The blog post Ode to an Unsung Train really made me think, has anyone ever done a study about expanding the auto train? The reason I’m asking is because it actually makes a PROFIT. And seriously, I checked fares out of curiosity, and if you ride coach for a family of 4 it would come up the same or cheaper than airfare, not to mention additional savings because you don’t need a rent a car in florida because you have your own car. Four points:
Extend the current auto train to NY (probably load in NJ somewhere)? NY and NJ are the #2 or #3 states for FL visitors, and combined represent more than 15% of total FL domestic visitors. I wonder how many of those people currently drive to DC to get on the auto train… or if it were feasible to make a second auto train that goes direct to NYC.
Auto train to Chicago? IL has 4.5% of domestic FL visitors. That’s still a considerable number.
Auto train to LA, or possible Bay Area with a stop in LA? CA has 3.8% of FL domestic visitors. Still a big number. Plus, given the fact that CA is a big tourist destination as well, there could be a possibility of local Floridians going to FL as tourists. That auto train could also make a stop in TX, which has 4.7% of FL tourists.
Possible an OH auto train? Surprisingly OH has 4.7% of FL domestic tourists.
For anyone wondering, here is where I got my tourist stats: http://media.visitflorida.org/research.php. I’m not saying that creating these trains would be the best thing to do, but seeing as how the auto train makes money and it’s a great deal for someone financially who wants to vacation in FL wouldn’t it make sense to at least do a study on expanding the auto train to these other markets?
I would think Amtrak would love to extend the Auto Train north to the New York area !! But as always, problems !! How do you fit the high Car Carriers through the Baltimore Tunnels, and under low Catenary in some places. It’s almost as easy to collect the cars in Lorton VA and go from there.
An overnight adventure to Florida, have your own car when you arrive, that can work. Long distance ? to the mid west? to the west coast? three days each way, a 6 day round trip? Is “The Fun is In The Going” or what you do when you get there?
If it was to make money, then private enterprise would step in. If it does not, then will the State or Federal Government pay?
Unfortunately, the Auto Train does not make money. In FY08 it lost 9.3 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation. In FY09 it lost 9.1 cents per passenger mile, and through February FY10 it has lost 12.1 cents per passenger mile. The average load factor for these periods was 63.9 per cent.
Adding interest and depreciation would increase further the loss by an unknown amount. Amtrak does not allocate interest, depreciation, and other charges to its routes, although it is developing a capital allocation model to do so.
John G Kneiling did an analysis of the original Auto-Train in the pages of TRAINS several years ago. He knew that a terminal somewhere between New York and Washington would be more efficient, but he also observed that people like to move in the direction of their destination, so Lorton VA made more sense from a marketing point of view.
Auto-Train also ran a Louisville-Florida train for a while. This route’s history suggests that it was less than a stellar success. A West Coast-Florida run would probably be doomed from the outset, it’s probably too long a distance. Keep in mind that the existing operation is basically an overnight train.
Since I have never been to the Auto Train terminal in Lorton I cannot reliability talk about the automobile on and off situation at Lorton. At Sanford the auto carriers have to be disconnected from the arriving train and then a switcher runs around the cariers to pull the carriers south then shove the carriers to the unloading ramps that face to the south with the cars being unloaded to the north. I would assume that the cars are loaded in Lorton with the ramps facing the north. How the auto carriers are then attached is not known by me since I do not know the track layout at Lorton…
Loading at Sanford is quicker as the carriers are loaded and pulled back to attach to the end of the train and then a brake test… That means if the ramps at Lorton are aligned as assumed they may be unloaded more quickly at Lorton depending on the track layout and ramp location.
A quicker setup would be for there to be two sets of ramps at each terminal and a track layout so the carriers are pulled back and then shoved into the ramp areas for unloading. Loading at each terminal would be where the full carriers are pulled back then shoved up to connection to the train.
