Several reasons;
1. Would require another train set ( 2 additional hours each way does not allow for enough service time) -- there is absolutely no spare superliner equipment available and none will be available for about 6 years ? Need an additional set of auto carriers
2. Adding mileage increases operating costs substantially
3. there is a requirement to add to the Long bridge over the Potomac river for more passenger trains.
4. Would need to use CSX Virginia Ave tunnel;
a. tunnel clearance will not accompany high level auto carriers.
b. tunnel needs to be double tracked
c. getting CSX approval -- note tunnel improvements will probably be finished in 2 years ?
5. cost of building another terminal - where do you propose to get the funds since AMTRAK needs so much in the way of funds now ?
6. when more equipment becomes available ( maybe 4 - 6 superliners ) AMTRAK would rather add them to the present train sets as operating costs would not increase substantially but revenues would increase.
Actually the original Auto Train planned on a terminal in North Jersey. So many things like space for terminal, taxes, room on the PRR/PC corridor was non existent, and market research showed more people would board from the D.C. area for the overnight trip. Amtrak was able to move into the Lorton, VA and Sanford, FL facilities with little cost and using the Auto Train marketing information. The midwest venture flopped for Auto Train, too. However, we are well over 40 years since Auto Train, highway congestion and air pollution is getting worse, so maybe a new marketing investigation is due. All problems listed may or may not be a problem. For instance...does the train have to go through D.C.? could it go via Hagerstown and Harrisburg? How far would it have to penetrate north? To New England? just NJ or eastern PA? Why not from Upstate NY, like BInghamton, a maximum of 6 hour drive from most of Southern New England, and shorter from Eastern Canada (Binghamton is on Interstates 81 north and south, 86 east and west, and 88 from the Northeast and New England; has plenty of open space where railyards used to be..and right next to the interstate interchanges,too...CP/NS line to D.C. or Hagerstown...and both railroads would love the infrastructure improvements needed to accommodate the train!)? Scranton would be another venue....
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
blue streak 15. cost of building another terminal - where do you propose to get the funds since AMTRAK needs so much in the way of funds now ?
This item could be done on the cheap. Just use the old paved ramp at Newark, a pre-fab metal building with some windows and asphalt and timber platforms. If the service panned out, then build something better.
Now, if you could get the speed up to 79 mph from 70 mph, and 90 or better north of Richmond, you might just find those two hours you need to extend the service north.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Henry6 -- good points
henry6 . For instance...does the train have to go through D.C.? could it go via Hagerstown and Harrisburg? When auto train goes there they can probably go from Charleston, SC - Columbia, SC - Charlotte - Manassas - Hagerstown - Harrisburg - to a terminal. How far would it have to penetrate north? To New England? just NJ or eastern PA? IMHO people do want to back track for a trip. I certainly would not. so maybe eastern PA ? Why not from Upstate NY, like BInghamton, a maximum of 6 hour drive from most of Southern New England, and shorter from Eastern Canada (Binghamton is on Interstates 81 north and south, 86 east and west, and 88 from the Northeast and New England; has plenty of open space where railyards used to be..and right next to the interstate interchanges,too. I can forsee the third itteration of auto train going to one of these locations in the future. .
. For instance...does the train have to go through D.C.? could it go via Hagerstown and Harrisburg?
When auto train goes there they can probably go from Charleston, SC - Columbia, SC - Charlotte - Manassas - Hagerstown - Harrisburg - to a terminal.
How far would it have to penetrate north? To New England? just NJ or eastern PA?
IMHO people do want to back track for a trip. I certainly would not. so maybe eastern PA ?
Why not from Upstate NY, like BInghamton, a maximum of 6 hour drive from most of Southern New England, and shorter from Eastern Canada (Binghamton is on Interstates 81 north and south, 86 east and west, and 88 from the Northeast and New England; has plenty of open space where railyards used to be..and right next to the interstate interchanges,too.
I can forsee the third itteration of auto train going to one of these locations in the future.
.
the biggest problem i see is the equipment problem. to say I was disappointed in the schedule for the 130 california car order is an understatement. fall 2015 - early 2018 ugh !! three years to get the first one ? nuts ?
1. 27 - 30 months to deliver? that is 4.75 - 4 1/3 per month. certainly not the 100 cars per year that is in the fleet strategy plan
2. the way TTs keep hitting AMTRAK it is loosing an average of 1 car a month.
