I would think Amtrak would love to extend the Auto Train north to the New York area !! But as always, problems !! How do you fit the high Car Carriers through the Baltimore Tunnels, and under low Catenary in some places. It's almost as easy to collect the cars in Lorton VA and go from there.
An overnight adventure to Florida, have your own car when you arrive, that can work. Long distance ? to the mid west? to the west coast? three days each way, a 6 day round trip? Is "The Fun is In The Going" or what you do when you get there?
If it was to make money, then private enterprise would step in. If it does not, then will the State or Federal Government pay?
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Unfortunately, the Auto Train does not make money. In FY08 it lost 9.3 cents per passenger mile before interest and depreciation. In FY09 it lost 9.1 cents per passenger mile, and through February FY10 it has lost 12.1 cents per passenger mile. The average load factor for these periods was 63.9 per cent.
Adding interest and depreciation would increase further the loss by an unknown amount. Amtrak does not allocate interest, depreciation, and other charges to its routes, although it is developing a capital allocation model to do so.
John G Kneiling did an analysis of the original Auto-Train in the pages of TRAINS several years ago. He knew that a terminal somewhere between New York and Washington would be more efficient, but he also observed that people like to move in the direction of their destination, so Lorton VA made more sense from a marketing point of view.
Auto-Train also ran a Louisville-Florida train for a while. This route's history suggests that it was less than a stellar success. A West Coast-Florida run would probably be doomed from the outset, it's probably too long a distance. Keep in mind that the existing operation is basically an overnight train.
Since I have never been to the Auto Train terminal in Lorton I cannot reliability talk about the automobile on and off situation at Lorton. At Sanford the auto carriers have to be disconnected from the arriving train and then a switcher runs around the cariers to pull the carriers south then shove the carriers to the unloading ramps that face to the south with the cars being unloaded to the north. I would assume that the cars are loaded in Lorton with the ramps facing the north. How the auto carriers are then attached is not known by me since I do not know the track layout at Lorton..
Loading at Sanford is quicker as the carriers are loaded and pulled back to attach to the end of the train and then a brake test.. That means if the ramps at Lorton are aligned as assumed they may be unloaded more quickly at Lorton depending on the track layout and ramp location.
A quicker setup would be for there to be two sets of ramps at each terminal and a track layout so the carriers are pulled back and then shoved into the ramp areas for unloading. Loading at each terminal would be where the full carriers are pulled back then shoved up to connection to the train.
Now for the hard part;
As noted there is not clearances on Amtrak north of WASH for the Superliners and auto carriers. The routing would require using CSX's B&O line past BAL and maybe PHL and building a terminal iin NJ.
Although Feb 2010 was a bad month for the Auto Train as well as other Florida trains there is a close to break even ability for that service.
Auto Train has plenty of pent up demand for their LOR - SFA which should be perssued first before going anywhere else. However there are several problems.
1. HEP limitations. Passenger equipment is limited to about 25 cars due to HEP load limitations. A mid train locomotive would have to be attached to the end of the passenger consist so as to split the HEP load. A slicker solution may be to equip 3 or 4 car carriers with a HEP generator set and attach it to the end of the passenger consist and add another loco that would be required for any longer trains .
2. CSX also now limits the Auto Train to a total of 50 cars both passenger and car carriers. Either get that limitation raised or split train into 2 sections. With no need to service passenger cars at Florence the car carrier trains might be able to pass the passenger consist (if following) at Florence and arrive before passengers at the end terminal; however see #3.
3. CSX limits the speed of the Auto Train to 70MPH freight train speeds due to the fact it is a train that uses freight train braking instead of passenger direct release schedules due to its length. This might be able to change if ECP was added to the whole tain. A separate passenger section would have no such speed limit but only track speeds as the passenger cars can be changed quickly between the two modes by moving a valve.
4. Adding many passenger cars and auto carriers to the Auto Train brings up the big problem. There is no spare equipment. Amtrak's fleet plan lists costs of new Superliners at around $4m per car and an estimate of car carriers probably is around $700,000? Now to add 5 - 10 cars for each train set?. Add 1 pass car and 1 carrier to each train each way takes approximately $10. so 10 cars takes $100. Wish Amtak could get the money? Lots of Luck. Add in another 4-5 locomotives at $4M LOL.
