# Auto Train: Why not more routes?



## TomLang

I’m on the west coast and have only seen the Auto Train in YouTube videos. I’d love to see auto carriers included on more of the long distance routes. Probably just a pipe dream.


----------



## tgstubbs1

You're absolutely right in my opinion. It's not fair to the rest of the country. 

With electric cars, crowded highways, gas prices, how can they be so shortsighted?

Well, it would cost a lot of money, probably $50-100 Billion, but I think it would be worthwhile as a great, nationwide project.


----------



## me_little_me

tgstubbs1 said:


> Well, it would cost a lot of money, probably $50-100 Billion, but I think it would be worthwhile as a great, nationwide project.


Where did you get that number unless you think that the autotrain (and it's future possible lookalikes) make stops at every station along the way to drop off and pick up cars.

On the other hand, if Amtrak started slowly on selected routes adding one or two car carriers between selected cities (or nearby more convenient locations along the route), that the cost would be $50B+ with no positive return on investment.

Asking for more autotrains (not necessarily new separate trains) does not mean every place every day nor even new trains.


----------



## bratkinson

The independent-company Auto-Train in the late '70s-early '80s tried to expand by adding a Louisville to Florida route. Why Louisville and not Chicago-area? That would have required an extra set of equipment vs same-day turnaround in Louisville and they didn't have the capital dollars to do it. A couple of accidents wrecked enough equipment that they didn't have the money to repair, so they ultimately went bust.

The Amtrak Auto Train makes sense today because NY-FL is STILL the busiest passenger long distance route(s) they had...2 trains per day until 10/1/20 and STILL has daily operation since then...PLUS Auto Train! Both Silvers have a high percentage of senior citizens that winter in Florida and don't want to drive all the way, so that's a plus for Auto Train. To make any Auto Train a success, it has to start with a high demand for travel from A to B *-AND-* be time competitive with driving!

Crossing mountains instantly removes being time competitive with driving as passenger trains ascend/descend at about 25mph due to horsepower to weight ratio ascending and remaining safely in control with appropriate braking descending. Here in western Massachusetts, obeying the speed limit (I don't) I can drive Springfield to Albany in 90 minutes, give or take, Interstate 90 all the way. Meanwhile, the 'pokey' train #448 ALB-SPG takes a shade less than 2.5 hours on a good day, ie, when #449 is on time and they meet west of Pittsfield. I've waited on both those trains too many times to count because one or the other is late. Crossing the Rocky Mountains, Sierras, and Cascades on a train adds roughly a full day vs driving. The Coast Starlight has a couple of mountain climbs, and the Sunset Ltd has to get out of the Los Angeles basin. The Alleghenies are crossed on the Cardinal and Capitol Ltd routes. All possible routes CHI-FL have too much single track and slow running which eliminates that possibility as well.

That leaves CHI-NYC (Lakeshore Ltd), CHI-NOL (City of New Orleans) as candidates. Is there sufficient demand to even warrant a second passenger train much less an Auto Train on those routes? Do large numbers of 'old folks' routinely travel between those endpoints? I don't think so.

Assuming that some overnight route CAN be determined that would have sufficient year-round traffic, then the next question is 'got money?' Billions with a B would be needed up front for equipment and terminals. Once operating, T&E crews as well as locomotive fuel stops, etc have to be arranged, in addition to paying the host railroad(s) whatever they determine is a fair price for use of their trackage. Amtrak only pays an incremental fee whereas a new startup would be paying 'full tilt' fees. Those daily operating costs is the difference between 'make' or 'break'. And don't forget the investors 'return on investments' is also required.


----------



## Trogdor

This question comes up maybe once or twice every year.

The reason the current Auto Train works is because it is a fairly fast railroad on a heavily traveled corridor with basically just one way to travel (by road) between the northeast and Florida. Therefore, if you’re going to drive, you’re going to go past the Auto Train terminal on both ends of the route.

There really is no other corridor that offers the same combination of factors. Folks have mentioned midwest to Florida or Arizona. The problem is that the “midwest” is such a large region that there is no single point to funnel people through. Therefore, getting to a hypothetical auto train terminal would require people to go out of their way, and/or drive practically halfway there before even getting to the train. At that point, why bother?

There’s also the fact that DC-Florida is pretty quick on the train, board in the mid-afternoon, arrive the next morning. Once you start making routes longer, it costs more to operate. The Auto Train is in a sort of “sweet spot” in terms of equipment requirements, crew costs, travel time (for passengers, it’s basically board, lounge, eat, sleep, wake up, arrive), etc. You’re not likely to find that on any other single route in the US.


----------



## TomLang

These answers make too much sense. I guess it's just a pipe dream.


----------



## dlagrua

I would say that there are enough snowbirds in the midwest to support an Autotrain there. IMO, the failure of the Louisville Ky to Sanford route had a few factors working against it. First off that Autotrain ran on some of the old routes of the L&N railroad. The tracks were in very poor condition and that limited speeds to 25 mph on several portions. Some of those routes are abandoned today. Another point is that the Autotrain attached to the Amtrak Floridian in a rail yard outside downtown Louisville and was detached in Sanford. The trip averaged 26 -30 hours long and the train was was hardly ever on time. I doubt that we will ever see it again as the will of the current management is not there to try any new LD routes.


----------



## Dakota 400

dlagrua said:


> I would say that there are enough snowbirds in the midwest to support an Autotrain there.



I agree that, at least, a seasonal Auto Train makes sense. Daily service? Probably not. But 2x or 3x per week? 



Trogdor said:


> The problem is that the “midwest” is such a large region that there is no single point to funnel people through.



I understand what you are saying, but the distances one would have to drive to get to a departure city, are they that much different than the distances one has to drive to get to/from Sanford in Florida? Or the distances that one has to drive from the Northeast to get to/from Lorton? Florida is a big State.


----------



## IndyLions

What about Fort Wayne IN for a Midwest to Florida Auto Train? It’s not that far out of the way for a number of Midwest cities - Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Toledo. And it would be a relatively short backtrack for Columbus, Cincinnati and Indianapolis.


----------



## gwolfdog

Dakota 400 said:


> I agree that, at least, a seasonal Auto Train makes sense. Daily service? Probably not. But 2x or 3x per week?
> 
> 
> 
> I understand what you are saying, but the distances one would have to drive to get to a departure city, are they that much different than the distances one has to drive to get to/from Sanford in Florida? Or the distances that one has to drive from the Northeast to get to/from Lorton? Florida is a big State.


To get to the Auto Train and then from Sanford to Fort Lauderdale meant 9 hours of driving. Made for a long trip with overnight in Lorton (old & beat).


----------



## jebr

Dakota 400 said:


> I understand what you are saying, but the distances one would have to drive to get to a departure city, are they that much different than the distances one has to drive to get to/from Sanford in Florida? Or the distances that one has to drive from the Northeast to get to/from Lorton? Florida is a big State.



The markets within a similar driving distance are smaller, and it's still "out of the way" for a lot of markets, which cuts into the time savings of being able to ride through the night. If you draw a line straight north from DC, basically everyone to the east of that line would pass by the current Auto Train terminal in Lorton. That includes most of the DC metro area, Baltimore, Philadelphia, NYC, Boston, New England, and much of upstate New York. Not all of those are conveniently timed for a morning trip to Lorton to catch the train, but it will clearly save anyone going from there to Florida 11-12 hours, without having account for the time spent driving "out of the way" to the station.

It's worth remembering that you have to account for at least 3 of those hours, and likely 4, being spent transferring from car to train. You must arrive and be checked in an hour and a half before departure, and so realistically you should be arriving no later than two hours beforehand. Add variable traffic to hit a set time, and that grows a bit more to have a buffer. On the other end, it'll take some time to get your car off the train. If I'm going two to three hours out of my way to catch the train, that cuts even more into the time savings over just driving the full way, even with the time spent stopped to sleep.



IndyLions said:


> What about Fort Wayne IN for a Midwest to Florida Auto Train? It’s not that far out of the way for a number of Midwest cities - Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland and Toledo. And it would be a relatively short backtrack for Columbus, Cincinnati and Indianapolis.



It's also not on the way for almost every major Midwest metropolitan area. That, again, cuts into the time savings offered by an Auto Train. If I'm having to go out of my way to get to the train station, it's a lot less likely that I'll find enough time savings by taking the train to make the switch.

There's also the timing of any train - you basically need, at minimum, an afternoon or later departure and a morning arrival to allow people to have enough time on both ends to drive to/from the station same-day. Some people might get a hotel room on one end or the other and still take the train, but a lot less than if they can at least do the rest of the driving the day of arrival/departure. There's very few "on the way" cities where track speeds make that workable, and by the time you start getting to where multiple routes converge (such as Nashville,) you're far enough away from the major metros that you can't make the same-day timing work.


----------



## Siegmund

jebr said:


> There's also the timing of any train - you basically need, at minimum, an afternoon or later departure and a morning arrival to allow people to have enough time on both ends to drive to/from the station same-day.



This suggests there might be some interesting possibilities ~36 hours apart, with two nights on board. (West-side suburban) Chicago to Phoenix is the one I'd guess would be most likely to succeed, with the help of snowbirds. Seattle to LA on a schedule opposite to the Coast Starlight's would work timing-wise though I can't imagine many people being eager to drive in southern CA.


----------



## me_little_me

Again, why not start with a one or two car carrier add-ons to an existing train? This would reduce startup costs dramatically, test the waters and get more people to travel by train.
A little work needs to be done to find suitable start and end points
The trip would be longer than a non-stop but if demand is there, then a non-stop train can be added.
A test could be done between Lorton and somewhere near Chicago by having an engine pull a sleeper plus car carriers to/from Lorton to meet the Capitol Limited to be attached to it.


----------



## Trogdor

me_little_me said:


> Again, why not start with a one or two car carrier add-ons to an existing train? This would reduce startup costs dramatically, test the waters and get more people to travel by train.
> A little work needs to be done to find suitable start and end points
> The trip would be longer than a non-stop but if demand is there, then a non-stop train can be added.
> A test could be done between Lorton and somewhere near Chicago by having an engine pull a sleeper plus car carriers to/from Lorton to meet the Capitol Limited to be attached to it.



It wouldn’t reduce costs that much. Car carriers are (relatively) cheap. Building a terminal to load/unload the cars would be fairly expensive, and would cost more-or-less the same whether you have 1 autorack or 15.

Then you have to factor in how much time it would add to the schedule. There’s nowhere near Chicago Union Station to have such a facility, so you’d have to add the switching time to add/remove the car, plus the fact that the train would then be limited to 70 mph (I don’t believe the auto racks are certified for anything faster).

Even ignoring any speed reductions/required switching times, an Auto Train-Capitol Limited connection would be about 42 hours and 2 nights, vs. 17 hours (Google Maps driving time) plus one overnight, so call it 25-30 hours with rest stops. Florida-Chicago via DC is not at all direct. And if Chicago isn’t your destination, the time difference would be even greater.


----------



## me_little_me

Trogdor said:


> Even ignoring any speed reductions/required switching times, an Auto Train-Capitol Limited connection would be about 42 hours and 2 nights, vs. 17 hours (Google Maps driving time) plus one overnight, so call it 25-30 hours with rest stops. Florida-Chicago via DC is not at all direct. And if Chicago isn’t your destination, the time difference would be even greater.


I wouldn't even consider doing any kind of connection between the AutoTrain and a Chicago car train that was attached to, say, the CL because Amtrak's performance would never let them work until such time as Amtrak really gets priority on the rails. I only mentioned Lorton because it already has the facilities, it should not be a major effort for a limited attached couple of cars and the hours could be adjusted so they would not step on each other allowing for shared crews. In fact, Lorton is out of the way for the CL but might be ideal for some cars attached to the Crescent (to near Atlanta) or Carolinian to Charlotte.


----------



## jiml

Potential expansion of the Auto Train routes has been discussed many times, and most of those fed into the already existing terminal in Florida. That means you'd only need a new loading facility at one end, e.g. somewhere in upstate New York, Michigan or Chicago area. (I'd be a big fan of either of the first two.) Most here thought it would simply not be viable or someone would have tried it and Amtrak might be doing it. Being someone who travels south regularly - often driving, part of what guarantees the success of the current Auto Train is no one wanting to drive I-95 and the Auto Train being a faster option. Fortunately those of us not on the coast have the option of better and less-busy highways to choose from - in our case I-75 and I-65 (to northwest Florida). Couple that factor with less direct rail routes and the cost of new terminus construction and there's not really a recipe for another successful Auto Train.


----------



## Palmland

As we have discussed before the route that to me had the most potential for another A-T service is the Chicago area to Denver area.

The SWC route seems to be the most promising as west of KC the route has minimal freight traffic which would improve reliability and KS has already invested in its maintenance. Using the SWC schedule as a guide, a mid afternoon train with a 4:00pm departure, perhaps from the Naperville/Aurora area (I-55, 355, 88 nearby), wold arrive Trinidad, CO at about 10:30 am. Return would be a similar schedule.

Denver is a major city in its own right, but of course nearby are the Rockies with attractions for skiing in the winter and sightseeing/camping the rest of the year. Amtrak station in Trinidad is adjacent to I-25 that is a straight shot to Colorado Springs and Denver or NM, AZ, and CA points. It avoids that long boring, for many, drive across the heartland. There is a small BNSF yard next to the station in Trinidad that could perhaps could be partially repurposed as an A-T terminal.


----------



## Qapla

I still think some means of adding cars in JAX would be a nice addition to the AT - even if it was only a couple days of the week.


----------



## tgstubbs1

bratkinson said:


> To make any Auto Train a success, it has to start with a high demand for travel from A to B *-AND-* be time competitive with driving!



I think there are several other motivations to take Auto train.

Security and safety, even in bad weather. 

Fuel savings and less wear and tear on your vehicle. The IRS approved mileage rate for automobiles is 57.5 cents per mile, thats over $500 for the 855 mile trip,

Less CO2 emissions compared to driving and a solution for people with EVs means the Auto train is environmentally friendly.

Luxury and Convenience. My computer says it's a 27 hour drive from Boston to Orlando, and Lorton is over 13 hours. The traffic is terrible, etc. etc. etc. so it could take even longer. How many motel stops is that?



bratkinson said:


> Crossing mountains instantly removes being time competitive with driving as passenger trains ascend/descend at about 25mph due to horsepower to weight ratio ascending and remaining safely in control with appropriate braking descending.
> 
> Crossing the Rocky Mountains, Sierras, and Cascades on a train adds roughly a full day vs driving. The Coast Starlight has a couple of mountain climbs, and the Sunset Ltd has to get out of the Los Angeles basin.
> 
> Do large numbers of 'old folks' routinely travel between those endpoints? I don't think so.


 
This is really not the point, if you ask me. I don't know the actual speed of LD trains like the SWC, but the schedule shows about a 42 hour trip from CHI to LA. I don't think anyone can drive that quickly. The Auto train is faster than the Silver Meteor, maybe because it doesn't make as many stops, but I doubt it is any faster than the SWC.

Most people driving from Chicago to LA would take several motel stops. 

As far as old folks go, I can assure you that they are everywhere. The Auto trains serves more than snowbirds otherwise they wouldn't have a year round business.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Trogdor said:


> The reason the current Auto Train works is because it is a fairly fast railroad on a heavily traveled corridor with basically just one way to travel (by road) between the northeast and Florida. Therefore, if you’re going to drive, you’re going to go past the Auto Train terminal on both ends of the route.
> 
> There really is no other corridor that offers the same combination of factors. Folks have mentioned midwest to Florida or Arizona. The problem is that the “midwest” is such a large region that there is no single point to funnel people through. Therefore, getting to a hypothetical auto train terminal would require people to go out of their way, and/or drive practically halfway there before even getting to the train. At that point, why bother?



