# What if every LD train was an Auto Train?



## Nick Farr (Jun 29, 2021)

I was just thinking: Wouldn't it be great to take my car with me from Chicago to Reno, enjoy the CZ and have my car with me when I stop?

The Auto Train is the most successful of all the LD trains, mainly because it serves a specific market developed after the decline of passenger rail.

Yes, it is a huge logistical challenge. Yes, it could only be done at or near major crew change stations. But it would add a while new market that is best served specifically by passenger rail.


----------



## jis (Jun 29, 2021)

The schdules of trains will probably increase considerably in length depending on how many pickup and drop off points one is thinking of. Each such point will involve dropping off and picking up some random set of auto carriers. which will take quite a bit of time. Afterall just changing an engine takes 20+ minutes these days.


----------



## NEPATrainTraveler (Jun 29, 2021)

As someone who does not drive, I would not like it if every train was like the auto train. With the current auto train, you can only ride it if you have a car or are riding with someone who does.


----------



## Nick Farr (Jun 29, 2021)

jis said:


> The schdules of trains will probably increase considerably in length depending on how many pickup and drop off points one is thinking of. Each such point will involve dropping off and picking up some random set of auto carriers. which will take quite a bit of time.



As far as the CZ goes, my thought is Chicago, Denver, Salt Lake, Reno and (Somewhere in the Bay Área).

Loading is done well in advance, unloading is done when the train has left. The only thing to do at each stop would be to be add/detach carrier rail cars at the back of the consist. 

It would require a big capital investment, but it would also spur interest in an otherwise untapped market.


----------



## Nick Farr (Jun 29, 2021)

NEPATrainTraveler said:


> As someone who does not drive, I would not like it if every train was like the auto train. With the current auto train, you can only ride it if you have a car or are riding with someone who does.



I meant "auto train capable". I never meant to advocate for the all the LD trains requiring having a car to ride, that's ludicrous!

I know the current AT is a super speciality product, but the capability therein shouldn't be contained to just that product/route.


----------



## jis (Jun 29, 2021)

Nick Farr said:


> As far as the CZ goes, my thought is Chicago, Denver, Salt Lake, Reno and (Somewhere in the Bay Área).
> 
> Loading is done well in advance, unloading is done when the train has left. The only thing to do at each stop would be to be add/detach carrier rail cars at the back of the consist.
> 
> It would require a big capital investment, but it would also spur interest in an otherwise untapped market.


It would depend on what orig/dest you allow for the Autos. If you allow all possible pairs, then a bit of car shuffling will be involved in addition to adding and setting off cars. OTOH if destination is limited to only Chicago and Bay Area then there will be much less car shuffling involved at the add/drop points.


----------



## NS VIA Fan (Jun 29, 2021)

Just do like CN did on the _Super Continental_ back in the 70s. Attach an Auto Carrier on the rear for those that wanted to take their car along between Toronto and Edmonton. And that is just how the Auto Carrier was painted....revealing what was being carried!


----------



## copyright1997 (Jun 29, 2021)

I think this would be an awesome idea. I was thinking of driving "out west" (from upstate NY) this summer with my truck to tour the SW states (AZ, UT, CO, NM). But after going over the 30+ hours of driving to get there and back...ugh. 

In the end, we are going to train from NY to Tucson via Cardinal and Texas Eagle (with an overnight in Chicago on the way), do a car rental there, and fly home. But the trip would have been better with my own truck plus my own 19 yr old driving child (who loves to drive) to help out.


----------



## ShiningTimeStL (Jun 29, 2021)

This is another one of those things that I always think about with Amtrak. By my calculation, the Auto Train concept is the ultimate American method of travel. If we were serious about traveling by train in the USA, we would have multiple frequencies of these absolutely massive passenger trains on every transcontinental route. There is SO much potential there, but also a lot to unwind as far as how they would best operate. I really hate the notion that the concept of the Auto Train is only viable on routes like the one it currently serves. I didn't even know about the Super Continental's Car-Go-Rail service, that just goes to show how this concept can be applied differently to more routes. Also, look at the system on Finnish long distance trains. It's all about the right application. 

Here's something else though; it drives me insane that Amtrak's brand new baggage cars seem to be going completely unused, even on revenue trains. Why not convert them to carry bikes, motorcycles, and other related small vehicles? You can just roll them in and out of those doors.


----------



## joelkfla (Jun 29, 2021)

IIRC, the AutoTrain company was doing well until it tried to expand its service to the Midwest.


----------



## Exvalley (Jun 29, 2021)

The easiest way to do it would be to have one auto carrier for each destination. When that carrier fills up - that's it for that destination.

That way they could just drop an auto carrier off from the end of the train as they reach each destination.

The bigger issue is: (1) The facilities for loading and unloading, and (2) The staffing.

Another issue is that the best place to load and unload is often outside of the city, not in it.


----------



## Qapla (Jun 29, 2021)

To make it so each LD train could carry cars and be able to operate with overlapping on/off points, the autorack cars would need to be redesigned.

Some sort of design that would allow each car to be loaded onto an individual carrier device that could be slotted in from the side of the train by a large forklift type machine would allow individual cars to be loaded/unloaded regardless of when they were placed into the rack. You would not have to load/unload any addition cars to get any car in or out.

That might make it somewhat feasible ...


----------



## Cal (Jun 29, 2021)

joelkfla said:


> IIRC, the AutoTrain company was doing well until it tried to expand its service to the Midwest.


I believe this is true. In theory it's a great idea, but history has proven otherwise. Maybe if it's under the right circumstances and right leadership.


----------



## dlagrua (Jun 29, 2021)

This was posted here 12 years ago. 
The AutoTrain Corporation made arrangements for Amtrak to carry a midwest route back in 1977. As a result Amtrak stopped running the Floridian into downtown Louisville Union station and instead diverted through a large freight yard outside of town to pick up the AT consist. It posed problems and Amtrak lost ridership from Lousiville because of this. Secondly the switching operations now posed by the AutoTrain at Lousiville and Sanford added two hours to the already long schedule and made the Floridian perpetually late. Last of all the track conditions on the former L & N and PC's routes had both deteriorated through Indiana to the point where speeds were limited to 30 mph. Then a horrific derailment caused loss of much Autotrains RR equipment. By the end of 1977 the AT midwest route was gone and Amtrak discontinued the Floridian. The old PC route from Louisville was abandoned. Within a year of this AutoTrain corporation also ceased to exist.

The questions remain as to whether the midwest AT accommodation idea killed the Floridian, whether good track through Indiana was unavailable, or the trip that sometimes exceeded 30 hours was far too long. . My guess is that the route was far too long, too slow and originated 300 miles from Chicago. Todays there is no track through the former Indiana segment where passenger trains could run. Good idea-bad implementation.


