So I am neutral on the current Amtrak direction. It will be sad to see the LD trains go but I also hate it when the government wastes money. Though I know government waste will go on regardless at much higher amounts even without the LD trains.
I think where I am going to have some disappointment is with the whole Auto Train concept. The concept was marginally profitable some years ago when Auto Train was a private Corporation. Amtrak just took it's last remaining route and largely sat around with it.
Forever, we will always wonder if the Auto-Train concept could have been profitable again with two running routes to Sanford, FL (one from the NEC and one from the Midwest). Or even if it could have been stabilized further with a third route or 2nd NEC to Florida Frequency. We will never probably know now because Amtrak never saw fit to explore the concept further or ask Congress for more money to explore it further. That I think is kind of sad because it could have been a LD train concept with some hope of success. Yet Amtrak all this time didn't seem to really care if it's LD trains were successful or not.
Maybe had Amtrak made an attempt and actually was successful at turning it around (a large IF given Amtrak's propensity at management), it could have a viable asset now to spin off for money in a sale or assure Congress about it's Corridor strategy as not all short distance trains.
Oh well, time goes on.
Auto Train Corp might have been marginally profitable with the east coast route, but the mid-west route sank the enterprise. Amtrak also failed with a midwest-Florida passenger train. What would be a compelling reason to try again?
MidlandMikeAuto Train Corp might have been marginally profitable with the east coast route, but the mid-west route sank the enterprise. Amtrak also failed with a midwest-Florida passenger train. What would be a compelling reason to try again?
A lot has changed since the 1970's for one. But if the Louisville to Sanford route is not feasible they could pick another route. They have to achieve roughly the same running time or avg speed in my opinion to be viable. On the NE route that is roughly 48 mph avg speed to cover the distance in 17.5 hours for 855 miles. They could probably do a higher speed than that with closer time management and some route investment on the Northeast route. My guess though is that is why the NE has ridership now is their avg speed is roughly favorable compared to driving the route. Since driving the route would probably involve an overnight somewhere whereas the train provides that while still running towards it's destination.
Louisville to Sanford is 988 miles so average speed would need to be approx 56 mph. though it could probably work with 45-48 mph. Which might not be possible, someone would have to run a test train obviously. Louisville to Sanford only ran on weekends and only once in each direction so we have no clue based on the past if it would be successful or not as the old Auto-Train was never able to expand to full daily service.
I don't really care about the Floridian all that much. Additional set of problems there.
CMStPnP MidlandMike Auto Train Corp might have been marginally profitable with the east coast route, but the mid-west route sank the enterprise. Amtrak also failed with a midwest-Florida passenger train. What would be a compelling reason to try again? A lot has changed since the 1970's for one. But if the Louisville to Sanford route is not feasible they could pick another route. They have to achieve roughly the same running time or avg speed in my opinion to be viable. On the NE route that is roughly 48 mph avg speed to cover the distance in 17.5 hours for 855 miles. They could probably do a higher speed than that with closer time management and some route investment on the Northeast route. My guess though is that is why the NE has ridership now is their avg speed is roughly favorable compared to driving the route. Since driving the route would probably involve an overnight somewhere whereas the train provides that while still running towards it's destination. Louisville to Sanford is 988 miles so average speed would need to be approx 56 mph. though it could probably work with 45-48 mph. Which might not be possible, someone would have to run a test train obviously. Louisville to Sanford only ran on weekends and only once in each direction so we have no clue based on the past if it would be successful or not as the old Auto-Train was never able to expand to full daily service. I don't really care about the Floridian all that much. Additional set of problems there.
MidlandMike Auto Train Corp might have been marginally profitable with the east coast route, but the mid-west route sank the enterprise. Amtrak also failed with a midwest-Florida passenger train. What would be a compelling reason to try again?
No carrier has a high speed direct route Louisville to Sanford to permit the speeds you suggest it would take to be comparable to the East Coast Auto-Train. Remember the route from DC to Florida was historically a 'race track' for both the ACL and SAL back in the day and the straight line nature of that route continues to this day.
While the Chicago-Florida streamliners of 40's & 50's had their customers they really didn't have speed on their various routes from Chicago to Florida and those routes were far from a straight line. The routes NS & CSX have from Chicago to Florida are far from straight lines today.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Not exactly racetracks, either. Also some grades. How is the track?
Well according to the Internet there were two other Auto-Train Corporation business ideas in the plan that never reached implementation. I don't think either is viable today though and might not have been viable then.
The first was a Truck train concept where the same Lorton to Sanford route handled OTR truck drivers, while their cabs and trailers were chained down on flatcars behind.......though I don't think that service would have been popular with the competing intermodal trains on the railroads today. I think anyone that tried that would be blocked in some way.
