Railroad Forums 

  • Amtrak Auto Train Discussion

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #158290  by John_Perkowski
 
::Light blinks on::

I see your point, Mr Norman.

You think something that covers 800-1100 miles is far enough; full running of a western LD route isn't needed.

I don't know. I honestly don't. Your point has merit, though.

I know as a parent, I've taken my family, by auto, from Carson City NV to Kansas City twice and I've made that trip a 3d time. With just Dad and a 3 year old it's a 4 day run (Carson-Wendover, Wendover-Laramie; Laramie-Kearney NE; Kearney to KC). With just Dad it's a 3 day run (Carson-Salt Lake, Salt Lake-North Platte, North Platte-KC).

Brainstorming it is fun; putting dollars on it is the challenge.

John Perkowski

 #158293  by JoeG
 
Col P has asked that we not get bogged down in technical discussions about consists, etc, but I think some such is unavoidable. In the last thread on extending the Auto Train north of Lorton, it seemed to be the consensus that the train would have to end up either on the NEC or the B&O through Baltimore. In each case, there are restrictive tunnels. I guess the alternate routes to the west were considered too roundabout. So, if we want to tap a market at Selkirk, or even Montreal, we have to have trainsets with single level passenger cars and auto racks low enough to fit in the restrictive clearance envelopes that would be encountered.
What effect on the economics of the train would the use of this lower equipment have?

 #158294  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Totally concur with Mr. G; how many times on my AT journeys over the years at Dinner or in the Lounge before the #0$ ^@** movies start, have I heard the comment "you're only going to be down FOR A WEEK?"

Regarding your instant posting Mr G, only adversely.
 #158304  by Ken W2KB
 
Agent at Clicquot wrote:Why does the dwell time to load/unload at an intermediate point have to be endured by the through train? Why not just set out the intermediate block and let the through train continue?

I’m using Selkirk, NY in the example below as its a big dot on the r.r. map. There seem to be open tracts of land near the CSX's yard. Amtrak has service facilities just 10 miles away in Rensselaer, NY. I haven’t checked to see if clearances would Superliners could get there, or if that base would have the various capacities to service/turn an AT trainset.

Suppose 52 was blocked thusly:
Road Power
Selkirk Sleepers
Selkirk Diner
Selkirk Coaches
Selkirk Lounge
Lorton Coaches
Lorton Diner
Lorton Sleepers
Lorton Auto Racks
Selkirk Racks

When 52 arrives at Lorton, the road power pulls the Selkirk passenger cars forward. The Lorton switcher then pulls the Lorton block (passenger cars and racks) clear, leaving the Selkirk racks standing on the main. The road power then backs down onto the Selkirk racks. 52 completes an air test and highballs north. Dwell time: 45 minutes, maybe less. After 52’s gone, the switch crew can set to the task of spotting the Lorton coaches and racks for unloaded.

If a northern terminal were located along I-87 just south of Selkirk, NY. This would permit traffic to flow from I-87 north and south and I-90 east and west.

Passengers: from Selkirk, Montreal is only 4½ hours away; Boston and New York City are 3 hours; and Buffalo is 5 hours.

Driving north to go south might seem counter intuitive to the NYC/NJ passengers … it’d be 3 or 4 hours driving, vs: 19 ~ 21 hours if they simply drove.

Thoughts?

* JB *
Agent at Clicquot
w.f.p.t. | w.l.s.
Would be one heck of a very long train!!! The present autotrain is extremely long as is.
 #158343  by jp1822
 
The point of people re-locating - and shipping the car along - coupled with the current Auto Train concept of going by train and having the car follow you on high density destinations (i.e. Washington DC metro area to Florida) is an interesting one that MAY be possible between other destinations served by Amtrak. But it would be a stretch and an investment to undertake. Not sure if a market study could be done to help chose routes or not.

I've recently run into a number of friends and collegues who have re-located from East Coast to West Coast and decided to ship their car, rather than drive it across country. Certainly these are isolated incidents that I've encountered with these folks - doubt they would ever go back to the West Coast!

It's too bad we don't have a Chicago-Florida Auto Train route that is competitive. This might be most lucrative in the present day - not too successful when it was in place in the past for a number of reasons.

