Long Distance (LD) fleet replacement discussion (2022 - 2024Q1)

[Lcon]

My point was and remains that using your own phrasing they already are the dominant player. Unless a dramatic shift in economics that cancels those orders happens. Siemens is likely to remain top dog for decades. I mean on top of the Venture orders they also have Brightline west plans using the Siemens Velaro Novo HSR EMUs which if California HSR follows suit could push them over a thousand units as “western Acela” services materialize.
Monopoly is the question.

Now if they get the LD contract that would certainly give them a virtual monopoly on intercity however at the same time it’s not a done deal. We have yet to see any release of response from the RFI though it seems hard to imagine bids that can match potential of Siemens. As they already meet American rail safety and with a second facility under build they may have the capacity when the time comes.
Many have pointed at the nightjet mk2 train sets as a proof of concept sets which uses Viagio rolling stock from which Venture family is derived. The family also has modern bi level coaches in sleeper services which might 1:1 a Superliner.
The only other proven family of sleepers I can think of would be CAF with the British/Scottish Caledonia sleeper.
However the BR Mk5A rolling stock has yet to be proven on American rails. Though Via might consider it if they don’t like what Amtrak wants. Yet given that Via and Amtrak seem to have launched the replacement programs in lock step CAF would likely have to clean sheet a new family of cars that meet US FRA requirements. The same for just about any other foreign makers. Japanese and Asian sleeper cars fall into the same issues, they haven’t been rated to American FRA safety, on top of most being EMU/DMU/DEMU not push pull.
I mean Bilevel commuter coaches exist but they are normally derivative of the Superliner already. Which given the failure of the Next generation Bi level car doesn’t seem like an option.
Stadler makes a bilevel coach for the Rocky Mountaineer but at almost 20 foot tall well it wouldn’t have issues for head space in upper bunks it would be quite difficult to imagine it even pulling into Chicago Union Station the hub of the US LD fleet. They also have built for Georgia a new sleeper train set but again that’s Georgia the country not the US State.

So Siemens Viagio/Venture seems the easiest solution because the base family has already been translated to meet US compliance. The only steps then would be adapting the Venture side of the family to American LD sleeper accommodations. Where just about any other potential bid has to basically start with a clean sheet.

 

[Mailliw]

Siemens has a huge advantage over the competition for the long distance bid, but I would rule out Alstom yet. Alstom is making long-distance trainsets for Mexico's Tren Maya; they may be able to adopt those and they facilities in Canada that could give them a leg up in a joint bid with VIA.

 

[jis]

Alstom through manufacturing under licence by IR shops in India deliver over 6,000 passenger cars a year that are UIC compliant capable of 200kph currently certified for 160kph. These originally designed by LHB acquired by Alstom. So Alstom is not an insignificant player in passenger cars in the world market beyond TGV and EMUs.

They also know a thing or two about the US Afterall they did supply a tranche of the California Cars and a few other orders, and are also stuck with the Viewliners by inheritance, and own the Superliner design by inheritance.

 

[Lcon]

My questions on that are first, how far along are they? I don’t think I have heard of that service actually getting it’s rolling stock yet.
Second, though they may be able to bid for Via, does that rolling stock meet US requirements? If not then it’s just about 150 cars for the Ocean and Canadian services assuming one to one replacement. Amtrak is the prize. It’s LD pool of Superliners and viewliners in a one to one is about 660 cars (about 480 SL, 180 VL) That’s assuming Amtrak doesn’t add any new LD services demanding more cars or add more coaches to existing routes or doesn’t shift some LD services to Airo fleets.
Now clearly Alstom knows American Rail requirements after all they are building the Acela Liberty sets. It’s just that if they do bid they are probably gonna have to start from scratch.
I mean you can say they know the Viewliner and Superliners but then again so does CAF and Nippon Sharyio Much of Bombardier’s experience with them is near on a Decade ago now.

