# Chicago-Flordia Auto Train Concept?



## AmtrakFan (Apr 23, 2007)

Hi Everyone,

I was thinking while talking with a Friend about Amtrak problems and new innovated ideas. He suggested a Chicago-Flordia Auto Train Concept, we all know it would need $$$ but would it work out you think? I can already think of some issues

1. Land Space close to Chicago (That is always a issue)

2. CSX Track Capacity

3. Equipment It would cost a lot to get new Autoracks

4. Timing you can do that drive in about 30 to 35 Hours on I-65 I am including a night in the Hotel and other stops

Any Suggestions?


----------



## gswager (Apr 24, 2007)

There was a topic about that before. Biggest problem is slow tracks (freight traffic, single tracks, or aging).


----------



## Superliner Diner (Apr 24, 2007)

There was at one time, during the days of the private Auto Train corporation, a Louisville, KY - Florida Auto Train.

The concept would work, however if it were possible to run such a train, then it would also be possible to run a conventional passenger-only train along that route.

The problem with an Auto Train is that it is going to have to run only between two set points, just as the current AT runs between Lorton and Sanford.

Would Chicago provide enough ridership to justify this train? The further south you make the northern terminus, the more people can benefit from this service. That is akin to the existing AT, which originates and terminates in the Washington, DC area. If it were to have its northern terminus in, say, the North Jersey/New York area, it would miss the population base in Philly, Baltimore, Washington, and everywhere else to the south of that northern terminus, because people are not going to drive north to go south, and vice versa.

So that is why Louisville was a good terminus for the former private AT. People could drive there from other Midwestern cities without going out of their way.


----------



## George Harris (Apr 24, 2007)

I have thought at times that Louisville may have been both a little too far south and a little too far west. Somewhere a little NORTH of Cincinatti would have been about the same distance from Chicago and closer to Detroit, Cleveland, Columbus, even Pittsburg and Buffalo. the only city disadvantaged by such a change would be St. Louis. The current AT terminal is good for Washington Baltimore, Harrisburg, Wilmington, Philly, New York, kind of stretching it for north of New York. A Chicago and environs, even with St. Louis, Louisville, etc. does not even come close to the same population base.

Just look back at the contrast between east coast to Florida and Midwest to Florida streamliners in the 50's. Compare the size of the well known City of Miami / South Wind / Dixie Flagler and the lesser lights such as the Royal Palm and Southland, with the east coast trains: Florida Special, sometime in more than one section, Champion, with east coast and west coast as separate trains, Silver Meteor, Silver Star, and several secondary runs that could be carrying several coaches and multiple sleepers as well.

I would suspect that a second east coast Auto Train say 4 hours or so off from the current train could be filled faster than you could fill one midwest Auto Train.

Then, we get around to tracks: The current Auto Train, when CSX cooperates can hold a stead 70 mph for probably over 80% of the distance north of Jacksonville on a fairly straight and level railroad. In general, you are beating driving time for all but the drive steady except for gas and grab a burger to go crowd, and most of the Autotrain clientelle does not travel that way. From either Louisville or Cincinatti, you are running on tracks where being able to even get to 70 won't happen much, running on curaceous tracks through the Appalachians until you get well south of Atlanta or Birmingham. The old South Wind route south of Montgomery is unsignaled (always has been) and currently a 40 mph railroad. Both the old Dixie Flagler route and the Royal Palm route south of Atlanta are heavily trafficed and not that fast, either. It was no accident that the Midwest to Florida trains did not have near the average speed of their east coast counterparts.


----------



## Superliner Diner (Apr 24, 2007)

Another issue, whether there is a second East Coast AT or a Midwest-Florida AT, is how to handle the extra capacity in Florida. Either Sanford would have to be greatly expanded to accommodate the new train, or another location would have to become the secondary southern AT terminal. Consider now that when the one existing AT arrives very late, you have the terminal area full of both arriving and departing passengers. The process of returning all vehicles to their owners following a trip has to be completed before they can begin accepting vehicles for the next trip.

Therefore even if the trains were scheduled 4 hours apart, if the first one were to be a few hours late it would cause bedlam in the terminal. Both trains arriving late would result in the passengers and vehicles of FOUR trips (2 arrival, 2 departure) all in the station area at the same time.