----------



## Cal (Jun 29, 2021)

[


dlagrua said:


> Then a horrific derailment caused loss of much Autotrains RR equipment.


Any link about this?


----------



## Anthony V (Jun 29, 2021)

An Auto Train on the route of the California Zephyr would likely have to be routed on the Overland Route through Wyoming between DEN and SLC due to the immense length and weight of such a train, because the locomotives would have trouble pulling such a train over the Rocky Mountains on that part of the current CZ route. Reducing the load on locomotives going over the Rockies is one of the two main reasons the Pioneer was rerouted onto the Overland Route west of Denver in 1991.


----------



## joelkfla (Jun 30, 2021)

I read that many of the car-trains, as they seem to be called in Europe, have been discontinued over the past 5-10 years. Perhaps one could argue that Europeans are not as tightly bound to their cars as are Americans, but the trend doesn't seem to bode well for the concept.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 30, 2021)

For significantly less money, you can beef up the rental car offerings at far more stations and make travel more convenient.

The previously-mentioned massive capital costs, plus the extension in schedule to cut/add cars at multiple stops along the way to serve a market of unknown size make this a non-starter.


----------



## railiner (Jun 30, 2021)

We have extensively covered in previous threads why the Auto Train succeeds, due to it's very unique market. I think it will be a moot point in the not so far future, as I believe that except in rural areas, people will no longer own cars, but will belong to co-ops with nationwide fleets of autonomous driving vehicles. Perhaps with reciprocity with other's, world-wide.


----------



## toddinde (Jun 30, 2021)

I am very skeptical. The car culture is waning fast. Rental cars are ubiquitous. Uber and Lyft exist. Bay Area to Reno is too short. That’s a pretty easy drive, and Reno is pretty self contained. One wonders why one even needs a car on a gambling junket to Reno when the station is downtown and Tahoe is a shuttle ride away. I would theorize that perhaps Chicago to LA, or New Orleans to LA might make some sense, especially for people moving. I think it’s a niche that requires a huge investment in personnel and fixed facilities that will never be recouped. It makes more sense to make rental cars more available in stations. Also, the RV craze is in full swing. If you could accommodate RVs (very hard to do) that could be a market. It’s also the greatest competition to this idea. Many time insensitive, inveterate drivers are buying RVs. I don’t think many of them will ride the train. The real markets for rail travel are 1) people seeking cheap travel across country, your classic long haul coach traveler; 2) people traveling between small and medium size cities underserved by air; 3) the person seeking a unique experience and wants to see the country (frequently the sleeper passenger); 4) time insensitive seniors. None of those are natural auto train customers. Why does the Auto Train work? Huge cold weather population centers conveniently located an overnight ride to a destination where many people stay for an extended period making rental cars prohibitively expensive. If you could find another similar market (Chicago to Northern Wisconsin was contemplated at one time), you might be able to replicate it.


----------



## sttom (Jun 30, 2021)

I personally think Auto Trains outside of the one we already have could work, but it would probably be seasonal for the most part and would need to be run as a separate train. I do think the Zephyr could sustain a summer season Auto Train with stops in Northern California, Salt Lake City, Denver, Chicago and possibly Western Nevada. There are plenty of national parks along this route and others that people might want to take a car along with them. But, I do think this would be a largely seasonal market since the summer would be the best time to do this and would be the better market for it. You could schedule an Auto Zephyr to run through some places at night so people have the day to see parks in Utah and Colorado and possibly catch some of the more scenic parts of the route before they get into either city. But theses trains would need to run separately because like with the express freight thing, it takes time to cut cars and that already ruined trains reliability back in the 90s. Couple this with getting into Salt Lake City at 3am or 11pm or whatever inconvenient time in the middle would mean these trains would likely only be good for a few stops along any given route instead of all of them. This also doesn't take into consideration what you would do with any of the facilities during the winter when a train might not be running, but that is a different can of worms which would make more auto trains less feasibly. 

I do think more auto trains could be feasible under the current model. Chicago - Florida has been pointed out, but I think Chicago - Southwest could also work for the same reason. A lot of snowbirds also go west too and Arizona and New Mexico are destinations they go to. For the same reason, I could see a Starlight to Sunset route auto train maybe working. But it would require more facilities, more equipment and an extra train on applicable routes. It would be far easier to get an Enterprise office next to every station in a town with 10,000+ people than expanding auto trains.


----------



## Qapla (Jun 30, 2021)

toddinde said:


> If you could accommodate RVs (very hard to do) that could be a market.



That is an interesting idea. If you could load RV's on train cars similar to how semi-trailers are loaded and have them connected to power, water and possibly sewer so that people could ride across the country in their RV to a NP or other resort destination it might work. It would allow people to have their RV destination trip without having to drive through the "empty space" they need to cover to get there.


----------



## jis (Jun 30, 2021)

Qapla said:


> That is an interesting idea. If you could load RV's on train cars similar to how semi-trailers are loaded and have them connected to power, water and possibly sewer so that people could ride across the country in their RV to a NP or other resort destination it might work. It would allow people to have their RV destination trip without having to drive through the "empty space" they need to cover to get there.


I suspect RVs with people riding in them would give FRA and NTSB conniptions though.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 30, 2021)

Indeed, that seems to personify the phrase "accident waiting to happen"...


----------



## west point (Jun 30, 2021)

When the car I now have was to be replaced I would have to pay 2-1/2 times more. Guess what ? Cannot afford same. What do I do when my present car dies ? Have no idea.


----------



## Qapla (Jun 30, 2021)

jis said:


> I suspect RVs with people riding in them would give FRA and NTSB conniptions though.





Ryan said:


> Indeed, that seems to personify the phrase "accident waiting to happen"...



Yes, maybe I should have written that more like:



you could load RV's on train cars - since it would be a very big "IF"


----------



## jis (Jun 30, 2021)

Actually one can load all the RVs on a train car as would fit. As long as there are no people riding in them when the train is moving, I suspect no one will have any problems or conniptions.


----------



## John Santos (Jun 30, 2021)

Most RVs have propane tanks... Would this be allowed on a train? I know you aren't allowed to bring butane (for a camping stove) or Coleman fuel in your baggage.


----------



## Ryan (Jun 30, 2021)

Not currently. (edit to add: not currently on Amtrak - obviously freight RRs haul massive tanks of HAZMAT all the time)

In the alternative universe where this is a thing? Hard to see it being a thing without it being allowed.


----------



## jis (Jun 30, 2021)

The refrigerator containers and trailers that are loaded on intermodals do have a small amount of gas to run the generator to run the refrigerator I suppose. But again, those do not involve people riding in or around them.


----------



## Cal (Jun 30, 2021)

I have an RV and go camping frequently, the RV idea would be great for me if implemented.