 

[jis]

My questions on that are first, how far along are they? I don’t think I have heard of that service actually getting it’s rolling stock yet.
Second, though they may be able to bid for Via, does that rolling stock meet US requirements? If not then it’s just about 150 cars for the Ocean and Canadian services assuming one to one replacement. Amtrak is the prize. It’s LD pool of Superliners and viewliners in a one to one is about 660 cars (about 480 SL, 180 VL) That’s assuming Amtrak doesn’t add any new LD services demanding more cars or add more coaches to existing routes or doesn’t shift some LD services to Airo fleets.
Now clearly Alstom knows American Rail requirements after all they are building the Acela Liberty sets. It’s just that if they do bid they are probably gonna have to start from scratch.
I mean you can say they know the Viewliner and Superliners but then again so does CAF and Nippon Sharyio Much of Bombardier’s experience with them is near on a Decade ago now.

Alstom also built the California bi-levels. It is really not that hard to be Tier 3 compliant.

Most new European cars already are. That was the whole point of the Tier 3 standards.

 

[Lcon]

I thought Tier 3 was specifically referring to HSR and trains with 220mph speeds.
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ternative-compliance-and-high-speed-trainsetsWhich Amtrak Acela Liberty and Brightline west might be the only two services effected once they start rolling.

None of the Amtrak LD cars ever come close to that speed. I mean a U.S. LD train set would be lucky to hit 90 MPH in optimal conditions.
Superliner is rated to 100mph max which might happen if it fell off a cliff. Viewliner II is 125 mph which may happen in the NEC. Even the Venture cars on Brightline are generally max speed at 125mph rating.

Alstom didn’t build the California cars *Morrison-Knudsen* did 2 decades ago. Alstom refurbished them a decade ago. Alstom built the Surfliner again a decade ago. The last revision of that was the Next Generation Bi level passenger rail car program which couldn’t pass Buff and they ended up buying Venture cars instead.
As such I think that whatever gets bid for the LD replacement will end up being a either extensively modified design based off a European car or a clean sheet design to meet Buff requirements and with Crumple zones. That will I suspect mean no to a Superliner III or a viewliner III.

* correction

 

[jiml]

Siemens has a huge advantage over the competition for the long distance bid, but I would rule out Alstom yet. Alstom is making long-distance trainsets for Mexico's Tren Maya; they may be able to adopt those and they facilities in Canada that could give them a leg up in a joint bid with VIA.

Presuming you meant wouldn't rule out Alstom, I agree with you.

 

[rs9]

I thought Tier 3 was specifically referring to HSR and trains with 220mph speeds.
https://www.federalregister.gov/doc...ternative-compliance-and-high-speed-trainsetsWhich Amtrak Acela Liberty and Brightline west might be the only two services effected once they start rolling.

None of the Amtrak LD cars ever come close to that speed. I mean a U.S. LD train set would be lucky to hit 90 MPH in optimal conditions.
Superliner is rated to 100mph max which might happen if it fell off a cliff. Viewliner II is 125 mph which may happen in the NEC. Even the Venture cars on Brightline are generally max speed at 125mph rating.

Alstom didn’t build the California cars KM did 2 decades ago. Alstom refurbished them a decade ago. Alstom built the Surfliner again a decade ago. The last revision of that was the Next Generation Bi level passenger rail car program which couldn’t pass Buff and they ended up buying Venture cars instead.
As such I think that whatever gets bid for the LD replacement will end up being a either extensively modified design based off a European car or a clean sheet design to meet Buff requirements and with Crumple zones. That will I suspect mean no to a Superliner III or a viewliner III.

For those of us not hip with the lingo, could you explain what "Buff" requirements are?

I'm assuming the crumple zone requirement is a unique feature to US passenger rail cars due to these trains sharing track with freight?

 

[jis]

Tier 3 is about having an internal protective cage that will not deform at upto 800klb while allowing the outside body holding it to do CEM by crumpling. For example the Venture cars are structured that way.

They are required for operating over 125mph but can of course be used below that too. It is just cheaper to acquire those since that is how new cars are built in Europe.

 

[jis]

For those of us not hip with the lingo, could you explain what "Buff" requirements are?

Buff strength is the force applied longitudinally that will not deform a body. US requirements are 800Klb.

