida train again too...maybe routed via Cincinnti because of better track conditions. Or how about a Midwest Auto train, out of lets say Beech Grove in Indianapolis. They have plenty of spare land around the area that could be developed, its close to the Interstate...It's central to many midwest cites...and what better place to maintain the train, with you main Superliner shop right next door


----------



## RTOlson (May 26, 2009)

How about NOL-ORL? 

Yes, I'm kidding. I think the Midwest is probably the best option, but there the route would need to be relatively direct and speedy.


----------



## Guest_TransAtlantic_* (May 27, 2009)

How about CHI to southern Texas, w/ access to Galveston, Padre Island, etc.?? Still close to NOL, lots of available land for building a new station, etc.


----------



## VentureForth (May 27, 2009)

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. Really, the existing terminii are just about perfect. From Sanford, you have one hour access to Orlando or Daytona, you have 3 hour access to Tampa and about 5 hours to go to get to Miami. If the Northern terminus could be brought up closer to Baltimore or Newark, I think that ridership would increase dramatically, but it would be impossible to make the trip with two trainsets.

So, that all being said, is Louisville a practical terminus for another Auto Train route? I don't think that the flow of people from Chicago/ Indianapolis/ Cincinnati to the SE even comes close to the migratory pattern of those travelling from NY, NY, et al. Rader seemed to think there was 20 years ago, and who knows? Perhaps if the track conditions were NEC quality from Louisville to Sanford, then it could happen. But Auto Train can't afford to upgrade the Freight's track for that level of required service.

Where else do such migratory patterns occur? I think the only other is between Chicago and NY. But that's a lot shorter route than Lorton to Sanford, and there are so many more places in between that makes frequent stops more desireable than non stop Chicago to NY daily for 400 pax and their cars. Perhaps if it were run as a day train, that would make a difference.

I don't know if California - Washington State has that level of migratory activity either. Both are rather temperate year 'round. I don't know of a "Snow Bird" pattern of Washingtonians fleeing to Southern California for the Winter. I could be wrong, though, since I've never really assessed that market.

Just my 2 cents worth.


----------



## Guest (May 27, 2009)

TampAGS said:


> Before Amtrak ran the service, when Auto-Train was a private company, they expanded by creating a second route from Louisville to Sanford. This turned out to be a mistake and the route cost the company millions of dollars, hastening their ultimate demise, ...


That sounds like the exact reason Amtrak would do it; the potential to loose millions of dollars.


----------



## Tony (May 27, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Where else do such migratory patterns occur? I think the only other is between Chicago and NY. But that's a lot shorter route than Lorton to Sanford, and there are so many more places in between that makes frequent stops more desireable than non stop Chicago to NY daily for 400 pax and their cars. Perhaps if it were run as a day train, that would make a difference.
> I don't know if California - Washington State has that level of migratory activity either. Both are rather temperate year 'round. I don't know of a "Snow Bird" pattern of Washingtonians fleeing to Southern California for the Winter. I could be wrong, though, since I've never really assessed that market.
> 
> Just my 2 cents worth.


I think that is a very good point.

The current route works, because there are many potential travelers who stay in FL for long periods of time. Long enough that it is financially beneficial to take one's car with you, rather than rent. In other words, with some rare exceptions, week-long vacationers would find renting a car in FL cheaper.

IMHO, it is really a unique "mind set" for people living in the Northeast, to temporarily move to their 2nd homes in FL, rather than just simply move there permanently. Possibly strong ethic-based ties to family and community?

Where else in the USA are there substantial number of 2nd homes, equal to those in FL? And where do those 2nd home owners have their 1st home?


----------



## colobok (May 27, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> 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.


----------



## haolerider (May 27, 2009)

colobok said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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.


----------



## AlanB (May 27, 2009)

haolerider said:


> colobok said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


Agreed Haolerider, the Auto train is the only long distance Amtrak train that actually covers its operating expenses. It makes a profit for Amtrak, at least above the rails. After factoring in other shared expenses, the AT still does loose money. But again, no other LD does better than the AT.


----------



## VentureForth (May 27, 2009)

colobok said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


There certainly is no evidence to back up the fact that the current Auto Train logistics is a mistake. Cutting out 855 miles of driving has a strong appeal to many folks - especially in the NE.

The problem with going longer is that there is a limit to going and going and going without getting off. Sure, many of US would enjoy being on the same train non stop for 36 hours or more.

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. 2 trainsets become 6. You might could institute a half way point in KC, MO. This would present a logistical nightmare - the 54 hours becomes 60 for switching. You could potentially sell out all seats to those from LA to KC and run an empty train to NY (You have to carry your full consist regardless of loading for your return trip). An alternative would be to have two segments - LA to KC and KC to NY, each with 3 trainsets. That would break it up a bit, but if the industrial engineering is done correctly, it could work. At that, it would only work if there were NEVER any problems. If it got 70 MPH passage and the respect of the Z Train, it would create its own marketplace.


----------



## GG-1 (May 27, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Just my 2 cents worth.


Aloha

My 2 cents is the reason the Auto train works is family travel where having the family car to get around to the various destinations. What other area has this kind of need?