3. The cost of the 130 cars are about $2.7M per car. That is less that the fleet strategy plan anticipated.
4. the $551M that FRA put aside for bi-level cars will give approximately $199M left over for maybe 74 more cars ? will the 74 be piggybacked on this order or go to another manufacturer ?
5. all this says even more cars need to be built to fill in all the capacity holes
6. CAT clearance esp around Baltiimore and in B&P tunnel.
blue streak 1 Several reasons; 1. Would require another train set ( 2 additional hours each way does not allow for enough service time) -- there is absolutely no spare superliner equipment available and none will be available for about 6 years ? Need an additional set of auto carriers 2. Adding mileage increases operating costs substantially 3. there is a requirement to add to the Long bridge over the Potomac river for more passenger trains. 4. Would need to use CSX Virginia Ave tunnel; a. tunnel clearance will not accompany high level auto carriers. b. tunnel needs to be double tracked c. getting CSX approval -- note tunnel improvements will probably be finished in 2 years ? 5. cost of building another terminal - where do you propose to get the funds since AMTRAK needs so much in the way of funds now ? 6. when more equipment becomes available ( maybe 4 - 6 superliners ) AMTRAK would rather add them to the present train sets as operating costs would not increase substantially but revenues would increase.
Considering the clearance implications of overhead catenary and the highly restrictive clearances Amtrak has in and around Penn Station in Baltimore, I doubt that either Superliners or the auto carriers would clear through this section of track.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD blue streak 1 Several reasons; 1. Would require another train set ( 2 additional hours each way does not allow for enough service time) -- there is absolutely no spare superliner equipment available and none will be available for about 6 years ? Need an additional set of auto carriers 2. Adding mileage increases operating costs substantially 3. there is a requirement to add to the Long bridge over the Potomac river for more passenger trains. 4. Would need to use CSX Virginia Ave tunnel; a. tunnel clearance will not accompany high level auto carriers. b. tunnel needs to be double tracked c. getting CSX approval -- note tunnel improvements will probably be finished in 2 years ? 5. cost of building another terminal - where do you propose to get the funds since AMTRAK needs so much in the way of funds now ? 6. when more equipment becomes available ( maybe 4 - 6 superliners ) AMTRAK would rather add them to the present train sets as operating costs would not increase substantially but revenues would increase. Considering the clearance implications of overhead catenary and the highly restrictive clearances Amtrak has in and around Penn Station in Baltimore, I doubt that either Superliners or the auto carriers would clear through this section of track.
BALT: thanks added this to my list
Uncle Bill We recently traveled on the Auto-Train from Florida to Lorton, VA. My question is why Amtrak never extended this service further north to say Newark, DE. Especially now that the Chrysler plant is gone and there is all the capacity and room left from NS freight operations that are no longer in use. Given that this service is excellent and a flagship for Amtrak that caters to the snowbirds from the northeast, it just seemed to make sense they would go further north.
We recently traveled on the Auto-Train from Florida to Lorton, VA. My question is why Amtrak never extended this service further north to say Newark, DE. Especially now that the Chrysler plant is gone and there is all the capacity and room left from NS freight operations that are no longer in use. Given that this service is excellent and a flagship for Amtrak that caters to the snowbirds from the northeast, it just seemed to make sense they would go further north.
Without doing my own 'market study'; I believe moving the Northern terminal further North would actually decrease ridership.
Auto Train operates more on the 'Distribution Center' concept that does the rest of Amtrak's train offerings that are looking to the point to point passenger concept. For the DC concept to work, you must pull clientele from a wider geographical area than the passenger concept. Being that the Northern terminal is in Lorton, just South of the Capital Beltway - that opens up almost all of the Northeast to being a relatively 'easy' day's drive to access Lorton for the afternoon departure. At Sanford all of the central and Southern Florida snowbird destinations are also within a easy day's drive.
Were the terminal to be moved North of Lorton, the Baltimore and Washington DC customers would probably be left behind; as customers as they would view driving further North as being a disadvantage in reaching their destination in the South.
BaltACDConsidering the clearance implications of overhead catenary and the highly restrictive clearances Amtrak has in and around Penn Station in Baltimore, I doubt that either Superliners or the auto carriers would clear through this section of track.
Yup. Probably a show-stopper. Conrail used to run intermodal traffic that way. Not sure if a Superliner is taller than a van on a flatcar.
You'd probably have to put the highline in Phila back under wire, too, to bypass 30th St.