----------



## AmtrakWPK (Apr 24, 2007)

Sounds like you would need either separate arrival and departure terminals, or separate terminals for each route. I woudn't want to set up a second location because then you lose the "economy of scale" benefits to be gained by not having two complete maintenance facilities, cleaning facilities, and all that goes along with it, rather than simply enlarging slightly what already exists. SFA has a well-deserved reputation as an excellent maintenance and repair facility - you don't want to mess with that. Silver Service trains frequently make short (even up to an hour or so sometimes) stops there for temporary repairs enroute to New York or Miami. There may be enough room at SFA to expand to be the terminus for another AutoTrain route, especially since they no longer use the old fairly large SFD terminal that was condemned but is directly adjacent to the SFA terminal property. Sanford is a pretty big, long (CSX) yard area, and something might be able to be worked out if it genuinely looked like it was economically feasible to run another train. But I'd have to agree that the (MUCH) bigger problem would be trackage and signalling and overall track speeds once you head West from JAX, or Northwest from JAX or SAV toward ATL and then points West and North from there. It would take a huge investment in infrastructure to upgrade all that trackage before you could get such a train up to a high enough average speed to make it attractive as an alternative to driving. And smooth enough that it wouldn't require a large team of mechanics several hours at the end of each trip to reinstall all the hardware and spare parts that had been vibrated loose from all those vehicles during the trip. :lol: :lol:


----------



## dan72 (Apr 24, 2007)

I found it interesting that in the book 'American by Rail' the author indicated that Amtrak was looking to replicate the Auto Train format on several other routes. Although this may have been discussed at one point, it seems that may have been a pipe dream at best. The equipment investment for a route such as the SWC or EB would be astronomical....

Dan


----------



## amtrak_russ (Apr 24, 2007)

i would say that chicago is not a bad northern terminus. it can be easly ccessed from dtroit, milwalkee, and other midwestern cities. the only sissue is you first need a regular ld train from chicago. so i say see how sucessful a regular long distance train would be then experiment with a autorack service. i think also you can have a intermedite point such louisville or nashville to add autoracks on as well as take them off. this route is a lot longer than the current auto train. so a halfway point would be justified.


----------



## MrFSS (Apr 24, 2007)

Here is an old postcard view of the Louisville - Florida Auto-Train from the 70's or 80's? Did they have some type of buffet in the dinning car?


----------



## Superliner Diner (Apr 24, 2007)

amtrak_russ said:


> i would say that chicago is not a bad northern terminus. it can be easly ccessed from dtroit, milwalkee, and other midwestern cities. the only sissue is you first need a regular ld train from chicago. so i say see how sucessful a regular long distance train would be then experiment with a autorack service. i think also you can have a intermedite point such louisville or nashville to add autoracks on as well as take them off. this route is a lot longer than the current auto train. so a halfway point would be justified.


Of course when you say "Chicago" though, one cannot think Chicago Union Station here. It would have to be a location with good freeway access, room for the necessary yard and maintenance facilities (or maintenance could be shared with those near CUS), yard space for the auto racks to load/unload, and a terminal facility similar to that in Lorton, VA. So more than likely this "Chicago" facility would end up out in the suburbs.

If the Chicago area were to be a northern AT terminus, a second midwest location such as Louisville or Nashville might work. But then you could not also have a second Florida location. Logistics of working out the possible city pairs for all of the vehicles being carried would be a nightmare.

As for other possible AT services, the Southwest Chief route was one possibility, as was the Coast Starlight route. For the latter, Seattle-Los Angeles was to be the city pair, although this would totally bypass cities like Portland, OR and the SF Bay Area. I'd propose that it should only run between the Portland area and the Bay Area, and let people drive the rest of the way if they have to.


----------



## amtrak_russ (Apr 25, 2007)

> Of course when you say "Chicago" though, one cannot think Chicago Union Station here. It would have to be a location with good freeway access, room for the necessary yard and maintenance facilities (or maintenance could be shared with those near CUS), yard space for the auto racks to load/unload, and a terminal facility similar to that in Lorton, VA. So more than likely this "Chicago" facility would end up out in the suburbs.


I agree but i tought of a place in downtown chicago where this could work. if you are familar with lasalle street station there is vacant land between the metra tracks and the river. that used to be a part of the stations yard and it would be ideal for it. roosevelt rd has access to the interstate.


----------



## MrFSS (Apr 25, 2007)

amtrak_russ said:


> > Of course when you say "Chicago" though, one cannot think Chicago Union Station here. It would have to be a location with good freeway access, room for the necessary yard and maintenance facilities (or maintenance could be shared with those near CUS), yard space for the auto racks to load/unload, and a terminal facility similar to that in Lorton, VA. So more than likely this "Chicago" facility would end up out in the suburbs.
> 
> 
> I agree but i tought of a place in downtown chicago where this could work. if you are familar with lasalle street station there is vacant land between the metra tracks and the river. that used to be a part of the stations yard and it would be ideal for it. roosevelt rd has access to the interstate.


That's a great idea. Here's a picture I took of that area last year.


----------



## amtrak_russ (Apr 25, 2007)

> That's a great idea. Here's a picture I took of that area last year.


I agree it is close ta union station's yard. all they have to do is proceed to 21st street and back her up toward lasalle street.


