posted
In Australia we have some passenger trains that have auto carries. Unlike Autotrain, passengers can book onto the train without needing to take their car. Why can't Amtrak have a series of trains that have one or more auto racks on them, as a means of attracting passengers?
A auto carrier could operate from Los Angeles to Flagstaff AZ, where passengers would drive their cars to the Grand Canyon, for example. A Chicago-Flagstaff auto carrier service woud also operate.
Thee would be many city-pair Amtrak routes that could have auto carrier services.
Railwayjack, Brisbane Australia.
Posts: 1 | From: Brisbane Australia | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Welcome aboard Railwayjack. Someday I think I'd like to take a ride on the Ghan.
Your suggestion would be a great idea and I'm surprised that it hasn't been considered seriously before now.
For starters, A single auto-loading facility somewhere just west of Chicago could actually serve folks bound for the Grand Canyon (Flagstaff) on the Southwest Chief and for the Rocky Mountains (Denver or Fraser) on the California Zephyr. You could add two city pairs with just three auto-ramps.
One anecdote - about a decade ago I lived in Fayetteville, NC which is an Amtrak stop for the Silver Meteor and Palmetto. The Auto-Train also passes through town (southbound at about 9:45pm to 10:15pm most nights!). About this time Amtrak began a billboard campaign out on I-95. The signs showed big pictures of the Auto-Train and said things like "Tired Yet?" or talked about avoiding highway patrolmen, big trucks, or cheap hotels.
My favorite Amtrak agent at Fayetteville told me that once those billboards went up that almost every evening between 7 and 10 someone would pull into his station, say they were tired of driving, and ask how they could get their car on the Auto-Train for the rest of the trip.
Missed opportunity.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Suffice to say, Mr. Railwayjack, this topic has been broached many times in the past both at this forum and others. But every time, it comes up, interesting discussion develops.
I doubt anywhere else if there is the market potential existing along the Atlantic Coast, but that would not rule out selected overnight markets elsewhere about the system. These are the markets I would have in mind:
Fort Madison, IA - La Junta, CO Ottumwa, IA - Denver, CO Albuquerque, NM - San Bernardino, CA
Auto carriers would be switched in and out of consists at those stations; passengers would be accomodated in line space.
Note that these city pairs are all "one night out' journeys. I have deliberately avoided longer segments. As a fifteen trip veteran of the existing AT, I can assure all, that "arewethereyetitis' becomes pandemic if AT has not 'made it' by 12NOON. For two night out journeys, I believe the market would be quite limited.
Note I also avoid originating the journeys in major cities. This is first to alleviate traffic concerns by the elderly drivers that would likely use such services and also so that either Ft Madison or Ottumwa could draw passengers from several Midwest metropolitan areas instead of one if the service originated in Chicago.
As an LA Basin terminus, I have picked San Bernardino in that such is equally accessible to any destination within the "basin".
But I simply cannot envision a Chi-La Auto Train with a consist and patronage on a par with that enjoyed by the existing Atlantic Coast service.
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
1. Some years ago, an Amtrak person of some standing (whose name or job I can't recall) was asked what the most common passenger suggestions/criticisms made of Amtrak were. He replied "Why can't I take my car along?" and "Why doesn't Amtrak run coast-to-coast through trains?".
Why not indeed?
2. To answer Railwayjack's original post, in Trains magazine, Dec. 1992 issue, is an article which among other things discloses that when the Lorton-Sanford Auto Train route became Superliner equipped, "...Amtrak contemplates adding auto-carrier service on the back of the...Chief between Chicago and Flagstaff, Ariz....portable ramps...in Flagstaff, and...in or near Chicago Union Station...three racks [auto carrier cars] per train might generate $8 or $9 million in additional revenue".
Why didn't it happen? Politics? I for one would like to know.
3. Concerning the Louisville-Sanford Auto-Train Corp. service, Passenger Train Journal (May 1978) noted that Midwesterners "perceived Louisville as inconvenient or too far to drive". The South Louisville ramp site was located about 310 miles from its major intended market, Chicago.
With aging populations and increasing Interstate congestion in parts of the country, perhaps most of the draw for autos-on-trains in major population regions would be within 200 miles, or in the most severely congested regions, even 50 miles of the ramp location.
-------------------- John Pawson Posts: 137 | From: Willow Grove, PA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think LA-Florida auto-train would be a huge success. Florida already has the Auto-ramp, just add another in LA. With a future ramp in San Antonio and maybe New Orleans. Anyone ever made that Texas-New Mexico-Arizona-California drive knows why this would work.
Posts: 562 | From: Beaumont Texas | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also think adding Austin, between Houston and San Antonio, on the Sunset Limited route would work.
Posts: 562 | From: Beaumont Texas | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
After reading these comments I can't help to wonder why Amtrak didn't try the Auto Train idea in tandem with their M&E expansion during the Warrington years. Perhaps start with the expanded Auto Train, see how that goes, then bring on the M&E business.
The Auto Train is considered one of Amtrak's more "profitable" long distance trains. I challenge the accounting standards used to come up with "profitable," but that's another issue. Anyway, part of the reason in my mind is the high number of sleepers that operate on the line, the autos on the rear (added revenue) and coach/sleeper meals included with ticket prices.
Posts: 337 | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with Mr. Norman that the one night trip is most marketable.......judging solely by the fact that my wife is good for a maximum of 18-20 hours.
