Why only one Auto Train exists in USA?

[colobok]

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

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

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

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

What do you think?

 

[AmtrakWPK]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sechs]

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

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

 

[colobok]

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

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

 

[BobWeaver]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[frj1983]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[sechs]

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

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

There is already facility in Virginia.

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

 

[Guest]

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

 

[Bob]

NOTE - this is a 4 year old thread.

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

 

[guest]

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

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

 

[Devil's Advocate]

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

 

[NY Penn]

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

1. Two of the largest cities in America.

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

Of course, this is all useless dreaming...

 

[jis]

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

1. Two of the largest cities in America.

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

Of course, this is all useless dreaming...

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

 

[Texan Eagle]

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

1. Two of the largest cities in America.

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

Of course, this is all useless dreaming...

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

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

 

[reefgeek]

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

1. Two of the largest cities in America.

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

Of course, this is all useless dreaming...

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

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

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

 

[Trogdor]

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

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

 

[Anderson]

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

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

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

 

[abcnews]

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

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

 

[jis]

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

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

 

[Anderson]

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

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

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

 

[abcnews]

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

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

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

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

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

 

[jis]

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

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

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

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

 

[afigg]

Yes - the Southwest Chief would make a short stop and pick up one or two preloaded auto rack cars, ....

One problem I see is the slower track speed of 70 MPH with freight cars on the rear of the train (autoracks are considered freight cars). That alone may keep this idea from materializing. ...

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

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

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

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

 

[Ryan]

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

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

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

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

I'll double down on that prediction:

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