Now for the hard part;
As noted there is not clearances on Amtrak north of WASH for the Superliners and auto carriers. The routing would require using CSX’s B&O line past BAL and maybe PHL and building a terminal iin NJ.
Although Feb 2010 was a bad month for the Auto Train as well as other Florida trains there is a close to break even ability for that service.
Auto Train has plenty of pent up demand for their LOR - SFA which should be perssued first before going anywhere else. However there are several problems.
HEP limitations. Passenger equipment is limited to about 25 cars due to HEP load limitations. A mid train lo
A few questions on some of the above points: 2. Why does CSX limit the train to 50 cars? 3. Freight train braking vs ECP? What are they and what is the difference?
Yep! Financial data for Amtrak’s trains can be found in the Monthly Performance reports, which can be located on Amtrak’s website under Inside Amtrak. The year end data is found in the September reports. Amtrak’s fiscal year ends on September 30th.
I have been tracking (no pun intended) Amtrak’s financial performance for nearly six years. The long distance trains have never covered their operating or variable costs let alone their capital costs during this period. In fact, I don’t believe that they have covered their operating costs since Amtrak’s formation in 1971.
Several years ago, if I remember correctly, the Auto Train was able to reduce its operating loss to four cents per passenger mile. But its financial performance has worsened since then, although part of the negative variance is due to an accounting change.
In FY09 the long distance trains generated 24.5 per cent of the company’s operating revenues whilst accounting for 38.7% of the operating costs, and they racked up 72 per cent of the operating losses. If Amtrak could rid itself of the long distance trains, it might be able, with some fare adjustments and cost control measures, to cover all of its operating costs. Unfortunately, Amtrak is a political animal. Accordingly, it cannot drop the long distance trains, although that would be the prudent thing to do. And if Amtrak was operated like a business that is exactly what management would do.
Maybe, but I hope they never drop the long distance trains, what a great way to see America! I would seriously take the CA zephyr from Chicago to Bay Area instead of flying commercial (and this is coming from a former airline pilot). All the fun of flying commercial was sapped long ago. Trains are still fun!
Your analyses are always outstanding, but I suggest that they ignore the fact that it might be a good thing for people to enjoy a train trip. I had trouble with this concept in my UW Sustainable Transportation course also…
Americans have a right to comfortable, fast, and affordable intercity travel. It is a necessary part of our identity as a partly rural nation. As a resident of a rural, agricultural area (320-acre tree farm next door) I feel that those of us who provide you city folks with raw goods–we deserve transportation also.
I feel that if we could get some of those city folks onto trains and have them actually see dog-food feedlots full of horses, well they might think twice about all that dog food Satchel eats. People need to travel on the ground; if one cannot see the place where you live, then you can’t stand in the place where you live.
The way airlines are charging for everything — now as of today even carry on bags will be charged — comfort is certainly a lot and the present airline non exit rows seats of 32" pitch instead of the what 50" pitch on a LD train coach has to mean something. Oh – BTW exit row seats now cost more. Train trips up to 6 - 8 Hrs are now my high preference over airlines or gosh forbid a bus!!
Is it a faulty memory? The way airlines treat passengers now seems to be similar to what the RRs started to do to passengers. This RR treatment started at various different years depending on the RR. Did RRs think they could get away with the extra charges and/or cut services because fares were regulated so closely by the ICC? Or was it both to help drive RR’s passengers away?
Need I mention spirit airlines today announced a $45 CARRY ON bag fee for bags that go in the overhead bin? Yup folks, that is not a typo. And trust me the other airlines are watching it like vultures, if spirits gets away with it we’ll soon all be paying $45 for carry ons… just another reason to take the train!
At 4 million per Superliner car, that 50" seat pitch doesn’t come for free. It comes at a cost of a subsidy rate of over 20 cents/mile. Yes, all the other modes are subsidized but none are subsidized at anything close to that rate, even with artful accounting of alleged hidden subsidies.
It is one thing to talk about advantages of one mode of transportation with respect to another and to talk about social benefits justifying (high) levels of passenger train subsidy.