BaltACD [Without doing my own 'market study'; I believe moving the Northern terminal further North would actually decrease ridership. Auto Train operates more on the 'Distribution Center' concept that does the rest of Amtrak's train offerings that are looking to the point to point passenger concept. For the DC concept to work, you must pull clientele from a wider geographical area than the passenger concept. Being that the Northern terminal is in Lorton, just South of the Capital Beltway - that opens up almost all of the Northeast to being a relatively 'easy' day's drive to access Lorton for the afternoon departure. At Sanford all of the central and Southern Florida snowbird destinations are also within a easy day's drive.
[Without doing my own 'market study'; I believe moving the Northern terminal further North would actually decrease ridership.
John G. Kneiling made the same observation about the terminals when Auto Train was first starting service.
oltmannd BaltACDConsidering the clearance implications of overhead catenary and the highly restrictive clearances Amtrak has in and around Penn Station in Baltimore, I doubt that either Superliners or the auto carriers would clear through this section of track. Yup. Probably a show-stopper. Conrail used to run intermodal traffic that way. Not sure if a Superliner is taller than a van on a flatcar. You'd probably have to put the highline in Phila back under wire, too, to bypass 30th St.
If they could, I suspect Amtrak would already be running Superliners on the NEC. They aren't, so I have to believe they can't for a variety of clearance issues that would be very costly to eliminate.
BaltACD oltmannd BaltACDConsidering the clearance implications of overhead catenary and the highly restrictive clearances Amtrak has in and around Penn Station in Baltimore, I doubt that either Superliners or the auto carriers would clear through this section of track. Yup. Probably a show-stopper. Conrail used to run intermodal traffic that way. Not sure if a Superliner is taller than a van on a flatcar. You'd probably have to put the highline in Phila back under wire, too, to bypass 30th St. If they could, I suspect Amtrak would already be running Superliners on the NEC. They aren't, so I have to believe they can't for a variety of clearance issues that would be very costly to eliminate.
You could probably get them north all the way to the Hudson River tunnels -then it's be game over. Conrail ran Van trains from Alexandria to South Kearny on the NEC for quite a while.
North of Lorton I don't see how the overheight car carriers could possible go further north than Lorton and the facility at Lorton is well equipped to load the carriers, anyway, even though the variable-height car loading ramps could conceivably be moved to anywhere else.
The locomotives are the older, rebuilt P40s, which actually increases the efficiency and speed of the trip due to their breaking characteristics versus the newer P42s.
The SuperLiners on this route are rather elderly and worn out. The Diner and Diner-Lounge are really showing their age. The shower shows signs of a couple generations of refurbishment. The audio service is XM Satellite Radio but during our two trips only two channels worked out of seven and then on the return trip only one channel worked, but we expected that. The trouble is there are many areas on the Auto Train route where you do not have cellular service if you're listening to the radio that way.
As always the onboard crew were an amazing and very efficient group of people. They even broadcast the birthday party for one of their peers over the intercom on the return trip, which we all thought was the coolest thing. It made the memory of that morning's grade crossing fatality in the Carolinas go away.
After some careful thought, I think car ferries are a good thing, but only if the destination is attractive enough. Knowing this, I think it's obvious to everyone that if Walt Disney World did not exist, then there is no doubt that the Amtrak Auto Train would also not exist.
Either way, it couldn't run north of Lorton without solving some seriously expensive clearance problems.
I had the opportunity to look at some factual data (UMLER). Amtrak Superliners are 16'2" high. The Auto racks are 18'9" high.
The B&P tunnel has a gauntlet track. I wonder if that 16'3" is w/o "running the gauntlet"?
Jim200Here is some clearance info. Amtrak's First Street Tunnel in Washington D.C. is 17 ft high. CSX Virginia Ave Tunnel is 18 ft 8 in high. Amtrak's B & P Tunnel in Baltimore is 16 ft 3 in . with a plate C loading gauge clearance. I don't know about Amtrak's Union Tunnel. In 2010 a $60 million study was started on these tunnels and maybe someone here knows the recommendations. In looking at catenary clearance, I scaled an Acela HHP-8 photograph and came up with about 19 ft, however some road overpasses may be lower. To find out, you could use a video camrera aimed at the pantograph to find the low overpasses. The Acela pantograph ranges from 14 ft 6 in (full down) to 24 ft 6 in (full up). The next Trains magazine will feature the Auto Train.
CSX Virginia Ave Tunnel is 17'3" not 18'8" While plans are underway to raise the clearance to 20'2" and double track it - that is still years from being accomplished.
