With the recent spike in gasoline prices (and jet fuel prices), and after a few close calls with 18-wheelers, it seems to me that a new generation of auto trains would be a real service to the nation.
The major drawback with current auto-train technology seems to be with the auto-rack cars. They are slow to load, and appear to be loaded from the end. Thus, a situation like the current auto-train, which is loaded in Virginia and emptied entirely on reaching Florida. If a distance train like the Empire Builder had a better means of dropping off vehicles at a couple of points along the route, it could provide a valuable service (and extra cash income for Amtrak).
Consider that at $4 a gallon, the 8.5 hour drive to Fargo, ND would cost $85 (assuming 30 MPG Hwy) and could easily run over $110 for an SUV. People might pay $100+ to ship their SUV full of hunting/fishing gear to Fargo and drive the rest of the way to a wilderness camp in Minnesota.
It's really just a question of unloading the Fargo vehicles quickly and taking on new ones there...
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
This an interesting concept, which unfortunately would prove to be quite impractical.
What it would appear that Mr. Oydman has in mind is for a passenger train operator, which essentially means Amtrak, to offer an auto carriage service in which an automobile could be loaded or unloaded at any station en route that was so equipped to handle such.
No doubt the technology exists for such; it would involve having an auto carrier with overhead doors (garage doors if you will) so that a vehicle could be "plucked" or placed in any vacant location from the side of the car, as distinct from the Ro-Ro - Roll On-Roll Off - arrangement used in existing rail auto carrier cars. There would also need be at each station handling autos a lift with both vertical and lateral capacity.
Aside from the cost of the equipment, it would likely require not less than ten minuets per auto being handled. Therefore if, say, three autos were to be handled at a station, there would be thirty minutes of station time involved.
The only reasonable and practical way to handle autos is how Amtrak presently does with their Auto Train, however that service exists in only one market, namely from near-Washington to near-Orlando.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
Yet again what is "impractical" here is practical and common elsewhere in the world. I'm struggling to find a decent photo but here is one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chargement_voiture_Eurotunnel.jpg - yes, it's the Channel Tunnel between the UK and France where - shock, horror! - they load an entire train in under 20 minutes.
While I'm not suggesting this could be done at every stop, a long distance train could certainly incorporate one or two car loading/unloading points without the angst Mr. Norman imagines.
Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :
Geoff, do you happen to know what the maximum capacity of the Eurotunnel auto train is?
quote:Each of the 9 Eurotunnel Passenger Shuttles consists of two separate halves, or rakes. One has a single deck for coaches, minibuses, caravans and vehicles higher than 1.85m. The other transports cars and motorcycles on a double deck. A complete Passenger Shuttle is made up of 24 carriages and four loading/unloading wagons and can carry 12 coaches and 120 cars.
The fleet of 9 Passenger Shuttles therefore comprises 108 single deck carriages, 108 double deck carriages and 38 double or single deck loader wagons.
Posted by Oydman (Member # 7185) on :
What I want to see is a shipping container approach. The passenger's vehicle is driven in, locked down. The container is lifted up by a specialized hi-lo vehicle (just saw this on TV program), placed onto train car and locked down. If a large number of vehicles are to be dropped at a particular stop, a car specific to that stop would be loaded and simply uncoupled for unloading while the passenger train continues on. Similarly, if several vehicles wish to travel from a particular stop along the route, they would be pre-loaded on a car and coupled on. Computerized tracking would help ensure a vehicle going to Seattle from Chicago is always stacked on the bottom or on a thru-car where every container is Seattle-bound.
I would also make use of crew/fuel stops to diminish loading delays. If vehicles need to be loaded up in Denver, that can be done while the train is stopped there anyway. 10 minutes/container seems excessive to simply LOAD the containers onto the train, but I'd look at ways to pre-load onto cars whenever feasible anyway.
Posted by yukon11 (Member # 2997) on :
Interesting thoughts, Mr. Oydman.
I would also like to know the average loading and downloading time for a single Eurotunnel auto train car.
If reasonable, I wonder if you could run with the concept onto a LD distance Amtrak train? I know cost is a real barrier. However, maybe a LD auto train with, let's say, 3-4 major stops along the way and no more. A couple of problems, however, would be the length of the train. If it is long-distance, you would need passenger sleeper cars. What about going over various mountain ranges?. What sort of locomotive scheme would work?
Richard
Posted by smitty195 (Member # 5102) on :
Someone started a thread 4 1/2 years ago, and it's just now getting a response? That's gotta be some type of record.
Posted by TwinStarRocket (Member # 2142) on :
And Mr. Oydman's only two posts, 4 1/2 years apart, are in this thread. That should win some kind of award for patience, or the most timeless topic.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by yukon11: I would also like to know the average loading and downloading time for a single Eurotunnel auto train car.
Probably less than 2 minutes. But you have to bear in mind that the train operates as a unit - owners drive their car on the rear of the train and drive through the train towards the front, so the time for a single car is not really representative of the operation as a whole. At the destination, the front cars get unloaded first as they drive off the front of the train. An entire train can pull in, unload vehicles 120 vehicles, and reload 120 vehicles in way under an hour. I don't think strapping down is required.
Posted by Oydman (Member # 7185) on :
I used to travel long-distance by rail more in the past than today. One of the big problems is getting around once you arrive at your destination. That part always annoyed me, especially since many car rental options are located at airports, not close by the train stations in the city core. Thought I'd brainstorm a bit on that.