I'm assuming the crumple zone requirement is a unique feature to US passenger rail cars due to these trains sharing track with freight?

No. Crumple zones are pretty standard everywhere US is just catching up with the rest of the world. Previous US standards did not allow the use if such.

 

[Bob Dylan]

After the Viewliner Ii Experience, I doubt if Amtrak would b a interested in another Contract with CAF for anything! YMMV

 

[Anderson]

After the Viewliner Ii Expirience, I doubt if Amtrak would b a interested in another Contract with CAF for anything! YMMV

I concur and was thinking the same thing as soon as I saw them mentioned. The delays were...what, like 6-8 years beyond scheduled delivery? (Though in CAF's defense, at least they ultimately delivered. N-S, on the other hand...)

 

[toddinde]

Here I would make the argument that the world has changed in the last few years, and continues to change. In that Amtrak, has an opportunity to get this right and align itself with where the world seems headed.

1. Airfares are really high right now. I am planning a Chicago-to-Boston trip in May. For a Wednesday departure, Sunday return round trip flight, without a flight departing at 5 a.m., the cost is essentially $600. This is more than two months out. Now I know there is high travel demand, but is it likely the airlines are going to be dropping these prices once demand and supply begin to settle a bit as we move further and further from the pandemic? Call me a cynic but I don't think so. In this, Amtrak has an opportunity. Though I will note that Amtrak is missing out on an opportunity right now because of their tight capacity - a similar spring trip to DC on the Capitol Limited prices out as literally twice as expensive for Amtrak as for flying, which is ridiculous.

2. With work from home freedom, even for hybrid workers, a one-overnight trip on Amtrak is suddenly a lot more feasible. I understand that the mode of transport is isn't for everyone, but Amtrak's long distance order should aim to win customers like me who suddenly have found Amtrak as a reasonable source of travel in the post-COVID era. Figure out Wifi and provide some sort of in-between product between coach and sleeper and Amtrak should have a good chance to capture passengers.

3. This logic only really holds for the eastern one night trains.

You are absolutely right. The hybrid worker model means that many workers are not as time sensitive, particularly if they can work on the train. Another trend that's just gaining steam is people moving to smaller communities where home prices are affordable. Linking these cities by train to larger communities is the key. What I've noticed is that people who live in large cities always forget that there are people who live in medium sized and smaller communities that do not have convenient air service. Yes, people are usually going to fly from large cities to large cities 500-2000 miles away. However, that is not Amtrak's market. Amtrak links many smaller communities with each other and larger cities. A city of 50,000 people is a large market that is unlikely to have reasonable air service. The southern Montana cities are a great example. If you fly from one Montana city to another, you have to go through a hub like Salt Lake City. That takes a lot longer than a train would with all the discomfort and hassle of air travel. The civil aviation system is far too congested to handle a lot of local flights and the planet can't sustain it. Why not ditch the long distance trains and run a ton of stub trains? Because that just increases the number of terminals and maintenance facilities and presupposes that we can determine exactly where people want to go or that they will not connect to a larger system. Amtrak and FRA studies show that isn't the case. Most travelers connect to other trains in the system. The point is that it's a system and it needs to connect. Serving smaller cities was the market that the railroads kept, and was always the sweet spot for rail even after car and air competition. There are pretty easy problems that need to be solved. Trains have to run on time and there has to be capacity to handle the long distance trains. Those are not hard problems to solve if the will is there. It has been pointed out that only about a third of the population can drive. A third have largely aged out of driving or have disabilities. A third are too young to drive or choose not to. We need transportation for all people, not just drivers or relatively wealthy air travelers.

 

[joelkfla]

I concur and was thinking the same thing as soon as I saw them mentioned. The delays were...what, like 6-8 years beyond scheduled delivery? (Though in CAF's defense, at least they ultimately delivered. N-S, on the other hand...)

I'd thought @Bob Dylan was referring to their rapid aging in some areas:

• Cracked plastic in areas that should be made of something stronger
• Failing electric doors on the H-rooms

There's also the design issue of inadequate storage for linens and supplies, but I don't know where that falls: CAF, Amtrak, or some other contractor.