----------



## George Harris (Jun 30, 2021)

Sometimes it seems that nothing has the durability of a bad idea. As others have said here, the current Autotrain is a very unique market. Big markets on both ends and as near a straight and level railroad between as there is in the US. The midwest attempt was a disaster for both parties, as also was said on here. For many of the current Autotrain users they are saving 2 nights in a motel and a lot of miles and I would suspect many are 60+ and just simply do not want to do long drives. Bay Area to Reno? No and no way. Not really that long a haul, much slower rail route and heavy grades. There MIGHT be a Chicago to LA market, but to attempt to tack it onto the Southwest would be disaster for the current service, as the run time would be increased significantly. Major considerations: Load and unload times plus many miles of 79 mph and 90 mph reduced to 70 mph. If doing intermediate points add about 2 to 3 hours each.


----------



## jis (Jun 30, 2021)

George Harris said:


> Bay Area to Reno? No and no way. Not really that long a haul, much slower rail route and heavy grades. There MIGHT be a Chicago to LA market, but to attempt to tack it onto the Southwest would be disaster for the current service, as the run time would be increased significantly. Major considerations: Load and unload times plus many miles of 79 mph and 90 mph reduced to 70 mph. If doing intermediate points add about 2 to 3 hours each.


SWC would require one more consist to keep it a daily service, for which it is not clear where the additional passenger cars would come from, other than of course shortening it or some other train. They are having enough problem figuring out how to do the Pueblo jog if theat is what they do instead of just a few drop cars a La Junta that carry on to Pueblo as a short train.


----------



## railiner (Jun 30, 2021)

jis said:


> I suspect RVs with people riding in them would give FRA and NTSB conniptions though.


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


----------



## Cal (Jun 30, 2021)

railiner said:


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


Videos?


----------



## jiml (Jul 1, 2021)

Cal said:


> Videos?


There's tons. Go to YouTube and search Whittier Rail Tunnel or Anton Anderson Tunnel.


----------



## jiml (Jul 1, 2021)

People remain in their vehicles (cars and trucks) on the shuttle train under the English Channel and it's fairly lengthy.


----------



## jis (Jul 1, 2021)

jiml said:


> People remain in their vehicles (cars and trucks) on the shuttle train under the English Channel and it's fairly lengthy.


Last time I looked the Channel Tunnel did not fall under the jurisdiction of the FRA.  My comment was about the FRA. 

Also one more thing to note is that the Channel Tunnel is a much more controlled and contained environment with many fewer unpredictable hazards when compared to routes across the prairies with numerous unmanned crossing that allow heavy farm equipment to cross the tracks etc. etc. The two situations are very very different.


----------



## jiml (Jul 1, 2021)

jis said:


> Last time I looked the Channel Tunnel did not fall under the jurisdiction of the FRA.  My comment was about the FRA.
> 
> Also one more thing to note is that the Channel Tunnel is a much more controlled and contained environment with many fewer unpredictable hazards when compared to routes across the prairies with numerous unmanned crossing that allow heavy farm equipment to cross the tracks etc. etc. The two situations are very very different.


It was more a response to the post about Whittier which, although regulated by the FRA, is still more of a "controlled environment" than what you're describing.


----------



## bms (Jul 11, 2021)

Perhaps they could run a second daily Auto Train to Sanford, originating in the New York metro area to be more convenient for passengers from New York and New England. The key would be whether that train was picking up new passengers or cannibalizing passengers from the train originating in Lorton. I'm not sure how wide a geographic area that train draws from.


----------



## Qapla (Jul 11, 2021)

The AT cannot originate in NYC because the car carriers are too tall ... that is why it starts in Lorton


----------



## railiner (Jul 11, 2021)

Qapla said:


> The AT cannot originate in NYC because the car carriers are too tall ... that is why it starts in Lorton


They could run it from Secaucus, but it would require a third trainset for the longer schedule. 
And yes…it would definitely draw away business from the Lorton trains.


----------



## west point (Jul 11, 2021)

This poster suspects that once CSX gets all its clearance problems fixed including Howard street tunnel that there will be many more calls for A-T service to northern NJ. However the need to have more than 2 train sets to cover that service is a big impediment. This poster certainly does not support that kind of service.


----------



## bms (Jul 12, 2021)

railiner said:


> They could run it from Secaucus, but it would require a third trainset for the longer schedule.
> And yes…it would definitely draw away business from the Lorton trains.



Yeah I was thinking Metropark, but I'm not familiar with any of the suburban stations in New Jersey. If NYC and New England passengers are willing to drive to Virginia, then it


----------



## cocojacoby (Jul 12, 2021)

jis said:


> I suspect RVs with people riding in them would give FRA and NTSB conniptions though.


I don't see the problem.


----------



## jis (Jul 12, 2021)

cocojacoby said:


> I don't see the problem.



Since when are railroads in Mexico governed by FRA?


----------



## west point (Jul 12, 2021)

Not much tort law in Mexico. ie travel at your own risk.


----------



## cocojacoby (Jul 13, 2021)

railiner said:


> They could run it from Secaucus, but it would require a third trainset for the longer schedule.
> And yes…it would definitely draw away business from the Lorton trains.


Probably true but it would generate more business from New England and even maybe parts of Canada. Plenty of Canadian snowbirds in Florida. I can tell you from my personal experience, and talking to people in Florida, that it is the drive NORTH of Lorton that people hate. The ridiculous traffic congestion, the sky-high tolls, the crappy rest stop food, the high-priced full-serve gas stations all contribute to the unpleasantness. The 2:30 absolute check-in time doesn't help. The trip south of Lorton is the easy part although boring as hell.

Not sure if we are talking about extending the existing AutoTrain or adding a second separate service or even having a few through cars spun off at Lorton, but there definitely is a market there.


----------



## jis (Jul 13, 2021)

bms said:


> Yeah I was thinking Metropark, but I'm not familiar with any of the suburban stations in New Jersey. If NYC and New England passengers are willing to drive to Virginia, then it


This is all of theoretical interest at best since real estate for setting up a terminal would be frightfully expensive and no one will fund that before more urgent infrastructure on the NEC are fixed.

One might be able to get somewhat cheaper real estate for such a terminal in the South Brunswick area near CP Midway (Monmouth Junction), but that is pretty iffy too, what with NIMBY's galore who have so far successfully blocked MOM taking off from the NEC at that point. 

That of course is the terminal alone. Then there is the issue of getting to that terminal from Virginia.

In short it ain't happening no matter how much people hate driving north of Virginia. The user base is not large enough to justify the funding when compared to other pressing projects competing for funding in that area.


