# Why only one Auto Train exists in USA?



## colobok

I am wondering why Amtrak doesn't have Auto Trains from East Coast to West Coast?

There are thousands of people who are driving 5-6 days accross the country.

I think many of them would prefer to take trains if they could load their cars on it.

Auto Train from Virginia to Florida is very popular although the distance is not very large.

What do you think?


----------



## AmtrakWPK

There are several issues that would have to be successfully dealt with before it could happen.

One, there is not enough Amtrak equipment to do it, and it certainly has less than zero funds to do anything about that. It doesn't have the funds to keep it's CURRENT equipment in good repair, much less buy anything new.

Two, Amtrak's nationwide network runs mostly on tracks owned by freight rail companies like Union Pacific, BNSF, and CSX. While BNSF does a pretty good job of expediting Amtrak passenger trains, Union Pacific, in particular, seems to do it's utmost to delay and interfere with Amtrak trains, hence some of the nicknames like Unlimited Parking and Utterly Pathetic. Adding ANY additional Amtrak trains on freight railroad tracks would require agreement by those freight railroads. If Amtrak would not be able to have at least reasonable reliability in terms of on-time performance, it wouldn't be financially successful. Let's see... where was I? Ah yes...

Three, Amtrak is currently prohibited by Congress from starting ANY new routes unless it can GUARANTEE that they will not require any subsidy.

Four, even absent freight railroad interference, any new Auto-Train operations would probably require upgrades of existing tracks and signalling in order to be able to run at fast enough track speeds to be an attractive alternative to driving.

We would certainly like to see what you're suggesting, but the obstacles are substantial.


----------



## sechs

Facilities have also been mentioned in the past as a barrier.

Amtrak would need space at a location at least near where folks would want to go, in order to load and unload vehicles.


----------



## colobok

sechs said:


> Facilities have also been mentioned in the past as a barrier.
> Amtrak would need space at a location at least near where folks would want to go, in order to load and unload vehicles.


There is already facility in Virginia. Also I saw freight trains moving LOTS of cars, it must be a very good business. Amtrak could get a very good profit from this.


----------



## BobWeaver

colobok said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facilities have also been mentioned in the past as a barrier.
> 
> Amtrak would need space at a location at least near where folks would want to go, in order to load and unload vehicles.
> 
> 
> 
> There is already facility in Virginia. Also I saw freight trains moving LOTS of cars, it must be a very good business. Amtrak could get a very good profit from this.
Click to expand...

The facility in Virginia is of course the Lorton terminal for 52 and 53, but I'm not sure where else this origin/destination would be feasible. Perhaps Chicago.

Freight trains that you see moving cars are moving cars from factory to distribution/unload centers and then on to the dealers, not for the general public. I'm really not sure how you are comparing freight autoracks to Amtrak autoracks - they have nothing to do with each other.


----------



## frj1983

BobWeaver said:


> colobok said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sechs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facilities have also been mentioned in the past as a barrier.
> 
> Amtrak would need space at a location at least near where folks would want to go, in order to load and unload vehicles.
> 
> 
> 
> There is already facility in Virginia. Also I saw freight trains moving LOTS of cars, it must be a very good business. Amtrak could get a very good profit from this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facility in Virginia is of course the Lorton terminal for 52 and 53, but I'm not sure where else this origin/destination would be feasible. Perhaps Chicago.
> 
> Freight trains that you see moving cars are moving cars from factory to distribution/unload centers and then on to the dealers, not for the general public. I'm really not sure how you are comparing freight autoracks to Amtrak autoracks - they have nothing to do with each other.
Click to expand...

And I have no idea where in Chicagoland you could find the land to build a terminal! I doubt it would ever happen!


----------



## sechs

colobok said:


> sechs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facilities have also been mentioned in the past as a barrier.
> 
> Amtrak would need space at a location at least near where folks would want to go, in order to load and unload vehicles.
> 
> 
> 
> There is already facility in Virginia.
Click to expand...

I'm sure that people might want their cars at the other end....


----------



## Guest

Probably the biggest reason is that only that highway corridor is so horrible - even Interstate 5 in CA isn't that crowded or dangerous - so that's really the only place with sufficient demand to warrant the service.


----------



## Bob

*NOTE - this is a 4 year old thread.*

That's a shame. I really wanted to be able to take my motorcycle from the NY area to California or Oregon...or, actually, just about anywhere in the US except Florida, where I've already been countless times.


----------



## guest

There used to be another AutoTrain, from the CHI area to Florida. In both cases, it's just one overnight to save an all-day and/or all-night drive. People driving cross-country usually want the flexibility to stop wherever they want. And frankly, it's as fast - if not faster - to drive cross-country than any current train route could match.

A shorter distance, like maybe SEA to Minneapolis area, might work, just because it's relatively sparsely populated, or perhaps something running to/from Glacier National Park.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

I've yet to see a serious study on the level of demand and/or suitability for facilities in the last few decades. Which sort of makes it hard to say with any certainty that there is no other city pair that may have the necessary demand and suitability for required facilities.


----------



## NY Penn

I'd think that Virginia-Los Angeles would work, for two reasons:

1. Two of the largest cities in America.

2. Two major rail lines already used by Amtrak go to LA (TE/SL and SWC). This makes detours easier.

Of course, this is all useless dreaming...


----------



## jis

NY Penn said:


> I'd think that Virginia-Los Angeles would work, for two reasons:
> 
> 1. Two of the largest cities in America.
> 
> 2. Two major rail lines already used by Amtrak go to LA (TE/SL and SWC). This makes detours easier.
> 
> Of course, this is all useless dreaming...