Another was Auto-Train de Mexico between Nueva-Laredo on the U.S. Border and Mexico City. Apparently agreements on that were signed in 1979 but the service never got beyond the agreement stage. Back in 1979 they forecast the train could do a 762 mile overnight trip on a 15 hour schedule with existing track conditions, which the track should have improved a little since then. I don't think this would work today because I think most peoples car insurance policies do not cover South of the border for one. Secondly, I don't see many Americans wanting to drive their cars in Mexico or the other way around.
Though I heard Amtrak floated this whole Aztec Eagle idea that would have connected to the Texas Eagle in San Antonio, TX and run from there across the border to Monterrey, Mexico. That had a little merit to it based on all the NAFTA cross border plants there but I don't see Middle Class Mexicans or Mexican business people riding passenger trains when jets are faster and more direct.
The Auto Train suffered from the same issues the long distance trains had.
Today one can park at an airport, fly to Florida in several hours, and leave the Florida airport in a brand new rental car and use it for days.
One can do that, gain two full days in Florida roundtrip, and in some cases pay less than riding the train.
York1 John
York1The Auto Train suffered from the same issues the long distance trains had. Today one can park at an airport, fly to Florida in several hours, and leave the Florida airport in a brand new rental car and use it for days. One can do that, gain two full days in Florida roundtrip, and in some cases pay less than riding the train.
But one cannot pack all the long term vacation gear that snowbirds put in the trunks of their vehicles into carry on's for air travel and with the tonnage that gets packed they would probably better off in chartering an air freighter than paying the checked baggage fees of today's airlines.
On most airlines to FL, the carry-on is still free, 1st checked bag is $30, 2nd is $40. On Southwest they are free. It's not just elderly snowbirds going there, either, though they still tend to travel with too much luggage. Most folks would rather get there quickly by flying ($150-168 RT to Orlando from ORD) and renting a car for less than $18-24/day.
Balt pretty much nailed it when he mentioned "Snowbirds."
Several years ago the wife and I looked into taking the "Auto-Train" to Florida, and man, it was expensive. The only justification we could think of was if you were going to Florida for months, and not days, you'd save in the long run by bringing your car with you on the Auto-Train and not renting a vehicle for the duration of your stay.
So we drove. Big deal. Two days to get there instead of one. No biggie, and cheaper anyway.
charlie hebdoOn Southwest they are free
Its misleading they advertise it like that BUT without exception each domestic airline has "screw the passenger" baggage restrictions in place. Southwests exception to the rule is each bag cannot weigh more than 50 lbs ($75 extra per bag if they do exceed that amount) additionally Southwest has dimension limitations as well. 50 lbs sounds like a lot but I am a travel light consultant and I have accidently exceeded the weight in the Winter due to extra clothes. It's easy to do if you wear blue jeans in your off time. Which I learned to no longer pack as well as limit the shoes to just one extra pair.
At least it is not Ryan Air ...
Man Sews All His Clothes Into Giant Coat to Avoid New Ryanair Hand Baggage Fee:
https://www.autoevolution.com/news/man-sews-all-his-clothes-into-giant-coat-to-avoid-new-ryanair-hand-baggage-fee-130010.html
York1Today one can park at an airport, fly to Florida in several hours, and leave the Florida airport in a brand new rental car and use it for days.
I get deep discounts via USAA on rental cars, plus USAA covers for all family members as drivers and extends the insurance to the rental so I get to rent the fun stuff mostly and ride on my personal insurance because my regular car is expensive enough to cover just about any car type they rent.....easily, Caddy's and upscale SUV's but the taxes run me about $150 for 5 days. There is no way you can compare the cheap costs of taking your own car vs renting one though if your departing from a large city to Florida.
Parking at the airport depends on airport and where. Parking at the Dallas DFW terminal runs about $20 a day now. Parking at Love Field in the B parking structure is about $9-10 a day (about a mile walk in most cases when I park at Love Field). So parking fees depend on where you live and what airport you use to fly out of. Using Supershuttle or any shuttle is spotty in Dallas and other cities and again it depends on the day where your going etc. I have had Supershuttle abandon me at Dallas Love Field because the drivers of the shuttles do not like where I live and can make a better fare by ignoring me and cherry picking among others waiting. It was so bad one day the company had to pay for a stretch limo to pick me and 4 other passengers up that Super Shuttle drivers refused to shuttle.........beware of using that service. Never had that issue at DFW Airport though, only Love Field. Has to do with their fare structure.