----------



## jiml (Jul 13, 2021)

cocojacoby said:


> Probably true but it would generate more business from New England and even maybe parts of Canada. Plenty of Canadian snowbirds in Florida. I can tell you from my personal experience, and talking to people in Florida, that it is the drive NORTH of Lorton that people hate. The ridiculous traffic congestion, the sky-high tolls, the crappy rest stop food, the high-priced full-serve gas stations all contribute to the unpleasantness. The 2:30 absolute check-in time doesn't help.


Yup. By the time I drive 1 1/2 days to Lorton in bad weather may as well continue the rest of the way and save money. Start one anywhere in upstate New York or Detroit and there will be something to talk about.


----------



## cocojacoby (Jul 13, 2021)

joelkfla said:


> IIRC, the AutoTrain company was doing well until it tried to expand its service to the Midwest.



Auto-Train was the first stock I ever bought and a big $800 loss for a young investor. It really hurt. And seeing those dome cars being cut up for scrap brought additional pain.

But as far as the Midwest expansion goes, they really did do their homework and found that that area had the second highest amount of people driving their cars to Florida. It seemed like a no-brainer at the time.

BTW - Anyone remember this?






AutoTrak - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org













Poinciana station - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## cocojacoby (Jul 18, 2021)

Here's a look at how they used to do this in Europe:


----------



## iliketrains (Jan 23, 2022)

Wouldn't it be great if all Amtrak long-distance trains had at least one Auto car that loads and unloads vehicles at each endpoint? Using reservations, it would be first come first serve. Once it's full, no more reservations. On the trains that prove to be popular, more than one Auto car could be added. I wonder if Amtrak has considered this? I guess the cost of having trained staff at the endpoints would be costly?


----------



## Just-Thinking-51 (Jan 24, 2022)

Terminal and staffing is the downside of this plan. That and only 8% of the passengers travel end point to end point.

It would be nice to have more AutoZug options. Nightjet have several terminals that are quite small, but with our lawsuit filled environment having passenger drive there own cars on a train is just not realistic.


----------



## Dutchrailnut (Jan 24, 2022)

when Amtrak took over Autotrain they basically agreed not to expand the service and get into freight business


----------



## Qapla (Jan 24, 2022)

Yeah - and the freight lines agreed to give Amtrak priority on the mainline and not side them in favor of long freights.

Don't think the freights could really complain if Amtrak could run a single autocar on each LD train.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 24, 2022)

When I was at the TRB meeting a couple weeks ago, I attended a meeting of the Passenger Rail Advisory Committee (I forget the exact name of the committee.) I guy got up and identified himself as working for the Rocky Mountaineer (I didn't get his name), and he was interested in obtaining copies of the original studies that were done in the 1960s on the original Auto Train concept. I don't think he was speaking for the Rocky Mountaineer, that the company was actually interested in starting such a service, but he did say that he thought there might be some places where it might be a viable possibility. I think he said Chicago-Denver (the terminals being on the outskirts of both cities, out by the highways.) He also talked about Ro-Ro truck train service to allow the truckers to bypass difficult stretches of road, where the trains would keep the trailers moving, and the drivers would ride along, presumably in passenger cars, during their mandatory rest periods. I could see a train like that running Grand Junction to Denver or Reno to Sacramento, or even Pittsburgh to the east coast.


----------



## chickpea (Jan 24, 2022)

I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask but it is at least a thread with recent comments... if I have to get from NJ/NY to southern MS and I'd rather not drive the entire way, is it worth taking the auto train?? I haven't figured out the cost (roomette only) vs the gas and hotels if I limit myself to 300-ish miles/day, 400 max. I think it's 4 days of driving and 3 nights hotel, plus $150-200 in gas... so maybe doing VA>FL is worthwhile? Happy to hear feedback. 

And thanks for the report!


----------



## pennyk (Jan 24, 2022)

chickpea said:


> I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask but it is at least a thread with recent comments... if I have to get from NJ/NY to southern MS and I'd rather not drive the entire way, is it worth taking the auto train?? I haven't figured out the cost (roomette only) vs the gas and hotels if I limit myself to 300-ish miles/day, 400 max. I think it's 4 days of driving and 3 nights hotel, plus $150-200 in gas... so maybe doing VA>FL is worthwhile? Happy to hear feedback.
> 
> And thanks for the report!


That does not seem practical to me. You would be driving from Central Florida to Mississippi - But it likely would not be 4 days of driving and 3 nights in a hotel.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 24, 2022)

chickpea said:


> I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask but it is at least a thread with recent comments... if I have to get from NJ/NY to southern MS and I'd rather not drive the entire way, is it worth taking the auto train?? I haven't figured out the cost (roomette only) vs the gas and hotels if I limit myself to 300-ish miles/day, 400 max. I think it's 4 days of driving and 3 nights hotel, plus $150-200 in gas... so maybe doing VA>FL is worthwhile? Happy to hear feedback.
> 
> And thanks for the report!


New York - Lorton is 246 miles driving, Google Maps says 4:42 (I would add time to that estimate)
Sanford - Biloxi is 585 miles driving, Google maps says 8:14 (I would definitely add time to that estimate)
New York to Biloxi is 1,273 miles or 19:16 driving. (aside from adding to Google Maps time estimates, you would probably need to make at least one overnight stop.)

The Auto train is 855 miles and 17 hours, plus you need to arrive at least an hour and a half before departure, so it's really 18 1/2 hours.

I'm not sure what I'd do. You are going out of your way by going to Florida, and that 585-mile drive back to Biloxi sounds a little brutal to me. On the other hand, you won't need any motel stops, and you'll be moving while you eat dinner and sleep.


----------



## dlagrua (Jan 24, 2022)

I believe that there is a very slim chance that Amtrak will add another Autotrain any time soon.. Autotrain Corporation once had a Louisville-Sanford route but here was no way to get that combined train end to end without many stops on the way. It was loaded and boarded in a freight yard West of Lousiville and pulled by the Amtrak Floridian. This slowed the route considerably for standard passengers. The tracks were also very slow though Kentucky and Indiana. Some parts even had a 30 mph limit. The train ended up providing a very slowtrip taking something like 36 hours. It was a good idea for midwest snowbirds but IMO not implemented properly.


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 24, 2022)

iliketrains said:


> Wouldn't it be great if all Amtrak long-distance trains had at least one Auto car that loads and unloads vehicles at each endpoint? Using reservations, it would be first come first serve. Once it's full, no more reservations. On the trains that prove to be popular, more than one Auto car could be added. I wonder if Amtrak has considered this? I guess the cost of having trained staff at the endpoints would be costly?


I suggested that a while back. But it wouldn't have to be just endpoints - just endpoints for the auto-car i.e. say Galesburg or one of the other stations south of Chicago to Albuquerque where the car passengers depart and the car carrier unhooked while the train is getting fueled at this longer stop. Similarly, south of Chicago to/from a suburban Denver station where it is only a boarding/departing station for the car passengers.