Don't all LD Amtrak trains to the west coast essentially "funnel' through Chicago? (except Sunset Limited)
Why wouldn't they pick up west bound traffic from places like Detroit, Cleveland, Indianapolis and for that matter the entire NE region? 

I think the EB could have an auto dock somewhere between Minneapolis and Milwaukee with another terminal in Vancouver, WA. I am sure people in Minneapolis would prefer driving a few hours in the wrong direction versus driving all the way to the west coast. 

The SWC could share a dock with the CZ in Galesburg. Maybe a good endpoint would be Williams or Flagstaff. It's not that far to Phoenix (or even LA). People retire all over the state of Arizona, so they're used to driving, but I bet they hate long distance drives way out of state the most.

People from a number of cities in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, (in addition to the NE) etc. could easily drive to Galesburg and it would save hundreds of miles compared to driving all the way. 

I don't know if the distances are great enough for more routes within the NE region. But the traffic is a lot worse, so that could be an incentive to add some.


----------



## WICT106

tgstubbs1 said:


> Don't all LD Amtrak trains to the west coast essentially "funnel' through Chicago? (except Sunset Limited)
> Why wouldn't they pick up west bound traffic from places like Detroit, Cleveland, Indianapolis and for that matter the entire NE region?
> 
> I think the EB could have an auto dock somewhere between Minneapolis and Milwaukee with another terminal in Vancouver, WA. I am sure people in Minneapolis would prefer driving a few hours in the wrong direction versus driving all the way to the west coast.
> 
> The SWC could share a dock with the CZ in Galesburg. Maybe a good endpoint would be Williams or Flagstaff. It's not that far to Phoenix (or even LA). People retire all over the state of Arizona, so they're used to driving, but I bet they hate long distance drives way out of state the most.
> 
> People from a number of cities in Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, (in addition to the NE) etc. could easily drive to Galesburg and it would save hundreds of miles compared to driving all the way.
> 
> I don't know if the distances are great enough for more routes within the NE region. But the traffic is a lot worse, so that could be an incentive to add some.


One big issue is that the majority of Midwesterners have never taken a train trip -- not even once. They have no experience taking a train anywhere, but we have plenty of experience driving, and driving everywhere. Drive a few hours in the wrong direction ? Big nope on that one -- many of us would simply drive the correct direction, and then keep driving. ( I would rather take the train, but that's my personal preference. The majority of Midwesterners won't even consider an Auto-Train like what you describe ). 

Another issue to consider is that Midwesterners don't have the strong affinity for going to Florida to the degree the Northeasterners do. Midwesterners go to AZ, or Southern CA, or HI, or southern TX ( a few, during the pre- COVID times, might even go to Mexico, or Belize, if they had the means ). One reason the Auto Train works where it does is the affinity for folks from the Northeast to travel to Florida -- that's not the case in the Midwest.


----------



## bratkinson

In response to several replies about having pickups/setouts at other than endpoints I have several thoughts:

1. To stop the train, make a cut (behind the locomotives?), proceed forward to a point beyond the switch, backup to make the hitch, test the connection, proceed forward far enough the last car clears the switch, back down to the disconnected passenger train (yep, the passengers are without HEP the entire time!...no A/C, no heat, no functioning toilets!), make and test (a slight yank) the hitch, make air and electric connections (would that require a craft position other than onboard conductors?...or a local yard switch crew 'on standby' waiting for the train to arrive?), perform a brake test, then wait for a clear signal to highball. That's 45-60 minutes on a GOOD day! Meanwhile, passengers whose cars were just added to the train, where were they the whole time? Presumably the train originally stopped with the sleepers in front of the station. But then you get into safety concerns with disconnecting or connecting to the train and the attendant jolts and boarding in the dark at night without HEP. Recalling the fun and games of simply adding or subtracting M&E cars and sometimes Roadrailers to the Amtrak trains I was on, 30-60 minutes was the 'normal' time. And that was usually at the rear of the train, not somewhere up front. I was angered every time at the those delays. 15 minutes would be OK, but 30 or more, no way!

2. Added costs likely exceed the revenue generated. I'm thinking that like the intermodal business where short-hauls don't make business sense, I suspect there's some not-yet-determined 'magic number' of miles and revenue that makes business sense for an Auto Train operation. Would a 500 mile Auto Train make money? I don't think so, especially since it can be comfortably driven in 8-9 hours including a couple of rest stops.

3. Chicago-Denver was suggested and makes sense as it is quite close in mileage with the existing Auto Train. But is there sufficient demand? Perhaps a check of pre-Covid airline schedules WAS to Florida compared to Chicago to Denver might be a gauge. Note that I said Florida rather than Sanford as there's countless destinations within Florida easily accessed from Sanford, especially Disneyworld, and major cities such as Orlando, Jacksonville and Tampa within a 2 hour drive. Arriving in the morning in Florida makes south Florida accessible in the day as well. The snow-bunny business is big business to/from Florida, both for vacations as well as all winter. How many travelers would spend the summer or winter in a cabin in the mountains? How many major destinations are within a 2-3 hour drive from Denver? How many attractions comparable to Disneyworld are near Denver? Maybe skiers could be enticed in the wintertime, and hikers/campers in the summer, although I suspect there aren't enough of them to make that a 'demand' level.

4. I think that a separate Auto Train location would be necessary for all points, including pickup & setout points. For example, how many passengers would be happy to leave their car in the covered 'drop off' area at Chicago Union Station to a stranger that promises to get it loaded on the trilevel autorack 5 or 6 blocks away? What about arrivals? Where would arriving cars be parked so passengers can pick them up. Clearly, locating out town such as Dyer IN or Galesburg IL would work best, especially with low-cost land available. Locating on the best rail line from Chicago to Florida or Denver is also crucial. Knowing firsthand how CSX gives the Cardinal the shaft on the ex-Monon line, I'd definitely consider another railroad out of Chicago for ramp placement decision making. By the way, the location should be an easy off/easy on in both directions to a freeway. Wandering down country lanes for 10 minutes could certainly lose some drivers.

5. And, of course, would the railroads involved be willing to host an extra Amtrak train each way without paying them an arm and a leg for such things as extra sidings, new signaling, and anything else they can dream up. When Covid is over and done with, and Amtrak returns the LD trains to daily operation, anyone want to bet the railroads WON'T charge Amtrak extra to 'add' 4 extra trains per week to the route? Lookup the ridiculous numbers UP and CSX have come up with through the years to make the Sunset Ltd and Cardinal a daily operation for the answer.

While pie in the sky thinking is what motivates business expansion as well as new business creation, one must always consider what is the 'market' for the product and both the startup and ongoing costs of running the business. "Build it and they will come' doesn't automatically spell S-U-C-C-E-S-S. Investors want to be very sure they'll get a good return on investment before they'll put down millions of their money. Or, if pure speculators, they want a big portion of the business ala 'The Shark Tank'.


----------



## Trogdor

bratkinson said:


> In response to several replies about having pickups/setouts at other than endpoints I have several thoughts:



Generally agree with points 2, 3 and 4 (and sort-of 5). For point #1, I agree that enroute switching would be a source of delay, though I don’t think you’d need to switch in/out passenger cars, particularly if the hypothetical auto train stop was near the end of the regular route anyway. Just have the entire passenger consist go to the end of the line, and auto train passengers would board/alight as they would any other station stop.

For #5, they absolutely would charge three arms and a leg to host another regular long-distance train. However, I am assuming (hoping) Amtrak has suspended service in such a manner that they retain rights to resume service at previous frequencies at the same terms as they previously had. So, the “extra” will only be to go back to what they were previously paying vs. the current reduced schedule.


----------



## railiner

The Auto Train, does not appeal to everyone, even in its best target market. 
Once again, I drove my Prius up to my Queens apartment from West Palm Beach, and returned a few weeks later. 
My return trip was on Wednesday. I left Queens at 9:30 AM, passed the Lorton Auto Train station exit at about 2:30 PM, probably about the time I would arrive there if taking the Auto Train. I arrived at my home at 6:05, Thanksgiving morning. The train did pretty well...it departed Lorton at 3:42 PM, eighteen minutes early, and arrived Sanford at 7:56 AM, an hour and two minutes early...pretty good performance. But I was in my bed by 6:30 AM, where if I got off the Auto Train, by the time my car was unloaded, and I drove home from Sanford, I probably wouldn't until after 11:00 AM. And it cost me a lot less...


----------



## tgstubbs1

railiner said:


> The Auto Train, does not appeal to everyone, even in its best target market.
> Once again, I drove my Prius up to my Queens apartment from West Palm Beach, and returned a few weeks later.
> My return trip was on Wednesday. I left Queens at 9:30 AM, passed the Lorton Auto Train station exit at about 2:30 PM, probably about the time I would arrive there if taking the Auto Train. I arrived at my home at 6:05, Thanksgiving morning. The train did pretty well...it departed Lorton at 3:42 PM, eighteen minutes early, and arrived Sanford at 7:56 AM, an hour and two minutes early...pretty good performance. But I was in my bed by 6:30 AM, where if I got off the Auto Train, by the time my car was unloaded, and I drove home from Sanford, I probably wouldn't until after 11:00 AM. And it cost me a lot less...


Why would you go to bed at 6:30 AM?


----------



## railiner

tgstubbs1 said:


> Why would you go to bed at 6:30 AM?


After driving 20 hours, it was about time.  Still got up in time for football and turkey dinner....


----------



## jebr

tgstubbs1 said:


> I think the EB could have an auto dock somewhere between Minneapolis and Milwaukee with another terminal in Vancouver, WA. I am sure people in Minneapolis would prefer driving a few hours in the wrong direction versus driving all the way to the west coast.



Why am I needing my own car out in the Pacific Northwest? It's not going to be cheap to haul the vehicle - Amtrak currently charges $258 one way, or $466 round trip, for a standard vehicle on the current Auto Train. With the mileage roughly doubled between the two, I'd assume a doubling of those prices, so roughly $900 just for the vehicle round-trip. I could rent a car for a week or two for a lot less than that, and if I only need a car for part of the trip I have that option.

Most people who are making that drive are doing so because it's the cheapest option - variable costs to operate a car are closer to 20-30 cents a mile, and if you have a beater car it's probably less than that (that's why college students do road trips - the only cost at the time is gas and maybe an extra oil change.) There's also a segment that enjoys road trips for the freedom to stop whenever and see a new roadside attraction, visit a random city, etc. - and that market would not find an auto train useful. The main market that would want their own car would be snowbirds or other long-term trips - if you're needing a car for a few months, it's cheaper to bring your own car at that point.

That said, I still don't see a large enough, especially bidirectional, market to support an Illinois to Arizona train, or really any other Midwest-to-somewhere else market. It might be a bit more convenient to not have to drive, but if it's going to cost me $500 plus an Amtrak roomette to go one-way, and I'm still having to drive a few hours on either end? That pays for a lot of gas and hotel rooms along the way, plus the freedom to not have to worry about making the train and its schedule.

With these discussions, I think it bears remembering that the Auto Train only basically breaks-even, and that's in the best market available for it, with very large markets on either end. If the Auto Train was making tons of money, it might be a different story, but with a break-even proposition it seems unlikely that a new service, in less ideal markets, would make money even operationally, and almost certainly not enough to break even with the additional capital expenses needed to start a route.


----------



## toddinde

I think the Auto Train really only fits the niche it’s in, Chicago to Florida, or Chicago to Arizona. First of all, who is really itching to take their own car on vacation? Most people rent cars at their destination. The lack being able to bring your own car doesn’t hurt the airlines. I can’t see how this is appealing to large numbers of riders. People who want to bring their cars are generally going to a second home where renting a car wouldn’t make sense. Those second homes need to be concentrated near a terminal, like a state that is a narrow peninsula. As others have mentioned, you have the huge expense of building auto train terminals and employees to load and unload cars. It isn’t really compatible with existing trains and would lengthen schedules. We are rapidly moving away from a car culture. I don’t think the auto train concept i replicable.


----------



## toddinde

jebr said:


> Why am I needing my own car out in the Pacific Northwest? It's not going to be cheap to haul the vehicle - Amtrak currently charges $258 one way, or $466 round trip, for a standard vehicle on the current Auto Train. With the mileage roughly doubled between the two, I'd assume a doubling of those prices, so roughly $900 just for the vehicle round-trip. I could rent a car for a week or two for a lot less than that, and if I only need a car for part of the trip I have that option.
> 
> Most people who are making that drive are doing so because it's the cheapest option - variable costs to operate a car are closer to 20-30 cents a mile, and if you have a beater car it's probably less than that (that's why college students do road trips - the only cost at the time is gas and maybe an extra oil change.) There's also a segment that enjoys road trips for the freedom to stop whenever and see a new roadside attraction, visit a random city, etc. - and that market would not find an auto train useful. The main market that would want their own car would be snowbirds or other long-term trips - if you're needing a car for a few months, it's cheaper to bring your own car at that point.
> 
> That said, I still don't see a large enough, especially bidirectional, market to support an Illinois to Arizona train, or really any other Midwest-to-somewhere else market. It might be a bit more convenient to not have to drive, but if it's going to cost me $500 plus an Amtrak roomette to go one-way, and I'm still having to drive a few hours on either end? That pays for a lot of gas and hotel rooms along the way, plus the freedom to not have to worry about making the train and its schedule.
> 
> With these discussions, I think it bears remembering that the Auto Train only basically breaks-even, and that's in the best market available for it, with very large markets on either end. If the Auto Train was making tons of money, it might be a different story, but with a break-even proposition it seems unlikely that a new service, in less ideal markets, would make money even operationally, and almost certainly not enough to break even with the additional capital expenses needed to start a route.


You’re right. If your taking the train or plane, you’re much more likely to rent a car at your destination. If you really want your own car, you’re going to drive. The Auto Train is a niche of a niche market.


----------



## toddinde

tgstubbs1 said:


> Why would you go to bed at 6:30 AM?


After driving for 16 hours. There’s nothing else you can do.


----------



## toddinde

WICT106 said:


> One big issue is that the majority of Midwesterners have never taken a train trip -- not even once. They have no experience taking a train anywhere, but we have plenty of experience driving, and driving everywhere. Drive a few hours in the wrong direction ? Big nope on that one -- many of us would simply drive the correct direction, and then keep driving. ( I would rather take the train, but that's my personal preference. The majority of Midwesterners won't even consider an Auto-Train like what you describe ).
> 
> Another issue to consider is that Midwesterners don't have the strong affinity for going to Florida to the degree the Northeasterners do. Midwesterners go to AZ, or Southern CA, or HI, or southern TX ( a few, during the pre- COVID times, might even go to Mexico, or Belize, if they had the means ). One reason the Auto Train works where it does is the affinity for folks from the Northeast to travel to Florida -- that's not the case in the Midwest.


That’s a really good point. The Auto Train works because you have a huge number of people concentrated in one place who want to go to another highly concentrated place, and not for a short period of time but to second homes. Also, rental cars are absurdly expensive in Florida so a multiple week rental would be ridiculously expensive. There was a proposal at one time for a Chicago to Northern Wisconsin auto train. I just don’t see a broad application for this. It works in Europe between Germany and Italy because people don’t want to drive through the Alps.


----------



## toddinde

tgstubbs1 said:


> You're absolutely right in my opinion. It's not fair to the rest of the country.
> 
> With electric cars, crowded highways, gas prices, how can they be so shortsighted?
> 
> Well, it would cost a lot of money, probably $50-100 Billion, but I think it would be worthwhile as a great, nationwide project.