How many people actually travel by ground transportation altogether all the way from the Mid-Atlantic seaboard to Los Angeles basin?


----------



## Texan Eagle

NY Penn said:


> I'd think that Virginia-Los Angeles would work, for two reasons:
> 
> 1. Two of the largest cities in America.
> 
> 2. Two major rail lines already used by Amtrak go to LA (TE/SL and SWC). This makes detours easier.
> 
> Of course, this is all useless dreaming...


My geography is a little weak, but where is this *Virginia* city that's one of the largest in America?





If you mean a Washington DC to Los Angeles Auto Train, the shortest route using existing Amtrak routes would be that of the Capitol Limited to Chicago and Southwest Chief to Los Angeles, and at existing schedules, it is 61 hours running time (excluding the layover in Chicago, just the running time). On the other hand if one wanted to race the train and drive from Washington DC to Los Angeles, Google Maps says it would take 41 hours, assuming you have multiple drivers who will take turns to drive all day and all night. I wonder there would be enough people available _regularly _ who would want to undertake such a long journey, either by train or driving, just to have their own vehicle with them on the other side of the continent. Flying and renting a car would be more logical.


----------



## reefgeek

Texan Eagle said:


> NY Penn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd think that Virginia-Los Angeles would work, for two reasons:
> 
> 1. Two of the largest cities in America.
> 
> 2. Two major rail lines already used by Amtrak go to LA (TE/SL and SWC). This makes detours easier.
> 
> Of course, this is all useless dreaming...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My geography is a little weak, but where is this *Virginia* city that's one of the largest in America?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you mean a Washington DC to Los Angeles Auto Train, the shortest route using existing Amtrak routes would be that of the Capitol Limited to Chicago and Southwest Chief to Los Angeles, and at existing schedules, it is 61 hours running time (excluding the layover in Chicago, just the running time). On the other hand if one wanted to race the train and drive from Washington DC to Los Angeles, Google Maps says it would take 41 hours, assuming you have multiple drivers who will take turns to drive all day and all night. I wonder there would be enough people available _regularly _who would want to undertake such a long journey, either by train or driving, just to have their own vehicle with them on the other side of the continent. Flying and renting a car would be more logical.
Click to expand...

I never thought about that, but it must be the snowbirds who keep the Auto Train alive.


----------



## Trogdor

reefgeek said:


> I never thought about that, but it must be the snowbirds who keep the Auto Train alive.


That is exactly the group that keeps the current Auto Train alive.


----------



## Anderson

Trogdor said:


> reefgeek said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never thought about that, but it must be the snowbirds who keep the Auto Train alive.
> 
> 
> 
> That is exactly the group that keeps the current Auto Train alive.
Click to expand...

Bingo. It's also a lot of Disney-related traffic (hint: Sanford is less than an hour from Disney World), which bolsters things in the summer...but in the spring and fall, half of the train basically deadheads in the direction opposite the snowbirds' migration (I'm not going to kid...when I did the math, I found that there are days that it is cheaper to rent a car, even assuming a $100 one-way rental, and take a sleeper on the AT than to take a sleeper on a Silver from WAS/RVR-ORL if you're going "backwards").


----------



## abcnews

Amtrak is looking at the idea of doing this one day.... It's a simple plan - use the existing auto loading/unloading facility near Los Angeles to load rail passenger and their autos, and then have the Southwest Chief stop and hook them to the rear of the train. The cars would get dropped at a facility in Northern Illinois.

But no plans to initiate this service any time soon, it's just an idea at this point.


----------



## jis

I doubt Amtrak will ever load down the SWC with autoracks. It will add many hours to its schedule and many dollars to the cost of operation, for relatively meager gains in revenue.

How many people actually travel by ground transport from Chicago to LA and for what perceived cost? What would Amtrak have to charge for an auto on such a service?


----------



## Anderson

Well, first of all, if they do this on the SWC, they could also offer the service on the Capitol Limited (though the operation there would necessarily be more complicated, involving either splitting the racks off before you got to WAS and busing folks to Lorton or

Second, I think you'd avoid adding time if you simply did the auto loading deal _before_ you pulled the SWC into the station. I'm not sure on geography here, though...and I'd assume that the autos would either be a CHI-LAX _only_ service or would be _very_ limited in the number of stops that would be used.

Third, assuming that you went with something similar to the charge on the Auto Train, you'd probably be looking at $150-250/car (Amtrak applies buckets here as well...some days, you do get wacky situations where it's cheaper to take an oversized car than a regular one), which I suspect _more_ than covers the cost of the auto's side of the trip.


----------



## abcnews

Yes - the Southwest Chief would make a short stop and pick up one or two preloaded auto rack cars, which would be loaded well before the arrival of the train. I'm thinking that they would take on those same passengers, and their autos at the same location, and then, the same passengers and their autos would be dropped off in Illinois. So the additional costs and switching time would be minimal. The fee to load the cars would be covered in the fee for bringing a car (like maybe $400 or $500- just guessing). But if they load 25 cars that could be around $10,000 to $12,000 per day - once it caught on. And they may just elect to hire an existing auto unloading/loading facility to do the loading and unloading. I think UP already has at least one of these in the LA area to unload and load new vehicles for the Auto Industry.

