The short answer is there used to be a mid-west Auto-Train (sort of); it was discontinued just a few years after it began in the mid-70's. This was actually a Louisville, KY to Sanford route (the rationale behind the original Auto-Train concept (Auto-Train was once a private company, not affiliated with Amtrak) was that passengers would drive maybe a half-day towards their destination. Then, instead of getting a motel for the night, they would catch the train on to Florida. The concept was almost viable, too). This route should have drawn passengers from at least part of the midwest, certainly the Chicago area. Around the same time Amtrak discontinued it's own Chicago-Florida train (the
Floridian, leaving a gap to this day in the Amtrak network), which did not carry automobiles. Auto-Train corporation went bankrupt in 1981; Amtrak picked up the operation shortly therafter.
The long-answer is rather more complicated. Amtrak has considered other Auto-Train routes (Seattle to California comes to mind), and the midwest to Florida would be one possibility. There are numerous problems, however, most of them political in nature. Amtrak has been starved for funding all it's 32 year existence, which has made funding new projects virtually impossible (would you believe there hasn't been a new dinig car - of the type used on most all florida trains - built since 1956? Those auto-carriers they load your can in abourd Auto-Train? Built in the 60's.). This is purely a political problem; highways and airports recieve tens of billions; Amtrak had to fight this year for a paltry $1.05 billion (about half what's actually needed, and less than Amtrak had said was the bare miminum funding level). The solution lies not with Amtrak but in Congress; write your represenative (seriously, that's the only thing that will ever make train expansion happen).
As for Auto-Train's economics, whethor or not the train is profitable depends on who you ask. I've seen numbers which show Auto-Train losing milions every year, along with every other long-distance Amtrak train (under that scenario, Auto-Train isn't even the best performer). I don't really buy those figures. However, the oft-quoted statements in the media that certain trains lose $150 (or whatever amount) per passenger are patently false. That number has been derived in such a way as to make the trains look as bad as possible (remember the political angle?).
Other financial statements purport to show at least marginal profits for virtually every long-distance Amtrak train (yes, those same trains which above "lost" 5-15 million). I don't buy all these arguments either, but they do make some legitimate points. If you remove certain overhead costs, you can often get a positive number for the trains profit/loss (and remarkably, some of these costs would have to be paid whethor Amtrak ran intercity trains or not). My point is that a new Auto-Train service would cost a great deal to establish where none has existed previously, and Amtrak doesn't have the money.
That said, it is services like this which Amtrak desperately needs to pursue, whatever the costs may be. Certainly you would get a better financial result than a local commuter train operation (which somehow do get funding), it would open up rail transporation to many more potential passengers, and Amtrak really needs the business. No passenger train will ever truly make money, and focusing solely on that barometer has deprived vast regions of the nation from efficient transportation systems. Imagine being able to hop on a train in Chicago this afternoon, and be in WDW by tommorrow (spending the night in a sleeper). That's a (really wild) dream right now, but with the political will, it's completely possible.
Incidentally, Amtrak
does run trains from Canada (to Chicago). These only come near to Detroit; the track routing misses the city to the North. Other trains connect Chicago and Detroit (and Pontiac). Right now to reach WDW you would have to change trains in Chicago and New Orleans, and you still couldn't bring the automobile. Hence, the "gap" in the Amtrak network.
More than anyone wanted to know, I'm sure.