Why wouldn’t most people just rent a car at their destination? I’m not seeing the market for this.


----------



## railiner

The future doesn't bode well for new auto train operation's. There is a belief among many, that when autonomous vehicles become dominant, private vehicle ownership will decline to only those in rural location's, and everyone will travel in "on demand" vehicles'. There will probably be competing nationwide fleets of these vehicles to become "member's" of...

Even for those who insist on paying the price for private ownership...fully autonomous vehicles mean you can sleep, dine, work, or play enroute, just like you could riding the train. And be taken from door to door, when and where you desire....

While this new technology is just in the 'teething' stage presently, I am confident most of us will live to see it happen.


----------



## gwolfdog

railiner said:


> The Auto Train, does not appeal to everyone, even in its best target market.
> Once again, I drove my Prius up to my Queens apartment from West Palm Beach, and returned a few weeks later.
> My return trip was on Wednesday. I left Queens at 9:30 AM, passed the Lorton Auto Train station exit at about 2:30 PM, probably about the time I would arrive there if taking the Auto Train. I arrived at my home at 6:05, Thanksgiving morning. The train did pretty well...it departed Lorton at 3:42 PM, eighteen minutes early, and arrived Sanford at 7:56 AM, an hour and two minutes early...pretty good performance. But I was in my bed by 6:30 AM, where if I got off the Auto Train, by the time my car was unloaded, and I drove home from Sanford, I probably wouldn't until after 11:00 AM. And it cost me a lot less...


You must be a Cannonball Run Veteran. They put Turbochargers on the Prius now? Diapers, Speed Balls and a Cooler?


----------



## Palmland

railiner said:


> I left Queens at 9:30 AM, passed the Lorton Auto Train station exit at about 2:30 PM, probably about the time I would arrive there if taking the Auto Train. I arrived at my home at 6:05, Thanksgiving morning.



I think what you describe is why many of us would prefer Auto Train. The last time I did the overnight to FL drive was when I was in college. I admire your energy, but it's a long boring drive.

Certainly the main benefit of A-T is that you can pack your car full of stuff and not have to rent at destination. Not a good choice for a quick trip, but for snowbirds wintering in FL or returning to the NE for a long visit it seems like a good option, especially for those who have disposable income where cost isn't a big factor.


----------



## jiml

WICT106 said:


> Another issue to consider is that Midwesterners don't have the strong affinity for going to Florida to the degree the Northeasterners do. Midwesterners go to AZ, or Southern CA, or HI, or southern TX ( a few, during the pre- COVID times, might even go to Mexico, or Belize, if they had the means ). One reason the Auto Train works where it does is the affinity for folks from the Northeast to travel to Florida -- that's not the case in the Midwest.


Actually our snowbird group in Northwest Florida has lots of people from Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota, in addition to those from the northeast. If you don't count the section through Tennessee, which is a mess, the bulk of I-65 is a big, wide open highway with little traffic outside cities - almost perfect for Mid-westerners.


----------



## Dakota 400

railiner said:


> After driving 20 hours, it was about time.  Still got up in time for football and turkey dinner....



You have your priorities right!  



Palmland said:


> Certainly the main benefit of A-T is that you can pack your car full of stuff and not have to rent at destination.



I completely agree. If one is an over-packer such as me, it helps making the decisions of "what to take/not take" easier. While I don't mind renting a car for a short period of time, 7-10 days, if I am going to be at my destination for a longer period of time, I like having my own car to drive.


----------



## railiner

I used to drive professionally, so I am used to long drives. And I did have about 600 pounds of household items on board...


----------



## jpakala

Driving to or from CA is a long, long drive with multiple nights spent for lodging en route unless you want to arrive dead. The Santa Fe, e.g., provided a night-day-night trip from Chicago (fewer hours of course from KC). Someone mentioned that route doesn't involve mountains the way the CA Zephyr's does, e.g. And as with Lorton and Sanford, any termini needn't and indeed shouldn't be inside a big city.


----------



## me_little_me

railiner said:


> The Auto Train, does not appeal to everyone, even in its best target market.
> Once again, I drove my Prius up to my Queens apartment from West Palm Beach, and returned a few weeks later.
> My return trip was on Wednesday. I left Queens at 9:30 AM, passed the Lorton Auto Train station exit at about 2:30 PM, probably about the time I would arrive there if taking the Auto Train. I arrived at my home at 6:05, Thanksgiving morning. The train did pretty well...it departed Lorton at 3:42 PM, eighteen minutes early, and arrived Sanford at 7:56 AM, an hour and two minutes early...pretty good performance. But I was in my bed by 6:30 AM, where if I got off the Auto Train, by the time my car was unloaded, and I drove home from Sanford, I probably wouldn't until after 11:00 AM. And it cost me a lot less...


That's okay for some people. For me:

I'd have shot a quarter of the idiots on the road and blasted a few more with my RPG after about 2 hours of driving in freeway traffic. Then, after a total of four hours, I'd have to stop for an overnight stay and see some point of interest before having a comfortable dinner and a relaxing evening. The next days would be the same although I'd probably start using my high power laser beam to put holes in the tires of the idiots just for practice.

I wish there were somewhere I could put my car onboard the train. All that ammo and laser energy saved would pay for the trip.


----------



## tgstubbs1

railiner said:


> I used to drive professionally, so I am used to long drives. And I did have about 600 pounds of household items on board...


Well, maybe they don't need to add more AutoTrain routes, just relocate the current one to someplace it would be more appreciated. 



This map is a highly accurate and detailed compilation made by the US Geological Survey. The color was added to show elevation, not vegetation. 

Lorton to Sanford is 855 miles, a little less than two standard 500 mile days more than enough torture for most people. 
Chicago to LA is over 2200 miles. Four days and three nights. Amtrak does it in less than two days. 
I don't think your driving style on a trip from NY to LA would work very well.
As you can see by the map, people driving cross country face great distances, especially compared to Europe.


----------



## jis

The only time I have taken the Auto Train is when I moved from NJ to Florida. I took one round trip and one one way all using my then 2010 Prius Hybrid, to move stuff that I would not trust to a mover.

Other than that I have never really found a pressing reason to take my car along. I have always been able to find reasonably priced rentals at both eds for the period that I needed them. So I guess I do not fall in the typical "Snowbird" or "Reverse Snowbird" demographic that is the ideal customer of the Auto Train.

For my specific use it was an excellent service and fit my needs of the moment well. Unfortunately, though, since I do not often move from NJ to Florida, I would not be a very good sustaining customer, and if the service did not exist, I would just drive all the way.

Auto Train works in the VA - FL Corridor because the Acela Corridor to Orlando area and broadly the rest of Florida too one of the most heavily traveled corridors. This is true of air traffic too, and also Amtrak LD trains, one might add. No other corridor, except perhaps the SFO-LAX catchment area corridor comes even close.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Palmland said:


> The SWC route seems to be the most promising as west of KC the route has minimal freight traffic which would improve reliability and KS has already invested in its maintenance. Using the SWC schedule as a guide, a mid afternoon train with a 4:00pm departure, perhaps from the Naperville/Aurora area (I-55, 355, 88 nearby), wold arrive Trinidad, CO at about 10:30 am. Return would be a similar schedule.
> 
> Denver is a major city in its own right, but of course nearby are the Rockies with attractions for skiing in the winter and sightseeing/camping the rest of the year. Amtrak station in Trinidad is adjacent to I-25 that is a straight shot to Colorado Springs and Denver or NM, AZ, and CA points.




I would probably want to try this service if possible. But for people going to LA it's only about halfway. Another Autotrain from Trinidad to the west might work while this one turns around to return to CHI, but if I had to wait a couple of hours to continue on a 'thru' car I think it would be ok, as long as they let people off to eat or shop.


As you can see, many of the roads in Colorado are paved, oiled, or bitumenous high quality roads, but not all of them.
Also, neighboring states might not be as advanced.


----------



## railiner

tgstubbs1 said:


> Well, maybe they don't need to add more AutoTrain routes, just relocate the current one to someplace it would be more appreciated.
> View attachment 19669
> 
> 
> This map is a highly accurate and detailed compilation made by the US Geological Survey. The color was added to show elevation, not vegetation.
> 
> Lorton to Sanford is 855 miles, a little less than two standard 500 mile days more than enough torture for most people.
> Chicago to LA is over 2200 miles. Four days and three nights. Amtrak does it in less than two days.
> I don't think your driving style on a trip from NY to LA would work very well.
> As you can see by the map, people driving cross country face great distances, especially compared to Europe.


What you say would apply to most people...but I could drive from New York to Los Angeles with one stopover, halfway. I would drive it in two twenty hour segments, with a 12 hour rest in between. Total time, about 53 hours...


----------



## tgstubbs1

Here is a possible Autotrain western routes map.
The Sunset Limited is not complete so the Palm Springs stop isn't shown( plus I dropped a Sudafed somewhere behind the table).


----------



## tgstubbs1

Here is the east


----------



## tgstubbs1

I read they had record attendance at Yellowstone just recently. Too bad no train goes there.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie

Dakota 400 said:


> I agree that, at least, a seasonal Auto Train makes sense. Daily service? Probably not. But 2x or 3x per week?



Equipment sitting idle for those other days, rarely makes for a good business case/justification. 



jebr said:


> Why am I needing my own car out in the Pacific Northwest? It's not going to be cheap to haul the vehicle - Amtrak currently charges $258 one way, or $466 round trip, for a standard vehicle on the current Auto Train. With the mileage roughly doubled between the two, I'd assume a doubling of those prices, so roughly $900 just for the vehicle round-trip. I could rent a car for a week or two for a lot less than that, and if I only need a car for part of the trip I have that option.



Good point. You'll need a substantial number of the prospective passenger pool, wanting to stay at the destination for a relatively long time. For example, competing with a $100/week rental market, the passenger pool would need to stay for 9 weeks, just to equal the $900 cost of taking their own car.

The middle class in the NE being snowbirds, happens to be that unique passenger pool. I wonder how many of people in Chicago own a 2nd home only in Florida? Or only in Denver. Or only in New Orleans? Or only in Tucson? Remember, if we're adding just one new AT route, then only one of those places can be true.


----------



## gwolfdog

railiner said:


> What you say would apply to most people...but I could drive from New York to Los Angeles with one stopover, halfway. I would drive it in two twenty hour segments, with a 12 hour rest in between. Total time, about 53 hours...


I think most of us have done some Heroic drives' sometime in our live's. I did coast to coast in a similar time in my 20's. I remember seeing a flying Saucer following me at night going over the Rockies. I stopped briefly in Joplin, Missouri but was too wired to sleep. I've also taken a Amtrak coast to coast and prefer the train, enjoying the scenery and relaxing with a cocktail. But whatever floats your boat


----------



## gwolfdog

tgstubbs1 said:


> I read they had record attendance at Yellowstone just recently. Too bad no train goes there.


The Government and Amtrak Brass thought they would endanger Yogi and Boo-Boo. When they found out it was Jellystone the money was already allocated to a Fence Project in the Southwest.


----------



## MARC Rider

jis said:


> Auto Train works in the VA - FL Corridor because the Acela Corridor to Orlando area and broadly the rest of Florida too one of the most heavily traveled corridors. This is true of air traffic too, and also Amtrak LD trains, one might add. No other corridor, except perhaps the SFO-LAX catchment area corridor comes even close.



I might also add that there is probably no other Interstate highway as congested as I-95, which connects Florida to the Northeast. I've driven it from Savannah to Washington, and I was totally unprepared for the traffic jams I found on it in places in the Carolinas, in such "large" metropolises as Florence, Lumberton (where we actually got off the interstate to drive through town around the traffic jam), and Fayetteville. I can see why the idea of avoiding driving hundreds of miles on this road is such an attractive idea.

In contrast, I've done a lot of driving between Baltimore/Washington and Ohio and Michigan. I've never run into traffic on the Pennsylvania and Ohio Turnpikes, except for a few short (and temporary) slowdowns do to construction projects. And these are roads that pass by Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Toledo, much larger cities than Florence, Lumberton and Fayetteville.

I don't know any interstate highway corridor that has as bad traffic as I-95. Perhaps the I-5 betwen La And San Fransisco. I drove part of it, but it was ages ago (1987), and the traffic was moving very nicely.


----------



## Bob Dylan

MARC Rider said:


> I might also add that there is probably no other Interstate highway as congested as I-95, which connects Florida to the Northeast. I've driven it from Savannah to Washington, and I was totally unprepared for the traffic jams I found on it in places in the Carolinas, in such "large" metropolises as Florence, Lumberton (where we actually got off the interstate to drive through town around the traffic jam), and Fayetteville. I can see why the idea of avoiding driving hundreds of miles on this road is such an attractive idea.
> 
> In contrast, I've done a lot of driving between Baltimore/Washington and Ohio and Michigan. I've never run into traffic on the Pennsylvania and Ohio Turnpikes, except for a few short (and temporary) slowdowns do to construction projects. And these are roads that pass by Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Toledo, much larger cities than Florence, Lumberton and Fayetteville.
> 
> I don't know any interstate highway corridor that has as bad traffic as I-95. Perhaps the I-5 betwen La And San Fransisco. I drove part of it, but it was ages ago (1987), and the traffic was moving very nicely.


You might add I-35 between DFW and San Antonio to your "Avoid if you Can" List!


----------



## me_little_me

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> Equipment sitting idle for those other days, rarely makes for a good business case/justification.
> The middle class in the NE being snowbirds, happens to be that unique passenger pool. I wonder how many of people in Chicago own a 2nd home only in Florida? Or only in Denver. Or only in New Orleans? Or only in Tucson? Remember, if we're adding just one new AT route, then only one of those places can be true.


Just like the snowbirds, who on arrival at Sanford, have to drive further to get to WPB, Miami, the Keys, Pensacola or wherever in Florida they are heading, those from Chicago area (or central Canada or Detroit or many other cities in the rust belt) can drive the additional distance mostly in uncrowded freeways with spectacular scenery and lots of places to visit but the long boring journey to/from those areas is missed and everyone arrives relaxed.

I think those taking the Auto Train from the Midwest would be a different type of crowd with many more tourists as well as those spending the annual winter where the weather is nicer.


----------



## TheTuck

railiner said:


> The Auto Train, does not appeal to everyone, even in its best target market.
> Once again, I drove my Prius up to my Queens apartment from West Palm Beach, and returned a few weeks later.
> My return trip was on Wednesday. I left Queens at 9:30 AM, passed the Lorton Auto Train station exit at about 2:30 PM, probably about the time I would arrive there if taking the Auto Train. I arrived at my home at 6:05, Thanksgiving morning. The train did pretty well...it departed Lorton at 3:42 PM, eighteen minutes early, and arrived Sanford at 7:56 AM, an hour and two minutes early...pretty good performance. But I was in my bed by 6:30 AM, where if I got off the Auto Train, by the time my car was unloaded, and I drove home from Sanford, I probably wouldn't until after 11:00 AM. And it cost me a lot less...


But when did you wake up? If it was after 11AM, the AT would've been better since you would've gotten sleep on the train. Not to mention being safer than driving up I-95 all night.


----------



## MARC Rider

Bob Dylan said:


> You might add I-35 between DFW and San Antonio to your "Avoid if you Can" List!


I've also driven that one a lot. There's a lot of traffic, but except when passing through Austin, it's nothing like I-95. Maybe no potential for an auto train, but definitely a candidate for corridor service. except that the railroads miss some of the larger cities in between (like Waco.) They'd need to build some new tracks.


