Railroad Forums 

  • Why does the Auto-Train Service Approach being Profitable?

  • Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.

Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman

 #1465190  by MikeinNeb
 
Wishful thinking is that somewhere out there in the "Amtrak Universe" that an example would finally appear of an operation that had the "speed and service and frequency and occupancy and fares and intermingling freight trains" to where above the rails expenses are covered, with a enough left over for a decent contribution to maintaining the right of way, with the freight trains covering the rest. (But I'm not holding my breath.)

I am rooting though for the Florida East Coast Railway/Brightline experiment to accomplish this. I suspect the Florida East Coast Railway has experienced a systematic decline in freight tonnage over the generations, while they hold south Florida real estate worth hundreds of millions (billions?) of dollars. So they had a unique opportunity utilizing bonds to try a grand experiment to where passenger trains that run frequent and full, and charge premium prices, are the majority users of the right of way. But freight is still there, and with both combined cover maintenance with some profit left over. Plus I'm sure there is real estate speculation incorporated in their plan to make money off of new construction/renovations around there stations.
 #1465205  by mtuandrew
 
MikeinNeb wrote:Wishful thinking is that somewhere out there in the "Amtrak Universe" that an example would finally appear of an operation that had the "speed and service and frequency and occupancy and fares and intermingling freight trains" to where above the rails expenses are covered, with a enough left over for a decent contribution to maintaining the right of way, with the freight trains covering the rest. (But I'm not holding my breath.)
If the NEC was double-stack-ready, I have a feeling it would make a killing as I-95 relief with stops RTE-NHV-EWR-BWI-LOR... but alas.
 #1465207  by R&DB
 
mtuandrew wrote:
If the NEC was double-stack-ready, I have a feeling it would make a killing...
The current operation (LOR - SFA) takes 17 hours and requires 2 crews each way and has a 7 hour turnaround. Anything longer would take more time and crew.
 #1465218  by MikeinNeb
 
If the NEC was double-stack-ready, I have a feeling it would make a killing as I-95 relief with stops RTE-NHV-EWR-BWI-LOR... but alas.
They could certainly run piggybacks right now. Night freights from Virginia to "where" in New York City, kind of a reverse "Auto-Train?
 #1465232  by mtuandrew
 
R&DB wrote:The current operation (LOR - SFA) takes 17 hours and requires 2 crews each way and has a 7 hour turnaround. Anything longer would take more time and crew.
I was thinking just a BOS-NYC-DC train, with passengers changing trains at Lorton (and auto carriers being switched) if they wanted to continue to Florida.

EDIT: wait, no, an NEC-only train. Offloading at Lorton perhaps, but definitely not sharing rolling stock.
MikeinNeb wrote:They could certainly run piggybacks right now. Night freights from Virginia to "where" in New York City, kind of a reverse "Auto-Train?
Exactly. Priced high enough, operated at high enough speeds (110+, meaning special cars) and sold as only (BOS)-NYC-WAS, it might be worth an internal NRPC study. Maybe.

I bet there would be a lot of BMWs and Lexi on such a train.
 #1465235  by David Benton
 
The Auto-Train is certainly not a low cost operation. An onboard crew of up to 25 , plus 2 engineers , and 2 conductors . Another 125 employees at Sanford , 20 or so at Lorton( But these cover virtually all the maintenance of the Auto-train equipment and yards , should be no overheads to Beech Grove etc ). I suspect it could be tweaked to run a profit .But what is the incentive for Amtrak to do so ?, as it would only led to a clamour to privatise the Auto-Train operation. I suspect if it looked like it was going to turn a profit , more "system costs" would be mysteriously applied. I wouldn't blame Amtrak for milking the cow , in fact it would be just like a business , running profitable divisions, and using the profit to cover unprofitable divisions.
 #1465246  by SouthernRailway
 