 

[rs9]

You are absolutely right. The hybrid worker model means that many workers are not as time sensitive, particularly if they can work on the train. Another trend that's just gaining steam is people moving to smaller communities where home prices are affordable. Linking these cities by train to larger communities is the key. What I've noticed is that people who live in large cities always forget that there are people who live in medium sized and smaller communities that do not have convenient air service. Yes, people are usually going to fly from large cities to large cities 500-2000 miles away. However, that is not Amtrak's market. Amtrak links many smaller communities with each other and larger cities. A city of 50,000 people is a large market that is unlikely to have reasonable air service. The southern Montana cities are a great example. If you fly from one Montana city to another, you have to go through a hub like Salt Lake City. That takes a lot longer than a train would with all the discomfort and hassle of air travel. The civil aviation system is far too congested to handle a lot of local flights and the planet can't sustain it. Why not ditch the long distance trains and run a ton of stub trains? Because that just increases the number of terminals and maintenance facilities and presupposes that we can determine exactly where people want to go or that they will not connect to a larger system. Amtrak and FRA studies show that isn't the case. Most travelers connect to other trains in the system. The point is that it's a system and it needs to connect. Serving smaller cities was the market that the railroads kept, and was always the sweet spot for rail even after car and air competition. There are pretty easy problems that need to be solved. Trains have to run on time and there has to be capacity to handle the long distance trains. Those are not hard problems to solve if the will is there. It has been pointed out that only about a third of the population can drive. A third have largely aged out of driving or have disabilities. A third are too young to drive or choose not to. We need transportation for all people, not just drivers or relatively wealthy air travelers.

I think one of the problems for Amtrak's long distance service is that a lot of people want it to be a lot of different things. That isn't to say you are wrong - your points are very well-served. But I would think some of the conflicts should be evident between hoping that a single train can provide corridor/regional/intercity service, as well as end-to-end sleeper service at the same time. These are simply two different products.

I think this "identity crisis," combined with an essential message from Congress to run the trains, but without much more imperative than that, results in what Amtrak is today. It's not very effective for corridor/regional service on long distance trains, it doesn't cater to the new generation of hybrid/remote workers, and at least most folks here don't think it caters very well to sleeper service.

I know it's probably sacrilege on this board, but I think a solution here would be to be running segment trains on the long distance network. The California Zephyr comes to mind - the Chicago-Denver segment should be one that can attract good traffic - it's only one overnight with pretty decent arrival/departure times, and it's a highly transited route by both plane and car for tourist travel (at least from Chicago). There's no way to win traffic when the Emeryville to Denver train may just never show up for a day or two.

 

[Antibuff]

Alstom didn’t build the California cars KM did 2 decades ago. Alstom refurbished them a decade ago. Alstom built the Surfliner again a decade ago. The last revision of that was the Next Generation Bi level passenger rail car program which couldn’t pass Buff and they ended up buying Venture cars instead.
As such I think that whatever gets bid for the LD replacement will end up being a either extensively modified design based off a European car or a clean sheet design to meet Buff requirements and with Crumple zones. That will I suspect mean no to a Superliner III or a viewliner III.

The carbuilder for the California Cars was not "KM", it was Morrison-Knudsen "M-K" which at the time owned the Hornell . I was employed out of high school as a kid draftsman by an M-K subsidiary.

 

[jis]

The carbuilder for the California Cars was not "KM", it was Morrison-Knudsen "M-K" which at the time owned the Hornell . I was employed out of high school as a kid draftsman by an M-K subsidiary.

Right, and eventually the part of M-K that was building passenger cars landed up within the folds of Alstom via AmeriRail and maybe a few other contortions that I don't recall.

Incidentally it was no accident that Alstom got to build the Surfliners. They got the contract to a large extent because by then they owned the design and drawings and IP for the earlier California Cars built by Morrison-Knudsen or as time continued, their various other incarnations, specially when it came to continuing parts support.

Also incidentally, in a similar way roughly via the same path Alstom also has the knowledge of the Viewliner Is. That is why I was a bit surprised when Amtrak chose CAF for the Viewliner IIs and in the process probably added a delay of several (maybe 5+) years in getting the actual product in hand.