One problem I see is the slower track speed of 70 MPH with freight cars on the rear of the train (autoracks are considered freight cars). That alone may keep this idea from materializing. But other than that, they already know that many American travelers favor the idea of a train that will allow you to bring you personal vehicle. One can load the car full of items for college, or for a new job in California, or back east, etc, and skip that long drive across the western part of the US. Who knows, they may consider the idea of allowing people to ship their cars - without being a passenger. They could have a "drop off service. I'm thinking this facility would be in Barstow, or Mira Loma, CA.

But it's only an idea, at least they are open to ways to increase the revenue stream.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

Are we talking about a true Autotrain here? Meals for all. On-board entertainment. Non-stop service.


----------



## jis

abcnews said:


> Yes - the Southwest Chief would make a short stop and pick up one or two preloaded auto rack cars, which would be loaded well before the arrival of the train. I'm thinking that they would take on those same passengers, and their autos at the same location, and then, the same passengers and their autos would be dropped off in Illinois. So the additional costs and switching time would be minimal. The fee to load the cars would be covered in the fee for bringing a car (like maybe $400 or $500- just guessing). But if they load 25 cars that could be around $10,000 to $12,000 per day - once it caught on. And they may just elect to hire an existing auto unloading/loading facility to do the loading and unloading. I think UP already has at least one of these in the LA area to unload and load new vehicles for the Auto Industry.
> 
> One problem I see is the slower track speed of 70 MPH with freight cars on the rear of the train (autoracks are considered freight cars). That alone may keep this idea from materializing. But other than that, they already know that many American travelers favor the idea of a train that will allow you to bring you personal vehicle. One can load the car full of items for college, or for a new job in California, or back east, etc, and skip that long drive across the western part of the US. Who knows, they may consider the idea of allowing people to ship their cars - without being a passenger. They could have a "drop off service. I'm thinking this facility would be in Barstow, or Mira Loma, CA.
> 
> But it's only an idea, at least they are open to ways to increase the revenue stream.


Fearless prediction. This will not happen anytime in the foreseeable future. It is mostly a railfan fantasy.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> abcnews said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - the Southwest Chief would make a short stop and pick up one or two preloaded auto rack cars, ....
> 
> One problem I see is the slower track speed of 70 MPH with freight cars on the rear of the train (autoracks are considered freight cars). That alone may keep this idea from materializing. ...
> 
> But it's only an idea, at least they are open to ways to increase the revenue stream.
> 
> 
> 
> Fearless prediction. This will not happen anytime in the foreseeable future. It is mostly a railfan fantasy.
Click to expand...

+1. Adding a set of auto rack cars to the back of a passenger train mid-route would not be a short stop. Probably have to budget an hour for the hookup or disconnect. Then there is the part about slowing max speed to 70 which would hurt the SWC trip time. This may have been something that Amtrak looked at, just like many of the alternatives briefly mentioned in the new performance improvement report for the Silvers, LSL, Crescent, that were discarded.

Is a 2 day trip time route a viable one for Autotrain type service? How many people drive from the the Chicago & central mid-West area to southern California on a regular basis? Can't be that many. The AT works because of the huge number of people driving north and south to Florida along the I-95 corridor, many of whom have second or retirement homes in Florida. The AT captures a small percentage of that traffic with a single night trip, enough to fill the train on a regular basis.


----------



## Ryan

jis said:


> abcnews said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes - the Southwest Chief would make a short stop and pick up one or two preloaded auto rack cars, which would be loaded well before the arrival of the train. I'm thinking that they would take on those same passengers, and their autos at the same location, and then, the same passengers and their autos would be dropped off in Illinois. So the additional costs and switching time would be minimal. The fee to load the cars would be covered in the fee for bringing a car (like maybe $400 or $500- just guessing). But if they load 25 cars that could be around $10,000 to $12,000 per day - once it caught on. And they may just elect to hire an existing auto unloading/loading facility to do the loading and unloading. I think UP already has at least one of these in the LA area to unload and load new vehicles for the Auto Industry.
> 
> One problem I see is the slower track speed of 70 MPH with freight cars on the rear of the train (autoracks are considered freight cars). That alone may keep this idea from materializing. But other than that, they already know that many American travelers favor the idea of a train that will allow you to bring you personal vehicle. One can load the car full of items for college, or for a new job in California, or back east, etc, and skip that long drive across the western part of the US. Who knows, they may consider the idea of allowing people to ship their cars - without being a passenger. They could have a "drop off service. I'm thinking this facility would be in Barstow, or Mira Loma, CA.
> 
> But it's only an idea, at least they are open to ways to increase the revenue stream.
> 
> 
> 
> Fearless prediction. This will not happen anytime in the foreseeable future. It is mostly a railfan fantasy.
Click to expand...

I'll double down on that prediction:

Fearless prediction. This *or any other Auto Train expansion *will not happen anytime in the foreseeable future. It is mostly a railfan fantasy.


----------



## Anderson

I'm willing to go with the first prediction but not the second, and the reason is very simple:

1) Did anyone expect the Lynchburger to turn a profit?

2) Would anyone (outside of a few diehard railfans), in 1998 or 1999, have expected ridership on Amtrak to spike nearly 50% over the next decade or so?

I don't know where things are going to go over the next ten years...it could be good or bad, but the fact that ridership increases haven't been _just_ on the NEC (with the Acela) means that there's a lot of room for growth. I see this as a _very_ distant priority (I think you'd need a situation where Amtrak split the SWC into two sections to make anything of this sort work...looking at the Superliner situation should tell you all that you need to know about how long _that_ would take to come to pass), but if gas prices somehow manage to stabilize at a very high level (something that a lack of an economic recovery is preventing...but that feedback loop is a story for another thread) then who knows?