Flintlock76bringing your car with you on the Auto-Train and not renting a vehicle for the duration of your stay.
My parents would pay $700-800 to move their car to Florida each year from Wisconsin via private carrier instead of driving it. Then they would fly and wait for the car to arrive. This was years ago and they spent months in Florida. They would spend the winter months in Florida though. If the AUTO TRAIN was in place they would have taken it.
rdamonAt least it is not Ryan Air ... Man Sews All His Clothes Into Giant Coat to Avoid New Ryanair Hand Baggage Fee:
The intent of the airlines all along was only carry-on a suit jacket, coat and makebe a small bag. But we always have idiots trying to bring everything with them into the passenger cabin........which slows the boarding process down and punishes those that attempt to be considerate of others.
So, they are starting to get stupid on the carry on bags now. For all those retards that want to carry all their baggage on board they are now asking the considerate passengers who check their luggage as everyone is supposed to........to hold onto their carry-ons and jackets until all the rollaways are stowed so their is room in the baggage bins for the passengers trying to game the system. SCREW THAT!!! I never pay attention to the request though and my laptop and jacket go into the overhead before I sit down. No way am I giving up legroom I paid for so some idiot can attempt to squeeze all his luggage in the overhead bins. Make him or her check their bags!!!! Departures would be a lot faster if the airlines would enforce their stupid luggage rules.
CMStPnP, I hear you loud and clear. I've lost track of how many times I've been bumped in the head by some Arnold Palmer-Jack Nicklaus wanna-be trying to stuff his damn golf bag in the overhead bin of an airliner.
I tried golf once or twice, bored the hell out of me, so I've never gone over to "The Dark Side."
Amtrak shows $1229 for RT for 2 seniors in coach including a car. If a bedroom is chosen, $2231. I would certainly fly and rent a car, if I really needed one, for a month- $850-900 in Orlando. More comfortable.
In my opinion the principal problem with AutoTrain wasn't its profitability or the desirability of the provided service; it was inadequate preparation for unanticipated catastrophes, and inadequate allowance for cash flow during 'off' times. When you have a Government subsidy and a cap on liability much of that risk and trouble 'goes away'.
At the rates Amtrak would 'have to charge' to cover general operating expenses net of 'special' equipment construction for an Auto-Train service, it doesn't make sense for anyone who would otherwise do fly-drive to use the service. Note that the marginal cost increase for 'one more passenger' while driving the trip goes up only slightly, whereas on Auto-Train (or any other service where the passengers can't stay in the cars while traveling) you're back to the inefficiency of paying a full fare for each additional, plus all the fees and charges associated with sleeping-car service, attendants, commissary, etc. etc. etc.
So you're looking at just what Balt said: southern-woman levels of trunk freight that would be impossible to accommodate if you were not driving what amounts to a large mobile storage unit with 'no additional baggage charge' (or chance of baggage-smasher breakage in handling, or theft, or other usual sequelae).
I would argue that the convenience of loading up the car, going to the station and riding the train down instead of driving is still very worthwhile today ... but that's at least partly because I value having my own car, stay for extended periods, and have all sorts of things to transport that logical people don't even own.
Note that a great many people today will have difficulty renting a car in Florida, for example if all they have are debit cards. In many cases the requirements have changed without advance warning, for example requiring several proofs of residence address in the exact name of the cardholder, and substantial withheld deposit amounts. This is a potential 'niche' for a less luxurious class of vehicle-transporting service.
rdamon And the benefit of the afore mentioned driver not being in the left lane on I-95
A lot of states along I-95 have passed "Left-lane camper" laws, that is making it a moving violation to "camp out" in the left, or passing, lane and impede the traffic flow. Virginia passed one last year.
Whether those laws are being enforced or not is another matter.
I did an "up-and-down" trip on I-95 about two weeks ago and didn't really have a problem with left-lane campers. Two or three times yes, but not constantly, so maybe the laws are working.
Flintlock76 rdamon And the benefit of the afore mentioned driver not being in the left lane on I-95 A lot of states along I-95 have passed "Left-lane camper" laws, that is making it a moving violation to "camp out" in the left, or passing, lane and impede the traffic flow. Virginia passed one last year. Whether those laws are being enforced or not is another matter. I did an "up-and-down" trip on I-95 about two weeks ago and didn't really have a problem with left-lane campers. Two or three times yes, but not constantly, so maybe the laws are working.
Do round trips on I-95 from Maryland to Florida about 3 times a year - have never seen police enforcing 'Left Lane Bandit' laws.
There are probably more laws on the books that ARE NOT enforced than there are laws that are enforced.