 

[George Harris]

I know it's probably sacrilege on this board, but I think a solution here would be to be running segment trains on the long distance network. The California Zephyr comes to mind - the Chicago-Denver segment should be one that can attract good traffic - it's only one overnight with pretty decent arrival/departure times, and it's a highly transited route by both plane and car for tourist travel (at least from Chicago). There's no way to win traffic when the Emeryville to Denver train may just never show up for a day or two.

What would be better is if Amtrak would relearn how to quickly add and subtract cars (and engines) from trains. That used to be common in pre-Amtrak and even early Amtrak days. For your specific case, I go back to riding the CZ in late 1971 Oakland to Chicago. When we got to Denver they added cars and changed engines, so that the train east of Denver had about twice the cars, maybe more, than the train west of Denver. Aside from this location, the same would make sense for the Crescent, unless the reschedule has decimated traffic north of Atlanta. In Southern RR days the train south of Atlanta would be roughly half of the train north of Atlanta. I would suspect that since they now apparently run the consist from end to end about half the train south of Atlanta is simply unoccupied metal. Likewise, in the early 60's at Memphis the northbound City of New Orleans would have an extra engine and an RPO added, and frequently 2 or more additional coaches stuck in toward the back. Since the train had a round end observation car, they could not simply be tacked on, they had to be inserted further up in the train. This was scheduled as a 10 minute stop, although it would at times stretch a few minutes. If the train was late leaving, the 79 mph limit north out of Memphis was treated as a suggestion.

 

[rs9]

What would be better is if Amtrak would relearn how to quickly add and subtract cars (and engines) from trains. That used to be common in pre-Amtrak and even early Amtrak days. For your specific case, I go back to riding the CZ in late 1971 Oakland to Chicago. When we got to Denver they added cars and changed engines, so that the train east of Denver had about twice the cars, maybe more, than the train west of Denver. Aside from this location, the same would make sense for the Crescent, unless the reschedule has decimated traffic north of Atlanta. In Southern RR days the train south of Atlanta would be roughly half of the train north of Atlanta. I would suspect that since they now apparently run the consist from end to end about half the train south of Atlanta is simply unoccupied metal. Likewise, in the early 60's at Memphis the northbound City of New Orleans would have an extra engine and an RPO added, and frequently 2 or more additional coaches stuck in toward the back. Since the train had a round end observation car, they could not simply be tacked on, they had to be inserted further up in the train. This was scheduled as a 10 minute stop, although it would at times stretch a few minutes. If the train was late leaving, the 79 mph limit north out of Memphis was treated as a suggestion.

From this board at least, it seems like the majority of problems on the Zephyr are related to freight train delays/problems and maintenance of way issues in the winter. These are issues outside of Amtrak's control that sabotage the CHI-DEN segment, no matter how many cars are on the train.

As someone who actually does take Amtrak long distance for business travel (for carbon footprint reasons), it was hard enough to convince the accounting trolls that I should be allowed to make such a purchase (even though it was cheaper than airfare). It would be impossible to make the case with "I might not show up for a couple days when coming back to Chicago."

 

[Lcon]

If Airo is to go by then a full ad hoc consists are a thing of the past. On routes like the Lakeshore limited they will probably order 2 train sets one for Boston one for NYC mated at the head of an ACL42E to the tail of another set then breaking and switching tracks.
Alternatively The Venture coaches for Midwest are semi permanent strings of two cars.
I could see a consist of strings forming a new LD fleet. A set segment of coaches at the front a segment of sleepers at the back if you need more of either plug them in. Of course Auto train is where that gets interesting. The Autoracks often outnumber the passenger coaches.

I think one of the problems for Amtrak's long distance service is that a lot of people want it to be a lot of different things. That isn't to say you are wrong - your points are very well-served. But I would think some of the conflicts should be evident between hoping that a single train can provide corridor/regional/intercity service, as well as end-to-end sleeper service at the same time. These are simply two different products.