----------



## abcnews

Keep in mind - this additional service would not just be available to those who just want to drive from Illinois to CA (or vise versa), and yes, I agree, that would indeed be a limited market with few users. The target audience is anyone driving from CA back East or from the East to CA, Example New York State, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, Illinois,Eastern Canada, Toronto etc... There is a huge population in all of those states. Just like the current auto train does not just service people from around Washington and Baltimore - but it draws customers from all of PA, NJ, NY, CT, Mass, NH, VT, Canada, Delaware, etc... as well as Maryland and Virginia and the DC area. The idea is that they drive a portion of their trip, and then switch over to the train to get there sooner (and rest while they are moving).


----------



## dlagrua

frj1983 said:


> BobWeaver said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> colobok said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sechs said:
> 
> 
> 
> Facilities have also been mentioned in the past as a barrier.
> 
> Amtrak would need space at a location at least near where folks would want to go, in order to load and unload vehicles.
> 
> 
> 
> There is already facility in Virginia. Also I saw freight trains moving LOTS of cars, it must be a very good business. Amtrak could get a very good profit from this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The facility in Virginia is of course the Lorton terminal for 52 and 53, but I'm not sure where else this origin/destination would be feasible. Perhaps Chicago.
> 
> Freight trains that you see moving cars are moving cars from factory to distribution/unload centers and then on to the dealers, not for the general public. I'm really not sure how you are comparing freight autoracks to Amtrak autoracks - they have nothing to do with each other.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And I have no idea where in Chicagoland you could find the land to build a terminal! I doubt it would ever happen!
Click to expand...

While I am a proponent of reviving the Autotrain Midwest to Florida service, the point of origin might have to be other than the old Autotrain facility in Louisville KY. IMO locating a bit closer to Chicago would allow the train a beter chance of success. However, this is all useless talk at this point because as a minimum, a dozen new Superliners, a few lounge cars, at least two dining cars and many auto carriers would be needed. Amtrak has zero money for expansion and has their hands full keeping the routes that they have going.


----------



## Anderson

Mike,

You'd have to link the CHI-LAX service to a WAS-CHI service, and as I noted you'd have to either get lower autoracks to clear the DC tunnels or do some strange routing of the autoracks to get them to Lorton. Now, I think you could at least in theory drop the racks, run the train to WAS, and then bus folks down to Lorton...but that runs a risk of becoming a _real_ mess, and your transfer for anyone who wanted to go CHI-WAS-LOR-SFA would be a _pain_.


----------



## abcnews

The SW Chief idea is just an idea that they are open to, not sure if they really even want to link it with Lorton. mainly - just a revenue enhancement idea that may work for an existing train (S W Chief). It could start with one auto rack - if they ever even give the idea a try.

I recall when they had those "Rail Runners" that were a piggyback express, tagged on the end of Amtrak trains. The idea was to increase revenue, without significantly increasing costs or complexity.


----------



## jis

abcnews said:


> I recall when they had those "Rail Runners" that were a piggyback express, tagged on the end of Amtrak trains. The idea was to increase revenue, without significantly increasing costs or complexity.


The net effect of that idea was costs increased at least as much as and occasionally more than revenue and of course it also ticked of a bunch of host railroads. At the end it turned out to be a phenomenal waste of money that could have been used better to acquire more passenger equipment - heck even sleepers, which would have actually increased net revenue (net of cost)


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> abcnews said:
> 
> 
> 
> I recall when they had those "Rail Runners" that were a piggyback express, tagged on the end of Amtrak trains. The idea was to increase revenue, without significantly increasing costs or complexity.
> 
> 
> 
> The net effect of that idea was costs increased at least as much as and occasionally more than revenue and of course it also ticked of a bunch of host railroads. At the end it turned out to be a phenomenal waste of money that could have been used better to acquire more passenger equipment - heck even sleepers, which would have actually increased net revenue (net of cost)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that the sleepers would have done so prior to the early 2000s fare hikes. IIRC, at the time they simply lost less money on a per-passenger basis. Granted, on some route an extra sleeper or two would have made a dent in this picture...but not as much as it would now.

That actually makes me wonder what those are listed at in Amtrak's depreciation book and whether, since most of them are sitting on sidings, if Amtrak shouldn't dump those to a freight line somewhere (or heck, even put them out as scrap) and bump up the Viewliner order a bit.


----------



## jis

Anderson said:


> That actually makes me wonder what those are listed at in Amtrak's depreciation book and whether, since most of them are sitting on sidings, if Amtrak shouldn't dump those to a freight line somewhere (or heck, even put them out as scrap) and bump up the Viewliner order a bit.


They have quite likely been duly depreciated to zero and whether they are on Amtrak's books or not does not make an iota of difference to Amtrak's financial reports anymore. Rightfully their residual value should have been written off when they became useless for Amtrak. If/when they manage to get rid of them any money they collect then becomes a net gain in the financial account. You cannot keep recording depreciation against a capital property that is already depreciated to zero, and to which no further capital value has been added through major upgrade etc.