5. Adding a terminal in NJ? What $40-50M?. There could be 1 train each to/from Lorton and NJ which would negate item #2 for the time being.That would spread the work load at Sanford.
6. Train speeds and the timing of all Florida trains is severly handicapped north of Florence (pembroke actually) by the addition of Atlanta trains onto the "A" line. The addition of 3 universal crossovers north of Rocky Mount NC paid by HSR funds may help but we will have to see. The removal years ago of the double track may require eventual restoration to get reliable timekeeping. Adding any more RTs in this section (5 RTs now) will be an earthquake especially when the freight traffic comes back.
7. Florida - midwest needs track that approaches or exceeds the Atlantic Coast line speeds. Louisville Auto Train took almost 24 hrs previously. A hard look at crew costs for the longer trip is a consideration.
8. The use of a new route is not so bad as no intermediate stations except for an intermediate servicing stationl That eliminates the $600,000 - 1.5M needed to get each station up and running. A route thru Atlanta does not work for intermediate because track layout requires a back up move. Again where do you get the money for the rolling stock? $200 -300M ( 3 sets maybe 4).
9 Any route proposed 1 night trips $255M; Rolling stock. 2 night trips $510M 3 night $765M. + servicing stop and new terminal costs?. WOW that evens boggles my mind.
Sawtooth500Then is the blog post "Ode to an Unsung Train" incorrect?
Yep! Financial data for Amtrak's trains can be found in the Monthly Performance reports, which can be located on Amtrak's website under Inside Amtrak. The year end data is found in the September reports. Amtrak's fiscal year ends on September 30th.
I have been tracking (no pun intended) Amtrak's financial performance for nearly six years. The long distance trains have never covered their operating or variable costs let alone their capital costs during this period. In fact, I don't believe that they have covered their operating costs since Amtrak's formation in 1971.
Several years ago, if I remember correctly, the Auto Train was able to reduce its operating loss to four cents per passenger mile. But its financial performance has worsened since then, although part of the negative variance is due to an accounting change.
In FY09 the long distance trains generated 24.5 per cent of the company's operating revenues whilst accounting for 38.7% of the operating costs, and they racked up 72 per cent of the operating losses. If Amtrak could rid itself of the long distance trains, it might be able, with some fare adjustments and cost control measures, to cover all of its operating costs. Unfortunately, Amtrak is a political animal. Accordingly, it cannot drop the long distance trains, although that would be the prudent thing to do. And if Amtrak was operated like a business that is exactly what management would do.
Hi, Sam!
Your analyses are always outstanding, but I suggest that they ignore the fact that it might be a good thing for people to enjoy a train trip. I had trouble with this concept in my UW Sustainable Transportation course also...
Americans have a right to comfortable, fast, and affordable intercity travel. It is a necessary part of our identity as a partly rural nation. As a resident of a rural, agricultural area (320-acre tree farm next door) I feel that those of us who provide you city folks with raw goods--we deserve transportation also.
I feel that if we could get some of those city folks onto trains and have them actually see dog-food feedlots full of horses, well they might think twice about all that dog food Satchel eats. People need to travel on the ground; if one cannot see the place where you live, then you can't stand in the place where you live.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
MaglevAmericans have a right to comfortable, fast, and affordable intercity travel. It is a necessary part of our identity as a partly rural nation
The way airlines are charging for everything --- now as of today even carry on bags will be charged --- comfort is certainly a lot and the present airline non exit rows seats of 32" pitch instead of the what 50" pitch on a LD train coach has to mean something. Oh -- BTW exit row seats now cost more. Train trips up to 6 - 8 Hrs are now my high preference over airlines or gosh forbid a bus!!
Is it a faulty memory? The way airlines treat passengers now seems to be similar to what the RRs started to do to passengers. This RR treatment started at various different years depending on the RR. Did RRs think they could get away with the extra charges and/or cut services because fares were regulated so closely by the ICC? Or was it both to help drive RR's passengers away?
At 4 million per Superliner car, that 50" seat pitch doesn't come for free. It comes at a cost of a subsidy rate of over 20 cents/mile. Yes, all the other modes are subsidized but none are subsidized at anything close to that rate, even with artful accounting of alleged hidden subsidies.
It is one thing to talk about advantages of one mode of transportation with respect to another and to talk about social benefits justifying (high) levels of passenger train subsidy.
