by Tadman
So for a long time the collective wisdom has been that Auto Train only works on point-to-point and the only good corridor is the current one. I subscribed to that logic until I started travelling internationally and I think it's worth exploring three other countries that offer/offered auto trains.
UK: The Motorail service was a long distance train on routes like London-Scotland. Due to clearances the operation was single level flatcars and vans. In London, a special terminal in Zone 2 or 3 (I think) was used, but at Edinburgh Waverly, a ramp from street level led cars to a main track in a busy downtown station. Cars were loaded by driving 45 degrees to a flat car over a ramp from a high platform, then down the flatcars to the last open space. Service waned throughout the 90's and was done at privatisation. It's not clear to me if this was a long-neglected service or victim of privatisation.
Argentina: A similar service was offered on most long distance trains, almost all of which were cut by the Menem regime in 1992. The remaining two signature trains, the Patagonian Train and Gran Capitan, kept their auto service. It was usually 1-2 flatcars with stake sides. The Gran Capitan is done but the Patagonian Train continues to offer auto service. Where it is needed, the car is tucked in behind the power. To unload an auto mid-route, the power/rack combo is cut off, run to a nearby ramp, and then added back. This is a bit easier as the HEP comes from the "furgon" or baggage car genset. The new long distance trains operated by Chinese equipment do not have such service.
Austria: Multiple Nightjet services are operated with 3-5 trailing 2-level auto racks. This is still a common service. I think it's only point-to-point but not totally sure.
So it's not a dead concept, but it appears to be viable it relies on subsidy, as the operations in the UK and Argentina were cut with funding cuts. It's also worth asking "what is the win here?". If a subsidised auto train were started on Illinois Corridor service or a medium corridor like Minneapolis or KC, would it make more sense than renting a car upon arrival? I bet it would cost more than $50/day to rent a small car. Perhaps the solution is to encourage development of Enterprise offices at major terminals instead.
It's worth discussing though, as it's not as dead of a concept as we think it is.
UK: The Motorail service was a long distance train on routes like London-Scotland. Due to clearances the operation was single level flatcars and vans. In London, a special terminal in Zone 2 or 3 (I think) was used, but at Edinburgh Waverly, a ramp from street level led cars to a main track in a busy downtown station. Cars were loaded by driving 45 degrees to a flat car over a ramp from a high platform, then down the flatcars to the last open space. Service waned throughout the 90's and was done at privatisation. It's not clear to me if this was a long-neglected service or victim of privatisation.
Argentina: A similar service was offered on most long distance trains, almost all of which were cut by the Menem regime in 1992. The remaining two signature trains, the Patagonian Train and Gran Capitan, kept their auto service. It was usually 1-2 flatcars with stake sides. The Gran Capitan is done but the Patagonian Train continues to offer auto service. Where it is needed, the car is tucked in behind the power. To unload an auto mid-route, the power/rack combo is cut off, run to a nearby ramp, and then added back. This is a bit easier as the HEP comes from the "furgon" or baggage car genset. The new long distance trains operated by Chinese equipment do not have such service.
Austria: Multiple Nightjet services are operated with 3-5 trailing 2-level auto racks. This is still a common service. I think it's only point-to-point but not totally sure.
So it's not a dead concept, but it appears to be viable it relies on subsidy, as the operations in the UK and Argentina were cut with funding cuts. It's also worth asking "what is the win here?". If a subsidised auto train were started on Illinois Corridor service or a medium corridor like Minneapolis or KC, would it make more sense than renting a car upon arrival? I bet it would cost more than $50/day to rent a small car. Perhaps the solution is to encourage development of Enterprise offices at major terminals instead.
It's worth discussing though, as it's not as dead of a concept as we think it is.
The new Acela: It's not Aveliable.