I think an Auto Train on other routes would have to go from end-point to end-point to be economical, otherwise we are just re-inventing the M&E debacle all over again. But if it was concentrated on just selected routes - possibly. The M&E program, converserly, was pervasive throughout the entire system. If you did switch cars in and out - you would probably only want to do it twice enroute.

I would give merit to the LA - Portland/Seattle market and perhaps one route from Chicago hub to West Coast (Southwest Chief would probably fit the bill). People do flock to the Southwest in winter. Perhaps instead of an LA destination, the final destination is somewhere east of LA so you could travel to Arizona, Texas, and California. Too bad New Mexico is in the way. Not sure if a East Coast to Chicago Auto Train would fair well. You'd have to run it out of Washington DC or Philadelphia - you would want to tap into the the NY metro market. Not sure if the Harrisburg Line could handle Auto Racks or not - certainly it would not be able to get into 30th St. Station.

Anyway, interesting topic and interesting way for Amtrak to generate more money. But you'd have to be careful so it doesn't turn into an M&E model operation that Amtrak just abandoned.

 #158394  by AmtrakFan
 
Gilbert B Norman wrote:Oh, am I, as a fellow Member or in any other capacity free to impose a "one night rule?" Of course not; but I have a feeling if any of the Auto Train Corp "founders' remain "live and kickin'" today, they would agree. Who knows, had it not been for the Louisville misadventure, which resulted in their "cutting corners" with maintenance resulting in costly derailments, they might still have a going concern today.
Mr. Norman,
If they would of extened it to Chicago instead of Louisville I think we could still have the Auto-Train today.

 #158489  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Gents, notably Messrs JP and Poshepny--

We're fans around here; most of the world is not.

I can only reiterate my observation from my 15 AT trips over the years; a "day and a half" is quite enough. My 1996 adventure in which my SB arrived 15 hours late (a lttle ice; you know "all weather service" on CSX) to me was simply "it gets cheaper by the hour"; and I got to see much of the Atlantic Coast Line I had not seen by the light of day. How many others aboard had like thoughts, even though they were quite stoic. In common with my other trips over the years, I was likely the only fan aboard.

Further, please allow me to further reiterate that the average AT passenger is not even a train lover, or non fans who simply enjoy the laid back environment of a long distance train trip.

To continue, I must disagree with Mr. Poshepny; AT to Chicago (incidentally, AT DID get to Chi once for a static equipment display spotted at North Western Station) would simply been a recipie to loose ever more $$$$. However, I do agree with Mr. JP in that extensive intermediate switching is another recipie to revisit the M&E debacle. But I think the only traffic that would be seen on an end pojint only Chi-La auto rack attached to the Chief would be employee relos and the occasional railfan.

I certainly will accept Mr JP's comment that Chi-Fla could possibly work if rail time could be competitive with drive time such as it is on the East Coast. Assuming no stops for anything Chi-Miami can be driven obeying all laws in 21 hours. Add to that a total of three hours for en route food and fuel as well as an 11 hour hotel stop presumably near Chattanooga, and we're talking "rational and sane" 35 hours - a rail timing that is simply "not on the page".

As for RELOS? well, a neighbor reloing to Seattle on the company dime, had the flat bed pulled by an F-350 dualie come by last Tuesday to take the VW Passat and Lex SUV away, presumably to be transloaded to an 18 wheeler. They are making do at present with an "Enterprise egg beater', and presumably their autos and they will have a "photo finish" come Saturday when alighting big bird at Sea-Tac.

In closing, I know that buried in the language of RPSA '70, one will find that the national rail passenger corp (caps intentionally omitted) to be formed pursuant to the Act, was to innovate and develop new markets. Regretably, 35 years of stop gap funding does not make for any environment other than "play it safe'. But then of course the Act decreed the Corporation will be profitable and have no need for funding beyond the $100M seed money that be assured the cadre of consultants stumbling over one another during the route selection and incorporation process, made fast use of.
Last edited by Gilbert B Norman on Fri Aug 19, 2005 10:33 am, edited 2 times in total.

 #158534  by Sam Damon
 
Well... let's just throw something else out here while we're at it.

How could an Auto-Train tap into the Canadian snowbird market?

I have to wonder after reading this thread whether it might be clever to run say a Buffalo-Florida AT over the currently NS, ex-PRR Buffalo line via Harrisburg.

 #158550  by walt
 
JoeG wrote:Col P has asked that we not get bogged down in technical discussions about consists, etc, but I think some such is unavoidable. In the last thread on extending the Auto Train north of Lorton, it seemed to be the consensus that the train would have to end up either on the NEC or the B&O through Baltimore. In each case, there are restrictive tunnels. I guess the alternate routes to the west were considered too roundabout. So, if we want to tap a market at Selkirk, or even Montreal, we have to have trainsets with single level passenger cars and auto racks low enough to fit in the restrictive clearance envelopes that would be encountered.
What effect on the economics of the train would the use of this lower equipment have?
Potential economic problems surrounding the use of lower ( Viewliner & AmFleet) type equipment to permit the train to operate north of DC wouldn't arise from the passenger section--the current train is basically a high level rather than a bi-level train, except for some family and handicapped bedrooms on the lower level of the sleeping cars, and the lower ( smoking) level on the lounge cars--- it would arise from the car carriers. Use of lower single level car carriers would necessitate two or three times the number of car carriers that are in the present consist--- and as noted-- the train is already a very long train ( 1/3 mile long-- the longest passenger train in the world-- according to an on-board announcement)

 #158787  by taoyue
 
Mr. Norman wrote:
As for RELOS? well, a neighbor reloing to Seattle on the company dime, had the flat bed pulled by an F-350 dualie come by last Tuesday to take the VW Passat and Lex SUV away, presumably to be transloaded to an 18 wheeler. They are making do at present with an "Enterprise egg beater', and presumably their autos and they will have a "photo finish" come Saturday when alighting big bird at Sea-Tac.
And if you go out and price it all up: airfare, rental car, auto shipping, insurance -- that's about $2000-3000. Quite a bit of money.

 #159392  by John_Perkowski
 
I've been taking some BSA leadership training this past weekend. For those of you who know Scouting's program, it's called Wood Badge.

The decision about extending Auto-Train style service into the Northeast, given that a bi-level auto rack may be needed (something smaller than Plate F) is a policy question appropriate to our ongoing conversation here.

That said,

"Back in the day" (in other words the 40s to 60s), IIUC, boxcars in auto service had two levels (much as a "pork service" stock car). Certainly, the first auto-rack flatcars (long before being fully enclosed) were only two decks high. The current triple-decker is a consequence of maximizing freight revenue per trip.

Finding the old designs and enclosing them does not seem to me to be an insurmountable engineering problem.

At the same time ... JUST 1/3 of a mile? Ringling Brothers Circus Train is a tad longer than that... So were some of the older, now gone shows like Royal American, if I've listened to the circus train enthusiasts correctly.

John Perkowski

 #159447  by walt
 
John_Perkowski wrote:
At the same time ... JUST 1/3 of a mile? Ringling Brothers Circus Train is a tad longer than that... So were some of the older, now gone shows like Royal American, if I've listened to the circus train enthusiasts correctly.

John Perkowski
That's what the on-board announcement indicated---- 31 cars total, the southbound 8/4/05 train was carrying 300 plus passengers and 100 plus automobiles. It may be that the Ringling Brothers Train is not categorized as a passenger train the way the Auto-Train is---- in any event--- it is a VERY long (or "heavy") train.

 #159684  by John_Perkowski
 
As a note of information,

Prior to A-day, circus trains came under the auspices of railroad Passenger Traffic Departments.

Of course, since they go places Amtrak doesn't/won't, today they run on the investor-owned railroads.

John Perkowski

 #159696  by JoeG
 
The Auto Train doesn't leave from regular passenger terminals, it leave from special facilities. Freight trains are often 2 miles long. If the passenger cars are at the front of the train, to minimize slack issues, is there any reason why the Auto Train can't be as long as a regular freight train?

 #159699  by Gilbert B Norman
 
John_Perkowski wrote:
Prior to A-day, circus trains came under the auspices of railroad Passenger Traffic Departments.
Gotta disagree, Colonel; at least insofar as the MILW goes.

A circus train on the MILW was waybilled (as distinct from ticketed), which means freight. I had occasion to personally review those documents.
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 117