Dropping the auto-car off or attaching it would be similar to dropping off or attaching a private car. A car-carrier with a battery-electric motor or attached battery "vehicle" like that shown in another thread could move the car carrier around instead of using the engine to save time. 

After all, the train has only so many bedrooms and once they're full, that's it. Same thing with the car carrier.

I wonder if that would work for a third party to do - they would make their money on carrying the cars. Amtrak would make money by pulling that car carrier and on the passenger tickets. And if Amtrak got enough sleepers, they could add one to the train that would be dropped off/added with the car carrier and would be just in front of it at the back of the train. Any unused rooms could be assigned to regular passengers to that destination if it were a place like ABQ.


----------



## daybeers (Jan 24, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> He also talked about Ro-Ro truck train service to allow the truckers to bypass difficult stretches of road, where the trains would keep the trailers moving, and the drivers would ride along, presumably in passenger cars, during their mandatory rest periods.


So...freight trains with intermodal cars? How is that any different except for massively more efficient and for far less money?

If you like train service, you shouldn't be advocating to subsidize car-centered sprawl, which is what auto trains are doing, really. They make it easier to travel and live with a car. It's catered to snowbirds, many of whom are from further north than Lorton, VA and are going further south than Sanford, Florida. Do we really need more Vehicle Miles Traveled? Why can't we have better regular train service and better transit connections so you don't need a car to get around at your origin or your destination? If someone wants a car when they get to their destination, rent one. It's really that simple. Amtrak's auto train, while it is profitable by Amtrak's accounting, I'm sure it also costs a fortune to maintain specialized equipment and staff specialized employees doing specialized jobs. Would be a lot easier to spend that money on improved regular train service along that corridor.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 24, 2022)

Since I live in a rural area on acreage I doubt there will ever be better transit connections so you don't need a car to get around - and if I went to visit with my relatives in southern Colorado the same would apply. Add to that, if the entire family went that would entail quite a bit if luggage that could easily be stowed in a car while we rode the train.

I can see why the idea would appeal to some.

Yes, we need better transit, better passenger service and less vehicle sprawl - but we don't need the elimination of all personal cars.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 24, 2022)

daybeers said:


> So...freight trains with intermodal cars? How is that any different except for massively more efficient and for far less money?
> 
> If you like train service, you shouldn't be advocating to subsidize car-centered sprawl, which is what auto trains are doing, really. They make it easier to travel and live with a car. It's catered to snowbirds, many of whom are from further north than Lorton, VA and are going further south than Sanford, Florida. Do we really need more Vehicle Miles Traveled? Why can't we have better regular train service and better transit connections so you don't need a car to get around at your origin or your destination? If someone wants a car when they get to their destination, rent one. It's really that simple. Amtrak's auto train, while it is profitable by Amtrak's accounting, I'm sure it also costs a fortune to maintain specialized equipment and staff specialized employees doing specialized jobs. Would be a lot easier to spend that money on improved regular train service along that corridor.


Auto trains have nothing to do with countering car-centered sprawl, they're auto trains, after all. And because of the space they need for loading and because the catchment area for the passengers is very large, the stations will need to be outside the central cities, by a major highway. They're a niche service for a certain class of traveler who has a need to take the car along. The only viable service in the US is the one to Florida which caters to snowbirds and others who are staying long enough that the extra fare is less than the cost of a car rental at the destination. There might be a few other routes that could be viable, but none of them are going to induce enough extra driving to be greater than the noise in the estimates of national VMT.

As for the truck version (which could also take cars), I they would have limited use as "shuttle trains" similar to the train shuttles that carry vehicles through the Channel Tunnel, but at a somewhat larger scale. An 8-hour run would allow the trucks to keep moving, even though the drivers have to have a mandatory rest period, which they would have on the train. They would also allow the trucks to avoid difficult stretches of highways, with a safety benefit. Rather than crossing the Rockies on I-70, just put the trucks on a train in Grand Junction, let the drivers chill out riding the train during their rest period, and when the train gets to Denver, the drivers are rested and drive on from there. Same goes for the Sierra Nevada or Appalachians.


----------



## basketmaker (Jan 25, 2022)

Qapla said:


> That is an interesting idea. If you could load RV's on train cars similar to how semi-trailers are loaded and have them connected to power, water and possibly sewer so that people could ride across the country in their RV to a NP or other resort destination it might work. It would allow people to have their RV destination trip without having to drive through the "empty space" they need to cover to get there.


I remember Trailer Life Magazine used to have excursion up thru western Canada and down south thru Mexico many years ago. They contracted with various railroads and had a long string of flatbeds. Large motorhomes and travel trailers (including tow vehicle) would be loaded and tied done. Chain-type safety rails around the edges. And gangways between each flatbed. Passengers would "camp" in their own RV enroute. Usually enough room at each end of a car to place a couple of lawn chairs and the like. Obviously it wasn't high speed rail just a leisure cruise. I remember reservations went very quickly. Doubt BNSF, UP, CN or any class 1 would spend more than a second to say no way. Some of the pictures I remember in some very remote scenery.


----------



## Exvalley (Jan 25, 2022)

Logistics aside, I can see a winter train from Chicago to Denver working. Unlike in Florida where rental cars work just fine, a rental car in ski country is not ideal. 

One catch is that people would want to be able to have ski carriers on the roof of their vehicle.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 25, 2022)

Exvalley said:


> Logistics aside, I can see a winter train from Chicago to Denver working. Unlike in Florida where rental cars work just fine, a rental car in ski country is not ideal.
> 
> One catch is that people would want to be able to have ski carriers on the roof of their vehicle.


I've rented cars in ski country, even in Vermont.  It's worked just fine. Highway departments in snow country do know how to clear roads. On the other hand, driving to Florida, you have to go through the Carolinas, where they do sometimes have winter storms, but the highway departments aren't as well prepared for them.

I think the viability of an auto train depends on the cost of the rental vs. the auto train fare for carrying your car. The longer one stays at the destination, the more expensive the car rental.


----------



## Exvalley (Jan 25, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> I've rented cars in ski country, even in Vermont.  It's worked just fine. Highway departments in snow country do know how to clear roads. On the other hand, driving to Florida, you have to go through the Carolinas, where they do sometimes have winter storms, but the highway departments aren't as well prepared for them.


I am thinking in particular of skiers. Skiers want snow tires and a vehicle big enough to hold all of their gear. Most families want a ski rack.

Sorry, but when it is actively snowing, a rental car with all season tires doesn't hold a candle to a vehicle with snow tires. Driving in Colorado during the wintertime is no joke even if they know how to clear the roads.

As far as Florida is concerned, I am not sure why a person renting a car in Orlando would care what the whether is like in the Carolinas. Which is exactly why I said that renting a car in Florida is more appealing since a two-wheel drive car with all season tires is perfectly fine.