People also seem not to understand that depreciation is just an accounting method for accounting for a capital cost paid at a given point in time, to bring a capital asset on the books, but spread out its accounting over a period of time using one of the several depreciation schedules defined for the purposes of GAAP for financial accounting in the US, and by IRS for tax purposes in the US (and surprisingly even those two do not always align with each other. Contrary to popular belief depreciation has no effect on cash accounts and it certainly does not create money for replacing the thing being depreciated, a misconception that even Don Philip of Trains magazine appears to suffer from. The only cash outlay is for the original acquisition of said asset and it appears in the cash account of the year in which it is acquired. In case of Amtrak that cash usually comes from a grant, or occasionally from a loan. In the latter case the loan payments have to be accounted for in cash account as payments are made.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

You could say the original Auto Train was a railfan fantasy that just happened to come true, thanks to an enterprising businessman. It still operates to this day without anyone questioning the validity of the process or suitability of the route. Just imagine if the original Auto Train had never even existed and then someone came along and suggested the idea of a train that carries cars here on Amtrak Unlimited. Everyone would sigh, roll their eyes, and assure whoever suggested it that it would never, *ever* work. Oh, wait, I guess it would be exactly the same as it is now. <_<


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> Mike,
> 
> You'd have to link the CHI-LAX service to a WAS-CHI service, and as I noted you'd have to either get lower autoracks to clear the DC tunnels or do some strange routing of the autoracks to get them to Lorton. Now, I think you could at least in theory drop the racks, run the train to WAS, and then bus folks down to Lorton...but that runs a risk of becoming a _real_ mess, and your transfer for anyone who wanted to go CHI-WAS-LOR-SFA would be a _pain_.


This discussion about a cross country AutoTrain service is one of the wackier ideas I've seen floated with regards to the AT. If the goal is to move someone's car across the country, there are shipping and moving services that will do it for you. For a steep price, I would expect. But just big is the market in terms of people of who are willing travel 3 days by train cross country while their car is basically luggage? Rather small I would expect.

As for getting an auto-rack through DC, according to wikipedia, the clearance of the First Street tunnels south of Union Station is 17 feet. High enough for Superliners, not enough for AT auto-racks. Although Amtrak could get shorter auto racks that don't have as much capacity.

However, if one wanted to get auto racks south of DC, the CSX Virginia Avenue Tunnel will be getting rebuilt in the next 3-4 years into a two track tunnel with double stack clearance. Dump the auto racks on CSX before the Amtrak train reaches Union Station and have an engine move the auto racks to Lorton via CSX. See, not that hard. Not very practicable, but doable.

When the Virginia Avenue tunnel and CSX National Gateway double stack clearance project is complete, Amtrak could run an AutoTrain up to the south side of Baltimore or to Pittsburgh and west of Pittsburgh. The last choke point for double stack clearance will be the Baltimore tunnels and the route north to Philly. If or when there ever is a clear and reasonably direct double stack clearance route to northern NJ, that would be the prime location for a new second AT service running to Florida. Could happen when the B&P tunnel in west Baltimore is replaced.

CSX recently had a public outreach presentation which they are required to do as part of the NEPA process, even though it was a rather pro forma step for them because they own the tunnel and they know what they want to do. The only DC DOT and local input is mainly on how to minimize the disruption from the several year long construction project. In page 11 of the viewgraph presentation, there is a diagram showing the double stack clearances for the main CSX lines. Warning 35 MB file: http://odd.greatergreaterwashington.org/files/2011/vaavescoping.pdf . A question Amtrak could ask CSX (and NS) is how far could a AT type train heading towards the mid-West or Chicago get in ~18 hours starting from the current station at Sanford, FL? Of course, Amtrak might have had such conservations with CSX and NS.


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> That actually makes me wonder what those are listed at in Amtrak's depreciation book and whether, since most of them are sitting on sidings, if Amtrak shouldn't dump those to a freight line somewhere (or heck, even put them out as scrap) and bump up the Viewliner order a bit.
> 
> 
> 
> They have quite likely been duly depreciated to zero and whether they are on Amtrak's books or not does not make an iota of difference to Amtrak's financial reports anymore. Rightfully their residual value should have been written off when they became useless for Amtrak. If/when they manage to get rid of them any money they collect then becomes a net gain in the financial account. You cannot keep recording depreciation against a capital property that is already depreciated to zero, and to which no further capital value has been added through major upgrade etc.
> 
> People also seem not to understand that depreciation is just an accounting method for accounting for a capital cost paid at a given point in time, to bring a capital asset on the books, but spread out its accounting over a period of time using one of the several depreciation schedules defined for the purposes of GAAP for financial accounting in the US, and by IRS for tax purposes in the US (and surprisingly even those two do not always align with each other. Contrary to popular belief depreciation has no effect on cash accounts and it certainly does not create money for replacing the thing being depreciated, a misconception that even Don Philip of Trains magazine appears to suffer from. The only cash outlay is for the original acquisition of said asset and it appears in the cash account of the year in which it is acquired. In case of Amtrak that cash usually comes from a grant, or occasionally from a loan. In the latter case the loan payments have to be accounted for in cash account as payments are made.
Click to expand...

jls,

I know what depreciation is. It's a fantasy tool that doubles Amtrak's annual accounting losses and gets us hit over the head for a half billion dollars in "losses" on paid-for equipment on an annual basis. Now, I know that they _should_ have been written down to zero when they became useless, but knowing how Amtrak has tinkered with their accounting, it is entirely possible that they stayed locked into a 20-year depreciation schedule for some reason or another and/or that someone had a "bright idea" and managed to extend the depreciation schedule based on "reduced wear and tear" now that they're sitting in a railyard. I rather wish this was all joking.

afigg,

I didn't know how the Virginia Avenue tunnel figured into things. As to Baltimore, couldn't Amtrak simply run the AT around the Penn Line and skip Baltimore proper entirely? Or is there a jam-up near Philly as well that I'm not familiar with? (I know about the Hudson tunnels, and I know about the Baltimore tunnels, but I thought those were about it) If the autoracks cap speeds out at 70 MPH (and I think that higher speeds, even on Class 6+ track, might pose issues to the condition of the cars onboard and thus be inadvisable), then running them partly or entirely on a non-NEC route might make sense.