David Benton wrote:The Auto-Train is certainly not a low cost operation. An onboard crew of up to 25 , plus 2 engineers , and 2 conductors . Another 125 employees at Sanford , 20 or so at Lorton( But these cover virtually all the maintenance of the Auto-train equipment and yards , should be no overheads to Beech Grove etc ). I suspect it could be tweaked to run a profit .But what is the incentive for Amtrak to do so ?, as it would only led to a clamour to privatise the Auto-Train operation. I suspect if it looked like it was going to turn a profit , more "system costs" would be mysteriously applied. I wouldn't blame Amtrak for milking the cow , in fact it would be just like a business , running profitable divisions, and using the profit to cover unprofitable divisions.
The privately-run Auto-Train (in the 1970s) was sometimes profitable.

If Amtrak management is intentionally running the Auto-Train so that it loses money, if it could just as easily be profitable, management should be fired. It's my tax dollars that support it, and public servants should be wise with my money.
 #1465258  by electricron
 
sullysullinburg wrote:Does anyone have solid numbers on ridership for passengers and cars?
Per http://media.amtrak.com/wp-content/uplo ... -edits.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Ridership:
(FY16) 238,448 (651.5 daily) generating $75,169,554 in fares.
(FY15) 271,622 (744.1 daily) generating $81,607,535 in fares.
Per train numbers should be half the daily average.

Sorry I couldn't find any data on number of automobiles taken on the Auto Train per year, maybe someone else can. ;)
 #1465260  by george matthews
 
MikeinNeb wrote:So somewhat premium fares and full trains? I suspect that's Brightline's hoped for business plan. "British" frequency and occupancy while charging premium prices.
What do you mean by "British" frequency? Most routes in Britain have far more trains than the one a day usually found in the US. London to Glasgow on more than one route tends to be about once an hour for most of the day.

But few trains now carry motor vehicles. Only the west of England routes to Plymouth and Penzance do so. That is probably because there is no motorway for the last part of the journey - west of Exeter.
 #1465264  by Gilbert B Norman
 
Interesting to learn, Mr. Matthews, that Motorail is largely extinct within the UK. Apparently it hangs on over on the Continent, but it simply is one or two tiered flat cars on the rear of some Night Trains (not that on my journeys to Salzburg am I about to be down at the Hbf to see them).

If such "Auto-Train Service" we're to be tried out, my candidates would be Galesburg-Irondale, Galesburg-La Junta, and Albuquerque-San Bernardino. I've been on too many existing Auto-Trains to know that "overnight is enough" and "arewethereyetitis" is quite endemic on board if not there by Noon.
 #1465290  by Arborwayfan
 
If Amtrak management is intentionally running the Auto-Train so that it loses money, if it could just as easily be profitable, management should be fired. It's my tax dollars that support it, and public servants should be wise with my money.
I believe Mr. Benton's idea was that when it comes time to say what share of Amtrak's fixed costs get assigned to each train, someone might arrange to assign more to the trains that are almost profitable so that they don't look profitable so no one says sell them. He wasn't saying that anyone intentionally runs the trains in a way that earns less money or costs more to operate.
 #1465298  by jonnhrr
 
One thing to consider when proposing auto-train routes such as DC to Boston is that the Virginia to Florida is somewhat unique in that you have "snowbirds" that flee the Northeast to spend the winter in Florida and therefore want their cars with them. Someone going to DC, NY or Boston is more likely traveling for a shorter duration thus renting a car at the destination becomes more cost effective.
 #1465304  by David Benton
 
Arborwayfan wrote:
If Amtrak management is intentionally running the Auto-Train so that it loses money, if it could just as easily be profitable, management should be fired. It's my tax dollars that support it, and public servants should be wise with my money.
I believe Mr. Benton's idea was that when it comes time to say what share of Amtrak's fixed costs get assigned to each train, someone might arrange to assign more to the trains that are almost profitable so that they don't look profitable so no one says sell them. He wasn't saying that anyone intentionally runs the trains in a way that earns less money or costs more to operate.
Couldn't have rephrased it better myself, Thanks.