----------



## AmtrakFan (Apr 25, 2007)

Russ,

Not a bad suggestion but one problem, I remember reading in the Paper that they wanted to turn into a delvopment area. On a Personal Note, that is right by my Aunt's Place, I can see CUS, La Salle St. and St. Charles Airline


----------



## Bill C (Oct 8, 2007)

MrFSS said:


> Here is an old postcard view of the Louisville - Florida Auto-Train from the 70's or 80's? Did they have some type of buffet in the dinning car?


I took the Lorton-Sanford Auto-Train in the 70s with my family. The dining service _was_ a buffet on that route, as I remember waiting in the 'chow line' for dinner.


----------



## frj1983 (Oct 8, 2007)

AmtrakFan said:


> Russ,Not a bad suggestion but one problem, I remember reading in the Paper that they wanted to turn into a delvopment area. On a Personal Note, that is right by my Aunt's Place, I can see CUS, La Salle St. and St. Charles Airline


I believe that you are correct AmtrakFan,

I'm almost sure that the City of Chicago owns that land and they "ain't never gonna give it up" for a new Autotrain service! Mayor daley seems to be quite insistent on the usage of this former "railroad" space to turn a profit for the City


----------



## had8ley (Oct 8, 2007)

AmtrakWPK said:


> Sounds like you would need either separate arrival and departure terminals, or separate terminals for each route. I woudn't want to set up a second location because then you lose the "economy of scale" benefits to be gained by not having two complete maintenance facilities, cleaning facilities, and all that goes along with it, rather than simply enlarging slightly what already exists. SFA has a well-deserved reputation as an excellent maintenance and repair facility - you don't want to mess with that. Silver Service trains frequently make short (even up to an hour or so sometimes) stops there for temporary repairs enroute to New York or Miami. There may be enough room at SFA to expand to be the terminus for another AutoTrain route, especially since they no longer use the old fairly large SFD terminal that was condemned but is directly adjacent to the SFA terminal property. Sanford is a pretty big, long (CSX) yard area, and something might be able to be worked out if it genuinely looked like it was economically feasible to run another train. But I'd have to agree that the (MUCH) bigger problem would be trackage and signalling and overall track speeds once you head West from JAX, or Northwest from JAX or SAV toward ATL and then points West and North from there. It would take a huge investment in infrastructure to upgrade all that trackage before you could get such a train up to a high enough average speed to make it attractive as an alternative to driving. And smooth enough that it wouldn't require a large team of mechanics several hours at the end of each trip to reinstall all the hardware and spare parts that had been vibrated loose from all those vehicles during the trip. :lol: :lol:


\

Well said; and who is going to pay for all the track improvements BEFORE the first train runs ???

CSXT is brilliant at playing the old shell game and coming out a winner every time.


----------



## Guest (Oct 9, 2007)

Alot, maybe most, folks from the upper midwest like to winter in the southwest. Maybe a Chicago to Phoenix or Vegas Autotrain would make more sense than a Chicago-Florida route.


----------



## Amtrak OBS Employee gone freight (Oct 9, 2007)

Guest said:


> Alot, maybe most, folks from the upper midwest like to winter in the southwest. Maybe a Chicago to Phoenix or Vegas Autotrain would make more sense than a Chicago-Florida route.



We need a direct Chicago-Florida regular intercity service (preferably via Atlanta) before we need an Auto Train on that route. OBS gone freight... :blink:


----------



## frj1983 (Oct 9, 2007)

Amtrak OBS Employee gone freight said:


> Guest said:
> 
> 
> > Alot, maybe most, folks from the upper midwest like to winter in the southwest. Maybe a Chicago to Phoenix or Vegas Autotrain would make more sense than a Chicago-Florida route.
> ...


I totally agree,

even though I'm not sure that all the trackage is usable for such!

Do you have a suggested routing? I'm just curious what would be the best route.


----------



## George Harris (Oct 9, 2007)

frj1983 said:


> Amtrak OBS Employee gone freight said:
> 
> 
> > We need a direct Chicago-Florida regular intercity service (preferably via Atlanta) before we need an Auto Train on that route. OBS gone freight... :blink:
> ...


Here is a quick summary of the old and current Chicago to Florida routes:

The three former 24 hours Chicago to Jacksonville routes:

City of Miami: ICRR-CofG-ACL: Chicago-Fulton KY-Birmingham-Columbus GA-Jacksonville-Miami the fastest of them all. No longer possible. two segments abandoned, and the remaining ICRR/GM&O out of Fulton KY is a short line that no longer has signals.

