Amtrak Auto Train Discussion

electricron wrote:

Arlington wrote:Now I ask a question that's probably upthread: are the Auto racks standard-issue (such as the automakers use?)

Why would Amtrak pay more for a special design auto rack when a standard design would work?

Is that a "Yes" to my question (confirmation that the auto racks are standard, and therefore easy to lease on short notice at reasonable rates if they were needed for a service expansion)?

As for why Amtrak would pay more for non-standard, Amtrak, being a non-standard creature, has a history of ordering non-standard things (e.g. Acela, Turboliners) and I fear(ed) Auto racks might have dated from the worst periods of such procurement.

Boston to Lorton would be 458 miles, 8 hours now which is off peak. With normal stops I would imagine at least 9 hours.

CSX has a nice autorack system map: https://www.csx.com/index.cfm/library/f ... level-map/. NS claims to be the largest shipper of autos, but doesn't seem to have a pretty map. CSX shows a problem area in northern VA, but the real show-stopper seems to be the Philadelphia area (i.e. Wilmington DE to Trenton NJ). According to this overview map, NYC is easily bypassed to the west with smooth sailing as far north as Albany. Map doesn't show most competitor routes.

Let's compare for someone in Boston: 1) drive, about 9 hrs Boston to Lorton + AutoTrain 2) hire someone to drive your car Boston to Florida + fly 3) car carrier, about $700 Bos-Orlando & 4-6 business days + fly + substitute car rental. And you have to get an individual quote, can't just find the price online. $700 is really too much.

Arlington wrote:It would be sad if the source of superliners were Western trains cancelled by budget cuts, but it might be a good temporary move to keep assets and people employed.

Now I ask a question that's probably upthread: are the Auto racks standard-issue (such as the automakers use?)

I am pretty sure that the new autoracks have passenger type trucks and brakes. I remember reading in Trains Magazine that one of the issues when the original Auto-train was expanded to Louisville and eventually hauled by Amtrak, was brake problems due to compatibility issues.

An interesting tidbit that I found in the January 2013 Trains Magazine:

" . . . early in 1974, Amtrak ran a few test trains between Indianapolis and Poincianna, Fla., using specially modified auto carriers and calling its service "Autotrak". Autotrak never got beyond the trial stage, however, owing to rough track north of Louisville, Ky., equipment difficulties and poor planning."

Indianapolis to Sanford is 998 highway miles, which isn't exactly rail miles - but the two should be close.
FYI, Lorton to Sanford is 855 rail miles. Maybe Louisville would make a better terminating location for a Midwest Auto Train?

With twenty three AT "voyages" to my name, must I again say "overnight is enough!!!". That is why the "Auto Train Service" routes I earlier noted are essentially overnight - just as is the most "commercially suscessful" LD that Amtrak runs.

Auto Train passengers are not train riding enthusiasts - and definitely not railfans. They are there to move their auto, often filled to the gunwales with stuff they by and large don't need. As I've noted numerous times around here, "arewethereyetitis" becomes quite endemic long about Noon.

electricron wrote:

Arlington wrote:Now I ask a question that's probably upthread: are the Auto racks standard-issue (such as the automakers use?)

Why would Amtrak pay more for a special design auto rack when a standard design would work?

They wouldn't. The implied assumption may have been that Amtrak would need specialized equipment for one reason or another.

Interesting to note that Auto Train autoracks are probably some of the most heavily traveled in North America (or perhaps the world). Other than routine maintenance and inspections they are rolling daily.

If I were Amtrak I would definitely have given consideration to paying for reinforced welding and/or modifications that would resist metal fatigue.

So who is right? Bostotrainguy thinks the Autoracks ARE custom (fitted with passenger trucks) while others (electricron and gokeefe) seem confident that Amtrak uses off-the-shelf. Glad I asked. can we get to an agreed answer?

I'd like to answer the question: where would Amtrak find the equipment (passenger- and auto-carrying) for a two daily grreater-than half-sized trains.

