Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
Amtrak's FY 2008 Key Performance Numbers

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="beaulieu"]  Sam, I see two more things that concern me, first whether State appropriated money should be treated as revenue or subsidy, from your perspective as a resident of Texas, money spent by the State of Wisconsin to support the Hiawatha service is Revenue, from my perspective as a Wisconsin Resident it is just a subsidy coming out of a different pocket, no different. Second I have serious trouble with the way that Amtrak treats its costs and the way that you characterize them with regard especially to the NEC All of the costs such as replacing Ties, Ballast, Rail, and various components of the electrical system, are avoidable if Amtrak stopped running trains over the Corridor, yet Amtrak's costs charged by the freight railroads for their track maintenance are in the avoidable category as Access Fees. I note in one of the footnotes to the FY 2007 report that there was an extra charge to the depreciation account in that year for $16 million due to Concrete Ties on the NEC failing prematurely, and that there would be several more installments of that in future years.  BTW - How many of those gas-fueled power plants didn't last the 27 years of their depreciable life? Amtrak has so far had  453 bought new locomotives that haven't lasted 40 years ( less a few destroyed in wrecks). [/quote] State supported trains generate ticket revenues like any of Amtrak's trains or trains operated by Amtrak under a contract with a state.  State support is also treated as revenue.  It is probably allocated to the state supported trains, but the method of allocation is not set forth in the annual report. The depreciation of the faulty railway ties was accelerated because of a revised estimate of the lives of the ties.  This is a normal accounting practice.  By the same token, if an asset is retired prematurely, the balance in the asset account is charged to depreciation, less any salvatge, which is closed to expense.  It would have a one time negative impact on net income.  The effect over the long run would be the same as if the asset was not retired prematurely.  It is essentially  timing difference. I retired two years ago.  At that time the company had 73 generators in 23 power stations.  Every one of our power stations that had reached its 27th year was still in service.  Many of our plants were more than 40 years old.  Only two plants were retired whilst I was with the company.  A lignite plant that had been built in 1927 and subsequently converted to natural gas in the late 30s, because gas turned out to be cheaper than the lignite, was shuttered in the middle 1990s.  Also, the Dallas Steam Electric Station, which went on line in 1917 or thereabouts, was taken out of service and salvaged between 1990 and 2000.  I cannot remember the exact date.  In addition, the company had two stations that had been built in the 1940s that were only used for extreme peaking loads.  I believe that they are still available if the demand calls for them, but it would not be economical to run them unless the Texas Power Grid was desperate for power.
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