Put another way, people traveling from the Chicago area to Colorado for skiing would likely place a premium on being able to bring their own vehicle - at least more so than people traveling to Florida.

Whether or not it is worth having the infrastructure for a seasonal operation is an entirely different question.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 25, 2022)

You should read some of his trip reports and learn what he does when he rents a vehicle in snow country (hint: it involves skiing, usually after riding a train).


----------



## jiml (Jan 25, 2022)

chickpea said:


> I'm not sure if this is the best place to ask but it is at least a thread with recent comments... if I have to get from NJ/NY to southern MS and I'd rather not drive the entire way, is it worth taking the auto train?? I haven't figured out the cost (roomette only) vs the gas and hotels if I limit myself to 300-ish miles/day, 400 max. I think it's 4 days of driving and 3 nights hotel, plus $150-200 in gas... so maybe doing VA>FL is worthwhile? Happy to hear feedback.


I concur with @pennyk. Pre-pandemic we wintered in NW Florida near Alabama, driving 4 days to get there. Each year I would check out fares on the Auto Train, but could never make the numbers work. It would take me a day with unpredictable winter weather to reach Lorton with a hotel night, then another full day's drive across Florida on arrival, without a hotel night only if the train was on-time. (You wouldn't have as long a drive the first day, but would make up for it at the southern end.) I could never get below $1,000 each way for the train, so weighed against two additional hotel nights on I-65/75, gas and meals, it never made sense. Mississippi would be just that extra few miles too far IMHO, unless you really wanted to take the train.


----------



## Exvalley (Jan 25, 2022)

Ryan said:


> You should read some of his trip reports and learn what he does when he rents a vehicle in snow country (hint: it involves skiing, usually after riding a train).


It is an objective fact that a vehicle that is properly equipped with good snow tires is going to outperform a vehicle with all season tires in snowy conditions. That can be a scary lesson to learn at Eisenhower Pass in a snowstorm. This, and the ability to haul lots of gear, is why I see many people do the two-day drive from the Chicago area to Colorado.

I live in snow country. My work car has all season tires since it is swapped out every couple of weeks. My personal car has good snow tires. I know of what I speak.

Obviously, MARC Rider is not going to take an Auto Train from Chicagoland. The question is whether or not it would be viable for people who live in that region.


----------



## Joe from PA (Jan 25, 2022)

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


----------



## Mr.Technician (Jan 25, 2022)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Terminal and staffing is the downside of this plan. That and only 8% of the passengers travel end point to end point.
> 
> It would be nice to have more AutoZug options. Nightjet have several terminals that are quite small, but with our lawsuit filled environment having passenger drive there own cars on a train is just not realistic.


And it's doubtful an autocarrier would fit in Chicago Union Station


----------



## chickpea (Jan 25, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> New York - Lorton is 246 miles driving, Google Maps says 4:42 (I would add time to that estimate)
> Sanford - Biloxi is 585 miles driving, Google maps says 8:14 (I would definitely add time to that estimate)
> New York to Biloxi is 1,273 miles or 19:16 driving. (aside from adding to Google Maps time estimates, you would probably need to make at least one overnight stop.)
> 
> ...



Thanks! Helpful. It doesn't seem to save hours of driving as much as hotel stays... one thing it would have been good of me to say is that I do like exploring, so the downside of FL>MS is that I will see places I haven't yet. Thanks again all.


----------



## daybeers (Jan 25, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> Auto trains have nothing to do with countering car-centered sprawl, they're auto trains, after all. And because of the space they need for loading and because the catchment area for the passengers is very large, the stations will need to be outside the central cities, by a major highway.


I think you're emphasizing the wrong word: train instead of auto. I just don't know why you're advocating more VMT, however low that number is.

Regarding your truck shuttle idea, again how is that easier than just running an intermodal train? No need for beds or time-consuming and complicated truck trailer-on-rails maneuvers. That was tried with RoadRailers and there's a reason they're not around anymore.

@me_little_me why the angry reaction?


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 25, 2022)

daybeers said:


> @me_little_me why the angry reaction?


Because I think your statements are out of the ballpark.

I don't know if you have been renting cars lately on your own dime, but rental car companies have become worse and worse in the last few years (Covid aside). Service, costs, ripoff add-ons, misleading pricing, attitude and reliability IMHO have been going downhill. It was a bit different when my company paid for the car rental. I could tell the rental company they could discuss it with our corporate attorneys, could simply tell them to keep their car and rent from another company (my company always backed me on this) and file a complaint with my company (which got a communication from them as we were a big customer).

My car moved 800 miles by train is much better than renting a car when the costs are right or the decision is the best overall. I have a fuel efficient car that I know the condition of; don't have to fight third party companies trying to blame me for problems; a reliable, trustworthy insurance company; my own vehicle where I can go or not go at will; familiarity with the vehicle; ability to have emergency tools I want; car safety options I want; no extras required; etc, etc.

How using a rental car rather than my own car in an area where a car is required causes urban sprawl is seemingly in outer space. Urban sprawl is related to living in one place and commuting to work or driving to stores, fitness centers, etc. not to visiting places with little or no usable public transportation and places of interest.

As to cost, Amtrak needs to decide if multiple trains pulling vehicles is practical, how to implement it if possible and have an open mind on alternatives. They do not have an open mind on anything IMHO, have more interest in cutting costs than adding revenue, don't like working with third parties, don't like giving out any information to their customers (passengers, cities and states that hire them to run trains) or their owners (the American people and the government represented by congress) and don't like partners (witness their poor treatment of Private Varnish).

I thought my "comment" was sufficient. You asked.


----------



## tgstubbs1 (Jan 25, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> I think the viability of an auto train depends on the cost of the rental vs. the auto train fare for carrying your car. The longer one stays at the destination, the more expensive the car rental.


Plus another option is driving all the way.

So also compare the costs to drive vs. the cost of Auto Train.

Also if you consider the person that might rent a car consider that person would probably be better flying. It's often cheaper and faster.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 25, 2022)

tgstubbs1 said:


> Also if you consider the person that might rent a car consider that person would probably be better flying.



Not everyone can/will fly


----------



## tgstubbs1 (Jan 25, 2022)

Qapla said:


> Not everyone can/will fly


True, but if you want to base your travel plans purely on economics I think that is the conclusion most Americans come to. Then a big segment drive the entire distance. So I think it's important to compare these options with Auto train as well as riding and renting a car.


----------



## MARC Rider (Jan 25, 2022)

tgstubbs1 said:


> Also if you consider the person that might rent a car consider that person would probably be better flying. It's often cheaper and faster.


well, yes, that's true, but some people just prefer to take the train. They may consider the experience part of the vacation, or they may be part of the population who can't or won't fly. A former colleague once had a trip to Disney planned for his family, but then he had eye surgery, and the doctor told him he couldn't fly. So he went down on the train instead.