Jim200The Baltimore tunnels are a major bottleneck for autoracks and doublestacks on the NEC and neither will be able to pass in the near future. Amtrak's B&P tunnel was rehabilitated in the early 80's including the gantlet which gave more clearance. However, some time later the gantlet was removed which now restricts the clearance to 15 ft 6 in. The CSX Howard Street tunnel had a derailment and chemical fire which in turn burst the water mains and shut down the city for a week in 2001. The resultant $1 million study to fix the tunnels recommended in 2005 that a new B&P tunnel be bored in a curving arc at a cost of $500 million, thus increasing both speed and clearance. A double tunnel was proposed for CSX at $900 million or $1.3 billion depending on which of two locations were chosen. This study was criticised for not looking at I-95, and $3 million was allocated for another study. What happened next is not clear, but Maryland didn't have a ground ready project with environmental impact, when the $8 billion was granted to the states. However it should be ready in 2015 when the funds run out on the present $60 million study. Something else is happening in 2015 as reported in the March 28, 2012 Washington Post; mega container ships will pass through the new and wider Panama Canal, thus saving shipping costs to the eastern and midwestern states. Only Baltimore and Norfolk have suitable ports. Savannah is spending $650 million to dredge its port, and New York is looking for $1 billion to raise the Bayonne bridge 65 feet. With each mega ship having 14,000 containers, CSX plans to move them through the tunnel to a new transfer yard 15 to 34 miles north of the port, where they will be doublestacked. Maryland and CXS will share the cost up to $150 million each. This plan was criticised for not investing in basic tunnel infrastructure to make a world class port. B&O and Chessie 'missed the boat' in the 40's with the planning for the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and in the 60's with the planning for the Fort McHenry Tunnel to 'piggyback' construction of a tunnel for the railroad along either of the alignments that were chosen. The Harbor Tunnel begins immediately adjacent to Curtis Bay Yard and comes back above ground at Penn Mary Yard. The Fort McHenry Tunnel begins on former railroad property at Locust Point Yard and comes back above ground immediately adjacent to the Harbor Tunnel at Penn Mary. While the cost would have been substantial, sharing part of the harbor excavation costs with the highway tunnels would have minimized the total cost. I would have to believe that the finance people felt neither of these projects were in anyway affordable - besides 20 foot 2 double stacks had yet to be invented
Jim200The Baltimore tunnels are a major bottleneck for autoracks and doublestacks on the NEC and neither will be able to pass in the near future. Amtrak's B&P tunnel was rehabilitated in the early 80's including the gantlet which gave more clearance. However, some time later the gantlet was removed which now restricts the clearance to 15 ft 6 in. The CSX Howard Street tunnel had a derailment and chemical fire which in turn burst the water mains and shut down the city for a week in 2001. The resultant $1 million study to fix the tunnels recommended in 2005 that a new B&P tunnel be bored in a curving arc at a cost of $500 million, thus increasing both speed and clearance. A double tunnel was proposed for CSX at $900 million or $1.3 billion depending on which of two locations were chosen. This study was criticised for not looking at I-95, and $3 million was allocated for another study. What happened next is not clear, but Maryland didn't have a ground ready project with environmental impact, when the $8 billion was granted to the states. However it should be ready in 2015 when the funds run out on the present $60 million study. Something else is happening in 2015 as reported in the March 28, 2012 Washington Post; mega container ships will pass through the new and wider Panama Canal, thus saving shipping costs to the eastern and midwestern states. Only Baltimore and Norfolk have suitable ports. Savannah is spending $650 million to dredge its port, and New York is looking for $1 billion to raise the Bayonne bridge 65 feet. With each mega ship having 14,000 containers, CSX plans to move them through the tunnel to a new transfer yard 15 to 34 miles north of the port, where they will be doublestacked. Maryland and CXS will share the cost up to $150 million each. This plan was criticised for not investing in basic tunnel infrastructure to make a world class port.
B&O and Chessie 'missed the boat' in the 40's with the planning for the Baltimore Harbor Tunnel and in the 60's with the planning for the Fort McHenry Tunnel to 'piggyback' construction of a tunnel for the railroad along either of the alignments that were chosen. The Harbor Tunnel begins immediately adjacent to Curtis Bay Yard and comes back above ground at Penn Mary Yard. The Fort McHenry Tunnel begins on former railroad property at Locust Point Yard and comes back above ground immediately adjacent to the Harbor Tunnel at Penn Mary. While the cost would have been substantial, sharing part of the harbor excavation costs with the highway tunnels would have minimized the total cost. I would have to believe that the finance people felt neither of these projects were in anyway affordable - besides 20 foot 2 double stacks had yet to be invented
Looking through my pics, it looks like one of the full dome cars from the original Auto-Train ended up in excursion service in the early 80s. This was taken as the train backed up for a photo runby between Bellevue and Orrville, Ohio in the summer of 1982.