I would think, however, that if one were looking to try this service concept on both the California Zephyr and Southwest Chief that a eastern terminal in or near Galesburg, Il would make sense. That way you're providing services that otherwise would be duplicated in Ft. Madison and Ottumwa with a single facility. Perhaps initially this service would be provided tri-weekly. Thus Galesburg originations could be on alternate days. Reduce the risk of accidentally sending a Denver bound automobile to La Junta!
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
A good point regarding Galesburg that I admit escaped me, Mr. Presley
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why Galesburg? That would be 162 rail miles away from Chicago and a third of the way to Kansas City. Amtrak would cheat itself ("short haul" itself) out of 162 miles of revenue. Most of the passengers would have to drive the same route most of the way between Galesburg and origin or destination in or around Chicago.
Best to choose a central location that can serve all potential routes out of Chicago. That would seem to be near or south of Union Station for the boarding ramps and parking lot. Just one economical and convenient location for all potential autos-on-trains out of Chicago to points west, south, and east. Easy on, easy off, easy transfer.
-------------------- John Pawson Posts: 137 | From: Willow Grove, PA | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by delvyrails: Why Galesburg? Best to choose a central location that can serve all potential routes out of Chicago. That would seem to be near or south of Union Station for the boarding ramps and parking lot. Just one economical and convenient location for all potential autos-on-trains out of Chicago to points west, south, and east. Easy on, easy off, easy transfer.
Galesburg?
In a word TRAFFIC. The demographic that the auto-on-train concept is directed towards would be retirees (or near retirees) who would be taking extended vacations (thus want their own car) but without spending more than 18-20 hours on the train. Galesburg is an easy driving destination out on the prairie but easily reached from the interstate after driving either away from or around Chicago.
The target demographic is not likely to want to drive into downtown Chicago and they are unlikely to want to do anything that involves changing trains in Chicago.
-------------------- David Pressley
Advocating for passenger trains since 1973!
Climbing toward 5,000 posts like the Southwest Chief ascending Raton Pass. Cautiously, not nearly as fast as in the old days, and hoping to avoid premature reroutes. Posts: 4203 | From: Western North Carolina | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the past, "There has been talk' of relocating the existing Lorton terminal Northward to the vicinity of Anacostia Jct.
One of the "talking points' favoring the relocation would have been that passengers would no longer have to navigate the I-395 I-495 I-95 "spaghetti bowl' that, for as long as I can recall, is perpetually under construction. However, since Amtrak made a substantial investment in the Lorton facility, the matter has been "off the table'.
Incidentally, Anacostia Jct is where the Corridor and the joint PRR-B&O (CSX nowadays) diverge. This line parallels the Anacostia River then heads Westward along Virginia Ave through The District. It converges with the passenger line (Amtrak VRE) at L'Enfant Plaza. At one time it was electrified allowing PRR locomotives to access now abandoned Potomac Yard.
The elderly deterioriation of driving skills IS a delicate matter that must be addressed - more likely within a family than a licensing authority revoking the privilege. I have friends that have had to "go there' with their parents (I never did; my Mother deceased long before it was an issue. My Father "knew when it was time"); it can get "messy".
Posts: 9975 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Near Aurora where both the SWC and the CZ stop but in the far west suburbs may have possibilities
Posts: 467 | From: Prescott, AZ USA | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by gp35: I also think adding Austin, between Houston and San Antonio, on the Sunset Limited route would work.
El Paso would also be great. We're one of the major cities on the US/Mexico border. There are a few abdoned yards just south of the depot, Amtrak could easily add an auto ramp there.
posted
I'm not sure where in Chicago a ramp for auto-train service could be placed:
1) Union Station...No Room! As you proceed southbound out of the station, there is no land to the west...a new shopping area is being built there and they are right smack dab against the tracks. To the east, there is only a service drive right next to the tracks and then the Chicago river is just beyond that. I don't see any room on the North side of the station either...the whole area is hemmed in. Anything else, is not Amtrak owned and I don't think the local freight companies would be amenable to this.
2)The Fort Madison idea is interesting...but I wonder about Galesburg too??
3)Again equipment: there may be auto train style carriers available, but why would Amtrak spend money on them if they can't even afford to buy new/needed passenger cars??
Posts: 171 | From: Aurora, Illinois | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It'd be really nice if they added an auto carrier to either the Coast Starlite or especially the Pacific Surfliner. It'd be a nice alternative to sitting in LA traffic for hours.
Posts: 13 | From: So Cal | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Have you guys ever heard of Eminent Domain. Amtrak and the city can take ppl's home and property.
Posts: 562 | From: Beaumont Texas | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
I live in Aurora and trust me, there is no place here to put a ramp either...the tracks are landlocked on either side. The only place where a possibility existed is now gone (the old CBQ railroad station) as it is now part of a downtown development project.
Posts: 171 | From: Aurora, Illinois | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by gp35: Have you guys ever heard of Eminent Domain. Amtrak and the city can take ppl's home and property.
It's not for free, they still have to pay for it. Usually at or above the market rate. If the seller doesn't want to sell, then it has to go through a condemnation proceedigns, which usually, but not always results in a higher price, plus all legal fees borne by the one wanting it.
Despite the absolutely wacko supreme court decision that allows cities to take property for development by a private developer, emminent domain usually means that the taking has to be for a public purpose. (That decision should be overturned. No one is safe in their own home as long as it stands.) That is a railroad can use it for mains, sidings, yards, and stations, but not for something like an office that by its nature does not have to be physically connected to or adjacent to the rest of the system.
george
Posts: 2808 | From: Olive Branch MS | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