But when the talk is about having a right to a mode of transportation requiring subsidies is when I reach down to feel if my wallet is still where I left it.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Sawtooth500he only way airlines stay afloat is through shedding debt in bankruptcy and getting idiots to invest in them.
How true this statement is. Having gone thru 4 airline bankruptcys I can state that each one stuck creditors and stockholders for more money than they ever made in their whole liftime from inception of the airline or from their 1st bankruptcy. Also Delta and northwest are other examples ( did not live thru any of those). So to say any airline with exception of SW is not subsidized is just plain incorrect.
Taxpayer subsidized? Yes thru the capital loss write offs on personal and corporate income taxes of the creditors or stockholders.
So how are things at the Cato Institute today?
blue streak 1Sawtooth500he only way airlines stay afloat is through shedding debt in bankruptcy and getting idiots to invest in them. How true this statement is. Having gone thru 4 airline bankruptcys I can state that each one stuck creditors and stockholders for more money than they ever made in their whole liftime from inception of the airline or from their 1st bankruptcy. Also Delta and northwest are other examples ( did not live thru any of those). So to say any airline with exception of SW is not subsidized is just plain incorrect. Taxpayer subsidized? Yes thru the capital loss write offs on personal and corporate income taxes of the creditors or stockholders.
It is never in question that airlines receive subsidies. It is just that trains are subsidized at higher rates. Much higher.
Airline passenger miles are to Amtrak passenger miles in the ratio of 100:1. For airlines to be subsidized at the rate of Amtrak, a full 100 billion dollars in direct and hidden subsidies must be going to airlines every year. I haven't seen any evidence that this is happening.
But Amtrak is underfunded, one says, if Amtrak were properly funded in some sense, it would make more efficient use of its subsidy dollar. Would it? The Vision Report proposed a 10-fold increase in Amtrak funding to get a simple 10-fold increase in passenger miles. The justification for this level of expense is in the appendices of the Vision Report, where they give cost figures of the European trains.
The argument that airline passengers are crammed in like sardines whereas Superliner passengers get 50" seat pitch, diners, lounge cars, and so on does not do much for me. Airlines could have 50" seat pitch and lounges if they were subsidized at anything close to the rate of Amtrak. Those amenities don't come for free.
Every time the high rate of subsidy of passenger trains comes up, the subject is changed to oh the airlines and everything else is subsidized too (but at nowhere near the same rate), oh airline travel is so terrible and rail travel is so comfortable (I did the 40 hours in a HiLevel coach seat once Chicago-LA, and I will take the 32" pitch airline seat over that experience ever after).
Sawtooth500Well look at the airline business - that's another business that does NOT make money (and I used to be an airline pilot). The only way airlines stay afloat is through shedding debt in bankruptcy and getting idiots to invest in them. Personally I love to fly but would never want to own an airline. An airline is happy when it makes $25 mil in a quarter, oh, but nevermind the BILLION we lost last year... The fact is us americans like cheap travel. You could say airlines are subsidized by bankruptcy... rails by the government.
In 2007 the major U.S. airlines (operating revenues of more than $20 million per year) had operating profits of $7.4 billion and net income of $4.6 billion. Although two of the largest carriers had a net income loss, the others had taxable net income and a net return of 11.33 cents per passenger mile. In 2007 there were 23 carriers with operating revenues of more than $20 million.
In 2008, which was a very bad year for the airlines, due mainly to the run-up in fuel prices and the on-coming recession, the major carriers had an operating loss of $4.2 billion and a net income loss of $14.7 billion. However, eight of the 15 surviving carriers had an operating profit and five of them had taxable net income. The losses for the big trunk carriers (American, Delta, United, etc.) dragged the industry down.
Earnings improved in 2009, although the industry was still in the red. The operating loss was $1.1 billion, and the net income loss was $5.9 billion. Ten of the fifteen carriers reported positive operating income, and six had taxable net income. The preliminary results for the first quarter of 2010 show the carriers are on a path towards a profitable year.
Net income consists of cash and non-cash items. Although a carrier may have had a net income loss for the year, it may have had positive cash flows. Cash flow is the key to continuing operations. A business can have net income losses for a long period, but it cannot sustain negative cash flows for an extended period of time.