----------



## Bob Dylan

MARC Rider said:


> I've also driven that one a lot. There's a lot of traffic, but except when passing through Austin, it's nothing like I-95. Maybe no potential for an auto train, but definitely a candidate for corridor service. except that the railroads miss some of the larger cities in between (like Waco.) They'd need to build some new tracks.


Waco is where UP runs their Freights Joe.

T he Amtrak stop for Waco is in McGregor, 20 miles to the West close to Beautiful Downtown Crawford,Texas as the Eagle Conductors say!


----------



## MARC Rider

You really need the snowbird crowd, tourists can just rent a car when they arrive for less than what an auto train has to charge to ship the car. And if I don't need to take the car along because I can rend one in Florida, I'd rather not have to drive to Lorton or drive to my destination from Sanford. 

In fact, we once did a Florida trip for a long weeked (4 days), Stayed in Miami Beach. Car rental was about $200. I could see no advantage to pay more and have to drive from home to Lorton and from Sanford to Miami Beach.


----------



## reppin_the_847

WICT106 said:


> One big issue is that the majority of Midwesterners have never taken a train trip -- not even once. They have no experience taking a train anywhere, but we have plenty of experience driving, and driving everywhere. Drive a few hours in the wrong direction ? Big nope on that one -- many of us would simply drive the correct direction, and then keep driving. ( I would rather take the train, but that's my personal preference. The majority of Midwesterners won't even consider an Auto-Train like what you describe ).
> 
> Another issue to consider is that Midwesterners don't have the strong affinity for going to Florida to the degree the Northeasterners do. Midwesterners go to AZ, or Southern CA, or HI, or southern TX ( a few, during the pre- COVID times, might even go to Mexico, or Belize, if they had the means ). One reason the Auto Train works where it does is the affinity for folks from the Northeast to travel to Florida -- that's not the case in the Midwest.



Disagree to some extent. There are a lot of Midwestern snowbirds in the western side of Florida (ie. Tampa / Sarasota / Fort Myers / Naples). Yes, Chicago feeds a lot of snowbirds into the Phoenix (Arizona) area & transplants folks to various Texas cities, but California & Hawaii? Negligible. They probably send more folks to SW Florida than California & Hawaii combined, both of which are extremely expensive areas.


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> I might also add that there is probably no other Interstate highway as congested as I-95, which connects Florida to the Northeast. I've driven it from Savannah to Washington, and I was totally unprepared for the traffic jams I found on it in places in the Carolinas, in such "large" metropolises as Florence, Lumberton (where we actually got off the interstate to drive through town around the traffic jam), and Fayetteville. I can see why the idea of avoiding driving hundreds of miles on this road is such an attractive idea.
> 
> In contrast, I've done a lot of driving between Baltimore/Washington and Ohio and Michigan. I've never run into traffic on the Pennsylvania and Ohio Turnpikes, except for a few short (and temporary) slowdowns do to construction projects. And these are roads that pass by Pittsburgh, Cleveland, and Toledo, much larger cities than Florence, Lumberton and Fayetteville.
> 
> I don't know any interstate highway corridor that has as bad traffic as I-95. Perhaps the I-5 betwen La And San Fransisco. I drove part of it, but it was ages ago (1987), and the traffic was moving very nicely.


I agree that I-95 is the busiest long distance interstate. It has many sections wider than the standard 4 lanes...much of it 6 lanes, and in some places, up to 14 lanes, like the northern section of NJ and VA. It is so well known, that most cruise ships call the main thoroughfare used by crew, "I-95".

On my recent drive, I was able to run at the speed limit almost all the way, except for hitting early holiday 'getaway' traffic between DC and Fredericksburg, on the busiest holiday of the year.


----------



## Dakota 400

railiner said:


> I agree that I-95 is the busiest long distance interstate. It has many sections wider than the standard 4 lanes...much of it 6 lanes, and in some places, up to 14 lanes, like the northern section of NJ and VA. It is so well known, that most cruise ships call the main thoroughfare used by crew, "I-95".
> 
> On my recent drive, I was able to run at the speed limit almost all the way, except for hitting early holiday 'getaway' traffic between DC and Fredericksburg, on the busiest holiday of the year.



I guess I have been lucky. I have driven I-95 from the D.C. area to South Florida and other than the typical busy, heavy traffic in the Washington area, I did not find the traffic to be much different than other well used interstates, such as I-75 in Southwest Ohio. I have driven I-95 the most from Jacksonville to South Florida and actually enjoy the drive and the scenery.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Dakota 400 said:


> I guess I have been lucky. I have driven I-95 from the D.C. area to South Florida and other than the typical busy, heavy traffic in the Washington area, I did not find the traffic to be much different than other well used interstates, such as I-75 in Southwest Ohio. I have driven I-95 the most from Jacksonville to South Florida and actually enjoy the drive and the scenery.


I've driven I95 a couple of times south of DC as far as SC and it didn't seem unusually busy. Try I5 between Centralia and the north side of the Seattle metro. Like a parking lot, like R 1 in New Jersey.

It's interesting that railfan beat the Autotrain on that route. 
Trucks can make the difference and really gum up things for cars. 
This map shows truck traffic.


----------



## bratkinson

I was re-reading a special Classic Trains publication from 2013 today: "Trains of the 1950s". In a reprint of a William D Middleton Trains Magazine article from 1958 about the Atlantic Coast Line and its numerous passenger trains, was a comment that Pullman travel was up in the winter months and coach travel up in the summer months. The article also stated that 'reverse' destinations like Washington and New York had much fewer ticket sales, even with tour packages.

In my mind, that's the key to success for the Auto Train - year 'round traffic with multiple destinations/venues that suit the variety of seasonal travelers. Given my previously stated thoughts about a one-night only new Auto Train, while New Orleans is a year-round destination, how many NOLA travelers plan to spend a week or so there and still be able to take the school-age children with them and their not being bored? They may not like Cajun cooking, either. While Denver is at the doorstep of great mountain scenery and skiing, how many children would get bored in a hurry there? Family oriented attractions is the key to success.

So, in my opinion, the only reasonable new Auto Train route is a midwest-to-Florida route because of its year 'round family attractions and entertainment. There's more than enough Disney World to fill a weeks' worth of family time and beaches are always a draw in the winter months. Perhaps the route of the old every-third-day CE&I/L&N/ACL Dixieland mentioned in the article (previously named Dixie Flyer) would be the best route, if CSX hasn't already abandoned portions of it. At a minimum, however, the route would have to be upgraded to passenger train speeds.


----------



## tgstubbs1

gwolfdog said:


> The Government and Amtrak Brass thought they would endanger Yogi and Boo-Boo. When they found out it was Jellystone the money was already allocated to a Fence Project in the Southwest.



If Biden supports Amtrak as much as Trump pushes his border wall we are in luck.

Here's another possibility but it would require a new train from St Louis to Williams Junction. St Louis has the gateway arch so maybe they could name the train after it. 




This could grab traffic from much of the upper Midwest as well as the NE.

Lots of things to do. Hike, ski, fish, hunt.
Grand Canyon, Zion, Las Vegas, Boulder Dam, Bryce Canyon, Capital Reef, Petrified Forest, etc. There are over a half dozen major retirement areas: St George. Tucson. Yuma. Las Vegas. Prescott. Lake Havasu. Flagstaff. Show Low. plus all of the Phoenix metro.

And if someone wants to throw bikes in the back of their minivan Moab isn't too far, either.

And it could funnel traffic from Southern California towards the east.


----------



## Whambo

The cheapest option for adding car-carrying capacity to routes would be to tack cars onto the back of existing trains. Looking at the existing routes, we find the following travel time differences between Amtrak and motor vehicles. (I have excluded single-level equipment routes).


*Route**From**To**Distance (mi)**Train time**Car time
(without stops)*#1/2
Sunset LimitedNew OrleansLos Angeles1,99545hrs27hrs#3/4
Southwest ChiefChicagoLos Angeles2,25642hrs29hrs#5/6
California ZephyrChicagoEmeryville (SFO)2,43850hrs31hrs#7/8, #27/28
Empire BuilderChicagoSeattle
Portland2,255
2,20544hrs30hrs
31hrs#11/14
Coast StarlightSeattleLos Angeles1,37735hrs17hrs#29/30
Capitol LimitedChicagoWashington DC78017hrs11hrs#58/59
City of New OrleansChicagoNew Orleans93420hrs14hrs

Now on face value, it appears the train would take 1.5 - 2 times as long to complete the given journeys. However, nobody should be behind the wheel for 31hrs straight. The following table assumes that the car is driven for only 8 hours a day. It also accounts for the cost of petrol ($50/day) and motel ($150/night). For the train I am assuming a $200 car fee plus the cost of a roomette for 2 people. Note that these figures are for one-way travel.


*Route**Rail fare**Road cost**Road travel time*#1/2
Sunset Limited$929$8003d 3hrs#3/4
Southwest Chief$1,198$8003d 5hrs#5/6
California Zephyr$987$8003d 7hrs#7/8, #27/28
Empire Builder$972$8003d 6hrs
3d 7hrs#11/14
Coast Starlight$976$5502d 1hrs#29/30
Capitol Limited$652$3001d 3hrs#58/59
City of New Orleans$1692$3001d 6hrs

As you can see, most of the routes are competitive in this sense, with the exception being the City of New Orleans. The train is more expensive, but has the benefits of being faster (if you decide to have overnight stops while driving), and saving wear-and-tear on a personal vehicle.

The other competitor is the hire car industry. Assuming the travel costs are the same, the train is becomes more and more competitive depending on the length of time that a car is needed. Assuming a hire cost of $200 per day, the train becomes more cost-efficient for any stays longer than 2 days. Of course, cheaper travel methods (such as low-cost airfares) will throw off this balance.

Looking at these routes, we are presented with some interesting options from an operational standpoint. For example, these trains can share facilities. A facility at Los Angeles would serve trains 1/2, 3/4, 11/14, 58/59. A Chicago facility would serve all trains *except* 1/2, 11/14 (and of course 52/53). A facility at Spokane WA would serve both 7/8/27/28 and a re-routed 11/14. The existing facility at Lorton VA would serve a slightly extended 29/30. Finally, the facility at Sanford FL could serve a (re)extended 1/2.


Of course, most of us have already come to the conclusion that this will never happen, but it is nice to dream.


----------



## neroden

bratkinson said:


> That leaves CHI-NYC (Lakeshore Ltd), CHI-NOL (City of New Orleans) as candidates. Is there sufficient demand to even warrant a second passenger train much less an Auto Train on those routes? Do large numbers of 'old folks' routinely travel between those endpoints? I don't think so.


There isn't enough CHI-NOL demand.

There is enough CHI-NYC demand. But Amtrak has been notoriously unwilling to properly serve even the regular (without-a-car) CHI-NYC demand, for convoluted and stupid politics reasons. #1 and #3 metro areas in the US, and the morons who've mismanaged Amtrak since the 1990s keep cutting service.

If Amtrak's brainless idiot management can't see the importance of running one train a day for passengers from NYC to Chicago and back... yeah, they're not going to see the potential in transporting people who want to take their cars with them.


----------



## Palmetto

A Chicago to New York Auto Train could conceivably use a portion of Colehour Yard in Whiting, IN and Croton-Harmon on the east end, assuming cooperation of the host railroads, of course. Besides trackage and switching capability, there'd be a need for Amtrak to purchase/rent space for passenger waiting areas as well as automobile staging. Unfortunately, the current Amtrak station just to the east is on the wrong side of the railroad to be of any use in this project.
Colehour Yard, Whiting Indiana


----------



## jimdex

I'm not sure that a Chicago-New York autotrain would be viable. Florida is a fairly unique market, because a sufficient percentage of the travelers are planning an extended stay in Florida, (i.e., all winter) where having their personal automobile would be especially useful. I don't think that's true of most travelers heading to Chicago or New York.


----------



## Mailliw

The Auto-Train travels between two specialy constructed stations; there's no way to build stations like that in either city proper. How far west of the New York metro would you have to go get around the height restriction? The Auto-Train northern terminal is in VA, not in the Northeast were most if the Snowbirds are from.


----------



## jiml

A Chicago - Florida Auto Train has a lot of variables. I think there's an assumption that since there was Chicago - Florida passenger service that route makes sense for an Auto Train. If the southern terminus of the train is still to be Sanford I wonder how much demand there would be from the Chicago area. As has been discussed previously on AU, it would seem there's a greater to need to increase service from the northeast, such as upstate New York, New England or even Detroit. The northwest part of Florida into Alabama does feature a large snowbird contingent from Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin and Indiana though, so maybe a due south Auto Train terminating in Tallahassee or Mobile might work better than one ending near the theme parks. That said, I-65 tends to be less congested and less prone to weather problems than the routes further east.


----------



## tgstubbs1

jimdex said:


> I'm not sure that a Chicago-New York autotrain would be viable. Florida is a fairly unique market, because a sufficient percentage of the travelers are planning an extended stay in Florida, (i.e., all winter) where having their personal automobile would be especially useful. I don't think that's true of most travelers heading to Chicago or New York.



Why is the percentage important? 

Here is the US population data from the time Amtrak started. From 203 million in 1970 an increase of 129 million people.

That's why there are more major league sports franchises now. 

The numbers of people are there to support a team. 


1970203,211,92613.32%1980226,545,80511.48%1990248,709,8739.78%2000281,421,90613.15%2010308,745,5389.71%2020332,639,0007.74


----------



## IndyLions

This is only loosely related, but I was looking through some old timetables for the Wabash Railroad and I noticed they advertised (without any detail) “Auto Service” on several of their passenger routes. Most of their routes were in the Midwest, including St. Louis to Detroit.

I’m guessing they put an auto carrier rack on the standard passenger train, but I have no way of knowing to be sure.

I’ve looked for details elsewhere on that service, but haven't come up with anything yet.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Bob Dylan said:


> You might add I-35 between DFW and San Antonio to your "Avoid if you Can" List!





MARC Rider said:


> I've also driven that one a lot. There's a lot of traffic, but except when passing through Austin, it's nothing like I-95. Maybe no potential for an auto train, but definitely a candidate for corridor service. except that the railroads miss some of the larger cities in between (like Waco.) They'd need to build some new tracks.


On weekday mornings/evenings I-35 is stop and go for hours on end. A surprising number of people commute to Austin from San Antonio's suburbs and that experience wears me out pretty bad. At this point I try avoid weekday travel whenever possible and if I have to go I stay in Austin for dinner. When I first moved here most of the trip was rolling hill country but now it's one suburb after another all strung together. Over the next decade the 7th and 11th largest cities are expected to start merging into a single metro with even worse traffic.


----------



## tgstubbs1

IndyLions said:


> This is only loosely related, but I was looking through some old timetables for the Wabash Railroad and I noticed they advertised (without any detail) “Auto Service” on several of their passenger routes. Most of their routes were in the Midwest, including St. Louis to Detroit.
> 
> I’m guessing they put an auto carrier rack on the standard passenger train, but I have no way of knowing to be sure.
> 
> I’ve looked for details elsewhere on that service, but haven't come up with anything yet.


How old are these timetables?


----------



## NS VIA Fan

IndyLions said:


> This is only loosely related, but I was looking through some old timetables for the Wabash Railroad and I noticed they advertised (without any detail) “Auto Service” on several of their passenger routes. Most of their routes were in the Midwest, including St. Louis to Detroit.
> 
> I’m guessing they put an auto carrier rack on the standard passenger train, but I have no way of knowing to be sure.