Kevin
http://chatanuga.org/RailPage.html
http://chatanuga.org/WLMR.html
although not entirely the subject of this thread AMTRAK's PRIIA report on auto train is on their web site. Main points is that AMTRAK wants to increase train length to 53 - 57 cars. Problems are;
1. Additional HEP is needed that cannot be provided by present loco and maybe a power car will be needed. Another solution not talked about woud be add another loco at the end of the passenger consist and split HEP demand. That would reduce electric current load on cables.
2. Lack of equipment
3. AMTRAK's system road foreman has determined that length is limited to 50 cars with pneumatic controlled braking. AMTRAK hopes to initiate electronic ( ECP ) brake testing in 2013 to determine its fesasibility.
4, Get CSX to agree to longer trains after they monitor the ECP tests.
here is the report
http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/676/676/PRIIA-section-210-FY-12-performance-improvement-plan-amtrak.pdf
I re-read Al DiCenso's article about the two people whose vision gave us Auto Train, Eugene Garfield and Graham Claytor. But what about the future? Perhaps if Amtrak is allowed to increase the number of cars as it wants to Auto Train just might start turning a profit.
Jim200As I read the PRIIA report, Amtrak's proposals for the Auto Train will net.3 - 4 million, but still leave over $30 million of loss. The future of the Auto Train will depend on the state of the US economy, unless bold moves are made to iniciate profitability. All of Italy's auto trains were curtailed to help its budgetary concerns. The PRIIA report doesn't give a lot of data to orient discussion of possible bold moves, so we will have to stab into fogginess and try to see what can work. My suggestions are: loading empty autoracks with packages etc, start an "on demand" schedule, build an Auto Train terminal at Florence,SC, and increase fares. You can add your suggestions.
Amtrak varies the size of Auto Train to meet passenger load. To my knowledge, there are no 'walk up' passengers & cars - everything is done by advance reservations. Amtrak has already tried the express business and scrapped it.
What would be the market that a terminal at Florence would serve? While Myrtle Beach and its surrounding area is a great vacation spot - it does not come close to having the sustained volume that the House of Mouse and the rest of Florida's vacation areas that are served from Sanford.
aegrotatioI wonder if lengthening the Auto Train is really necessary. Do passenger-with-car loads really call for the train to be longer and require advanced braking and HEP that the existing, TIGER-rebuilt P40 locomotives do not already provide?
It is not the power capability of the P-40s but the power cables. The HEP power CABLES meet their ampacity limit at about 16 cars. remember auto train runs 3 dinners on most days. That is a high load in itself. If all the cars had LED lighting then maybe the electrical load would be less but that would require a major rebuilding of all the cars. The new cars on order both single level and bi-level will be all LED lighting..
An easy way to meet this proble would be to place a loco at the rear of the passenger consist and split the HEP demand 12 - 12 cars and use the train line to get the loco controled. A failure of the rear HEP might cause some difficulty ?
blue streak 1 It is not the power capability of the P-40s but the power cables. The HEP power CABLES meet their ampacity limit at about 16 cars. remember auto train runs 3 dinners on most days. That is a high load in itself. If all the cars had LED lighting then maybe the electrical load would be less but that would require a major rebuilding of all the cars. The new cars on order both single level and bi-level will be all LED lighting.. An easy way to meet this proble would be to place a loco at the rear of the passenger consist and split the HEP demand 12 - 12 cars and use the train line to get the loco controled. A failure of the rear HEP might cause some difficulty ?
If the Auto Train cars are equipped with mu train line connections. Otherwise the usual freight railroad distributed power radio controls would have to be added to the existing locomotives. Probably worthwhile doing. Two units up front and one between the passenger equipment and the auto carriers. better train handling coudl result with better braking performance. Synchronizing isn't a problem, simply have a break in the jumper cable connections (jumpers not connected) midway in the passenger consist. However, it is a fact that only one locomotive can supply hotel power at a time, unless there has been a recent trechnological change in Amtrak's hotel powering. (Like DC train lines with inverters in each car)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.