As to the discussion of WAS-CHI-LAX service, it's not that I think such is a great idea...it's more that I'm left wondering, given that you'd have two service segments that have a connecting train already, whether the "linking" segment might not make sense as well. Likewise, I _do_ think that CHI-Florida has potential as a market (note the _repeated_ attempts Amtrak keeps bumping around to try and restore a direct link there)...it's just that the other routes to get from A to B aren't exactly clear.

Edit: A semi-serious thought comes to mind: If you could arrange linking the racks prior to the Union Station boarding in CHI, then running the service on a Cap-and-Star combined train would actually work, since the Cap-and-Star has to go to Sanford for maintenance anyway. You'd need extra space on that train _badly_, but the proposition is at least workable on paper.


----------



## afigg

Anderson said:


> afigg,
> 
> I didn't know how the Virginia Avenue tunnel figured into things. As to Baltimore, couldn't Amtrak simply run the AT around the Penn Line and skip Baltimore proper entirely? Or is there a jam-up near Philly as well that I'm not familiar with? (I know about the Hudson tunnels, and I know about the Baltimore tunnels, but I thought those were about it) If the autoracks cap speeds out at 70 MPH (and I think that higher speeds, even on Class 6+ track, might pose issues to the condition of the cars onboard and thus be inadvisable), then running them partly or entirely on a non-NEC route might make sense.


No, there is no simple way around the clearance issues in Baltimore without going well out of the way. The CSX Howard Street Tunnel in Baltimore does not have double stack or plate H clearance. The NEC B&P tunnel certainly does not. If you want to read up and learn more about the Baltimore tunnels and the track routes in the Baltimore region than you may want to know, you should read the FRA study titled "Baltimore's Railroad Network: Analysis and Recommendations" and the graphics supplement, published in January 2011. That study along with the 2005 Baltimore tunnel and other reports can be found at http://www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/1240.shtml . The replacement for the B&P tunnel in west Baltimore is and will not be a simple process. 10 years after the Howard Street Tunnel fire and they have still not been able to move pass a study phase.


----------



## Anderson

Ok, that's on my reading list for tonight (the CSX report isn't really on there, simply because of sheer size affecting downloadability). Is there anything beyond Baltimore getting in the way?


----------



## Crescent ATN & TCL

If Amtrak were willing to invest in side loading autoracks, and loading docks at stations, you could essentially provide a rail ferry service at all major stops along the LD routes. If cars are loaded from the side switching is not required and if you only serve stations with 15 minutes or more of dwell time it could be done without adding time to the schedules.


----------



## Anderson

How do side-loading autoracks work?


----------



## jis

Crescent ATN & TCL said:


> If Amtrak were willing to invest in side loading autoracks, and loading docks at stations, you could essentially provide a rail ferry service at all major stops along the LD routes. If cars are loaded from the side switching is not required and if you only serve stations with 15 minutes or more of dwell time it could be done without adding time to the schedules.


And it would slow every train down by half a day or more for carrying some small number of cars in a pointless exercise.


----------



## jmbgeg

Without respecting the 2011 post on a 5 year old topic, what is a end to end auto train on the present route?


----------



## larry91403

Maybe I'm a bit neive but perhaps more so than the reasons discussed above, powerful interests such as the rental car companies and the airlines lobby against such a possibility? Afterall, If I could put my car on Amtrak with me and be in NY two days later, I'd do that. And I'd bet anything a whole lot of other people feel the same way. So even if that meant LA to some other east coast hub, it would probably be worth it.


----------



## jis

The problem is they won't be willing to pay a fare that would cover the cost of such service in sufficient numbers to make such a train viable except under very special circumstances as obtained on the Northeast - Florida route.

Considering that one can already ship ones car across for extended stays, how many people actually do it for what it costs?


----------



## FormerOBS

Amtrak's Marketing Dept. has explored the possibilities in the past, but have always concluded that the proposed routes would not work because they lack the current Auto Train's "perfect storm" of cost, distance, trip duration, and demographics. Amtrak doesn't have the extra equipment to start another long distance train. Terminals that are capable of loading auto carriers simply don't exist without a lot of capital expense that is beyond Amtrak's budget. None of this is likely to change any time soon.

Tom


----------



## CoachSlumber

larry91403 said:


> Maybe I'm a bit neive but perhaps more so than the reasons discussed above, powerful interests such as the rental car companies and the airlines lobby against such a possibility? Afterall, If I could put my car on Amtrak with me and be in NY two days later, I'd do that. And I'd bet anything a whole lot of other people feel the same way. So even if that meant LA to some other east coast hub, it would probably be worth it.


Yes, but the volume on a daily Auto-Train represents an absolutely tiny fraction of the business they do.