CN did this back in the '70s by attaching an enclosed AutoCarrier to the back of the Super Continental between Toronto and Edmonton. The car was painted in the standard passenger scheme and actually had that graphic with the 'cut-away view' shown here painted on sides to show the contents!


----------



## NS VIA Fan

That $387 fare in the brochure above for two passengers in coach (economy) along with their car for the 2200 miles trip on the Super Continental from Toronto to Edmonton would be equal to about $1900. today.

This is the same route VIA's Canadian takes today (covide aside !!)


----------



## railiner

IndyLions said:


> This is only loosely related, but I was looking through some old timetables for the Wabash Railroad and I noticed they advertised (without any detail) “Auto Service” on several of their passenger routes. Most of their routes were in the Midwest, including St. Louis to Detroit.
> 
> I’m guessing they put an auto carrier rack on the standard passenger train, but I have no way of knowing to be sure.
> 
> I’ve looked for details elsewhere on that service, but haven't come up with anything yet.


Not sure about that, but it could have been an indicator of stations that offered car rental services.
However, besides the example NS VIA Fan showed, IIRC, B&O/C&O in the Paul Reistrup era offered a similar service...again, IIRC they called it something like "Car-Go-Rail"....not sure...


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> Not sure about that, but it could have been an indicator of stations that offered car rental services.
> However, besides the example NS VIA Fan showed, IIRC, B&O/C&O in the Paul Reistrup era offered a similar service...again, IIRC they called it something like "Car-Go-Rail"....not sure...


CN actually used the name "Car-Go-Rail" prior to the more recent one posted by @NS VIA Fan:








CN's Car-Go-Rail and Auto-With-You Services


One of the most confusing HO scale cars ever produced was Bachmann's Auto Transporter in CN's black & white scheme. This was a total foob...




tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com


----------



## railiner

jiml said:


> CN actually used the name "Car-Go-Rail" prior to the more recent one posted by @NS VIA Fan:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CN's Car-Go-Rail and Auto-With-You Services
> 
> 
> One of the most confusing HO scale cars ever produced was Bachmann's Auto Transporter in CN's black & white scheme. This was a total foob...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tracksidetreasure.blogspot.com


Thanks...I knew I had heard it somewhere describing that service...


----------



## jiml

VIA was thinking of relaunching a similar service on the current Canadian and were looking for a catchy name that would capture the pace with which the train crossed the country, but apparently weren't thrilled with the suggestion "S-Car-Go".  *This is a joke btw.*


----------



## tgstubbs1

NS VIA Fan said:


> That $387 fare in the brochure above for two passengers in coach (economy) along with their car for the 2200 miles trip on the Super Continental from Toronto to Edmonton would be equal to about $1900. today.
> 
> This is the same route VIA's Canadian takes today (covide aside !!)



The price of a new car has risen as well.
This results in a higher cost per mile.

"The average price of a new vehicle has topped $40,000 for the first time ever as Americans switch from passenger cars to more-expensive SUVs and pickups.

With prices rising, the average downpayment on new cars, trucks and SUVs reached an all-time high in the fourth quarter, according to analysts at car-research site Edmunds."


----------



## Bob Dylan

tgstubbs1 said:


> The price of a new car has risen as well.
> This results in a higher cost per mile.
> 
> "The average price of a new vehicle has topped $40,000 for the first time ever as Americans switch from passenger cars to more-expensive SUVs and pickups.
> 
> With prices rising, the average downpayment on new cars, trucks and SUVs reached an all-time high in the fourth quarter, according to analysts at car-research site Edmunds."


And now with Gas prices starting to rise, those stuck with Gas Guzzlers will regret their choice!

Never been s better time to get a Hybrid or if you're totally Urban, an Electric Vehicle!

The New Administration will re- instate the EPA and Mileage Regs that Obama had, so things should start look up on the Polution/ Mileage Front after the past 4 years of denying Science!


----------



## Exvalley

Bob Dylan said:


> Never been s better time to get a Hybrid or if you're totally Urban, *an Electric Vehicl*e!


We leased a Chevrolet Bolt EV for my teenage son. We leased it for $199 a month with no money down. I absolutely love the car. It has tons of pep with instant torque. My son never has to ask me for gas money. 

That said, while it is a perfect commuter car, it has its limitations. You can technically make long trips with it, but I would never want to. For a two car (or more) family I am completely hooked on EVs.


----------



## railiner

Exvalley said:


> We leased a Chevrolet Bolt EV for my teenage son. We leased it for $199 a month with no money down. I absolutely love the car. It has tons of pep with instant torque. My son never has to ask me for gas money.
> 
> That said, while it is a perfect commuter car, it has its limitations. You can technically make long trips with it, but I would never want to. For a two car (or more) family I am completely hooked on EVs.


That's why I prefer my hybrid Prius...no "range anxiety". I will only consider an EV when charging points are as widely available, and take the same length of time, as gasoline is now. The Prius is also available as a 'plug-in hybrid'...it has a much longer EV mode than mine due to larger battery, but if you do a lot of long trips as I do, it sacrifices highway MPG carrying around that extra weight. If I still commuted to work daily, then I would consider the plug in model...


----------



## Exvalley

railiner said:


> will only consider an EV when charging points are as widely available, and take the same length of time, as gasoline is now.


The good news is that charging points are already widely available. But your second point, charge time, is very valid. We are still several years away from solid state batteries that charge in a couple of minutes.

The Bolt is slower than most cars when it comes to rapid charging - but the trade off is that the battery degrades less. And in the winter the charge time is even slower. I tried it once for kicks, and let's just say that it convinced me that an electric car should really be an "around town" car. That said, think of all the time we save not having to fill up at a gas station. Those five minute stops add up. A couple of rapid charges each year on a road trip is a fair tradeoff.

The problem with a PHEV is that you still have a gasoline engine to maintain. The maintenance on an EV is practically zero. Rotate the tires, replace an air filter once in a while, and after a few years replace some fluids.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Bob Dylan said:


> And now with Gas prices starting to rise, those stuck with Gas Guzzlers will regret their choice!
> 
> Never been s better time to get a Hybrid or if you're totally Urban, an Electric Vehicle!
> 
> The New Administration will re- instate the EPA and Mileage Regs that Obama had, so things should start look up on the Polution/ Mileage Front after the past 4 years of denying Science!


A ready made, captive market for the Auto train.
They should probably install charge kiosks at all new Auto Train stations.

Some ( actually a lot) of people around here( Colorado) have those big pickups with the big wheels that stick out. They might have a little trouble fitting on the carriers.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Exvalley said:


> We leased a Chevrolet Bolt EV for my teenage son. We leased it for $199 a month with no money down. I absolutely love the car. It has tons of pep with instant torque. My son never has to ask me for gas money.
> 
> That said, while it is a perfect commuter car, it has its limitations. You can technically make long trips with it, but I would never want to. For a two car (or more) family I am completely hooked on EVs.


Lots of my friends have Priuses, wish I could afford one!

Even the Luxury brands like Lexus,Jaguar and Mercedes are pushing Hybrids, looks like Ford and GM might be left behind with their decision to quit building Cars and go to SUVs and Trucks,aka Gas Hogs!

Dont think your typical Big SUV/ Truck Driver wants an Electric Vehicle!


----------



## Dakota 400

Bob Dylan said:


> looks like Ford and GM might be left behind with their decision to quit building Cars and go to SUVs and Trucks,aka Gas Hogs!



I believe your "prediction" may well be right. When I went car shopping in 2019, I was dismayed at the lack of sedans that were available that were made by GM, Ford, or Chrysler. Yet, saying that, my 2020 Buick Envision with its turbo 4 cylinder is a SUV with which I am quite satisfied. Power/torque certainly exceeds the V-6 of my previous Buick LaCrosse. Gas mileage is better than I expected, but the need to use Premium gas is a negative. (Don't tell me, I know that I could probably get by with lower octane gas. But, the instructions say use Premium but I am one who tends to try to follow directions.)


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> That's why I prefer my hybrid Prius...no "range anxiety". I will only consider an EV when charging points are as widely available, and take the same length of time, as gasoline is now.


Range anxiety started as a pejorative term to highlight how vehicular purchases are often driven by emotional concerns rather than logic or reason. Over the years the range and speed have steadily increased but people who first balked at 40 mile batteries charging at 120V still balk at 400 mile batteries charging at 480V, probably because it was never really about evaluating fitness for purpose in the first place. Cost remains an issue, but in my view the solution is to take some of the money currently wasted on fossil fuel subsidies/deductions and redirect it toward electric vehicles.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Devil's Advocate said:


> Cost remains an issue, but in my view the solution is to take some of the money currently wasted on fossil fuel subsidies/deduction


When was the last time they raised gasoline taxes? I think it was a long time ago.


----------



## railiner

Devil's Advocate said:


> Range anxiety started as a pejorative term to highlight how vehicular purchases are often driven by emotional concerns rather than logic or reason. Over the years the range and speed have steadily increased but people who first balked at 40 mile batteries charging at 120V still balk at 400 mile batteries charging at 480V, probably because it was never really about evaluating fitness for purpose in the first place. Cost remains an issue, but in my view the solution is to take some of the money currently wasted on fossil fuel subsidies/deductions and redirect it toward electric vehicles.


Cost aside, on long highway trips, one still has to plan accordingly to find public charging stations, often not getting the benefit of the '400 mile range', if there aren't any around that distance from the last. From stats I have found on the 'net, there were about 26,000 public charging stations last July, as compared to 168.000 gasoline stations. I can refill my car in just 10 minutes, and then travel 500 miles....how long does it take a 400 mile EV to do that even at one of the "super" charging stations?


----------



## me_little_me

railiner said:


> Cost aside, on long highway trips, one still has to plan accordingly to find public charging stations, often not getting the benefit of the '400 mile range', if there aren't any around that distance from the last. From stats I have found on the 'net, there were about 26,000 public charging stations last July, as compared to 168.000 gasoline stations. I can refill my car in just 10 minutes, and then travel 500 miles....how long does it take a 400 mile EV to do that even at one of the "super" charging stations?


According to Tesla, you can charge your car up to 80% in about 30 minutes at a Supercharger station.

And since they claim many of them are near restaurants, the advantage of the gas cars is that you can stop at McDonald's instead of relaxing at a local cafe.


----------



## Qapla

Having to plan your trip so you have a way to spend the 30 minutes (or longer) it takes to charge is not quite as convenient as stopping for gas when you see a low price you can take advantage of or otherwise make a much shorter stop.

If I am driving "straight through" I don't want my stops to be any longer than they have to be.


----------



## jiml

railiner said:


> Cost aside, on long highway trips, one still has to plan accordingly to find public charging stations, often not getting the benefit of the '400 mile range', if there aren't any around that distance from the last. From stats I have found on the 'net, there were about 26,000 public charging stations last July, as compared to 168.000 gasoline stations. I can refill my car in just 10 minutes, and then travel 500 miles....how long does it take a 400 mile EV to do that even at one of the "super" charging stations?


You make an excellent point and the problem will intensify as electric-only cars become more popular. After all, how many charging stations can you have at each stop and if a partial charge needs 30 minutes, what will the lineup be like? As long as you can fuel a conventional vehicle in a couple of minutes, all-electrics will remain a tougher sell outside major centers. Also, what's going to happen when they start charging to "fuel" an electric vehicle? Hybrids make more sense for longer distance driving in the foreseeable future... that's certainly my plan moving forward.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

railiner said:


> Cost aside, on long highway trips, one still has to plan accordingly to find public charging stations, often not getting the benefit of the '400 mile range', if there aren't any around that distance from the last.


Modern electric cars handle recharge planning for you based on a variety of factors and make in-progress adjustments as necessary. If you want to stretch it as far as possible you can do that, or you can play it safe if you prefer. My longest road trips in recent memory were around 700 miles but I still had to stop more than once for reasons other than fuel. On trips like that I rarely feel like getting back on the road five or ten minutes after pulling over and prefer to stop and stretch my legs for a while.



railiner said:


> From stats I have found on the 'net, there were about 26,000 public charging stations last July, as compared to 168.000 gasoline stations.





jiml said:


> After all, how many charging stations can you have at each stop and if a partial charge needs 30 minutes, what will the lineup be like?


Unlike gas and diesel vehicles the vast majority of electric vehicle charging is done at home. Most owners will only need commercial charging stations for road trips and special situations. New stations are still being built while older stations are still receiving upgrades. Some have voiced concerns that our infrastructure would struggle charging so many cars at once but most home charging is done at reduced rates overnight when electrical systems are less stressed and there are plans to allow electric cars to function as emergency backups for situations like brownouts and blackouts. The largest US charging station has 50 bays and in China they're up to 70 bays apparently.


----------



## Qapla

Devil's Advocate said:


> My longest road trips in recent memory were around 700 miles but I still had to stop more than once for reasons other than fuel. On trips like that I rarely feel like getting back on the road five or ten minutes after pulling over and prefer to stop and stretch my legs for a while.



That is fine ... but, not all share your style of travel. We tend to "one-stop-shop" when we are on a long "through trip". We want to spend as little time on the road as possible and make our stops as quick as possible. We tend to grab something to eat/drink and use the restroom while one of us fuels up - when the one fueling has had time to use the restroom it is back on the road. Often this can be done in 10 minutes or less - seldom does it take more than 15 minutes.

This may be a different thing if there were auto trains going to more places and the bulk of our travel could be done while the car rode along ... figured I would try to put my post back on topic


----------



## railiner

Qapla said:


> That is fine ... but, not all share your style of travel. We tend to "one-stop-shop" when we are on a long "through trip". We want to spend as little time on the road as possible and make our stops as quick as possible. We tend to grab something to eat/drink and use the restroom while one of us fuels up - when the one fueling has had time to use the restroom it is back on the road. Often this can be done in 10 minutes or less - seldom does it take more than 15 minutes.


That's the way I roll. Two stops for fuel and restroom on my drive between West Palm Beach and Queens. Food? A bag of Chips Ahoy and a bottle of water works for me. YMMV....


----------



## Palmland

We regularly visit family in the northeast from central SC, which is about an 11 hour drive. While that is certainly doable in one day, and we have, we enjoy stopping overnight to explore a town and new restaurants. We are fortunate that we have three routes to choose: I77/81, I-26/95, I-74/64/81. All have interesting stopover cities: Winchester/Staunton, Richmond, Charlottesville.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Qapla said:


> This may be a different thing if there were auto trains going to more places and the bulk of our travel could be done while the car rode along ... figured I would try to put my post back on topic


Exactly. Auto train has many advantages.

Saves time for passengers.
Saves energy overall.
Saves money for passengers with high cost per mile/expensive cars.
Provides jobs for employees.
Reduces traffic on highways.
Improves safety for all concerned.

I owned two EVs back in the 90s with lead acid batteries. Range is actually determined by the number of power pulses used. 
Imagine a EV with 300 mile range.
Equivalent to a 30 mpg car with a 10 gallon tank. If it is stuck in traffic it could use half of its range relatively quickly.

Lithium mining is not always an environmentally sound process and could thwart large scale battery production. 
Charge infrastructure is not the only issue.


----------



## Qapla

An incentive to encourage EV cars and the Auto Train would be to provide charging for EV's on the Auto Train. While it would not be practical for them to fill the ICE cars up while traveling, they could plug in the EV's during the trip.


----------



## me_little_me

tgstubbs1 said:


> I owned two EVs back in the 90s with lead acid batteries. Range is actually determined by the number of power pulses used.
> Imagine a EV with 300 mile range.
> Equivalent to a 30 mpg car with a 10 gallon tank. If it is stuck in traffic it could use half of its range relatively quickly.


No!