----------



## tgstubbs1 (Jan 25, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> well, yes, that's true, but some people just prefer to take the train. They may consider the experience part of the vacation, or they may be part of the population who can't or won't fly. A former colleague once had a trip to Disney planned for his family, but then he had eye surgery, and the doctor told him he couldn't fly. So he went down on the train instead.



I think Auto train(s) could take away business from airlines and self drivers.
But if there isn't an Auto train that suits their needs. If they don't have some specific needs or preference that you mention they will probably continue their current method, unless they are afraid of witnessing a violent confrontation on a packed, disease ridden, airbus, like I am.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 26, 2022)

tgstubbs1 said:


> I think that is the conclusion most Americans come to. Then a big segment drive the entire distance.



That's partly due to them thinking those are the only options open to them. It is surprising how many people don't know passenger trains still exist.

Amtrak needs to start some aggressive ad campaigns once they have trains running again. If people knew/realized there was a third alternative that doesn't involve taking a bus, train ridership would most likely go up - even without auto trains to take their cars.

Another thought about auto carriers added to LD trains (if there was a feasible way to load/unload them without huge, expensive facilities) is the EV users. Many of them may be inclined to take their car because renting an EV is not the standard yet - and their car could be charged while they traveled on the train.


----------



## toddinde (Jan 26, 2022)

The Northeast to Florida is a unique market. An auto train is a hugely labor intensive endeavor, with expensive, unique equipment. Who are the subset of people who really want to take their own car on vacation rather than renting a car? They’re people who will be spending enough time at their destination to make the cost of putting their car on the train worthwhile, like a month or two. The Florida snowbirds. A ski vacation to Colorado is not that kind of trip. Unless the charge to bring a car is cheap, people won’t do it. In a world of rental cars and Uber’s, it’s hard to think of a market where the juice would be worth the squeeze.


----------



## jis (Jan 26, 2022)

I agree. I suspect the Auto Train would have difficulty sustaining itself if there was not such a huge Snowbird population migrating to and fro. 

Northeast to Florida taken as a group at both ends is the largest domestic air market in the US too.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jan 26, 2022)

Just-Thinking-51 said:


> Terminal and staffing is the downside of this plan. That and only 8% of the passengers travel end point to end point.
> 
> It would be nice to have more AutoZug options. Nightjet have several terminals that are quite small, but with our lawsuit filled environment having passenger drive there own cars on a train is just not realistic.



The most interesting of these that couldn't happen in the USA is a service like the Sylt Shuttle. It is the only Auto-Train I know of that you don't only drive onto the train you ride in your vehicle for a pretty decently long trip. I would think riding your car on a train for 45 minutes a pretty long example. And they are all open air autoracks think of the amazing view. Get there early get the lead spot on the upper deck of an autorack and it's like a dome view. 



MARC Rider said:


> When I was at the TRB meeting a couple weeks ago, I attended a meeting of the Passenger Rail Advisory Committee (I forget the exact name of the committee.) I guy got up and identified himself as working for the Rocky Mountaineer (I didn't get his name), and he was interested in obtaining copies of the original studies that were done in the 1960s on the original Auto Train concept. I don't think he was speaking for the Rocky Mountaineer, that the company was actually interested in starting such a service, but he did say that he thought there might be some places where it might be a viable possibility. I think he said Chicago-Denver (the terminals being on the outskirts of both cities, out by the highways.) He also talked about Ro-Ro truck train service to allow the truckers to bypass difficult stretches of road, where the trains would keep the trailers moving, and the drivers would ride along, presumably in passenger cars, during their mandatory rest periods. I could see a train like that running Grand Junction to Denver or Reno to Sacramento, or even Pittsburgh to the east coast.



Now that is really rather interesting and I would love to get a copy of the original study myself. Not because I want to open an Auto Train (Granted I've had dumber ideas and done those) but I just want to read the study. I'm wondering if it is someone who is thinking he could make a run with it. We don't obviously know what his job title is but lets say he is in management. He probably would know how to work with the private railroads to get a new service started. So maybe there is a glimmer of hope on this. I wonder where I could get a copy of the original study again purely from curiosity. Or at least that's what I'm telling my girlfriend. 



dlagrua said:


> I believe that there is a very slim chance that Amtrak will add another Autotrain any time soon.. Autotrain Corporation once had a Louisville-Sanford route but here was no way to get that combined train end to end without many stops on the way. It was loaded and boarded in a freight yard West of Lousiville and pulled by the Amtrak Floridian. This slowed the route considerably for standard passengers. The tracks were also very slow though Kentucky and Indiana. Some parts even had a 30 mph limit. The train ended up providing a very slowtrip taking something like 36 hours. It was a good idea for midwest snowbirds but IMO not implemented properly.



Well I think originally that train ran independent. Now the problem for the Floridian/South Wind wasn't the Auto-Train on it but really it was Penn Central's abysmal track in the state of Indiana. The L&N was in a vastly better shape in that time period, same with the Seaboard Coastline. I think the proble mwith Louisville was the location. There are plenty of snow birds coming out of the Midwest too and far worse weather to deal with. The problem was I would have located the station further north. I think they were trying to save on a trainset and that didn't really work well for the business model.


----------



## jiml (Jan 26, 2022)

toddinde said:


> The Northeast to Florida is a unique market. An auto train is a hugely labor intensive endeavor, with expensive, unique equipment. Who are the subset of people who really want to take their own car on vacation rather than renting a car? They’re people who will be spending enough time at their destination to make the cost of putting their car on the train worthwhile, like a month or two. The Florida snowbirds. A ski vacation to Colorado is not that kind of trip. Unless the charge to bring a car is cheap, people won’t do it. In a world of rental cars and Uber’s, it’s hard to think of a market where the juice would be worth the squeeze.


The only thing that has skewed that argument is the recent shortage/outrageous pricing of rental cars in many markets. If things ever return to "normal" you are absolutely correct.


----------



## jiml (Jan 26, 2022)

Seaboard92 said:


> The most interesting of these that couldn't happen in the USA is a service like the Sylt Shuttle. It is the only Auto-Train I know of that you don't only drive onto the train you ride in your vehicle for a pretty decently long trip. I would think riding your car on a train for 45 minutes a pretty long example. And they are all open air autoracks think of the amazing view. Get there early get the lead spot on the upper deck of an autorack and it's like a dome view.


The English Channel car shuttle is similar, although a bit shorter. The car carriers are enclosed however, since the view ain't that great.


----------



## jiml (Jan 26, 2022)

Seaboard92 said:


> There are plenty of snow birds coming out of the Midwest too and far worse weather to deal with.


