This is somewhat for fun and a theoretical idea. If you were to start an Auto Train were would you go. Would you add to an existing train? How about intermediate stops. Thx IGN
Market research time!
One possible market I might investigate would be “snowbirds.” Unfortunately it’s a very seasonal and peak-prone market. People go south in the winter and north in the summer. Unless I could find another market in which to use the equipment other times of the year, it might not be worth the trouble.
An aside on the snowbird idea, though, would be considering that many folks make the move in RVs. Finding a way to move those large vehicles safely and efficiently might well attract a sizeable clientelle. I know I see a lot of them on I-81 at the appropriate times of the year. Moving large vehicles has been suggested as a way to get semi’s off the north-south corridors. One suggestion had the complete rigs being loaded, with the drivers relaxing on the train.
Mid-Atlantic to anywhere between San Diego and San Francisco. Once or twice a week departure.
Yes, snowbirds and the seasons must certainly have a great influence on when those people use it, but seems most reports I’ve seen on the Sandford to Va. run seems to be rather successful.
As for another route…I’d suggest running from Chicago to Sanford…That could satisfy the people who wanted the “Floridian running again”…and of course the snowbirds from up in that northern parts of the country.
Considering if passengers could use the train without including taking their vehicle.
And as for routing, I’d say use the routing that research might show the greatest potential. I’ve watched the loading at Sandford several times while spending Winters down there, and it’s certainly a busy place when it comes time to prepare the northbound train to be assembled and finally loaded. Seems like the customer base is pretty good, and Chicago and points north in that area, should supplly similar coustomers as the one further east.
Quentin, I think you’re on the right track, except that I would look for a more centrally-located northern origin than Chicago. Probably not as far south as Louisville (the origin of the original Auto-Train’s attempt), but perhaps Columbus, Cincinnati, or Indianapolis. You still have quite a snowbird market from eastern Michigan that might not be anxious to start their trip in Chicago. However, any of the three cities I mentioned have good Interstate highways leading from cities like Chicago, Detroit, Toledo, Cleveland, and even Buffalo and Pittsburgh that could bring in the snowbirds.
Of course, I’d like to see conventional passenger service from the Midwest to Florida as well, and I doubt that either railroad would cooperate with any such proposals.
Is there a reason this isn’t in the Passenger section?
Let me add one other small question: Would you add to or connect to the existing service, or put on a whole new train between exclusive destination points?
If you remember the older discussion on this, last fall, a very logical follow-on would be a train serving the areas north and east of Virginia. This train would go roughly DC to Boston, but NOT along the NEC (and perhaps not along routes served by ‘usual’ Amtrak service). Instead, the train would serve logical locations that are ‘centers’ for automobile traffic, taking advantage of highway counterflow, excess capacity, cheap or secure parking, etc. This is much the same logic, albeit for somewhat different reasons, for the choice of Lorton and Sanford as the original Auto-Train destination points. The game changes when the automobile becomes acknowledged as an essential part of the trip, and as prerequisite for the choice of mode.
Some of the ‘best’ trackage for this is either torn up or disabled, but might be rebuilt with the help of local initiatives (for example, using a rail corridor across the Tappan Zee bridge, if the route continued through Westchester, or via the second spine, or north to the B&A). One point is NOT to involve any congested trackage or known choke points; another is to avoid, where possible, lines where heavy freight traffic will interfere with effective running and loading/unloading of the auto-trains. I would further think that intentionally utilizing areas with good scenery, and adjusting the schedule so that it’s visible to best advantage, would be part of the appeal. As someone pointed out, going west (perhaps along a renovated Lackawanna Cutoff) and then turning south to follow the I-81 corridor might be one good approach. A detail here is how you’d bring that route, or a ‘spur’ service, over to eastern Virginia to connect with the existing service.</
Good idea, this may be a stretch considering all the hurdles Amtrak has to endure, I would like to see the Auto Train depart from the east and use Flagstaff AZ area as a possible drop off point. The traveler would then have his own transportation to visit the many National Parks in the area. Your not wasting as much time or racking up the miles driving such a distance, flying there and being dependent on car rental, tour buses, etc., having your own freedom with your own car . Another destination that is a bummer to get to is the Bad Lands and Mt. Rushmore, an Auto Train stop near there can’t be much worse than flying…still would have some distance to cover. Auto Trains with vacationers in mind would be good, but we all know Amtrak’s situation(s).
[quote user=“Overmod”]
Is there a reason this isn’t in the Passenger section?
Let me add one other small question: Would you add to or connect to the existing service, or put on a whole new train between exclusive destination points?
If you remember the older discussion on this, last fall, a very logical follow-on would be a train serving the areas north and east of Virginia. This train would go roughly DC to Boston, but NOT along the NEC (and perhaps not along routes served by ‘usual’ Amtrak service). Instead, the train would serve logical locations that are ‘centers’ for automobile traffic, taking advantage of highway counterflow, excess capacity, cheap or secure parking, etc. This is much the same logic, albeit for somewhat different reasons, for the choice of Lorton and Sanford as the original Auto-Train destination points. The game changes when the automobile becomes acknowledged as an essential part of the trip, and as prerequisite for the choice of mode.