EV In traffic jam


> If you are stuck in traffic, the Tesla uses much less power than at high speeds—due to the slow speeds reducing wind and rolling friction.
> 
> Traffic jams generally INCREASE range for Teslas, with the best results when you are moving along pretty steadily at speeds around 20–40MPH.
> 
> 
> Cold temps suck up some power, but what REALLY sucks it up is when you are in a downpour of heavy wet snow and ice. Still, I think the car loses maybe 35% total range in the worst conditions. So that is about 100 miles out of my 310 normal range. Typical winter use of the heater and other accessories uses more like 20%. A/C on the hottest days—more like 10–15% (In Denver, with Window Tint. Phoenix or Vegas would be more).
> EXAMPLE
> 
> I have been stuck in stop and go traffic more times than I can count on my 40 mile trip to work.
> 
> When the traffic is good, I typically leave my home with 234 miles of range (75% charge) and arrive with 194—exactly 40 miles of range used. This is averaging about 55-65MPH. When I get back home, the car is at 154 miles of range—and it takes 1 hour and 50 minutes to charge back up.
> 
> When the traffic is bad, and it is stop and go most of the way, I can average as little as 20 MPH—which makes my 40 mile trip take 2 hours. In this case—my mileage goes UP…WAY UP. I put the Tesla on Autopilot and a lot of the time it is stopped, waiting for the car in front of me to move, and it is using pretty much nothing when stopped. When the car is traveling at 20 or 40MPH—it is using very little juice. So, I can arrive at work with it appearing that I have traveled only 20 miles of the actual 40 mile distance. This gives me back 50% of my range, and if I am using heater and accessories, maybe I am typically using 20% range for that. So slowing down usually more than makes up for the heater.


----------



## MARC Rider

Devil's Advocate said:


> On trips like that I rarely feel like getting back on the road five or ten minutes after pulling over and prefer to stop and stretch my legs for a while.


 This. I'd never do more that 600 miles in a day, which means I'm ready to gas up or charge the battery after 300 miles. My current hybrid has a range of about 400 -- 420 miles, but I usually gas up after 300 or or so. Charging in 30 minutes is no problem if combined with a lunch break. Aside from the lunch break, my rest stops are typically no more than 15 minutes, but frequent (hourly or so) so I can use the restroom and stretch my legs. I'm not sure what a 15 minute shot of juice does for the battery, but I can't imagine it would be harmful. 

I imagine more charging stations are in our future, as I saw a news item that Massachusetts is talking about banning the sales of combustion-engine cars sometime in the next 10 years or so. And they won't be the last state to do so.


----------



## MARC Rider

railiner said:


> That's the way I roll. Two stops for fuel and restroom on my drive between West Palm Beach and Queens. Food? A bag of Chips Ahoy and a bottle of water works for me. YMMV....


I might suggest that to deal with the climate crisis, pollution, etc., you might have to change the paradigm about how you travel. All I can say is that you have one strong bladder!


----------



## MARC Rider

tgstubbs1 said:


> Exactly. Auto train has many advantages.
> 
> Saves time for passengers.
> Saves energy overall.
> Saves money for passengers with high cost per mile/expensive cars.
> Provides jobs for employees.
> Reduces traffic on highways.
> Improves safety for all concerned.
> 
> I owned two EVs back in the 90s with lead acid batteries. Range is actually determined by the number of power pulses used.
> Imagine a EV with 300 mile range.
> Equivalent to a 30 mpg car with a 10 gallon tank. If it is stuck in traffic it could use half of its range relatively quickly.
> 
> Lithium mining is not always an environmentally sound process and could thwart large scale battery production.
> Charge infrastructure is not the only issue.


The main advantages of the auto train for it's customers are:

1) Avoiding ~800 miles of tedious driving on a busy highway,
2) Avoiding the costs of an overnight stop along the way
3) Allows you to bring your own car instead of having to rent at the destination. (This applied when you're staying long enough that the cost of a car rental is more than the fare for the car.


----------



## tgstubbs1

me_little_me said:


> No!
> "Traffic jams generally INCREASE range for Teslas, with the best results when you are moving along pretty steadily at speeds around 20–40MPH."
> 
> 
> EV In traffic jam




I guess the Tesla is good under those conditions. Stop and go can also mean lots of 0-60 accelerations. Or 55 mph with lights every 1/2 mile.


----------



## Willbridge

bratkinson said:


> In response to several replies about having pickups/setouts at other than endpoints I have several thoughts:
> 
> 1. To stop the train, make a cut (behind the locomotives?), proceed forward to a point beyond the switch, backup to make the hitch, test the connection, proceed forward far enough the last car clears the switch, back down to the disconnected passenger train (yep, the passengers are without HEP the entire time!...no A/C, no heat, no functioning toilets!), make and test (a slight yank) the hitch, make air and electric connections (would that require a craft position other than onboard conductors?...or a local yard switch crew 'on standby' waiting for the train to arrive?), perform a brake test, then wait for a clear signal to highball. That's 45-60 minutes on a GOOD day! Meanwhile, passengers whose cars were just added to the train, where were they the whole time? Presumably the train originally stopped with the sleepers in front of the station. But then you get into safety concerns with disconnecting or connecting to the train and the attendant jolts and boarding in the dark at night without HEP. Recalling the fun and games of simply adding or subtracting M&E cars and sometimes Roadrailers to the Amtrak trains I was on, 30-60 minutes was the 'normal' time. And that was usually at the rear of the train, not somewhere up front. I was angered every time at the those delays. 15 minutes would be OK, but 30 or more, no way!
> 
> 2. Added costs likely exceed the revenue generated. I'm thinking that like the intermodal business where short-hauls don't make business sense, I suspect there's some not-yet-determined 'magic number' of miles and revenue that makes business sense for an Auto Train operation. Would a 500 mile Auto Train make money? I don't think so, especially since it can be comfortably driven in 8-9 hours including a couple of rest stops.
> 
> 3. Chicago-Denver was suggested and makes sense as it is quite close in mileage with the existing Auto Train. But is there sufficient demand? Perhaps a check of pre-Covid airline schedules WAS to Florida compared to Chicago to Denver might be a gauge. Note that I said Florida rather than Sanford as there's countless destinations within Florida easily accessed from Sanford, especially Disneyworld, and major cities such as Orlando, Jacksonville and Tampa within a 2 hour drive. Arriving in the morning in Florida makes south Florida accessible in the day as well. The snow-bunny business is big business to/from Florida, both for vacations as well as all winter. How many travelers would spend the summer or winter in a cabin in the mountains? How many major destinations are within a 2-3 hour drive from Denver? How many attractions comparable to Disneyworld are near Denver? Maybe skiers could be enticed in the wintertime, and hikers/campers in the summer, although I suspect there aren't enough of them to make that a 'demand' level.
> 
> 4. I think that a separate Auto Train location would be necessary for all points, including pickup & setout points. For example, how many passengers would be happy to leave their car in the covered 'drop off' area at Chicago Union Station to a stranger that promises to get it loaded on the trilevel autorack 5 or 6 blocks away? What about arrivals? Where would arriving cars be parked so passengers can pick them up. Clearly, locating out town such as Dyer IN or Galesburg IL would work best, especially with low-cost land available. Locating on the best rail line from Chicago to Florida or Denver is also crucial. Knowing firsthand how CSX gives the Cardinal the shaft on the ex-Monon line, I'd definitely consider another railroad out of Chicago for ramp placement decision making. By the way, the location should be an easy off/easy on in both directions to a freeway. Wandering down country lanes for 10 minutes could certainly lose some drivers.
> 
> 5. And, of course, would the railroads involved be willing to host an extra Amtrak train each way without paying them an arm and a leg for such things as extra sidings, new signaling, and anything else they can dream up. When Covid is over and done with, and Amtrak returns the LD trains to daily operation, anyone want to bet the railroads WON'T charge Amtrak extra to 'add' 4 extra trains per week to the route? Lookup the ridiculous numbers UP and CSX have come up with through the years to make the Sunset Ltd and Cardinal a daily operation for the answer.
> 
> While pie in the sky thinking is what motivates business expansion as well as new business creation, one must always consider what is the 'market' for the product and both the startup and ongoing costs of running the business. "Build it and they will come' doesn't automatically spell S-U-C-C-E-S-S. Investors want to be very sure they'll get a good return on investment before they'll put down millions of their money. Or, if pure speculators, they want a big portion of the business ala 'The Shark Tank'.


Don't forget the UP's calculations for restoring the _Pioneer. _They included projects that were already planned for other purposes.


----------



## tgstubbs1

"How many travelers would spend the summer or winter in a cabin in the mountains? How many major destinations are within a 2-3 hour drive from Denver?"

There are lots of attractions near Flagstaff and the Grand Canyon.


----------



## Qapla




----------



## jebr

MARC Rider said:


> This. I'd never do more that 600 miles in a day, which means I'm ready to gas up or charge the battery after 300 miles. My current hybrid has a range of about 400 -- 420 miles, but I usually gas up after 300 or or so. Charging in 30 minutes is no problem if combined with a lunch break. Aside from the lunch break, my rest stops are typically no more than 15 minutes, but frequent (hourly or so) so I can use the restroom and stretch my legs. I'm not sure what a 15 minute shot of juice does for the battery, but I can't imagine it would be harmful.
> 
> I imagine more charging stations are in our future, as I saw a news item that Massachusetts is talking about banning the sales of combustion-engine cars sometime in the next 10 years or so. And they won't be the last state to do so.



Yeah - I took a peek at what's the furthest my spouse and I have traveled in a day - it was around 570 miles, and I'm pretty sure if I proposed it again it'd be immediately vetoed. Generally speaking, we stop roughly once every two hours (or between 120-150 miles) and that stop is about 15 minutes long. I'd imagine that, especially if lengthened a bit to 20-25 minutes, we could easily get another 150 or so miles of range on a fast charger with existing technology (especially since current fast-charging technology does well at quickly charging the first 75%-ish of a battery.)

The biggest infrastructure development I'm waiting on is much more robust "level 2" destination charging. Right now living in an apartment it's difficult to have a charge every morning, but if there was a spot on the street within a block or two where I could plug in for the night (or a few hours) and get it charged from 20% to 100%, that would be easy enough to do once a week. Same for when on road trips - the biggest issue is that most hotels don't have robust charging options - at best there might be a charging station or two, and usually it's either nothing or finding a standard wall jack and getting a few extra miles. I think once charging stations at hotels and other destinations becomes commonplace, the practical range issues will go away for 95% of the US, at least for 98% of their trips.

However, the biggest hurdle, at least in the US, is to simply get people comfortable with having a vehicle that works great for 95% of their trips, okay for another 3-4.5% of their trips, and maybe needing to rent a vehicle (or find an alternative method) for those last few trips. Right now a lot of the vehicle trends are towards bigger and bigger vehicles, even if they are significant overkill for 95% of trips. Most people only need to haul a large load a few times a year, yet it seems many people buy a large pickup truck instead of a smaller sedan or hatchback "just in case" - even though there's a number of places where you can rent a truck for a few hours for under $100. Until we can get out of that mindset, it's going to be difficult to impossible to move the needle significantly on electric vehicles.


----------



## railiner

jebr said:


> Right now a lot of the vehicle trends are towards bigger and bigger vehicles, even if they are significant overkill for 95% of trips. Most people only need to haul a large load a few times a year, yet it seems many people buy a large pickup truck instead of a smaller sedan or hatchback "just in case" - even though there's a number of places where you can rent a truck for a few hours for under $100. Until we can get out of that mindset, it's going to be difficult to impossible to move the needle significantly on electric vehicles.


I would suspect that some of, (I have no idea of the percentage) of purchaser's of large pickups and SUV's do so for the real and perceived sense of safety in the event of a collsion affords, even if they really only need a small hatchback for 95% of their use....


----------



## IndyLions

railiner said:


> I would suspect that some of, (I have no idea of the percentage) of purchaser's of large pickups and SUV's do so for the real and perceived sense of safety in the event of a collsion affords, even if they really only need a small hatchback for 95% of their use....


I’m sure safety is a factor for some folks.

To me, it’s probably all about cheap gas. The only thing that ever caused me to place “small size” in my top five criteria for purchasing a vehicle - was when gas prices went way up and mileage became important.

As long as gas prices are low, a large percentage of the population will continue to buy big.

It will be interesting to see how the new electric trucks do with the general public.


----------



## railiner

Think I'll wait for them to develop "inductive charging roadways"...


----------



## Qapla

I will admit, I drive a pickup truck. Not because I "want" a large vehicle ... I work out of my truck, I pull a trailer more than a couple time a year and we need a truck way too often to rent one

On the other hand, my wife drives a car. However, she does not drive a "small hatchback". If she did, I would not be able to get in and out of the car. Talking with a number of people I have found I am not the only one in this position. Many of the people who drive something larger than a "small hatchback" do so because they simply cannot squeeze themselves into a vehicle that small - nor do they find it comfortable to sit so low to the ground.

Now, if you can build a high-mileage car that gives one the same accessibility and road-view as an SUV - maybe more people would buy them.


----------



## railiner

Qapla said:


> I will admit, I drive a pickup truck. Not because I "want" a large vehicle ... I work out of my truck, I pull a trailer more than a couple time a year and we need a truck way too often to rent one
> 
> On the other hand, my wife drives a car. However, she does not drive a "small hatchback". If she did, I would not be able to get in and out of the car. Talking with a number of people I have found I am not the only one in this position. Many of the people who drive something larger than a "small hatchback" do so because they simply cannot squeeze themselves into a vehicle that small - nor do they find it comfortable to sit so low to the ground.
> 
> Now, if you can build a high-mileage car that gives one the same accessibility and road-view as an SUV - maybe more people would buy them.


How about one of these? Incredible mileage for something that size, and it can tow a small trailer...
Might be my next vehicle...









The 2023 Toyota Sienna | Toyota.com


Meet the 2023 Toyota Sienna. It's a legacy 25 years in the making. It has seating for up to eight and features that make your ride comfortable and enjoyable.




www.toyota.com


----------



## tgstubbs1

IndyLions said:


> As long as gas prices are low, a large percentage of the population will continue to buy big.



Statistics bear this out. 

Part of our "pickup truck" epidemic started because CAFE rules gave them an edge over cars. So much they enacted rules regarding Japanese pickup imports. 

There's the carrot and the stick. Rules can only push people so far. There are a great many choices for higher economy vehicles in all classes, but gas is so cheap they don't sell. 

Gas taxes are unrealistic, don't support proper road maintenance and don't encourage people to buy the cars CAFE rules force automakers to make.


----------



## jiml

Since this topic has morphed into a vehicle discussion, here's a couple of thoughts. 1. Older people (guilty) may have trouble getting into a compact car because of its height, making something higher a better choice. 2. If you live in an area with bad winters, 4-wheel drive is a good idea, but small 4-wheel drive cars tend to not have enough clearance to be much help. 3. If you travel much via road, having more than a small trunk is invaluable.

This is defending my choice of a small-mid SUV, that has a 4-cylinder engine which is turbo-charged to enhance performance. Until this year we drove to Florida every year through bad weather, needing extra storage and luggage space for multi-week stays and we're not as young as we used to be. That said, I really want our next vehicle to be a hybrid (I've been consulting with a recent purchaser on AU), with the only scary part being the huge difference in price between them and comparable conventional models.


----------



## Qapla

railiner said:


> How about one of these?



Somehow, I doubt that would be able to pull a trailer with a tractor on it ...



jiml said:


> 1. Older people (guilty) may have trouble getting into a compact car because of its height, making something higher a better choice.