----------



## dlagrua

Lets back up a few years to the midwest Autotrain service that ran from the large train yard in Louisville,KY. through, Nashville and through southern Georgia to MIA The old L & N tracks that it ran on (along with the Floridian train) were in terrible condition causing slow orders, frequent lateness and a couple of derailments. Additionally the train was combined with the CHI-MIA Floridian so there were stops along the way and the trip amounted to something like 28 hours. The potential ridership for a CHI-MIA route probably still exists but neither the tracks or the equipment is there to make this happen. The original Autotrain Corp went broke when they initiated midwest service. Even Amtrak had to give up on its Floridian train. I don't see that route coming back anytime soon.


----------



## erierail

Why only one auto train route in the us. Like all private rail service ( and Amtrak auto train) it doesn't turn a profit. Even before the original a- t the b& o experimented with providing a auto train type service with the owners cars handled on freight trains. This service also did little stop the decline in rail traffic.

I wonder how popular auto train would be today if it ticket prices actually reflected the true cost of the service.

With that said I did ride both at original routes. It was truly a great service with a wonderful collection of passenger cars. They even use neat little Baldwin switchers at both its Sanford and Morton terminals.


----------



## jis

erierail said:


> Why only one auto train route in the us. Like all private rail service ( and Amtrak auto train) it doesn't turn a profit.


Actually in the period Jan '14 - Dec '15 according to FRA documentation on farebox recovery of fully allocated costs, the figure for Auto Train was 101%, so it did make a small profit.


----------



## erierail

But did it recover all of its cost, like a real company, not only operating costs but cost of equipment, interests and all true operating cost. These ere the expenses that ultimately did in a-t.


----------



## looshi

erierail said:


> But did it recover all of its cost, like a real company, not only operating costs but cost of equipment, interests and all true operating cost. These ere the expenses that ultimately did in a-t.


In theory that is what the fully allocated cost number means. It includes overhead and equipment depreciation.


----------



## FormerOBS

erierail said:


> Why only one auto train route in the us. Like all private rail service ( and Amtrak auto train) it doesn't turn a profit. Even before the original a- t the b& o experimented with providing a auto train type service with the owners cars handled on freight trains. This service also did little stop the decline in rail traffic.
> 
> I wonder how popular auto train would be today if it ticket prices actually reflected the true cost of the service.
> 
> With that said I did ride both at original routes. It was truly a great service with a wonderful collection of passenger cars. They even use neat little Baldwin switchers at both its Sanford and Morton terminals.


Actually, the automobiles were handled in a single auto carrier on the rear of the westbound and eastbound "Shenandoah", B&O trains 7 & 8. I saw it running in the 1960's.

The service didn't last too long.

Tom

P.S.: Wrong quote. This was supposed to quote erierail's comments about B&O's service.


----------



## erierail

Thanks for the correction. It was an innovating concept that might have laid the foundations for the purple, red and white at of 1971.


----------



## jis

erierail said:


> But did it recover all of its cost, like a real company, not only operating costs but cost of equipment, interests and all true operating cost. These ere the expenses that ultimately did in a-t.


Fully allocated cost means it includes everything and then some, since Amtrak loads up HQ cost into the fully allocated cost too, which includes stuff that has nothing to do with the Auto Train at all.

BTW, the Lorton - Sanford Auto Train was never really in financial trouble in and of itself. What did the Auto Train company in was its attempt to expand to the Midwest service. They were unable to disentangle themselves from it before it did them in. The Lorton - Sanford service actually delayed the inevitable some. But had the Auto Train company been able to discontinue the Midwest experiment much earlier, they might yet have survived.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I guess my computer/browser ate my reply yesterday. It seems to be that if and when another autotrain were started along another route, the route it would take would have already gotten improvements to make the service viable. My thinking here, and it's rather a random wag, is that it would be viable from the Midwest to Florida, Arizona (snowbirds! and cross country drivers) and somewhere further north in the west, such as Denver. I doubt a cross country service would be, but perhaps a connection could be offered. I've know people in Europe taking it to skip the drive over the alps and the length of Germany, though I understand those services have been cut lately.

The terminals would be key, though. I really think Louisville is too far for Chicagoans to drive to take a train, once we're there, may as well drive the rest of the way, but Indy would work plus it's relatively easy from Michigan and Ohio as well. For the westbound somewhere in or around Chicago (not off Roosevelt Road which is now a parking lot) would probably work. If the schedule could work with an evening departure from Chicago and late morning to early afternoon arrival in Denver, you'd skip a long drive and be a lot closer to both the west coast and numerous driving destinations. Perhaps one could arrive and check in mid-afternoon and eat onboard before departure with that being after rush hour to allow people to board after work.

The bigger problem is that some of these services might be too seasonal tourist to work well.

I would certainly take a service west, skipping the great plains to arrive in the mountains with a car full of camping and hiking gear that can't easily go via plane or train - Chicago is just to far from the mountains in the west to make the drive convenient, but being able to skip a day and a half of driving and a night in a motel it would be fantastic to wake up fresh and be more or less at the destination.


----------



## FormerOBS

I once had a conversation with an Amtrak Marketing guy who was trying to figure out how to implement a service using the Southwest Chief. This guy was traveling in my sleeper, and the trip was light enough that we had time to talk. We agreed that it would be impractical to expect people to drive into the heart of Chicago for the service. A loading location like Joliet made more sense. It should be someplace accessible to the Interstates.

The tentative plan called for the auto carriers to be dropped in Flagstaff. If they had been taken all the way to L.A., that would have seriously limited the destination options. By dropping the carriers in Flagstaff, travelers would have fairly direct access to the Grand Canyon, Las Vegas, Phoenix, or Tucson. Flagstaff would also be a reasonable starting point for California destinations.