----------



## sunchaser (May 27, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> 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. Really, the existing terminii are just about perfect. From Sanford, you have one hour access to Orlando or Daytona, you have 3 hour access to Tampa and about 5 hours to go to get to Miami. If the Northern terminus could be brought up closer to Baltimore or Newark, I think that ridership would increase dramatically, but it would be impossible to make the trip with two trainsets.
> So, that all being said, is Louisville a practical terminus for another Auto Train route? I don't think that the flow of people from Chicago/ Indianapolis/ Cincinnati to the SE even comes close to the migratory pattern of those travelling from NY, NY, et al. Rader seemed to think there was 20 years ago, and who knows? Perhaps if the track conditions were NEC quality from Louisville to Sanford, then it could happen. But Auto Train can't afford to upgrade the Freight's track for that level of required service.
> 
> Where else do such migratory patterns occur? I think the only other is between Chicago and NY. But that's a lot shorter route than Lorton to Sanford, and there are so many more places in between that makes frequent stops more desireable than non stop Chicago to NY daily for 400 pax and their cars. Perhaps if it were run as a day train, that would make a difference.
> ...



I know that there are Snowbirds that go to Arizona & Southern Utah from the northern & eastern states. I would assume there are also thos who go to SoCal for the same reason. There are also those who go from the southern states (such as Arizona & Texas) in summer up to northern climates.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 27, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> Where else do such migratory patterns occur? I think the only other is between Chicago and NY. But that's a lot shorter route than Lorton to Sanford, and there are so many more places in between that makes frequent stops more desireable than non stop Chicago to NY daily for 400 pax and their cars. Perhaps if it were run as a day train, that would make a difference.


The pattern happens, sure, but there is no reason on earth to have a car in New York and very limited reason to have on in Chicago. In New York, you could say that having a car is an expensive and annoying liability, and your personal car is likely to banged up- people who are inexperience in driving in New York get into fenderbenders with impressive regularity. Better to bang up a rental. On the other hand, Florida's mass transit system is a laughable single commuter line, and nothing else that I can find outside of Miami, where you have a little rapid transit and a few bus routes. You need a car in Florida, one of many reason I'll never live there.



Tony said:


> The current route works, because there are many potential travelers who stay in FL for long periods of time. Long enough that it is financially beneficial to take one's car with you, rather than rent. In other words, with some rare exceptions, week-long vacationers would find renting a car in FL cheaper.


Well, you can keep in mind the point that one driving their own car is infinitely preferable to driving a rental, atleast to some people. The reason I take the Auto Train is I drive an old Mercedes and comparatively every car I rent seems to have a throttle with no return spring, computerized brakes that operate with the predictability of a superball, window sills that come up to my ears, window pillars thicker than the columns on the Parthenon, and seats designed to allow a jockey to drive the thing on a race track so heavy is the side bolstering. I'd rather drive my own car, and I'm willing to pay a considerable amount for that privilege.


----------



## colobok (May 28, 2009)

haolerider said:


> colobok said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


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 (May 28, 2009)

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 (May 28, 2009)

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 (May 28, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> 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 (May 28, 2009)

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 (May 28, 2009)

jis said:


> ... 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 (May 28, 2009)

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 (May 28, 2009)

colobok said:


> haolerider said:
> 
> 
> > colobok said:
> ...


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 (May 28, 2009)

Tony said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > I'd rather drive my own car, and I'm willing to pay a considerable amount for that privilege.
> ...


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! (May 28, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> 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 (May 28, 2009)

haolerider said:


> colobok said:
> 
> 
> > haolerider said:
> ...


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 (May 28, 2009)

> 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 (May 28, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> 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 (May 28, 2009)

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 (May 28, 2009)

AliceIn said:


> 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 (May 28, 2009)

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! (May 29, 2009)

Green Maned Lion said:


> > 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.
> ...


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 (May 29, 2009)

AAARGH said:


> 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! (May 29, 2009)

jis said:


> AAARGH said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (May 29, 2009)

AAARGH said:


> 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! (May 29, 2009)

wayman said:


> 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 (May 29, 2009)

AAARGH said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (May 29, 2009)

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 (May 29, 2009)

AAARGH said:


> wayman said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


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 (May 29, 2009)

PaulM said:


> 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.


----------



## Irv (May 30, 2009)

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 (May 30, 2009)

Irv said:


> 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 (May 31, 2009)

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 (May 31, 2009)

George Harris said:


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


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 (Jun 4, 2009)

Irv said:


> 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 (Jun 4, 2009)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> 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 (Jun 4, 2009)

VentureForth said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> > 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.
> ...


*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 (Jun 5, 2009)

George Harris said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


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 (Jun 5, 2009)

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 (Jun 5, 2009)

George Harris said:


> 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*
> ...


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 (Jun 5, 2009)

Hanno said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2009)

George Harris said:


> ....(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 (Jun 5, 2009)

George Harris said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > VentureForth said:
> ...


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 (Jun 5, 2009)

Hanno said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2009)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> 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 (Jun 5, 2009)

George Harris said:


> 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.


----------