Seems to me I someone mentioned a similar thought



Qapla said:


> she does not drive a "small hatchback". If she did, I would not be able to get in and out of the car ... Many of the people who drive something larger than a "small hatchback" do so because they simply cannot squeeze themselves into a vehicle that small - nor do they find it comfortable to sit so low to the ground.


----------



## jiml

Qapla said:


> Seems to me I someone mentioned a similar thought


So I agree with you. It's not a question of fit as much as getting in and out of something that low to the ground. One of my neighbors drives a Corvette. It's somewhere between entertaining and sad watching the calisthenics.


----------



## Dakota 400

jiml said:


> 1. Older people (guilty) may have trouble getting into a compact car because of its height, making something higher a better choice.



This is true. My Buick salesman put me into a Regal when I was shopping. I almost needed help in getting out the car. Yet, a SUV can be too high. That's one reason I bought "Mama Bear" of the 3 Buick SUV's, Envision. "Pappa Bear", Enclave, when I tried that, I felt like I had to climb into and out of it. More vehicle than I wanted, needed, or desired. 



jiml said:


> mid SUV, that has a 4-cylinder engine which is turbo-charged to enhance performance



I love my Envision's turbo 4 cylinder's performance! It has the most power of any engine in any car that I have owned. I have to keep my eye on the speedometer to prevent getting a speeding ticket.


----------



## Qapla

Dakota 400 said:


> Yet, a SUV can be too high.



That's why they make Nerf Bars and retracting running boards ...


----------



## west point

My sitting height is too tall for most cars. Had a devil of a time to find one with necessary headroom. Even rejected car I had ordered as it was not same as demo car. Always though I was sand bagged. You cannot imagine the teeth grinding from the dealership..


----------



## Bob Dylan

west point said:


> My sitting height is too tall for most cars. Had a devil of a time to find one with necessary headroom. Even rejected car I had ordered as it was not same as demo car. Always though I was sand bagged. You cannot imagine the teeth grinding from the dealership..


Sounds like Chevy Chase in that Vacation to Walley World Flick!


----------



## IndyLions

west point said:


> My sitting height is too tall for most cars. Had a devil of a time to find one with necessary headroom. Even rejected car I had ordered as it was not same as demo car. Always though I was sand bagged. You cannot imagine the teeth grinding from the dealership..



You say you distinctly ordered the Antarctic Blue Super Sportswagon with the CB and the optional Rally Fun Pack? Not the Wagon Queen Family Truckster in Metallic Pea?”

While the Sportswagon is a fine vehicle - it really is - if you want extra headroom you really NEED the Wagon Queen!


----------



## Dakota 400

west point said:


> My sitting height is too tall for most cars. Had a devil of a time to find one with necessary headroom.



That was the situation that I had when I did my shopping. Almost bought a Lincoln MKZ, but getting the seat positioned to where I wanted it, there was very, very little headroom. It was less money than my Buick with the same features as the Buick, but simply decided that I would not be pleased with my forehead being so close to the sun visor and so little headroom.


----------



## west point

Also a problem that I forgot was that leaning the seat back to get the headroom severely restricts seating for passengers in the back. Someone said to me that the back seat is only for younger children.


----------



## John Santos

me_little_me said:


> No!
> 
> EV In traffic jam


I think tgstubbs1 was talking about older electrics with lead-acid batteries. Definitely NOT a Tesla.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Any vehicle, no matter what the motive force, can do better cruising at a steady speed than with repeated stops and starts.

A anecdotal example shows that there can be exceptions but doesn't necessarily apply in all situations.

A 20 mph drive on a familiar route with other people during a routine commute isn't necessarily representative of what someone might encounter on a long trip out of town in unfamiliar territory. 

I read an article online about the increasing costs of driving.

The biggest cost of driving for most people isn't the incremental costs of fuel, tires, etc. It's the overall cost of the capital investment of the vehicle minus the residual resale value. 

The median price of new cars these days is around $34k. Subtract the resale value after 5 years and you probably lose $15k - 20k on maybe 100k miles.



"Many new-car buyers do not realize that depreciation often is the greatest expense incurred by drivers during the first five years of vehicle ownership. An average 2020 model-year vehicle will only retain about 37% of its original value after a five-year ownership period, meaning that a $35,000 new car today will only be worth somewhere close to $12,950after five years. "


Then add the costs of taxes, insurance, fuel and maintenance.

For the time being fuel is really cheap, but it has gone up in the past. 

Auto train can save people money on fuel and driving expenses.


----------



## railiner

tgstubbs1 said:


> Auto train can save people money on fuel and driving expenses.


Not in my case....I can drive that distance a whole lot cheaper in my eleven year old car....even by myself, leaving the other four seats empty...
And that was with a deeply discounted promotional fare...


----------



## Qapla

There are always exceptions. Coach is much cheaper than a sleeper - do you travel coach so you can save the money?


----------



## railiner

Qapla said:


> There are always exceptions. Coach is much cheaper than a sleeper - do you travel coach so you can save the money?


If I was to take the train, I would want a Roomette...current promotion is coach, $59., sleeper, $99.
Very tempting, until you have to add on the $208. for the auto...


----------



## tgstubbs1

I think most people would find riding coach more comfortable than sitting in one seat for 20 hours, except for the food.

Here is some information I found online about the largest "megaregions" according to US Census data. 

Florida is bigger than the sun belt but I think this shows the overall fallacy about the belief than only the NEC - Florida market is large enough to support Auto Train. 

A Long Distance east-west Auto train could serve more than one megaregion pair. People from the NEC could benefit from a Great Lakes - Sun belt train, as could people in SoCal. I don't think this is true for the current Auto train. 



Megalopolis NamePopulation
in millions
2010Percent of U.S. Population (2010)Population
in millions
2025 _(projected)_Population
percent growth 2010 - 2025 _(projected)_Major cities and metro areas*Arizona Sun Corridor*[14][15]5.62%7.839.3%Chandler, Mesa, Phoenix, Tucson*Cascadia*12.43%13.58.2%Abbotsford, Boise**, Eugene, Portland *Florida*17.36%21.524.3%Fort Lauderdale, Jacksonville, Miami, Orlando, Port St. Lucie, Tampa Bay Area(Tampa–St. Petersburg–Clearwater)*Front Range*5.52%6.926%Albuquerque, Cheyenne, Colorado Springs, Denver, Pueblo, Salt Lake City***Great Lakes*55.518%60.79.4%Barrie, Buffalo, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Detroit, Erie, Fox Cities**, Grand Rapids, Guelph, Hamilton, Indianapolis, Kansas City**, Kingston, Kitchener-Waterloo, London, Louisville, Madison, Milwaukee, Minneapolis–Saint Paul*Gulf Coast*13.44%16.321.6%*Northeast*52.317%58.411.7%Atlantic City, Baltimore, Boston, Hampton Roads (Virginia Beach, Norfolk), Harrisburg, Jersey City, Lehigh Valley (Allentown-Bethlehem), Newark, New York, Philadelphia, Portland (ME), Providence*Northern California*145%16.417.1%Fresno, Modesto, Oakland, Reno, Sacramento, San Francisco, San Jose, Stockton*Piedmont Atlantic*17.66%21.723.3%Atlanta, Birmingham, Charlotte, Greenville, Huntsville, Knoxville**, Memphis**, Nashville**, Piedmont Triad(Greensboro–Winston-Salem), Research Triangle (Raleigh–Durham)*Southern California*24.48%2918.9%Anaheim, Bakersfield, Inland Empire (San Bernardino–Riverside), Las Vegas, Long Beach, Los Angeles, San Diego, Tijuana


----------



## jebr

Population is but one part of the equation, especially when considering megaregion-to-megaregion transportation. A "Great Lakes to Sun Belt" or "east-to-west" train are far too broad of corridors (with no clear chokepoints in the way NEC to Florida has) to even begin to judge whether they're feasible or not. Simply put, the market of "I'll plan my trip around a theoretical Auto Train" is very small - too small to be successful on its own. It needs to be able to cater to enough of a "I'd take an Auto Train if it was fairly convenient and fairly price competitive" market to fill the train - and I don't see that existing pretty much anywhere, especially given current available rail routes and highway networks.


----------



## ShiningTimeStL

Been thinking about this a lot lately. Hasn't anyone thought of an "Auto Eagle?" Anywhere in the midwest to just about anywhere in Texas sounds like the perfect market to me, using any number of possible routes. CHI, STL and KC are obvious potential starting points with KC being my favorite. The current Teagle route seems so laborious. A direct route more along the lines of the old Katy-Frisco Texas Special seems to me like it might save time. Plus, both CHI and STL feed into KC. It's kinda replaced my hometown as the true western gateway.

Texas is easily becoming the new California, it's a massively growing market and definitely a wintering location for midwestern snowbirds. It's a place people are moving to in droves. Sure, there's no traffic getting there, so it doesn't have quite the same appeal, but as a luxury express train to Texas, I still think it would do quite alright. Hell, maybe there would be a way to do through-autoracks on the MORR and Chief. Maybe. That's probably asking a bit much on top of what's already quite a stretch of the imagination...


----------



## me_little_me

tgstubbs1 said:


> I think most people would find riding coach more comfortable than sitting in one seat for 20 hours, except for the food.
> 
> Here is some information I found online about the largest "megaregions" according to US Census data.
> 
> Florida is bigger than the sun belt but I think this shows the overall fallacy about the belief than only the NEC - Florida market is large enough to support Auto Train.
> 
> A Long Distance east-west Auto train could serve more than one megaregion pair. People from the NEC could benefit from a Great Lakes - Sun belt train, as could people in SoCal. I don't think this is true for the current Auto train.


Some of those don't seem worthy enough to use the train rather than drive but others, given that the number of stops for loading/unloading cars is much more limited than in your list, are pretty reasonable considering the time, distance and the "pain of driving" factor.


----------



## jiml

me_little_me said:


> Some of those don't seem worthy enough to use the train rather than drive but others, given that the number of stops for loading/unloading cars is much more limited than in your list, are pretty reasonable considering the time, distance and the "pain of driving" factor.


If one was doing an even more thorough study, it would be interesting to factor in age demographics as well. There seems to be general agreement that "snowbirds" are a key component of Auto Train customers and us old folks are very cognizant of the three factors you mentioned.


----------



## jis

I just realized that Florida reached the 2025 projected population shown in that table above, in 2019!


----------



## railiner

jis said:


> I just realized that Florida reached the 2025 projected population shown in that table above, in 2019!


Not really surprising...what is surprising is that the Great Lakes, and Northeast are projected to grow faster than the "Cascadia" region...


----------



## tgstubbs1

I wonder how much the covid pandemic has affected 2020 census numbers, with some people relocating to distance themselves? 

These figures from the chart were predicted a few years back. The Florida megaregion doesn't include Pensacola, which is in the Gulf megaregion. 

I have come to the sad realization, looking in the mirror every morning, that there are old geezers all over the country. While I have a 'hunch' that many Midwesterners winter in South Texas, I can as easily guess that many people in various megaregions have been transplanted from other areas, and they might want to retire someplace they affiliate with their younger years. So someone now in NYC, transplanted from Southern California, might prefer Arizona over Florida.


----------



## Qapla

It would take some sort of study to determine if there are "snowbird" routes that have the same type of back-and-forth travel that NE and FL have. It would take a somewhat steady stream of travelers like the NY-FL corridor has to make an auto train feasible. 

The migration from the NY area to Fl has been a long established and well traveled migration route for decades. It has a proven flow of travelers. Are some of the other proposed route as well traveled by yearly back-and-forth travelers that spend extended periods of time at each end to warrant bringing a vehicle like the NY-FL connection does?


----------



## tgstubbs1

I think they say the current rise in the senior population is due to the baby boomer generation reaching retirement age. It's a nationwide experience although they say there has been a general shift from northern states to more southerly states. 
I would guess that the number of Auto train passengers, and the number of autoracks needed, has risen significantly over the 50 years of operation. So I guess one question might be : how big a train do you need to make a profit? How long does the trip need to be? 

As far as Amtrak's Auto train I think it's there because of the original Auto Train company. It was a good route and it still is. Unfortunately due to underfunding and lack of insurance they went bust. That doesn't mean they couldn't have eventually enjoyed success in other parts of the country ( with adequate funding). Amtrak might never have built Auto train on it's own, and it's unlikely they will add more Auto trains unless they get special funding for that purpose. 
But if they could get the funds I think it could be a good thing for Amtrak. It might make customers out of people that have never heard of Amtrak.


----------



## me_little_me

This baby boomer retired 19 years ago!


----------



## jis

Of the retiring baby boomers that I know who are in good health and are serious about seeing the country, a majority appear to be acquiring motor homes. Those that plan to see the country by train or by loading their car on trains if available, appear to be a relatively small niche at present. Maybe if more service was available it would be a bigger niche, but I doubt that it will beat those that want to hit the road. It would appear that older people in less than good health may be the prime clientele for passenger rail, but they would not be the ones using Auto Train either.


----------



## Cal

TomLang said:


> I’m on the west coast and have only seen the Auto Train in YouTube videos. I’d love to see auto carriers included on more of the long distance routes. Probably just a pipe dream.


Well, before Amtrak took over the Auto Train, the original company tried to start another one ( I believe it was from Chicago to Florida?), it didn't do so well and they ended up going under. Then Amtrak took over the Auto Train. 

I think Amtrak is doing so well with the current Auto Train, they don't see the need in launching a new one. In addition, with them already trying to cut long distance routes a few years back, I don't think they want to launch new major routes. 

And if they wanted to launch one, they would have to build one or two more loading facilities. That would probably be expensive, or at least more money than what they want to spend. 

These are my personal thoughts and things that I've read, not sure of the accuracy!


----------



## railiner

The original Auto Train Corporation, did run a Midwest to Florida train for a while, from Louisville to Sanford. They paid Amtrak to haul it behind the Floridian. 
Auto Train was under-capitalized, and a few unfortunate wrecks drove them out of business.

Before Amtrak starts up any new Auto Train route, I believe they should first have at least one regular train on that route...


----------



## west point

Lack of equipment is another high cost. 40 passenger cars at $4M and 50 car carriers at $2.5M === $350M


----------



## IndyLions

west point said:


> Lack of equipment is another high cost. 40 passenger cars at $4M and 50 car carriers at $2.5M === $350M



$350M or, in the only currency our country can understand, about 120 miles of Interstate.

EDIT: I hate to be wrong, though I often am. Turns out I was exaggerating. You can only build around 35 miles of Interstate for $350M. Shows just how unaffordable and unjustified rail improvements can be...


----------



## Palmland

I know there are endless discussions on adding a new Auto Train between the Chicago and Denver areas. This would avoid the long drive through ‘fly over’ country, although I find it interesting because it is so different than the East.

A recent trip on I-70 from the KC airport to see my wife’s relatives in western Kansas made me think of another possibility. One of the oldest rail routes in the west is the Kansas Pacific, now UP, from KC to Denver. Formerly the route of the Portland Rose and City of St. Louis (Wabash East of KC), it’s now a secondary line to serve the grain traffic, occasional coal train, and overflow for the mainline through Nebraska. It also recently hosted the Big Boy excursion train. I suspect it’s Class 3 track- 40mph for freight and 60 for passenger.

How about an A-T from suburban St.Louis, maybe Kirkwood, that would take the slot that was the second Amtrak train recently discontinued for budget reasons. West of KC there is no priority freight and sporadic tonnage trains that could sit in sidings. The western terminus could be Limon, CO where I-70 heads NW to Denver and US24 heads SW to Colorado Springs and I-25 to Albuquerque- about 6 hours. The distance is about 750 miles, shorter than the 810 miles to Florida. Even with a slower schedule a same day turn should be possible.