I think this "identity crisis," combined with an essential message from Congress to run the trains, but without much more imperative than that, results in what Amtrak is today. It's not very effective for corridor/regional service on long distance trains, it doesn't cater to the new generation of hybrid/remote workers, and at least most folks here don't think it caters very well to sleeper service.

I know it's probably sacrilege on this board, but I think a solution here would be to be running segment trains on the long distance network. The California Zephyr comes to mind - the Chicago-Denver segment should be one that can attract good traffic - it's only one overnight with pretty decent arrival/departure times, and it's a highly transited route by both plane and car for tourist travel (at least from Chicago). There's no way to win traffic when the Emeryville to Denver train may just never show up for a day or two.

Historically there was a separate Denver Zephyr among others that served Chicago to Denver. It was one of the many competing national routes that Amtrak consolidated and eliminated upon take over.
A second “San Francisco Zephyr” taking the second half of the route. Both would likely have improved on time but the amount of existing traffic along it would still drag it down. Unless and until more tracks are laid along the route. Which is the story of just about all of the LD services in the US.

As to the Identity crisis. Exactly!
What does Amtrak believe that it’s LD service mission is?
If it’s purely public transit. Then the Auto train gets disestablished and LD trains get broken into segments.
If it’s tourism then the LD services need a major upgrade on Mod cons and creature comforts. We should have more scenic excursions and improvements in dining, accommodations and entertainment.
As is it’s a poor approach at both. Because if you want to do both than the tourist side needs more Cush and the transit side needs more reliability.

 

[Anderson]

I think one of the problems for Amtrak's long distance service is that a lot of people want it to be a lot of different things. That isn't to say you are wrong - your points are very well-served. But I would think some of the conflicts should be evident between hoping that a single train can provide corridor/regional/intercity service, as well as end-to-end sleeper service at the same time. These are simply two different products.

I think this "identity crisis," combined with an essential message from Congress to run the trains, but without much more imperative than that, results in what Amtrak is today. It's not very effective for corridor/regional service on long distance trains, it doesn't cater to the new generation of hybrid/remote workers, and at least most folks here don't think it caters very well to sleeper service.

I know it's probably sacrilege on this board, but I think a solution here would be to be running segment trains on the long distance network. The California Zephyr comes to mind - the Chicago-Denver segment should be one that can attract good traffic - it's only one overnight with pretty decent arrival/departure times, and it's a highly transited route by both plane and car for tourist travel (at least from Chicago). There's no way to win traffic when the Emeryville to Denver train may just never show up for a day or two.

I mean, it's obvious that a single daily train can't fill all of the needs on most routes. I don't think that's grounds to break up the trains we have. It is grounds to add additional intermediate trains on routes with segments which merit it. The problem with splitting up routes like you suggest is that (1) it adds transfer points and delays (due to connection times) and/or points of failure (e.g. blown connections) and (2) it renders the segments more vulnerable to political attacks.

So to point to your California Zephyr example, I think the right answer would be to institute a second Chicago-Denver train (a Denver Zephyr, or perhaps a service going via DSM) as well as an additional Reno-Bay Area service (probably 2-3 trains/day here). Denver-Salt Lake City is a tricky proposition - Denver-Glenwood Springs is a known capacity jam, so adding a train here might also make sense (Denver-Glenwood Springs is potentially something that could be done with a same-day equipment turn, while operating through to Grand Junction would require two sets of equipment [but likely the same number of operating crews]). But you still want the through train, if only so that folks going through don't have to kill most of another day in Denver on top of time they already had sitting around in Chicago.

 

[jis]

If Airo is to go by then a full ad hoc consists are a thing of the past. On routes like the Lakeshore limited they will probably order 2 train sets one for Boston one for NYC mated at the head of an ACL42E to the tail of another set then breaking and switching tracks.
Alternatively The Venture coaches for Midwest are semi permanent strings of two cars.
I could see a consist of strings forming a new LD fleet. A set segment of coaches at the front a segment of sleepers at the back if you need more of either plug them in. Of course Auto train is where that gets interesting. The Autoracks often outnumber the passenger coaches.

Airo's are irrelevant as far a LD service is concerned. They are for corridor service. We have to wait until sometime next year to see what the equipment vendors propose for long distance service. Amtrak is just going to give requirements to them and ask them to provide solutions rather than Amtrak providing precise specification of things to manufacture at this stage. That is how we got the Airo for short to medium corridors.

There is nothing cast in stone about permanent coupling vs. standard coupling. Cars that will eventally be in married pairs are currently running in the Midwest as single cars pending the availability of the other half of the pair. It is not all that hard to replace a drawbar with a type H Coupler or vice versa. The gangways in those cars are designed to work with either type of car AFAICT.

As to the Identity crisis. Exactly!
What does Amtrak believe that it’s LD service mission is?
If it’s purely public transit. Then the Auto train gets disestablished and LD trains get broken into segments.
If it’s tourism then the LD services need a major upgrade on Mod cons and creature comforts. We should have more scenic excursions and improvements in dining, accommodations and entertainment.
As is it’s a poor approach at both. Because if you want to do both than the tourist side needs more Cush and the transit side needs more reliability.

Amtrak does not get to decide unilaterally what it wants to be as long as it take over a Billion Dollars each year from the public. It is going to be told what it will be by the people who fund it. That is why it is the DOT that owns the Future of LD study and not Amtrak. Amtrak has had the chance for decades and has blown it both in terms of credibility and competence, to make such decisions and campaign for it as far as LD service goes. OTOH, they appears to be doing much better with Corridor Service, mind you, after transferring the responsibility ostensibly to the State DOTs for service they fund.

If the aim was purely transportation Auto train wouldn’t exist. As it’s well outside the too far to drive to close to fly mantra. Unlike other Amtrak LD routes where you can hop on at secondary points along the way. Auto train is end to end service only. The logistics of loading and unloading an auto rack necessitates such. I mean it requires a shunting locomotive, ramps a rail yard of its own has to be set up to load and unload plus enough space to accommodate the dozens of racks on both ends.
So it’s a very expensive and specialized service. Not one that a purely public transportation service would have.

Each is entitle to their own opinion of what they consider "transportation". Auto Train is as much transportation as anything else. next one could define transportation to be only those cases where checked baggage is not necessary, after all that goes into freight and parcel territory and UPS and FedEx can take care of that. It would be a logical position but most would not agree with it. Since Auto Train more than breaks even how much it costs should be more or less irrelevant. Net net it basically costs not much if anything overall, and might actually return a bit on the investment, more so than all other LD train run by Amtrak.

They (Amtrak and Autotrain) tried extending a line to Chicago but the track conditions were to bad.

Amtrak never tried to run an Auto Train to the Midwest by itself. The Auto Train Midwest operation happened before Amtrak took over the Auto Train from the previous private enterprise that used to run it. For a while that train was attached to the Amtrak Floridian instead of running as a train by itself.

So it’s a very expensive and specialized service. Not one that a purely public transportation service would have.

And yet scads of European public rail operators run all sorts of Auto Train-like service all over the place. Go figure. Some form of roll-on roll-off service for both passenger and freight road vehicles is considered to be public transportation service all over the world and in the US.

 

[JoshP]

I found this post that was posted today on facebook by Betty White. Seems these are re-built Amfleets II and I assume it would be for LD routes, hopefully? Look how new it is. If this is not in proper thread, please feel free to move to right thread, thanks.





Photo credits goes to Betty White, as I said above.

 

[jis]

I found this post that was posted today on facebook by Betty White. Seems these are re-built Amfleets II and I assume it would be for LD routes, hopefully? Look how new it is. If this is not in proper thread, please feel free to move to right thread, thanks.

View attachment 31886

View attachment 31885

Photo credits goes to Betty White, as I said above.

82xxx are Amfleet I Coaches. Amfleet II Coaches are 25xxx. So those are Amfleet I Coaches not Amfleet II Coaches.

 

[JoshP]

82xxx are Amfleet I Coaches. Amfleet II Coaches are 25xxx. So those are Amfleet I Coaches not Amfleet II Coaches.

ah gotcha, I must mislooked, I was in hurry that's why. But again, thanks.