South Wind: PRR-L&N-ACL: Chicago-Louisville-Nashville-Birmingham-Mongtomery-Jacksonville-Miami: more or less the Amtrak Floridian: the track is all still there, except PRR Chicago to Indinapolis where an alternate is available, but a lot of work is needed. Indianapolis to Louisville, complete re-rail. Montgomery to Waycross is now 40 mph, and need lots of work to get back up to 59 mph, which is all it ever was. Louisiville to Montgomery has capacity problems. A few more sidings, maybe some double track segments, mostly restoration where it had been in the past between Louisiville and Montgomery plus the rail work north of Louisiville, plus, south of Montgomery a lot of tie and ballast, and probably quite a bit of rail between there and Waycross could probably see something close to the old South Wind schedule possible again.

Dixie Flagler: C&EI-L&N-NC&StL-ACL: Chicago-Evansville-Nashville-Atlanta-Jacksonville-Miami. the shortest route, but always the tightest schedule. This is all still mainline, but heavily congested, and even without the congestion, reduction in superelevation on the very curvey ex-NC&StL and other lines means that the 1950's speeds can no longer be achieved. Even though all still main line, this would be more expensive to get back to its former running time than the South Wind route. Quite a bit of second track on lines that never had a second track, some curve realignments, etc. would be needed.

Other Florida routes

The Royal Palm (Southern) and the Southland (L&N) both ran as day trains south of Cincinatti with a gathering of late departure overnights from Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland. These were two nights out trains with early second morning arrivals at Jacksonville. These routes also had night trains that were similar in elapsed time. They never approached the ridership of the fast three. Both these routes are still available, and still main lines into Jacksonville, and would probably be no more than a few hours slower than their former best times, although the southern part of the Southland's direct route to Tampa and St. Pete has long ago turned into trails and swamps.

George


----------



## frj1983 (Oct 9, 2007)

George Harris said:


> frj1983 said:
> 
> 
> > Amtrak OBS Employee gone freight said:
> ...


Thanks for sharing that George! It helped clarify things for me.


----------



## Guest (May 17, 2008)

Is there any progress? Chicago/Florida


----------



## Amtrak OBS Gone Freight (May 17, 2008)

Guest said:


> Is there any progress? Chicago/Florida



Not that I know of.

At the railroad, only when you see it is when you can believe it! And we'll leave it at that. :lol:

OBS gone freight...


----------



## Russell (Jul 18, 2008)

The Auto Train surely i s convenient for New Yorkers ( & New Jersians) LOR - SFO. The demand would make a profit, adding a point north, but the logistics probably would be a nightmare, with two trains simulataneously at LOR (or SFO). The upstart costs are unimanginable as well, with a profit years off. I read that the Auto Train is Amtrak's single most profitable route today, ensuring bright, shiny stainless steel cars, great food (in first class -- roomette/bedroom) and pretty dependable service. There is definitely a market for a 60+ mph train from Chicago and further north, but the problems I read about here are an education. It's too bad. Traveling by train can be a really fun part of the overall vacation experience. I really love the trip on the AutoTrain, bringing back memories of our Chicago - Orlando area route when I was a child in the 1950's. Oddly, I was told that the private investors never made a profit, but Amtrak, unbelievably is doing so. Does anyone know why that was case?


----------



## Tony (Jul 18, 2008)

I have been reading thru here, and I am a bit confused (which is not very difficult to do).

I thought the reason the current east-coast Autotrain doesn't venture further north than Washington, was the the double decker Superliner cars are basically too tall for most of the NE tracks. If it wasn't for that, I would guess that the Autotrain would start in Boston, and add already loaded cars in the NYC area, in the Philly area, and finally in the Washington area, as it headed south. I would think if the cars were all ready loaded, that the stop at each of those hubs would only be about 30 minutes.

So, my question is, could Superliner cars travel the exiting rails from the Chicago area to Florida?

As to passengers, I thought a majority of the Autotrain repeat customers, were "snow birds". Honestly, for a 1 week vacation, I find it cheaper to rent a car in Florida, than pay to ship my own. However, "snow birds" go for months at a time.

So, my other question is, are there many "snow birds" in the Chicago area too? Or do older people in Chicago tend to head south, to places other than Florida?


----------



## the_traveler (Jul 18, 2008)

Tony said:


> I thought the reason the current east-coast Autotrain doesn't venture further north than Washington, was the the double decker Superliner cars are basically too tall for most of the NE tracks. If it wasn't for that, I would guess that the Autotrain would start in Boston


Yes, I think that is a good reason. The tunnels in Baltimore and New York City are too low to allow Superliner equipment. Plus the needed real estate further north (if it could be found) would cost too much. Plus to get to Boston and avoid the NYP tunnels, the 1st crossing of the Hudson River is a few miles south of Albany - 150 miles north of New York City!


----------



## haolerider (Jul 18, 2008)

Tony said:


> I have been reading thru here, and I am a bit confused (which is not very difficult to do).
> I thought the reason the current east-coast Autotrain doesn't venture further north than Washington, was the the double decker Superliner cars are basically too tall for most of the NE tracks. If it wasn't for that, I would guess that the Autotrain would start in Boston, and add already loaded cars in the NYC area, in the Philly area, and finally in the Washington area, as it headed south. I would think if the cars were all ready loaded, that the stop at each of those hubs would only be about 30 minutes.
> 
> So, my question is, could Superliner cars travel the exiting rails from the Chicago area to Florida?
> ...