But look at the schedule: Arrival in Flagstaff is in the evening; later if the train is delayed. The ideal is for people to wake up after a night sleeping on the train, then get in their cars and drive in daylight. This schedule means people would arrive in Flagstaff just in time to find a motel and sleep. I don't know the situation now, but Flagstaff had barely enough motel rooms then. They would have been in short supply for additional travelers from the train.

It was suggested that the auto carriers could continue down the Peavine to Phoenix on a new connecting train. This would allow for a morning arrival, but would mean the expense and equipment needed to instate a new train on that route. Would Santa Fe (now BNSF) cooperate? Travelers for the Grand Canyon or Las Vegas would be taken farther from their destination. Travelers who want to drive to Southern California would not benefit at all in terms of mileage; in fact, they would have to pay extra for the additional rail mileage.

Traveling in the eastbound direction would entail similar problems.

As I said, the current Auto Train represents a perfect storm of route, distance, scheduling, cost, geography, and demographics. You'll have a hard time finding a route that has similar characteristics ---- anywhere, ever.

Tom


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I really think it would need to be a standalone train with good arrival and departure times. Flagstaff would work well for Grand Canyon bound tourists, but less well for snowbirds. And believe me, there are a lot of ex-Chicagoans in Arizona, as well as tourists (visiting relatives in Sun City, etc, spring training fans, Sedona, etc) but not like Florida. Joliet would work well since it it's easy for Ohio, Michigan and Indiana motorists to get to, the rest of us can handle the expressways (and Wisconsinites can zip down on the tollway, zipping being relative).

Somewhat off topic, I'm reminded of a street corner with a lovely older woman who said "well, in those days we could take the train to go skiing in Wisconsin..." Unlike my parents who drove a rental car to Wisconsin on their honeymoon in December and their foreign rental broke down in a snowstorm somewhere up north (rentals apparently often used European cars back then and since they were on their honeymoon, I don't think they minded too much....).


----------



## FormerOBS

A stand alone train: Now you're talking about adding a train, when the freight roads don't like operating the ones they've already got. Good luck.

And I've tried to work out a workable schedule for a stand alone Auto Train, Chicagoland to Flagstaff. Good luck on that, too.

Tom


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

FormerOBS said:


> A stand alone train: Now you're talking about adding a train, when the freight roads don't like operating the ones they've already got. Good luck.
> 
> And I've tried to work out a workable schedule for a stand alone Auto Train, Chicagoland to Flagstaff. Good luck on that, too.
> 
> Tom


As I said, this would only happen under the aegis of a freight company or if money was available for rail improvements from the federal government. I don't see this happening, so it's a fun pursuit in wishful thinking.


----------



## jis

And it won't happen under the aegis of a freight company because there is not enough margin in such an operation for them to bother with it.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

FormerOBS said:


> As I said, the current Auto Train represents a perfect storm of route, distance, scheduling, cost, geography, and demographics. You'll have a hard time finding a route that has similar characteristics ---- anywhere, ever.


I agree, and emphasize that you need a pool of potential passengers who, at least perceive, a strong need to bring their own personal auto along with them.

Florida was perceived by the working class of the North East cities, as being a "near by" and thus a financially obtainable vacation spot. Taking your own car along, made it seem like Florida was within an easy day-trip.


----------



## jis

Florida is considered to be more of a hibernating spot, in addition to a short vacation spot. It is actually the so called "Snow Birds" that provide the bread and butter for the Auto Train, very handsomely augmented by the short term visitors to the abode of the famous Mouse and Duck and the beaches and inland springs of Central Florida both east and west coast.


----------



## greatcats

Tom- I nominate you for next President of Amtrak and you are hereby called out of retirement ! ( joke). Running an Auto Train to Flagstaff? Yes, the times of the schedule are bad for such an idea. I can just see switching those cars in the middle of town with all those freights! So route it down the Peavine? Ha! What a fantasy!


----------



## FormerOBS

jis said:


> And it won't happen under the aegis of a freight company because there is not enough margin in such an operation for them to bother with it.


Exactly.

Tom


----------



## FormerOBS

Call me out of retirement for that thankless job? That's an "honor" I can do without. You'll have to find me first, and I know some pretty good hiding places. The answer is not "No." The answer is "HELL NO!"

(I stole that line from a friend.)

I'm one of the many people who think of Don Phillips as a pretty good analyst. He has some good ideas on the subject of Amtrak's next President. He presented some in the most recent issue of Trains Magazine (June) and in the last issue (May).

Tom


----------



## Alexandria Nick

jis said:


> Considering that one can already ship ones car across for extended stays, how many people actually do it for what it costs?


I've known quite a few people that have paid the truck to ship cars across country (mainly military). Not a whole lot, but more than I'd have thought. Ten years ago, the mall I worked in was the early Sunday morning jumping off point for a guy doing Pittsburgh-Tampa runs. He got enough business that he was out there every other week! Its almost too bad the numbers don't work for a company owning a few autoracks running in manifest freights.


----------



## erierail

The lorton to Sanford run was an ideal run. Connecting the northeast with central Florida. Their was a large pro rail passenger pool ( the scl ) ran quality trains right up until Amtrak day ( may 1 1971).

Florida was having the beginning of another real estate boon and the Disney company just open Disney world. The untimely death of at, its expansion to Louisville was because of two factors. The trip was too long compared to the easy 14 hour east coast run. Also airline deregulation was just beginning with at competing against upstart airlines offering ridiculously low fares. Long live the red purple and white auto train corporation.


----------