Certainly a St. Louis origin would appeal to those in parts of the Midwest, Mid Atlantic, and Southeast who would appreciate not having to head to Chicago. The fact that Amtrak seems to be promoting the A-T (with attractive fares) makes me think they may be more receptive to this than the traditional LD train - assuming the 750 mile rule would not apply. 

This is a photo of the UP station in Abilene, KS and now the visitor center (also home to the Eisenhower library, the Abilene and Smoky Valley excursion train, and, for a few years in the 1800’s the terminus of the Chisholm Trail fromTexas).


----------



## Joe from PA

I'd use it if they extended it to Philadelphia-Miami. D.C. traffic is a pain to drive through, and Miami is a 4-hour drive.


----------



## coventry801

railiner said:


> Not in my case....I can drive that distance a whole lot cheaper in my eleven year old car....even by myself, leaving the other four seats empty...
> And that was with a deeply discounted promotional fare...




You have to factor in cost staying at a hotel.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Palmland said:


> I know there are endless discussions on adding a new Auto Train between the Chicago and Denver areas. This would avoid the long drive through ‘fly over’ country, although I find it interesting because it is so different than the East.
> 
> A recent trip on I-70 from the KC airport to see my wife’s relatives in western Kansas made me think of another possibility. One of the oldest rail routes in the west is the Kansas Pacific, now UP, from KC to Denver. Formerly the route of the Portland Rose and City of St. Louis (Wabash East of KC), it’s now a secondary line to serve the grain traffic, occasional coal train, and overflow for the mainline through Nebraska. It also recently hosted the Big Boy excursion train. I suspect it’s Class 3 track- 40mph for freight and 60 for passenger.
> 
> How about an A-T from suburban St.Louis, maybe Kirkwood, that would take the slot that was the second Amtrak train recently discontinued for budget reasons. West of KC there is no priority freight and sporadic tonnage trains that could sit in sidings. The western terminus could be Limon, CO where I-70 heads NW to Denver and US24 heads SW to Colorado Springs and I-25 to Albuquerque- about 6 hours. The distance is about 750 miles, shorter than the 810 miles to Florida. Even with a slower schedule a same day turn should be possible.
> 
> Certainly a St. Louis origin would appeal to those in parts of the Midwest, Mid Atlantic, and Southeast who would appreciate not having to head to Chicago. The fact that Amtrak seems to be promoting the A-T (with attractive fares) makes me think they may be more receptive to this than the traditional LD train - assuming the 750 mile rule would not apply.
> 
> This is a photo of the UP station in Abilene, KS and now the visitor center (also home to the Eisenhower library, the Abilene and Smoky Valley excursion train, and, for a few years in the 1800’s the terminus of the Chisholm Trail fromTexas).
> 
> View attachment 27503


Are you planning a stop in Abilene?
I think Kansas could use a train along that corridor but passengers might prefer to continue to Denver where they could connect to other Amtrak transport.

If the route you propose to Limon is 750 miles it would almost be as long as Lorton Sanford--an overnight trip. Sleepers would be needed.


----------



## George Harris

May have been said already, but please understand that Auto Train found a "sweet spot" both in location and time for their type of service, Northeast to mid Florida. The demand was there in the size of the demographics that would use it. The ex-ACL main was at that time still mostly double track and they had a good reasonably straight alignment that had long hosted numerous passenger trains, hence an average speed equivalent to a drive over the same distance was practical. It was done at a time when there was a lot of relatively new passenger cars available, so their equipment investment was about as low as it could possibly be. 

The decision to start a midwest service was an absolute corporate blunder. The number of relatively close large cities made it look much better than it actually was. The run time was unacceptably long for the market, the tracks were for the most part in relatively poor condition which led to poor ride quality. The lines were mostly single track, and south of Montgomery AL without signals. Thus delays for meets were many and inconsistent in duration. The combination with the Floridian resulted in the worst of both worlds. You had the passenger stops due to Amtrak that were purposeless for the Auto Train riders. You had the string of auto carriers that led to essentially freight train speeds and handling characteristics which downgraded the Amtrak operation. There was no "sweet spot" here. 

If someone were to have hit them over the head with multiple millions of dollars to start a midwest service, the better choice of routes would have been to have a starting point somewhere south of Cincinatti on Southern's CNO&TP line south, then running on Southern rails to Jesup GA where ACL rails could be accessed for the rest of the way into Sanford. I would be inclined to say build an Auto Train hotel at the north end so you could have a set up for people to arrive the night before, and possibly even turn their cars over for loading, and then a morning departure at whatever time it would need to be to get you into a reasonably early morning arrival in Sanford, then get it unloaded and out of the way ahead of the northeast train's arrival. You would have a run time of something like 20 to 22 hours, with the daylight part is some of the prettiest mountain country in the eastern US, and over a route that had been given major rebuilds in the 1960's. Northbound should be the reverse more or less, evening departure from Sanford, next evening arrival at Cincinatti area terminal. You would be about the same distance from Chicago as the Louisville terminal, and closer to all the Ohio points plus Detroit, Buffalo, etc.


----------



## wildchicken13

I think there is definitely demand for a Midwest to Florida auto train. There are plenty of Midwesterners who winter in Florida that would like to bring their cars with them but would prefer not to drive the entire distance. It only takes a few hours to drive from Milwaukee to Chicago or Indianapolis to Louisville, but driving from Chicago to Miami takes at least two days. Even if the train only goes to Orlando like the current _Auto Train_, that still significantly reduces the total driving distance.

However, the cost would be prohibitive. Amtrak does not even have regular passenger service from the Midwest to Florida, so a new route would need to be inaugurated and that would most likely require expensive infrastructure upgrades needed to maintain higher speeds if there is any hope of maintaining a competitive schedule.

Then there's the problem of where to locate the Midwestern terminal. Chicago is a natural choice, but not everyone in the Midwest lives in or even near Chicago. Would it be terribly difficult to add autoracks along the way? I can envision a future auto train that starts with a small number autoracks and picks up a few at major cities along the route. But even if the autoracks are loaded prior to arrival, that would still increase the amount of time spent at each stop and make the schedule that much less competitive, and it would require expensive terminal facilities to be constructed at each station.

I think it can definitely be done, but it would require some planning and initiative. A new terminal would most likely need to be constructed in the Midwest, and Amtrak would need to find a railroad willing to host this new train, even if it's only seasonal.


----------



## tgstubbs1

wildchicken13 said:


> I think it can definitely be done, but it would require some planning and initiative. A new terminal would most likely need to be constructed in the Midwest, and Amtrak would need to find a railroad willing to host this new train, even if it's only seasonal.








If Claytor hadn't persisted we wouldn't have Auto Train, one of the most successful LD trains Amtrak operates.


----------



## Exvalley

Just because an idea was bad fifty years ago does not mean that it is a bad idea now. But it's academic since the track isn't up to the task.


----------



## tgstubbs1

It was a good idea but not enough money and no insurance. The old equipment wasn't up to the task.


----------



## tgstubbs1

The Auto Train concept was inspired by a USDOT study. Eugene Garfield took the idea and without his work we probably wouldn't have any Auto Train.



Pretty good considering he only had $56k to start it.


----------



## joelkfla

tgstubbs1 said:


> The Auto Train concept was inspired by a USDOT study. Eugene Garfield took the idea and without his work we probably wouldn't have any Auto Train.
> View attachment 27566
> 
> 
> Pretty good considering he only had $56k to start it.


What is your source?


----------



## tgstubbs1

joelkfla said:


> What is your source?


An article in Trains, Jan2013.


----------



## tgstubbs1

Eugene Garfield proved that the concept could work, but he also proved that it was too big for a private enterprise. At least without better financial direction and MORE MONEY.


----------



## BSarratt

The Baltimore train station and tunnels are being upgraded. perhaps now is the time to reconsider extending the Autotrain from Lorton north to Brunswick, Maine. The Autotrain stations should be separate from the regular Amtrak stations to provide ease of auto access. For example, the Autotrain station in Baltimore should be located in the BW Airport area, where there is plenty of room for it. This is the most highly used corridor in Amtrak and it needs a full Autotrain route.


----------



## PaTrainFan

BSarratt said:


> The Baltimore train station and tunnels are being upgraded. perhaps now is the time to reconsider extending the Autotrain from Lorton north to Brunswick, Maine. The Autotrain stations should be separate from the regular Amtrak stations to provide ease of auto access. For example, the Autotrain station in Baltimore should be located in the BW Airport area, where there is plenty of room for it. This is the most highly used corridor in Amtrak and it needs a full Autotrain route.



Of course, you're not serious given that this is impossible.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

BSarratt said:


> The Baltimore train station and tunnels are being upgraded. perhaps now is the time to reconsider extending the Autotrain from Lorton north to Brunswick, Maine.


To begin with, getting from the NEC to the line to Brunswick would require a new and circuitous routing probably via Worcester and Ayer over a Pan Am freight only track good for maybe 25 mph at best. Plus the current Superliner equipment cannot run on the NEC so you would need all new single level equipment to do this.


----------



## irv818

Not many people live on the east coast and "winter" in California.
Lots spend the winter in Fla.
The only time you want to spend a lot of money to haul your car along is if you plan to spend months there - otherwise, a rental is cheaper.
Lots of Canadians also winter in Fla.. Maybe the Auto train should run to Toronto?


----------



## MARC Rider

irv818 said:


> The only time you want to spend a lot of money to haul your car along is if you plan to spend months there - otherwise, a rental is cheaper.



You might not need to spend months there -- Last week I spent about $500 to rent an SUV out of Boston for a week. I don't know how much of the Auto Train fare is for Vehicles, but car rentals are getting more expensive. Also, getting a rental killed about 2 hours between arrival in Boston and hitting the road. How long do you have to wait after arrival on the Auto Train before your car is ready for you?


----------



## Palmland

It is certainly becoming more feasible to extend Auto Train in the northeast with the clearance projects underway. Once CSX enlarges Howard St tunnel in Baltimore for double stacks there is no reason A-T couldn’t use the route - maybe to the site where there is a auto unloading ramp in Twin Oaks,PA between Philly and Wilmington.

Big IF - there is room and Amtrak is willing to pay CSX the going rate for freight traffic. At one time CSX had a rate for a special train when a customer had to have his freight now. Can only imagine what that is now.


----------



## jis

Not to mention getting funding to acquire a third consist


----------



## west point

Many oldsters should not travel I-95. It has the highest rate of fatalities per 100 miles of any interstate. However, these figures do not break the numbers by state.

*#1. I-95*
- Fatalities: 379

- Fatalities per 100 miles: 19.7

Along the East Coast, I-95 is infamous for bad traffic and accidents, but that might be expected with a highway that runs through 15 states from northern Maine to Miami. You’re bound to find major snarls going through Boston, New York City, Washington D.C., or Jacksonville, Florida.

In 2020, I-95 certainly earned its place atop this list, with a number of big fatal crashes up and down the coast, including a four-car crash that left two people dead in Delaware. However, the worst night on I-95 in 2020 may have been Nov. 1 in Rhode Island, when three people were killed in three separate crashes within 20 minutes.

Here is link to the top ten!
10 interstate highways with the most fatalities (msn.com)


----------



## MARC Rider

west point said:


> Along the East Coast, I-95 is infamous for bad traffic and accidents, but that might be expected with a highway that runs through 15 states from northern Maine to Miami. You’re bound to find major snarls going through Boston, New York City, Washington D.C., or Jacksonville, Florida.



Not just in those big cities. On a trip up I-95, I had the experience of dealing with traffic snarls (1) crossing Laker Marion in South Carolina, (2) around the major metropolises of Lumberton, NC and (3) while trying to get around Fayetteville, NC. I mean it was Capital Beltway style stop and go for miles on end. I'm sure it happens in other places along the route where you least expect it.


----------



## 41244

Just stumbled across this thread. I am surprised no one has mentioned Cincinnati as a starting point in the Midwest for a trip to Florida for an auto train. I understand that a rail route south for the train would have to be worked out, but it has several things going for it.
1. Cincinnati already has a train terminal that sits directly in front of a large rail yard. Plenty of room to set up an auto train loading area (Cincinnati Union Terminal, 1301 Western Ave, Cincinnati, OH 45203)
2. This starting point would on the way to FL or at least not out of the way for Chicago, Indy, Columbus, Cleveland, Toledo & Detroit (really all of MI, IN and most of OH). Easily accessible from I71, 74, & 75.
3. The distance from Cincinnati to Tampa or Sanford is similar to the distance from DC. If the train utilized the current Sanford depot, only one new auto loading zone would need to be built.
4. The cost of fuel going up, airports being basically disaster zones quite often, plus the appeal to avoiding, baggage fees, TSA lines, ect. should not be discounted.
5. For a family traveling to Disney: yes they may be able to rent a car for less than the cost of putting the car on the train. But the cost of 4 airline tickets (assuming 2 kids) vs the cost of 1 bedroom + car cost on the train may equal out. Certainly for larger families (3-4 kids) this math works more for the train. They could also go cheap and just get seats on the train rather than a bedroom and save more.

All of this is really just a pipe dream since Amtrak is a joke, but thought it would be fun to post.


----------



## MARC Rider

41244 said:


> 5. For a family traveling to Disney: yes they may be able to rent a car for less than the cost of putting the car on the train. But the cost of 4 airline tickets (assuming 2 kids) vs the cost of 1 bedroom + car cost on the train may equal out. Certainly for larger families (3-4 kids) this math works more for the train. They could also go cheap and just get seats on the train rather than a bedroom and save more.


Also, if they fly down, they still have to rent a car in Florida.


----------



## dlagrua

After reading this thread again, it should be noted that for an auto train to succeed at any other location other than Lorton to Sanford, the service must be non-stop city to city and have the facilities to load auto carriers. AFAIK, Louisville, KY still has the railroad yard and terminal that can accommodate an autotrain but some routes north of Nashville and South onto Sanford are abandoned. Negotiating with the freight railroads would be a chore and the option may be to buy up the abandoned R.O.W. 's and establish a new track South. This would be a task of monumental proportions. I don't see that the will is there in the Amtrak board to consider this.


----------



## west point

dlagrua said:


> This would be a task of monumental proportions. I don't see that the will is there in the Amtrak board to consider this.


Amtrak has too many other fish to fry. For at least next 5 - 10 years not enough capital to accomplish even a 1/10 of desired work and equipment.


----------



## dennisw

I watched a video recently about Australia's Indian Pacific and how it transports automobiles. It would be wonderful if Amtrak could add a service like that from Chicago to the west coast. But yes, I get it. Costs and challenges.


----------



## AmtrakBlue

MARC Rider said:


> Also, if they fly down, they still have to rent a car in Florida.


Not if they’re staying on Disney property. Just the cost of the Mears Magic Express Bus (which used to be included in Disney Resort bookings).
We did this in January and will do it again in October. And had done it other times in the past.


----------



## west point

AmtrakBlue said:


> Not if they’re staying on Disney property. Just the cost of the Mears Magic Express Bus (which used to be included in Disney Resort bookings).


This is Disney's attempt to keep you on their properties and no where else. Friend recognized that years ago and it has not changed. disney for our family?? Never again.


----------



## BarbW

It costs about $500 to rent an economy car for a week out of Orlando Airport, including all the fees they tag on at the end of the transaction. Your car can go both ways on the Autotrain for about the same, on any given 2 dates no matter how far apart. So, the car transport pays for itself over renting if you are going to be down for more than a week. The additional expense on the train depends on whether you get a sleeper or ride coach.


----------