Take the California Zephyr, for example: A westbound passenger could take his car from Chicago -- loading the vehicle onto a specialized car outside of town ahead of scheduled departure. Then he would have options to unload his vehicle at Omaha, Denver, SLC, Reno, or Oakland. If his plan is to visit several ski areas, he could unload at Denver, drive to Aspen, continue on to the Wasatch in Utah, and load up again in SLC and head back to Chicago.
Certainly not financially feasible now, but if gas is $8 or more a gallon, it might make financial sense.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Mr. Oydman, here are three topic threads at which additional Auto Train routes are discussed:
For that ski trip, I just discovered (thanks to Mr. Kisor) a new Budget location in Glenwood Springs with great cars and prices. They pick you up and drop you at Amtrak (a checked baggage station). I got 4 days in an Outback for under $80, unlimited mileage weekend rate Thu noon to Monday noon.
Posted by pporro (Member # 31539) on :
A number of things come to mind.
Yes to the idea that not every stop and limited to maybe four or five stops between Chicago and California. Which is what they already make.
Drive on, drive off, the Great Lakes ferries use that, and so do others. It's not that big of an issue and faster.
I once was going to board a ferry boat in Great Britain, with my rental car. The guy there said, it was cheaper to park it and rent on the other side, (for two days) than it was to take the car across.
How much does it cost to take a car on the Auto Train? $175, each way ($350) - how many days rental is that. In other words for a short stay, it might be cheaper to rent a car.
Auto train allows someone to have their own vehicle for an extended trip, you already have insurance, you can go one way, or pick up part of the way back.
Relaxing cross country travel, or North to South as it is now. Arrive rested, instead of burned out. Big Plus.
I'd be in favor of an East/West Zephyr auto train, but I'm not sure how it works out financially for Amtrak.
If it's such a good idea, they probably would have created one long ago.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by pporro: If it's such a good idea, they probably would have created one long ago.
I think it's more of a case of not having the money to invest - the initial outlay - than anything not being a good idea.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Again I note, based on my 20 Auto Train "voyages" to date, AT passengers are not rail travel enthusiasts. To these passengers, this is simply the most convenient way to ensure economical auto transportation while "down below" for an extended period of time. It also represents free shipping of personal goods, as over the years, I have observed enough autos "loaded to gunwales".
As I've noted on enough occasions, overnight is quite enough and if AT is not there by "high noon", "arewethereyetitis" becomes quite endemic.
Perhaps others hold contrary viewpoints, but I do not foresee any market for a "Transcon AT" for journeys such as Chi-LA. The Midwest Auto Train flopped in great part because the journey was simply "too darned long".
This is not to say that there are some other potential AT markets about, and if Amtrak were to be an "entrepreneur" an distinct from an "administrator', some routes that I have suggested at the other topics might be worth exploring. There MIGHT even be adequate demand to consider an entire AT serving directly the New York market (even if I personally do not think the case), but there are many an operational "issue" with such to consider - even if the B&O "Royal Blue" line were available.
Again as I've noted, the technology is there to consider a "containerized (or palletized)" AT operation that would serve intermediate stations likely as part of an existing Amtrak train, but all I could foresee is massive amounts of station time as the 20ft container is loaded or lifted from the train at an intermediate stop.
All should be pleased the existing Lorton-Sanford service does well; go on out and give it a ride such as I do almost every year.
Posted by palmland (Member # 4344) on :
While CSX would never permit an auto train on its single track railroad without some serious capital improvements and lots of cash, I'm not sure there are many operational issues if unloading was done at the former GM facility just south of Wilmington. While there are apparently some government funded hybrid car projects supposedly going in there, I suspect the rail support yard will be little used.
That would be an excellent locations as it is near I-95 and the NJ turnpike and relatively close to the PA Turnpike. Clearances would not be an issue as auto rack cars now trundle past on their way to an auto unloading facility near Chester, PA.
But, would the equipment be able to be turned the same day with the longer run? Probably not. Would the public pay more for the longer run (answer-yes anything to avoid Balt-Wash. traffic!)
Having been in Wilmington this past weekend, I did make a quick stop at the location of the former B&O passenger station. It was about train time for the northbound National Ltd., but guess I just missed it.
Posted by Geoff Mayo (Member # 153) on :
quote:Originally posted by Gilbert B Norman: Again as I've noted, the technology is there to consider a "containerized (or palletized)" AT operation that would serve intermediate stations likely as part of an existing Amtrak train, but all I could foresee is massive amounts of station time as the 20ft container is loaded or lifted from the train at an intermediate stop.
I find your suggestion bizarre. You have self-loading cargo (and I don't mean passengers here) and you want to set up cranes, employ semi-skilled labor for just a few minutes a day, utilize containers, and have passengers watch with horror while their prized possessions swing around? And you already acknowledge that such a bizarre operation would take "massive amounts of station time".
The better solution has already been posted in this thread. One that has proven that it works by its continued existence. Even that could probably be improved upon.
Posted by pporro (Member # 31539) on :
I admit I'm a dreamer and only thinking of my own interests, that is, going West and having my car come with me.
But I still say, if there was money in it, and I mean profit not a subsidized service, we'd have it already.
I agree that the market for the current AT is ideal, the East-West is what I would do, if I owned the railroad! Not to be confused with what's logical or rational.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Not to be confused with what's logical or rational.