But when the talk is about having a right to a mode of transportation requiring subsidies is when I reach down to feel if my wallet is still where I left it.
Well look at the airline business - that’s another business that does NOT make money (and I used to be an airline pilot). The only way airlines stay afloat is through shedding debt in bankruptcy and getting idiots to invest in them. Personally I love to fly but would never want to own an airline. An airline is happy when it makes $25 mil in a quarter, oh, but nevermind the BILLION we lost last year… The fact is us americans like cheap travel. You could say airlines are subsidized by bankruptcy… rails by the government.
How true this statement is. Having gone thru 4 airline bankruptcys I can state that each one stuck creditors and stockholders for more money than they ever made in their whole liftime from inception of the airline or from their 1st bankruptcy. Also Delta and northwest are other examples ( did not live thru any of those). So to say any airline with exception of SW is not subsidized is just plain incorrect.
Taxpayer subsidized? Yes thru the capital loss write offs on personal and corporate income taxes of the creditors or stockholders.
It is never in question that airlines receive subsidies. It is just that trains are subsidized at higher rates. Much higher.
Airline passenger miles are to Amtrak passenger miles in the ratio of 100:1. For airlines to be subsidized at the rate of Amtrak, a full 100 billion dollars in direct and hidden subsidies must be going to airlines every year. I haven’t seen any evidence that this is happening.
But Amtrak is underfunded, one says, if Amtrak were properly funded in some sense, it would make more efficient use of its subsidy dollar. Would it? The Vision Report proposed a 10-fold increase in Amtrak funding to get a simple 10-fold increase in passenger miles. The justification for this level of expense is in the appendices of the Vision Report, where they give cost figures of the European trains.
The argument that airline passengers are crammed in like sardines whereas Superliner passengers get 50" seat pitch, diners, lounge cars, and so on does not do much for me. Airlines could have 50" seat pitch and lounges if they were subsidized at anything close to the rate of Amtrak. Those amenities don’t come for free.
In 2007 the major U.S. airlines (operating revenues of more than $20 million per year) had operating profits of $7.4 billion and net income of $4.6 billion. Although two of the largest carriers had a net income loss, the others had taxable net income and a net return of 11.33 cents per passenger mile. In 2007 there were 23 carriers with operating revenues of more than $20 million.
In 2008, which was a very bad year for the airlines, due mainly to the run-up in fuel prices and the on-coming recession, the major carriers had an operating loss of $4.2 billion and a net income loss of $14.7 billion. However, eight of the 15 surviving carriers had an operating profit and five of them had taxable net income. The losses for the big trunk carriers (American, Delta, United, etc.) dragged the industry down.
Earnings improved in 2009, although the industry was still in the red. The operating loss was $1.1 billion, and the net income loss was $5.9 billion. Ten of the fifteen carriers reported positive operating income, and six had taxable net income. The preliminary results for the first quarter of 2010 show the carriers are on a path towards a profitable year.
Net income consists of cash and non-cash items. Although a carrier may have had a net income loss for
As Bluestreak noted above, there are not sufficient spare Superliners to put together even one more trainset. Although Superliner compatible cars are included in the new equipment procurement plan recently released by Amtrak, by own bet is that no such order will ever be placed given the Amtrak’s apathy toward long distance trains.
Rail advocates point to the role freight trains play in reducing congestion on busy highways and the green benefits attained through the reduction of fuel used. It strikes me that the same arguments apply to the Auto Train and I-95.
Observation of Auto-Train’s performance over the years would indicate the the operation of the train eliminates, on average, one major automobile wreck on I-95 weekly.
The train gets stopped about 2 to 3 times per week to have passengers removed from the train for medical emergencies. Were those emergencies to have occurred while the parties were operating their vehicles on I-95 the result, most likely, would be a multi-mile back up on the road for a major accident with Life-Flight being called to transport the injured to the nearest Trauma Center.