Some of the ‘best’ trackage for this is either torn up or disabled, but might be rebuilt with the help of local initiatives (for example, using a rail corridor across the Tappan Zee bridge, if the route continued through Westchester, or via the second spine, or north to the B&A). One point is NOT to involve any congested trackage or known choke points; another is to avoid, where possible, lines where heavy freight traffic will interfere with effective running and loading/unloading of the auto-trains. I would further think that intentionally utilizing areas with good scenery, and adjusting the schedule so that it’s visible to best advantage, would be part of the appeal. As someone pointed out, going west (perhaps along a renovated Lackawanna Cutoff) and then turning south to follow the I-81 corridor might be one good approach. A detail here is how you’d bring that route, or a ‘spur’ service, over to eastern Virginia
Northeast has service. It could extented north. Where? As a new set how about Indianapolis to Sanford. Indianapolis is a 4 hour drive from a lot of the midwest. The model I think AutoTrain originally set up having end points within an easy days drive from customers end points. After you get Indy set as an origin get a western destination. Someplace that would serve both the snow bird crowd and tourists going west. Say Yuma or Needles. Possibly Las Vegas. Thx IGN
The logistics of checking your car like baggage prohibits all but one point to one point trains. That is extremely inefficient and probably seasonal. There are lots of trucking companies that will ship your car for you. The train can then make intermediate stops and serve many more people. Perhaps Amtrak would be better off contracting with one of those trucking companies or even a freight railroad to ship the automobiles.
The immediate problem is ensuring the car winds up in the same place as the passenger … unpilfered. Not so immediate: what if the family wants to get something left in the car on the trip? (It’s hard, but not impossible, with the current kind of consist.)
That said: there might indeed be a benefit from having a fleet of trucks, or even a dedicated second train, that handles just the automobiles. Much less problem dealing with almost any number of intermediate destinations, or even with ‘added’ amenities for some of the regular trains.
Catch: You’d need Fed-Ex-style team drivers to make the schedules work. That is, though, a relatively small cost item (compared with capital charges on beaucoodles of enclosed auto cars vs. even climate-controlled Horseless Carriage or, for the RVs, Silk Road trailers…). This application would also be almost tailor-made for testing the newer forms of hybrid and high-mileage tractor designs… and multiple intelligent trailer following…
Yup. That’s the catch. The CSX route is too slow. The NS route is terrible from Chicago to Cincy and too congested south to Atlanta. NS might consider it, but you’d have to bring buckets of money for capacity improvements.
Yes, on the NS line between Cincinanti and Atlanta, replace the double track that was removed in the sixties, and double-track the H line, but make it two track all the way…
For me, personally, I would like to see an auto-train on the Sunset Route, but I’m sure there would not be near enough patronage to justify it. What might make more sense would be from the Chicago or Indianapolis area to somewhere near Sacramento, possibly with one stop in Colorado for those who want to visit the Rockies. Dreaming is fun.
Intermediate stops for an auto train would result is absurd dwell times.
And a third track from Austell to Atlanta…
If you started the train at Covington, KY, that might just be enough. And, it might be a good gathering point for near-midwest folk. Just bring money!
Yes, definitely three tracks, to take care of the Atlanta-Birmingham traffic as well. What about two tracks to Macon?
How much traffic is there on the GS&F now? Has it been improved in the last forty years or so? Bring more money?
Not necessarily. Cuts of auto carriers would be reserved for each stop, and ‘marshalled’ in the right order. Just those cars for a particular stop would be switched out (quickly) starting from the end of the cut of carriers, perhaps with nothing more involved than a heavy hi-rail vehicle. (I am presuming that the passenger consist is immediately following the locomotive, so that the carriers don’t need HEP lines or the train a dedicated HEP generator or two.) Moreover, if the cut of carriers is at the rear of the train, there is no effective delay no matter how short the stop, because the cut can be made and the hoses released with the car(s) standing, and the move completed after the train has departed.
There may be a limited number of cars ‘coming aboard’ at intermediate stops, so stationing one or two carriers at the station facility for subsequent loading (which would be known, as advance reservations would be required, and the auto handling fee nonrefundable) would be possible.
I don’t see anything terrifying about the handling time, especially since there is very little if any need to handle baggage at the stops (it will largely be in the car trunks).
… and what about the cars getting OFF at the intermediate stops?
Even if you assume that all the cars are going to the end point, are you seriously recommending adding a car carrier at every intermediate stop? How long will the train be by the time it reaches it’s destination?
Amtrak needs to be finding ways to REDUCE dwell time, not increase it.
Two tracks at least as far as Scherer would be needed. South of their, the RR is dark. There is growing intermodal traffic, but you’d need to light up the RR, at a minimum. Better route would be from Macon to Jesup and then south on CSX. That needs signals, too, but has been studied as HrSR route. (it is straight and flat!)