I think there is a potential market for Chicago to the Southeast West - Arizona specifically. I beleive the Mid-west retiree market tends to go in that direction as well as to Florida.


----------



## Tony (Jul 18, 2008)

the_traveler said:


> Plus to get to Boston and avoid the NYP tunnels, the 1st crossing of the Hudson River is a few miles south of Albany - 150 miles north of New York City!


Time to put the Poughkeepsie RR bridge back into service.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2008)

_" Oddly, I was told that the private investors never made a profit, but Amtrak, unbelievably is doing so_"

Could it be the demographics have changed since the '50s? I'm not sure if the snowbird migration was as prevalent in the '50s as it is today. Disneyworld/Epcot was not there as a summertime destination for families.


----------



## Guest (Jul 18, 2008)

... another thing, don't discount the advent of almost universal air conditioning to make the South tolerable.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 18, 2008)

Russell said:


> Oddly, I was told that the private investors never made a profit, but Amtrak, unbelievably is doing so. Does anyone know why that was case?


It wasn't. Auto-Train Corporation made quite a bit of profit in the early years. There problem was twofold. Firstly, they got too ambitious, and secondly, they were under capitalized.

The first issue was the result of them trying to expand to Louisville, KY. Doing that tightened them up and started causing problems. It was a low-margin business to begin with, what with the high crew costs and so on.

Then, due to the under-capitalization, they were practically bankrupted by two minor derailments and one catastrophic derailment. Its what happens when your train carries 30-some-odd passenger cars, 30-some-odd auto-carriers, and millions of dollars worth of automobiles, and it derails. Think of how much the Auto Train derailment a few years back squeezed Amtrak.



Tony said:


> As to passengers, I thought a majority of the Autotrain repeat customers, were "snow birds". Honestly, for a 1 week vacation, I find it cheaper to rent a car in Florida, than pay to ship my own. However, "snow birds" go for months at a time.
> So, my other question is, are there many "snow birds" in the Chicago area too? Or do older people in Chicago tend to head south, to places other than Florida?


Some people don't like renting cars. I don't. I have an old car, one with a very distinctive driving experience, specific responses, and so on. Its a sluggish old MB diesel. I have a hard time with driving cheaper, less solid, less well-controlled, and less comfortable cars. I'd be willing to spend quite a bit to drive my car over another one.


----------



## George Harris (Jul 18, 2008)

The original east coast Autotrain ran on a line that was almost all double track fairly straight, equivalent to the highway distance and maintained for high speed. As a result it could reliably maintain a relatively fast schedule. The Louisville auto train ran mostly on tracks that were seriously in need of maintenance, carried a lot of freight between Louisvillie and Montgomery AL, and between Montgomery AL and Waycross GA ran on an unsignaled secondary main. It was probably a fairly rough the whole distance north of Waycross and was not near as fast a schedule, and ran on a longer route than the highway distance between the same two points. Thus, they were no where equivalent in quality of service and the western train served a smaller potential pool of riders.

A look at the 1950's era passenger trains between the two areas should have told them that the potential ridership from the western train was much smaller. From Chicago there was only one reasonably fast daily train to Florida plus about five otheres that really served intermediate points as much as they did the Midwest to Florida trade. In contrast, the ACL and SAL both ran multiple daily trains. Think the long winter season Florida Special, Orange Blossom Special, plus the "ordinary" all year Champion in two trains, Silver Star, Silver Meteor, etc.


----------



## Russell (Jul 19, 2008)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Russell said:
> 
> 
> > Oddly, I was told that the private investors never made a profit, but Amtrak, unbelievably is doing so. Does anyone know why that was case?
> ...


_Maybe I don't remember it correctly, but I read an article recently that stated that by using available tracks in New Jersey, the Superliner could avoid the lowest of the tunnels and could potentially travel to Florida. I thought that the article mentioned southern New Jersey. There are a lot of experts out there, that's for sure, really impressive, knowledgeable people. Are their tracks available from Southern NJ either to LOR or to SFO that could avoid the tunnels for the Superliner (the article I read indicated that was impossible from Boston or NYC). I do not like renting either, and the rate quotes I received in Miami for 10 days at Christmas were out of sight, and only two hundred dollars cheaper than round-trip Auto Train which is cheaper return north than the trip south. I suppose it has to do with demand. Yes, the Snowbirds are big users, but families like traveling the Auto Train, and if there were tracks allowing reasonable speeds, there is potential for Chicago area - Orlando or Miami area according to what I read. I also have to locate the New York Times_ I think it was that mentioned that the Auto Train is Amtrak's most (or one of their most) profitable routes today. Russell.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 19, 2008)

Russell said:


> Oddly, I was told that the private investors never made a profit, but Amtrak, unbelievably is doing so. Does anyone know why that was case?