BaltACD Flintlock76 rdamon And the benefit of the afore mentioned driver not being in the left lane on I-95 A lot of states along I-95 have passed "Left-lane camper" laws, that is making it a moving violation to "camp out" in the left, or passing, lane and impede the traffic flow. Virginia passed one last year. Whether those laws are being enforced or not is another matter. I did an "up-and-down" trip on I-95 about two weeks ago and didn't really have a problem with left-lane campers. Two or three times yes, but not constantly, so maybe the laws are working. Do round trips on I-95 from Maryland to Florida about 3 times a year - have never seen police enforcing 'Left Lane Bandit' laws. There are probably more laws on the books that ARE NOT enforced than there are laws that are enforced.
No doubt Balt. Here in Virginia we have a "wipers on-lights on" law which doesn't seem to be enforced much either. At least not that I've seen.
There's plenty of people here driving in rainy, dismal weather without the headlights on. And some think because they have automatic daytime running lights they're covered. Uh-uh. Your daytime running headlights might be on but that doesn't mean your tail lights are!
Drives me crazy...
Flintlock76Uh-uh. Your daytime running headlights might be on but that doesn't mean your tail lights are! Drives me crazy...
Now you have all the people with glowing dashboards that will drive around in the middle of the night with no lights on. They're the best.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
charlie hebdoI would certainly fly and rent a car, if I really needed one, for a month- $850-900 in Orlando
Well first, I have my doubts you would be comfortable in those very tiny cars for 30 days. Second when your talking 30 days or longer you want to ask about a short term lease rate........which should be cheaper that what you see quoted.
Also, the expectation should be your not going to get the car or vehicle they have pictured for the rental or lease rate. Very rarely that I do. They are always doing a bait and switch. My last rental was a Ford Explorer pictured, got a Dodge Durango instead. Before that a Caddilac XT4 was pictured, got an Audi crossover instead.
Flintlock76No doubt Balt. Here in Virginia we have a "wipers on-lights on" law which doesn't seem to be enforced much either. At least not that I've seen. There's plenty of people here driving in rainy, dismal weather without the headlights on. And some think because they have automatic daytime running lights they're covered. Uh-uh. Your daytime running headlights might be on but that doesn't mean your tail lights are! Drives me crazy...
Personally, I use Rain-X. I rarely have wipers on in the rain - if you are moving at anywhere near normal traffic speeds the water flies off the windshield in mini-micro drop form. Best thing is when overtaking a 18 wheeler and their 'blinding spray' - with Rain-X you can see right through it. Without Rain-X you have water sheeting on the windshield and obscuring your vision.
My 2017 Ram 1500 has automatic headlights - it does get frustrating in varying 'low light' conditions as the head lights will come on and go off without warning. If I do have the wipers on for some reason, the headlights will be on regardless of the ambient lighting condition.
CMStPnPCMStPnP wrote the following post 30 minutes ago: charlie hebdo I would certainly fly and rent a car, if I really needed one, for a month- $850-900 in Orlando Well first, I have my doubts you would be comfortable in those very tiny cars for 30 days. Second when your talking 30 days or longer you want to ask about a short term lease rate........which should be cheaper that what you see quoted. Also, the expectation should be your not going to get the car or vehicle they have pictured for the rental or lease rate. Very rarely that I do. They are always doing a bait and switch. My last rental was a Ford Explorer pictured, got a Dodge Durango instead. Before that a Caddilac XT4 was pictured, got an Audi crossover instead.
1. I do not need to drive around in a boat. I am very comfortable in my VW.
2. I have rented cars many times on three continents. I get it.
CMStPnPSo, they are starting to get stupid on the carry on bags now. For all those retards that want to carry all their baggage on board they are now asking the considerate passengers who check their luggage as everyone is supposed to........to hold onto their carry-ons and jackets until all the rollaways are stowed so their is room in the baggage bins for the passengers trying to game the system. SCREW THAT!!! I never pay attention to the request though and my laptop and jacket go into the overhead before I sit down. No way am I giving up legroom I paid for so some idiot can attempt to squeeze all his luggage in the overhead bins. Make him or her check their bags!!!! Departures would be a lot faster if the airlines would enforce their stupid luggage rules.
I usually carry on a backpack (winter- ski boots, summer- hiking boots) and always cringe when the stewardess makes the anouncement about saving the overhead bins for the rollerboards. I too have paid for checking my other bag. I think about what argument I may give for keeping my pack in the overhead. But sadly, your only real choice is to comply with crew instructions, as all other alternatives will get you removed from the plane. So far I have not had to give up my legroom.
I always thought that you gave up your legroom when you flew in coach.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.