Correct. The majority of our snowbird group in NW Florida came from the Midwest.


----------



## Seaboard92 (Jan 26, 2022)

I think your problems you have with the original Midwest Auto Train were really the end points. Louisville was too far south of Chicago. I see that Louisville has a good catchment area Cincinnati, Dayton, Indianapolis, Columbus, and St. Louis. But if you are going to drive that far you are probably going to drive the rest of the way. Putting it in Chicago area makes sense. Then you are right up there on Chicago, Northern Indiana, and Milwaukee. And you probably could pull out of Michigan as well.


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 26, 2022)

toddinde said:


> The Northeast to Florida is a unique market. An auto train is a hugely labor intensive endeavor, with expensive, unique equipment. Who are the subset of people who really want to take their own car on vacation rather than renting a car? They’re people who will be spending enough time at their destination to make the cost of putting their car on the train worthwhile, like a month or two. The Florida snowbirds. A ski vacation to Colorado is not that kind of trip. Unless the charge to bring a car is cheap, people won’t do it. In a world of rental cars and Uber’s, it’s hard to think of a market where the juice would be worth the squeeze.


Totally disagree. If you're thinking of the present Auto-train as a model, I'd suggest you could be right but many of us in this forum are not thinking of 19 car carriers on a train - just ONE to start. And not necessarily on every train. When that car is continually booked up, then consider more cars or more city pairs or whatever. And there are alternatives to Amtrak doing it all themselves.

I would add me to the list of users wherever it was possible for me to go that way. It's the freedom to route how and where I want. I can drive to the nearest loading city, put my car on to the end point (and that doesn't have to be where the train ends up), pick up MY car and drive and tour my way to a different train to go as much as possible home then drive the rest of the way. It's real freedom. And a lot less than those rental drop-off charges. The convenience of my car combined with the reduced driving of the train.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider (Jan 26, 2022)

If one could locate a Chicago area terminal well, it could serve multiple routes. One to Florida and another west, perhaps varying seasonally (and probably not daily).


----------



## jiml (Jan 27, 2022)

Seaboard92 said:


> I think your problems you have with the original Midwest Auto Train were really the end points. Louisville was too far south of Chicago. I see that Louisville has a good catchment area Cincinnati, Dayton, Indianapolis, Columbus, and St. Louis. But if you are going to drive that far you are probably going to drive the rest of the way.


Yes, southbound at Louisville is about where the weather gets better most winters.


----------



## jis (Jan 27, 2022)

I would submit that the relative commercial success of the Virginia - Central Florida Auto Train has a lot to do with its 18 or so hours running time which makes it possible for it to operate with just two sets of most expensive things.

But as pointed out, that has relatively little to do with a model where each train is envisaged to carry an auto carrier or two. There the expensive thing will be the staff and facilities at the points where those carriers are loaded and unloaded and attached/detached to/from the train, and the incremental fares brought in would likely be expected to cover a substantial part of the incremental cost.


----------



## toddinde (Jan 28, 2022)

me_little_me said:


> Totally disagree. If you're thinking of the present Auto-train as a model, I'd suggest you could be right but many of us in this forum are not thinking of 19 car carriers on a train - just ONE to start. And not necessarily on every train. When that car is continually booked up, then consider more cars or more city pairs or whatever. And there are alternatives to Amtrak doing it all themselves.
> 
> I would add me to the list of users wherever it was possible for me to go that way. It's the freedom to route how and where I want. I can drive to the nearest loading city, put my car on to the end point (and that doesn't have to be where the train ends up), pick up MY car and drive and tour my way to a different train to go as much as possible home then drive the rest of the way. It's real freedom. And a lot less than those rental drop-off charges. The convenience of my car combined with the reduced driving of the train.


I don’t know what the size of this very niche market is. I know that B&O/C&O tried it between Chicago and Washington. It might get some following. Twice weekly Chicago-LA/Chicago-Bay Area/Chicago-Northwest/Chicago-Texas. I’m not a guy who likes to rain on ideas. Maybe start with a twice weekly to Denver or LA, and see how it goes. I still think the terminal costs are a killer. It will also delay the trains that have the cars attached. A switch engine has to pull the cars off the rear of the train, and passengers have to get off. A crew then has to drive the autos off the auto racks. It just seems like a huge investment when if Amtrak just marketed their trains, ridership would increase without all the capital costs.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 29, 2022)

toddinde said:


> when if Amtrak just marketed their trains


What is this "if" you speak of?


----------



## Cal (Jan 29, 2022)

Ryan said:


> What is this "if" you speak of?


Agreed, Amtrak does market their trains fairly frequently. I see ads on TV during prime-time fairly frequently, and I've also heard ads from then on Spotify. I don't recall hearing/seeing ads for long distance trains though.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 29, 2022)

@Cal looks like you're in Southern California - are the ads on TV on "local" stations or "network" stations. Also, are they for all of Amtrak or the Amtrak trains in California?

I ask because I don't see any ads on TV where I live in Florida for Amtrak. My brother has heard ads on the radio when he is in Tamps - but there have not been any on the radio stations from Jacksonville and/or Gainesville.

And the ads that he has heard have certainly not qualified as "fairly frequently"


----------



## Cal (Jan 29, 2022)

Qapla said:


> @Cal looks like you're in Southern California - are the ads on TV on "local" stations or "network" stations. Also, are they for all of Amtrak or the Amtrak trains in California?


Honestly I don't exactly remember but I'm pretty sure it was network, and just the surfline. 

Online (YouTube, Instagram, and just general browsing) I have seen Amtrak ads, IIRC for the NEC, California, and long distance.


----------



## Qapla (Jan 30, 2022)

Regular TV ads during primetime network TV shows would be good ... maybe not Superbowl ads - but advertising during sports events would be a start


----------



## tgstubbs1 (Jan 30, 2022)

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

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


----------



## west point (Jan 30, 2022)

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

GOT buckets of money?


----------



## cirdan (Jan 31, 2022)

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

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


----------



## me_little_me (Jan 31, 2022)

cirdan said:


> I think one of the problems with having auto carriers that load and unload at intermediate stops is the need to switch those cars and to have suitable ramps to on and offload vehicles. This would require having switching engines sitting around doing nothing for most of the day plus those extra tracks etc.
> 
> Maybe a solution would be having auto carriers that can unload without being switched. The channel tunnel for example uses vehicles that can load and unload through side doors. We could also consider placing automobiles inside container-like boxes that can be lifted onto and off trains using cranes or forklifts. Lastly, many micro cars are sufficuently short to be stowed onto a train breadthways, which means you can drive them on and off straight from a platform if the height is correct.


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

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

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

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


----------



## Qapla (Jan 31, 2022)

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

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


----------