In a bankruptcy proceeding, as a rule, the shareholders lose their investment. The bondholders usually have their debt holdings restructured and come out of the proceedings with a portion of their debt. Frequently, all or a portion of their debt is converted into shares of the emerging entity. Assuming that the entity turns the corner; they can be made whole over time if the entity (airline) is profitable.
Some employees may lose their jobs as a result of the bankruptcy. Moreover, all the employees may lose part of their retirement benefits if the bankruptcy court allows the airline to assign its pension plan to the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation. The PBGC is a government agency that insures private pension plans. The sponsor of the plan pays a premium (insurance) for the guarantee. Any entity with a qualifying plan is a candidate for PBGC coverage. The PBGC payout may be less than the anticipated payout from the airline's defined benefit plan.
The cost of a bankruptcy is worn by investors, creditors, employees, and suppliers. It is not worn by the taxpayers and, therefore, is not a taxpayer subsidy in the sense that Amtrak receives direct federal and state subsidies to sustain its operations.
Corporations emerging from bankruptcy may or may not have large tax loss carry forwards. If an individual or business has no income or a loss on certain investments, he or she has no tax liability. If the loss is great enough, they will have a tax loss carrry forward.
If one wants to argue that the tax law is a subsidy, he or she should keep in mind that Amtrak pays no income taxes. Moreover, it is exempt from all state and local taxes. In otherwords, it gets a free ride on the backs of the federal, state, and local taxpayers.
Having said all of this, however, Professor Milenkovic is correct. What ever the airlines do or don't do has nothing to do with how passenger rail fits into the national transport scheme.
As Bluestreak noted above, there are not sufficient spare Superliners to put together even one more trainset. Although Superliner compatible cars are included in the new equipment procurement plan recently released by Amtrak, by own bet is that no such order will ever be placed given the Amtrak's apathy toward long distance trains.
Rail advocates point to the role freight trains play in reducing congestion on busy highways and the green benefits attained through the reduction of fuel used. It strikes me that the same arguments apply to the Auto Train and I-95.
Dakguy201 Rail advocates point to the role freight trains play in reducing congestion on busy highways and the green benefits attained through the reduction of fuel used. It strikes me that the same arguments apply to the Auto Train and I-95.
The train gets stopped about 2 to 3 times per week to have passengers removed from the train for medical emergencies. Were those emergencies to have occurred while the parties were operating their vehicles on I-95 the result, most likely, would be a multi-mile back up on the road for a major accident with Life-Flight being called to transport the injured to the nearest Trauma Center.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDThe train gets stopped about 2 to 3 times per week to have passengers removed from the train for medical emergencies.
Dakguy201 As Bluestreak noted above, there are not sufficient spare Superliners to put together even one more trainset. Although Superliner compatible cars are included in the new equipment procurement plan recently released by Amtrak, by own bet is that no such order will ever be placed given the Amtrak's apathy toward long distance trains. .
As Bluestreak noted above, there are not sufficient spare Superliners to put together even one more trainset. Although Superliner compatible cars are included in the new equipment procurement plan recently released by Amtrak, by own bet is that no such order will ever be placed given the Amtrak's apathy toward long distance trains. .
Amtrak's apathy toward its long distance trains is well founded. Any objective assessment of the numbers associated with them shows that they lose heaps of money whilst serving a very small segment of the travelling public. Had Amtrak been able to shed the long distance trains when it was formed, it could have devoted its energies to enhancing or developing the relatively short, high density corridors where passenger rail makes sense.
Sawtooth500BaltACDThe train gets stopped about 2 to 3 times per week to have passengers removed from the train for medical emergencies. Seems rather frequent...
Considering 200-300 passengers, most in the over 65 age range with some form of health issues for 14 trips per week and 2 or 3 passenger emergencies a week is not that much of a stretch.
Auto-Train had a huge repair problem when cracks were forming in the "new" auto carriers. Do those figure into the financials? Furthermore, even if they were warranty fixes, Amtrak has opted to pay for labor to get things fixed faster (like the bum concrete ties on the NEC).
Like Amtrak, I detest long-distance trains that require sleeping. Corridor trains are the practical solution. I'm still puzzled by this obsession with keeping trains that require more than a 12 or 14 hour sitting.
Medical emergencies aboard Auto Train does not surprise me..."medical emergency" and "medical attention" are the most common reasons listed for train delays on the MTA, LIRR,and NJT delay reports after signal and equipment problems and "congestion". So, several times a week on A-T is not surprising.