That would be because Amtrak's Auto Train doesn't make a profit. It does cover its operating costs as defined by the DOT and in fact is the only LD route to do so. But once you factor in other costs (ticketing, heavy maintenance, management, etc.); the Auto Train is still a money looser, loosing 4.7 cents per passenger mile traveled or about $9 Million annually.


----------



## JohnF (Jul 19, 2008)

I would think that anyone from the Chicago area that wanted to get to Florida could just as easily take the Capitol Limited to DC and connect with one of the silver service trains. Eastbound they could even use the Lake Shore Ltd connection out of NY. Apparently demand for Chicago to Florida service was never equal to the NY to Florida trade as the three railroads operating this service in the past cooperated with each other and ran their trains every third day. The Pennsy had the South Wind, the IC had the City of Miami and the L&N/C&Ei had the Dixieland. The Southern did run the Royal Palm daily in conjunction with the NYC.


----------



## Ghost (Jul 19, 2008)

JohnF said:


> I would think that anyone from the Chicago area that wanted to get to Florida could just as easily take the Capitol Limited to DC and connect with one of the silver service trains. Eastbound they could even use the Lake Shore Ltd connection out of NY.


Of course, their car or family SUV, wouldn't fit well into their overhead luggage rack. 

As mentioned, the major repeat customers for the Autotrain, are people who stay at their destination for very long periods of time. They take their personal autos because it is cheaper than long term renting.

Well, except for GML who needs to take along his ol jalopy even for sort stays, regardless of the cost.


----------



## Ghost (Jul 19, 2008)

Russell said:


> I do not like renting either, and the rate quotes I received in Miami for 10 days at Christmas were out of sight, and only two hundred dollars cheaper than round-trip Auto Train which is cheaper return north than the trip south.


At Christmas time, I pay about $175 for a week's rental out of Hertz in Orlando's Amtrak station.

The rental agencies seem to have various rates just like Amtrak's bucket system. So, reserving ahead can get you a substantial discount. Plus, of course, make use of the Amtrak.com website transfer discount too.


----------



## Ghost (Jul 19, 2008)

AlanB said:


> That would be because Amtrak's Auto Train doesn't make a profit. It does cover its operating costs as defined by the DOT and in fact is the only LD route to do so. But once you factor in other costs (ticketing, heavy maintenance, management, etc.); the Auto Train is still a money looser, loosing 4.7 cents per passenger mile traveled or about $9 Million annually.


From the numbers I read, the Auto Train brings in about $49 million in ticket revenue per year. However, total expenses are around $62 million per year.

But yea, in reality, the Auto Train looses the least amount of money than any other Amtrak LD train.


----------



## CREW-DORM #2524 (Jul 20, 2008)

Russell said:


> Green Maned Lion said:
> 
> 
> > Russell said:
> ...




Nope. Wont fit on the NEC. B&P tunnels in Baltimore and the tunnels into NYP wont clear a SuperCar. Washington to Lorton is fine. Deadhead SuperCars are moved all the time.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 20, 2008)

Ghost said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > That would be because Amtrak's Auto Train doesn't make a profit. It does cover its operating costs as defined by the DOT and in fact is the only LD route to do so. But once you factor in other costs (ticketing, heavy maintenance, management, etc.); the Auto Train is still a money looser, loosing 4.7 cents per passenger mile traveled or about $9 Million annually.
> ...


Actually for fiscal 2007 the AT had revenues of $53.5 Million and operating expenses of $43.0 Million for a net of $10.5 Million, before the other shared costs are added on. After another $19.4 Million in shared costs, the AT now runs a deficit of $9.0 Million.


----------



## Ghost (Jul 20, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Ghost said:
> 
> 
> > From the numbers I read, the Auto Train brings in about $49 million in ticket revenue per year. However, total expenses are around $62 million per year.
> ...


Operating expenses of $43.0 million plus another $19.4 million in shared costs, comes out to $62.4 million.

I think that $62.4 million is pretty close to around $62 million. 

Be it $9 million or $13 million, either is still a loss.


----------



## Russell (Jul 20, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Russell said:
> 
> 
> > Oddly, I was told that the private investors never made a profit, but Amtrak, unbelievably is doing so. Does anyone know why that was case?
> ...