They don't necessarily have to be greater than half sized if the load factor shift is sufficient. If there really is a possibility for improved sales from a second (and likely later) departure there could be a very strong case for running two trains.

gokeefe wrote:They don't necessarily have to be greater than half sized if the load factor shift is sufficient. If there really is a possibility for improved sales from a second (and likely later) departure there could be a very strong case for running two trains.

Could each "half train" be run with one locomotive? (Assuming that the standard today is that it takes 2?)

gokeefe wrote:They don't necessarily have to be greater than half sized if the load factor shift is sufficient. If there really is a possibility for improved sales from a second (and likely later) departure there could be a very strong case for running two trains.

There would need to be at least enough of an increase in sales to pay for the additional train crews (and engines as needed). Plus the people loading and unloading cars will need to be paid for their longer days. Otherwise you're just running an experiment in making a train less profitable.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:With twenty three AT "voyages" to my name, must I again say "overnight is enough!!!". That is why the "Auto Train Service" routes I earlier noted are essentially overnight - just as is the most "commercially suscessful" LD that Amtrak runs.

Auto Train passengers are not train riding enthusiasts - and definitely not railfans. They are there to move their auto, often filled to the gunwales with stuff they by and large don't need. As I've noted numerous times around here, "arewethereyetitis" becomes quite endemic long about Noon.

So let the freight railroads create an auto-rack only train, with terminal(s) near airports. Passengers fly / car goes on train. I'm assuming you can't ship an individual automobile by train today.

BandA wrote:

Gilbert B Norman wrote:With twenty three AT "voyages" to my name, must I again say "overnight is enough!!!". That is why the "Auto Train Service" routes I earlier noted are essentially overnight - just as is the most "commercially suscessful" LD that Amtrak runs.

Auto Train passengers are not train riding enthusiasts - and definitely not railfans. They are there to move their auto, often filled to the gunwales with stuff they by and large don't need. As I've noted numerous times around here, "arewethereyetitis" becomes quite endemic long about Noon.

So let the freight railroads create an auto-rack only train, with terminal(s) near airports. Passengers fly / car goes on train. I'm assuming you can't ship an individual automobile by train today.

Not that I'm aware, but there are other services out there that let you fly and someone else will drive your car down, or ship it via truck carrier.

justalurker66 wrote:

gokeefe wrote:They don't necessarily have to be greater than half sized if the load factor shift is sufficient. If there really is a possibility for improved sales from a second (and likely later) departure there could be a very strong case for running two trains.

There would need to be at least enough of an increase in sales to pay for the additional train crews (and engines as needed). Plus the people loading and unloading cars will need to be paid for their longer days. Otherwise you're just running an experiment in making a train less profitable.

Right, but keep in mind we don't know the current load factor for the Auto Train. They are right at break even most of the time. We also don't know how the car handlers are compensated. I would suspect that for quality reasons a lot of them are actually full time. These structural factors would be very significant in making any decisions about the service.

Greg Moore wrote:Not that I'm aware, but there are other services out there that let you fly and someone else will drive your car down, or ship it via truck carrier.

Yes there are other options, but none of them guarantee the same day arrival as you. You either ship the car days earlier or receive it days later. With the Auto Train, your car is riding on the same train as you are.

We could debate if flying is cheaper than taking the train? But we all know that driving your family all the way down to Florida could be a lot cheaper than taking either the train or plane. The largest expense with driving is the costs associated moving the car, the numbers of people inside it don't add much to its costs. Whereas riding on both the train and plane numbers of people requiring paying fares adds to its costs, sometimes significantly.

What makes the Auto Train so successful is the numbers of people traveling to Florida from the Northeast. It's America's favorite family vacation spot - for lengths of weekends, weeks, and months at a time. For many families, its too far to drive comfortably, especially if your going to drive that far twice within a week. Whereas renting a car over a weekend or a week is relatively cheap, renting a car over a period of months isn't. For all these reasons, that's why there is a demand for shipping the family car to Florida.

And then there are those riding the Auto Train without a car, and can find a way to get to and from both terminating stations. It's an Amtrak express train using different type of cars than most trains on the east coast proving a different experience.