Back to the top: Auto Train Company did try for NJ to FL service but congestion on the Corridor, high expense of real estate in NJ, and other cost factors literally drove them south to Lorton, VA. Even today I doubt there is room even on CSX from the Hudson Waterfront south to even think about real estate there. But now you got me thinking...as times have changed, etc, etc. There are some spots near Belle Meade on the CSX, nee RDG, like abandoned industrial complexes and government grounds (abandoned: vacant,unused, wondering what they can bring in since there is no industry in the NE, no tax income anyway, decaying, eyesore, land) that would be an easy hour out of NYC, PHL, all of Northern Jersey and the extreme north east of PA by car... well....needs some marketing thought and sharp pencils in the hands of CSX....
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.
henry6There are some spots near Belle Meade on the CSX, nee RDG, like abandoned industrial complexes and government grounds (abandoned: vacant,unused, wondering what they can bring in since there is no industry in the NE, no tax income anyway, decaying, eyesore, land) that would be an easy hour out of NYC, PHL, all of Northern Jersey and the extreme north east of PA by car... well....needs some marketing thought and sharp pencils in the hands of CSX....
Henry: You are correct. It appears to me that the demand for Auto Train service will grow with gasoline prices rising and transit times for the end points to be reduced. Once equipment is available (when?) there probably will be a splitting of the passenger cars and auto carriers first into separate trains (due to present CSX restriction of 50 cars). Then when Amtrak finds that enough automobiles originate from north of one of your examples above then Amtrak may acquire the property and develop it for a separate auto train.
However I suspect that CSX will have to be paid to add additional double track RICHMOND - Florence and the Virginia ave tunnel clearance in WASH will have to be raised for the auto carriers. I am not familiar enough of the route north of WASH to know if there are other clearance problems but we know the NEC doesn't have it yet!
aegrotatio Auto-Train had a huge repair problem when cracks were forming in the "new" auto carriers. Do those figure into the financials? Furthermore, even if they were warranty fixes, Amtrak has opted to pay for labor to get things fixed faster (like the bum concrete ties on the NEC). Like Amtrak, I detest long-distance trains that require sleeping. Corridor trains are the practical solution. I'm still puzzled by this obsession with keeping trains that require more than a 12 or 14 hour sitting.
Whether we admit it or not, Amtrak is a political creature and this goes a long way in explaining why the long-distance trains are still operating. The Texas Eagle is probably the most recent example of such a political move. Another factor is the advocacy community, many of whom seem to believe that the immediate postwar period (1946-1955 or so) was some sort of "Golden Era" of passenger trains and want to maintain a level of service and amenities from that period. The 707 and DC-8 were introduced in 1958 and revolutionized commercial aviation, a factor that went a long way in taking passengers off the long-haul trains and trans-Atlantic liners.
Since the economic performance of the Autotrain is not nearly as bad as the rest of the LD fleet, it would seem reasonable to look into Autotrain service on other routes as a means of stanching the flow of red ink.
The devil is in the details - routes and markets.
Where there are good markets, say near mid-west to FL, the existing routes stink. You can't deliver the trip speed you need to sell the service.
Where there are good routes, say some or all of the western trans-con routes, e.g. Chicago to Denver, there just isn't the market. (Comared to I-95, there is NOBODY on I-70 in Kansas.
The existing train would do better if the northern terminal allow one to avoid the worst driving on the route, namely I-95 north of DC. Yuck. The problem, once again, is routes, particularly getting from Alexandria to north of Baltimore.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Maybe then find a way west to Hagerstown or Gettysburg then south. DC may be everything to politico's but not for railroads.
aegrotatioLike Amtrak, I detest long-distance trains that require sleeping. Corridor trains are the practical solution. I'm still puzzled by this obsession with keeping trains that require more than a 12 or 14 hour sitting.
Would you prefer to travel from A to B by day, spend the night at B and repeat the process until you reach your destination? It would take four days instead of the current two days to go from Chicago or New Orleans to the West Coast.
My wife and I enjoy traveling by train, and we accept Amtrak as the company that provides passenger service. My wife does wish that bedroom berths were parallel to the window; she greatly enjoyed going from Vancouver to Moncton in drawing rooms last year (VIA 1 between Toronto and Montréal), sleeping in the lower by the window.
Johnny
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.