Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Don Phillips column about Amtrak accounting

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
In FY12 the long distance trains lost $600.9 million before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges. Assuming the long distance trains wear 10 per cent of Amtrak's annual depreciation and interest charges ($744.5 million), the total loss for the long distance trains would have been approximately $675.4 million. The NEC had a operating profit of $$281.9 million before depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges in FY12. Of this amount $206.5 million or 73.3 per cent was contributed by the Acelas.   What we don't know from Amtrak's operating reports or financials is how much depreciation, interest, and miscellaneous charges are allocable to the NEC. If we assume that the NEC wears 80 per cent of Amtrak's depreciation, etc., then it had a net loss of $313.3 million in FY12, which is less than half of the losses incurred by the long distance trains. Furthermore, if we assume that 73 per cent of the depreciation on the NEC is attributable to the buildout to hoist the Acela trains, their fully allocated loss would have been $228 million, which is much less than the losses run-up by the long distance trains. In a sense I am contradicting what I said earlier, i.e. without access to Amtrak's books, it is impossible to know how much depreciation, etc. is attributable to the NEC, other corridor trains, and the long distance trains. Nevertheless, it is not too great of a stretch to believe that the long distance trains lose a lot of money and have been doing so for a long time.   Using 2010 numbers as a base, along with the aforementioned assumptions regarding depreciation, etc., if Amtrak had not been saddled with the long distance trains in FY10, it could have covered its operating costs on its two remaining product lines with an average fare increase of $7.41. To cover its fully allocated costs, without the long distance trains, it would have had to raise its fares by an average of $33.23.   Needless to say, my calculations were based on assumptions that cannot be verified unless one has access to Amtrak's books.  As far as I know Don Phillips does not have such access.  And I can certify that I don't have access to them.  But I do have access to Amtrak's audited financial reports.  So does everyone else.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag