Revisiting the "more auto train" idea

[bdawe]

I feel like suburban Chicago to Arizona over the Southern Transcon was the most common pitch we heard last time?

There are no Disneyland, Disneyworld, Universal Studios, or other larger theme parks in Arizona. There are no cruise ships departing from seaports in Arizona because there are no seaports. The only seasonal travel to Arizona is by snowbirds. The vacationers and snowbirds on the existing Auto Train route are avoiding one night layover, and a second long day driving their personal vehicle. Snowbirds to Arizona would be avoiding a second and third long day driving their personal vehicle. The route would be at least twice as long, requiring at least twice as many trainsets including auto racks - or the same amount of rolling stock with half the service frequency. Will it ever get enough customers to even come close to breaking even? If it can't break even - how long do you think Congress will subsidize people moving their cars on a train so they can commute between two homes? Do you really believe Congress will fork up money for people rich enough to own two homes?

Are that many people taking the auto train to visit theme parks? I had thought it was pretty much snowbirds, which is Arizona (though on a smaller scale than Florida)

In so far as there really is any realizable demand for another auto-train, an Arizona terminus (say, Flagstaff) puts you within a days drive of Los Angeles, Phoenix, the Grand Canyon, Las Vegas, Tucson, arguably San Diego, parts of the Sierra Nevada and Death Valley NP.

Furthermore, the Southern Transcon is more or less the pre-eminent fast-freight railway, so another 70 mph non-stop unit train fits the traffic very well, and can probably achieve meaningfully higher average speeds than the Florida Autotrain

[David Benton]

I still think a service north from Lorton to the Boston area, would be useful , to the likes of travelling salesmen/ tradesmen.
It would have to be single level , and capable of 100 mph , at least. Whilst this limits capacity , the sharing of the Lorton terminal offers economy of scale.
Timetable would be to use the Lorton terminal before / after the Auto train.
Northbound- loading starts 6p.m , train departs Lorton 9 p.m , Train arrives Boston Area - 6 a.m.
Southbound- loading starts 5p.m , train departs 8p.m , Train arrives Lorton 5a.m, unloading finished 8 a.m.
I would defer to Locals for a suitable terminal location in the north .

[STrRedWolf]

I still think a service north from Lorton to the Boston area, would be useful , to the likes of travelling salesmen/ tradesmen.
It would have to be single level , and capable of 100 mph , at least. Whilst this limits capacity , the sharing of the Lorton terminal offers economy of scale.
Timetable would be to use the Lorton terminal before / after the Auto train.
Northbound- loading starts 6p.m , train departs Lorton 9 p.m , Train arrives Boston Area - 6 a.m.
Southbound- loading starts 5p.m , train departs 8p.m , Train arrives Lorton 5a.m, unloading finished 8 a.m.
I would defer to Locals for a suitable terminal location in the north .

That assumes new equipment that Amtrak's not willing to buy, and use of the NEC.

If we reuse the existing equipment, then we can't use Lorton. Nether the B&P nor CSX's Howard Street Tunnel is suitable.

Next step? Baltimore Bayview, use the CSX track with a more inland route around Selkirk, NY (Albany) and then to Springfield. There's your end point, and you're a short drive away from Boston.

[David Benton]

Why would Amtrak not be willing to buy new equipment?

[STrRedWolf]

Why would Amtrak not be willing to buy new equipment?

This assumes Amtrak has money to spend. Amtrak is to be run like a business, so it must follow regular business mantra: Keep costs down and profits up. For Amtrak, that means if you can reuse equipment and not diversify as much, you save the money in maintenance costs down the line. And Amtrak doesn't have that much money to spend right now.

Besides, isn't Amtrak trying to keep the number of types of equipment down?

[Tadman]

I feel like suburban Chicago to Arizona over the Southern Transcon was the most common pitch we heard last time?

There are no Disneyland, Disneyworld, Universal Studios, or other larger theme parks in Arizona. There are no cruise ships departing from seaports in Arizona because there are no seaports. The only seasonal travel to Arizona is by snowbirds. The vacationers and snowbirds on the existing Auto Train route are avoiding one night layover, and a second long day driving their personal vehicle. Snowbirds to Arizona would be avoiding a second and third long day driving their personal vehicle. ...

Are that many people taking the auto train to visit theme parks? I had thought it was pretty much snowbirds, which is Arizona (though on a smaller scale than Florida)

Agreed that the Florida AT is mostly snowbirds. I don't know many people that take it otherwise.

And regarding Arizona, my parents live in Tucson and SW Michigan. There are at least four other families in our neighborhood that have the exact same situation. They all drive two long days and stop somewhere like Tulsa or Joplin. A Joliet-Flagstaff AT on ATSF would probably be fairly well patronized. Perhaps it's not as busy as the Florida run, maybe run 2x/week.

Consider this - with one train set, you could run from:
1. Joliet Sunday noon to Flagstaff Monday 1700
2. unload & clean
3. Flagstaff Tues 1100h - Riverside Tues 2100h
4. unload, clean, turn
5. Riverside Weds 1100h - Flagstaff Weds 2100h
6. unload and clean
7. Flagstaff 1100h Thurs - Joliet 1700h Friday
8. Saturday off

Now that might be tough given there's just enough crews to run a daily Chief, but if BNSF were contracted to supply engines and crews, it's a different story. I know, they have to be passenger certified due to CFR. That can be done.

[mtuandrew]

I like the double-stop and overnight idea. Not too worried about crew, Amtrak would hire extras as part of this kind of expansion. If there’s Class I rules against running more Auto Trains, worth seeing whether BNSF (et al) would be willing to run an intermodal roundly an hour after Amtrak sends its passengers along.

[electricron]

Agreed that the Florida AT is mostly snowbirds. I don't know many people that take it otherwise.

And regarding Arizona, my parents live in Tucson and SW Michigan. There are at least four other families in our neighborhood that have the exact same situation. They all drive two long days and stop somewhere like Tulsa or Joplin. A Joliet-Flagstaff AT on ATSF would probably be fairly well patronized. Perhaps it's not as busy as the Florida run, maybe run 2x/week.

Consider this - with one train set, you could run from:
1. Joliet Sunday noon to Flagstaff Monday 1700
2. unload & clean
3. Flagstaff Tues 1100h - Riverside Tues 2100h
4. unload, clean, turn
5. Riverside Weds 1100h - Flagstaff Weds 2100h
6. unload and clean
7. Flagstaff 1100h Thurs - Joliet 1700h Friday
8. Saturday off

Now that might be tough given there's just enough crews to run a daily Chief, but if BNSF were contracted to supply engines and crews, it's a different story. I know, they have to be passenger certified due to CFR. That can be done.

Just look at Joliet and its workforce. They work on Sunday and Friday's only. How many railroaders in a strong union do you know work part time? Then look at the daparture time of noon. If the existing Auto Train gets complaints for a 1700 departure for being too early, what do you think the remarks would be for a noon departure from Chicago? Golly, there could be people driving from as far away as New York trying to catch this train, and they will have to be there to drop off their cars by 0930.
Now let's look at the Flagstaff layover. Westbound you have passengers going the entire way between Chicago and Riverside wait from 1700 Monday to 1100 Tuesday at a non-existing train station. Eastbound they wait from 2100 Wednesday to 1100 Thursday, still overnight but 4 hours less. The crews in Flagstaff work 4 days a week, but on different shifts. Day, evening, and mids. How many union workers do you know work rotating shifts every day in a single work week? This idea is completely undoable even before looking at what happens in Riverside.

[rohr turbo]

I also like Tad's Chicago area-Flagstaff-Riverside route very much. But how about this idea (I'm sure it's been suggested and shot down before, but...)

Make the SW Chief an auto train.

- Non-auto passengers board and depart CUS as usual, all Superliner consist.
- At suburban Chicago autotrain station (Joliet or Naperville or ??) make a 25 minute stop. Auto passengers (who had arrived 2 hrs earlier) board. Autoracks are attached to the rear of the train -- those for Riverside forward of those for Flagstaff.
- Make all SWC stops as usual.
- 25 minute stop at Flagstaff to remove some autoracks from rear of train. Rest of train continues as usual
- 25 minute stop at Riverside to remove the rest of the autoracks. Rest of train continues as usual to LA.

Vice versa for return.

The auto passengers do not get a non stop ride, but I don't think that is a huge impediment. Three 25 minute stops does add time (I chose 25 as this is the engine change time in Washington, D.C. and I don't think adding/removing a string of autoracks is any more complex -- should actually be quicker.) Maybe move the crew-change, window-wash,etc functions from Albuquerque to Flagstaff then that's a wash.

Single Chicago-Arizona-LA train instead of two. Certainly more economical.

Why wouldn't this work?

[bdawe]

It'd be slower than the Chief?

[Tadman]

Just look at Joliet and its workforce. They work on Sunday and Friday's only. How many railroaders in a strong union do you know work part time? Then look at the daparture time of noon. If the existing Auto Train gets complaints for a 1700 departure for being too early, what do you think the remarks would be for a noon departure from Chicago? Golly, there could be people driving from as far away as New York trying to catch this train, and they will have to be there to drop off their cars by 0930.
Now let's look at the Flagstaff layover. Westbound you have passengers going the entire way between Chicago and Riverside wait from 1700 Monday to 1100 Tuesday at a non-existing train station. Eastbound they wait from 2100 Wednesday to 1100 Thursday, still overnight but 4 hours less. The crews in Flagstaff work 4 days a week, but on different shifts. Day, evening, and mids. How many union workers do you know work rotating shifts every day in a single work week? This idea is completely undoable even before looking at what happens in Riverside.

You're missing the forest for the trees. The days and times are arbitrary in order to show that it's possible to use one set to cover two routes that don't have the demand for daily services. If this were ever taken seriously, you know for sure someone would get a million dollar study contract (or three) before wheel 1 turns.

As for "railroaders", auto loaders are not railroaders. They can be third party contractors and often are at other auto loading facilities.

And this is not aimed at New Yorkers. Joliet was chosen because it's upper midwest. You can take your pick of Joliet, Waukesha, Kankakee, Kokomo, Dayton... But Joliet is one railroad, one main line, all the way.

[Gilbert B Norman]

A Joliet-Flagstaff AT on ATSF would probably be fairly well patronized. Perhaps it's not as busy as the Florida run, maybe run 2x/week.

Mr. Dunville, you have cooked up a routing to benefit your Mother snd Father, and from knowing you face to face, nothing ever came to my attention that they're any kind of "train aficionados".

Addressing a whole new train routed over the Santa Fe? That ship simply will not sail. I have suggested Galesburg simply on the strength that two routes, namely Galesburg-Irondale and Galesburg-La Junta could be served from one facility.

"Been there done that"; the 18 hour "arewethereyetitis" factor comes into play.

[mtuandrew]

Why wouldn’t the Southern Transcon be an option? I’m assuming that unlike the Southwest Chief, a Pacific Auto Train would be largely nonstop. It would also likely have to pay market intermodal Z-train rates that Amtrak has avoided paying thus far, or would involve BNSF hauling the automobiles itself. Under those conditions, and with Amtrak already self-indemnifying, it doesn’t seem completely insane that Fort Worth would play along. They’re probably more likely than any other Class I.

[bdawe]

You could I suppose even take Raton rather than the Belen Cutoff if BNSF was really serious about not having it in their hair, or would a train of autoracks not have fun on those grades?

[electricron]

You're missing the forest for the trees. The days and times are arbitrary in order to show that it's possible to use one set to cover two routes that don't have the demand for daily services. If this were ever taken seriously, you know for sure someone would get a million dollar study contract (or three) before wheel 1 turns.

As for "railroaders", auto loaders are not railroaders. They can be third party contractors and often are at other auto loading facilities.

And this is not aimed at New Yorkers. Joliet was chosen because it's upper midwest. You can take your pick of Joliet, Waukesha, Kankakee, Kokomo, Dayton... But Joliet is one railroad, one main line, all the way.

The days may have been arbitrary, but not the times. You picked the times to show a leg being accomplish overnight. But if you use realistic times in the schedule, a late afternoon departure with a mid morning arrival, it would take two nights to travel between Joliet and Fairbanks. Then those wishing to travel all the way from the Midwest to southern California would have a more reasonable day transfer at the train station in Fairbanks about 8 to 9 hours. Give them a movie, lunch, and another movie to pass their time half way entertained. The workers loading and unloading the auto racks work on a single "day" shift without a shift bonus to their salaries.
But this would turn a two night trip into a three night trip - effectively making the train much slower. Again, it just will not work like you imagine it.