That is really disappointing, Alan. Here I thought that highest revenue equalled highest profit! And no route earns a profit on its own? Well, the passenger railroads are an important part of our American heritage, and we just cannot give them up. I remember fondly my old days on the train every year from Chicago to Florida, and I have just recently decided to take all of my future vacations on the train. I have nearly one million frquent flier miles, so I'll fly back to NY Metro area if I do not have time to return by train and use the miles that way. I HATE flying. I was recently on a two-engine prop in a storm from DTW - ESC (Escanaba, MI) and vomited the whole way. Lighting struck the plane. The lights flashed out and on and out and on. It was terrible. We were thrown all over the place, with overhead compartments opening up.

I am trying to make a reservation from NYP - Palm Springs and learned that I cannot check my larger suitcase to Palm Springs. The agent told me I'd have to get off at a stop that offers baggage service and that's is just too bad but I could not retrieve my suitcases checked in the baggage car for a Palm Springs arrival (and the same on the return, I would be refused boarding) even with a first-class sleeping accommodation ticket costing thousands of dollars. I just cannot believe that an alternative cannot be worked out. I read in one of these postings that the porter "brought the passenger's suitcase(s) to their bedroom/roomette accommodation just before arrival at their destination station. I have to take enough changes of clothes for the trip, and I assume, even with cross-country train travel that there is no laundry service available on board (for a fee).

Does anyone know of a way to check the larger, suit carrying cases (you are allowed up to 3 checked bags without fee if I read the rules correctly) and bring say a smaller Tumi case on rollers to your sleeping accommodation with a suit bag containing fresh shirts and pants? If there is only one person in a Superliner Roomette or Viewliner bedroom there should be a little extra room available?

One would think Amtrak needs the business of those willing to buy sleep accommodations and attempt to help them. I was told by the agent that I shouldn't take Amtrak, because "we don't operate that way; you're not flying on a plane."

Russell.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 20, 2008)

Russell said:


> And no route earns a profit on its own?


Sadly, no.

Moving people as a general rule is not profitable.



Russell said:


> I am trying to make a reservation from NYP - Palm Springs and learned that I cannot check my larger suitcase to Palm Springs. The agent told me I'd have to get off at a stop that offers baggage service and that's is just too bad but I could not retrieve my suitcases checked in the baggage car for a Palm Springs arrival (and the same on the return, I would be refused boarding) even with a first-class sleeping accommodation ticket costing thousands of dollars. I just cannot believe that an alternative cannot be worked out. I read in one of these postings that the porter "brought the passenger's suitcase(s) to their bedroom/roomette accommodation just before arrival at their destination station. I have to take enough changes of clothes for the trip, and I assume, even with cross-country train travel that there is no laundry service available on board (for a fee).
> Does anyone know of a way to check the larger, suit carrying cases (you are allowed up to 3 checked bags without fee if I read the rules correctly) and bring say a smaller Tumi case on rollers to your sleeping accommodation with a suit bag containing fresh shirts and pants? If there is only one person in a Superliner Roomette or Viewliner bedroom there should be a little extra room available?


There really isn't any easy way around the checked baggage problem. That said, unless you are planning to bring more than two suitcases or your suitcase will weight more than 50 LBS or far exceeds the carryon dementions, you would be find to carry the suitcase onto the train. In a Superliner car there is a large luggage rack downstairs in the car where you can leave the bigger bag, and you might even be able to squeeze it into your room by putting it on your upper bunk.

On the single level Viewliner train you can also put it on the upper bunk or in the cubby hole above the toilet.

If you need more than two bags and/or your bag doesn't fit the size restrictions, then you may well be out of luck.


----------



## Russell (Jul 20, 2008)

AlanB said:


> Russell said:
> 
> 
> > And no route earns a profit on its own?
> ...


Thanks, thank you so much. This is really a great site. The help is really appreciated and the information is really useful. No, my bag cannot weigh more than 50 lbs. (even the airlines are restricted to 50 lbs., or a huge charge up to 75 lbs.). I just do not know if the Tumi folding, five-suit, with the two shoe pockets on one side, rolls on wheels, 23.5H X24.5W X12D will be allowed as a carry-on (the airlines take as checked (50 lbs.), but NOT carry-on). Traveling several thousand miles for two weeks or longer does require extra clothing. Laundry facilities will be very difficult to find, unless there is a long station stop with a coin laundry available at the station. Will that downstairs rack you mentioned hold the Tumi bag above? According to the telephone ticket agent, I would not be allowed to even board the train with that bag.

And by the way, I'm sure that the above would fit on the top bunk in the down position, provided I can still sit in my large seats and lean back during the day and evening.


----------



## gswager (Jul 21, 2008)

According to the Amtrak baggage policy, I think your baggage meets the requirement.

Yes, you can do that on the upper bunk. However, during the daytime/night time mode, the attendant will take the mattress from the upper bunk and put it on the lower bunk. It means your suitcase will be moved temporarily.

I would recommend to put your large suitcase in lower level where the suitcase racks are and pack some of your clothes and utensils in a smaller bag or suitcase in your room during the duration of your trip.

