Why only one Auto Train exists in USA?

[Anderson]

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

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

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

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

 

[abcnews]

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

 

[dlagrua]

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!

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

 

[Anderson]

Mike,

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

 

[abcnews]

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

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

 

[jis]

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

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

 

[Anderson]

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

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

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

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

 

[jis]

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

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

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

 

[Devil's Advocate]

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

 

[afigg]

Mike,

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Anderson]

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

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

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

jls,

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

afigg,

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

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

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

 

[afigg]

afigg,

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

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

 

[Anderson]

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

 

[Crescent ATN & TCL]

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

 

[Anderson]

How do side-loading autoracks work?

 

[jis]

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

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

 

[jmbgeg]

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

 

[larry91403]

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

 

[jis]

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

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

 

[FormerOBS]

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

Tom

 

[CoachSlumber]

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

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

 

[dlagrua]

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

 

[erierail]

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

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

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

 

[jis]

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

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

 

[erierail]

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