You cannot get your checked baggage from the baggage car at anytime. Only some of Amtrak employees will load/unloading checked baggage, based on its destination, at staffed stations.


----------



## Russell (Jul 21, 2008)

gswager said:


> According to the Amtrak baggage policy, I think your baggage meets the requirement.
> Yes, you can do that on the upper bunk. However, during the daytime/night time mode, the attendant will take the mattress from the upper bunk and put it on the lower bunk. It means your suitcase will be moved temporarily.
> 
> I would recommend to put your large suitcase in lower level where the suitcase racks are and pack some of your clothes and utensils in a smaller bag or suitcase in your room during the duration of your trip.
> ...


Thank you. I have to make certain that the Tumi bag dimensions are correct; I took it off of Tumi's web site; the exact suiter/fold garment bag I purchased 6 - 7 years ago is not sold any longer. I am going to call Tumi with a model number this coming week and obtain the exact measurements. I have no problem leaving this much larger bag downstairs on the luggage rack; I had thought those racks were for coach passengers and that sleeper accommodations passengers were not supposed to use the rack (either check the baggage or leave it in your room). My major concern is, and remains, being denied boarding because of an oversized bag (it will meet the 50 lb. requirement). The telephone sales agent stated that if "the bag is one inch too large, you will not be allowed to board the train with the bag." That is a severe penalty and could ruin an entire, well-planned vacation. Most people do not realize that although there are size/weight restrictions on the Amtrak Auto Train, in reality the restrictions do not apply since all the traveler need do is leave the large, heavy bag in the trunk of their car! And no one is allowed on the Auto Train unless they check a vehicle (of course one cannot leave an oversized suit case in their motorcycle!). I want to learn all I can before I begin my trips; it would be a horrible experience and financial ruin to find out these things upon arrival at the station, or worse, after arriving at destination.


----------



## AlanB (Jul 21, 2008)

Russell,

Unless your bag look oddly larger than the demensions listed at the link above to the Amtrak baggage policy or you ask an employee for help in carrying your bag, it is highly unlikely that anyone will even question you, much less deny you boarding. I see people everytime I ride with luggage that is clearly way over the size regulations or worse, are carrying three bags when only allowed two, on board the train.

The key is that you must handle things yourself. If you have any plans to ask for a redcap or if you'll need help lifting your bag into the train, then you could get into trouble. Also, while I haven't really studied your itinerary in part because my computer time is limited being that I'm currently on a rail vacation, if you plan to ride any single level trains you'll need to keep in mind that there is no luggage rack there. If you've got a bedroom then you'll have no problems at all, since there is plenty of room there. If you have a roomette, then things might get a bit more interesting. But again if you're traveling solo, you should be fine since you can always put your bag on the upper bunk.

Also Amtrak personnel tend to be a bit more lenient with sleeper class passengers than they do with coach pax, simply because you are paying for better service. One must remember that nothing at Amtrak is ever set in stone and there are employees who seem to like to think that they write the company policies and therefore can alter things to their own wants and desires, so I can't guarantee anything 100%. But I do think that as long as you follow the above guidelines, that there is probably a 98% chance that you'll have no troubles on your journey.


----------



## jackal (Jul 21, 2008)

Russell said:


> gswager said:
> 
> 
> > According to the Amtrak baggage policy, I think your baggage meets the requirement.
> ...


The rule of thumb is that, if you can handle your bag yourself and not obviously look like you are struggling, no one will challenge you. The phone agent is dead wrong when he/she said that you'd be denied boarding if your bag was even one inch too large. No one is going to measure it.

Now, if you have six bags and you're alone and you ask the car attendant to help you load them, and it takes the two of you to haul one bag up onto the train, then you'll likely be denied boarding. But car attendants are not in the habit of whipping out a tape measure at every podunk station stop.

The downstairs racks are indeed for sleeping passengers--in sleeping cars! The coach cars are completely separate, and so there is no way for a coach passenger to use the downstairs racks in a sleeping car!

I would expect, too, that you'd be given a bit of extra leeway as a sleeper passenger. The limits are more likely to be enforced in coach, since it's a shared space, but there are a lot fewer people in your sleeping car, and so you can get away with larger bags.

Edit: Umm, not entirely sure how I missed Alan's reply, but he basically said the same things...


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jul 22, 2008)

Ghost said:


> JohnF said:
> 
> 
> > I would think that anyone from the Chicago area that wanted to get to Florida could just as easily take the Capitol Limited to DC and connect with one of the silver service trains. Eastbound they could even use the Lake Shore Ltd connection out of NY.
> ...


Jalopy? JALOPY? "Blue Chip Classic" sounds a lot better. (in 30 years, it might even apply  )

But, actually I was referring to the rare times and places I travel where I feel a need to have a car at all. I like walking and enjoy well-run public transit systems. I even tolerate poorly run systems.


----------

