Allegedly according to TRAINS NEWSWIRE link below, Amtrak recently floated a plan to replace all it's remaining Long Distance trains with Corridor Trains. If you read the article though it reads like a trial balloon to see how much negative feedback they get back from Congress as Amtrak states they have not completed the analysis yet.
http://trn.trains.com/news/news-wire/2019/02/20-report-amtrak-floats-plan-to-replace-long-distance-trains-with-more-corridor-services
Amtrak's FY 2019 grant request was for $1.7 Billion, they got $1.9 Billion instead.
FY2020 they want $1.8 Billion
FY2021 they want $1.9 Billion
This is what they are forecasting now, who knows how that will change if they change their mix of trains. My personal feelings is the Congress will not let them dump all the LD trains. They might get away with slashing 2-3 but I can't see Congress approving of all them going away.
It's pretty easy to see where and how they could dump most of the red ink and still run half the LD services.
Looking at the map, one might think that the Cardinal would be a train to keep. However, it is a short train that just runs 3 times a week, so costs are proportionally less. The map should show costs per passenger-mile to reflect the relative cost/benefit of each line.
In as much as Amtrak has never had 'certified' cost accounting system - this is just another piece of creative financial fiction - telling the 'story' that the boss wants to tell.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
MidlandMike Looking at the map, one might think that the Cardinal would be a train to keep. However, it is a short train that just runs 3 times a week, so costs are proportionally less. The map should show costs per passenger-mile to reflect the relative cost/benefit of each line.
Yes, loss per passenger-mile is something to also consider.
On t'other hand, when you lose a few million on a little dinky route, and a LOTTA million on a big brawny one, you still LOSE a lot more money on the latter.
It's looking like, for long distance travel, airplanes beat trains. If you think not, try raising the rates for those long distance trains, so as to better cover the costs.
Ed
You should state the losses in several ways.
1. The listed losses by train
2. Losses by passenger
3. Losses b passenger mile
4. Losses by train mile
5a. Losses by car mile including all cars and 5b by revenue cars.
It is not so easy to get figures. Then you could do these same figures by all costs and above the rail costs?
blue streak 1 You should state the losses in several ways. 1. The listed losses by train 2. Losses by passenger 3. Losses b passenger mile 4. Losses by train mile 5a. Losses by car mile including all cars and 5b by revenue cars. It is not so easy to get figures. Then you could do these same figures by all costs and above the rail costs?
What he said!
Be my guest. But in a budget, what matters is the operating loss (It takes into account the revenue and above rail costs. Does not include the debated allocations of overhead.) regardless of how long the route is. One can easily see that the biggest losers are the longest runs out west.
I'm guessing here but because it's in black the NEC is deemed profitable?
bill613a I'm guessing here but because it's in black the NEC is deemed profitable?
bill613aI'm guessing here but because it's in black the NEC is deemed profitable?
By what measure is it in the black? It's not making a profit according to Amtrak and in fact they are not able to keep up on maintenence. They favor the NEC over LD trains because the direct subsidy from Amtrak for NEC trains is less than all the LD trains but then Amtrak cannot explain how they calculated $500 million in deferred maintence last year on the NEC that they added to the backlog. Total LD subsidy is under $500 million. Add the $500 million in backlogged or deferred maintence to the subsidy Amtrak paid out to trains operating over the NEC and it is substantially more than the total subsidy of LD trains. Amtrak argues that is OK because the ridership is much higher in the NEC.......figure out that logic. I can't. If Amtrak is trying to reduce it's subsidy, seems to me the NEC should at least be break even......if they are going to gravitate to it as a business model. Otherwise, all we are really doing is moving deck chairs on the Titanic here.
Here you go, look at the numbers. Top of page 58 will tell you what Amtraks contribution out of pocket is for each "state supported" train. Which I always thought were paid for entirely by the state BUT most of them are not (Hiawatha service is paid for entirely by Wisconsin and Illinois.....toot-toot :) )
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/reports/Amtrak-General-Legislative-Annual-Report-FY2019-Grant-Request.pdf
CMStPnPBy what measure is it in the black? It's not making a profit according to Amtrak and in fact they are not able to keep up on maintenence.
The map is from Amtrak and it shows operating losses and profits by route.
runnerdude48You don't need a map to tell you that the long distance anachronisms are huge money losers. Some lose more than others but they are all money losers. That wouldn't be so bad but when they carry less than 1/2 of one percent of intercity travelers they are unnecessary besides. Amtrak is finally getting smart and they're trying to bring the company into the 21st century but I fear the spineless twits in Congress won't allow that to happen.
Are they money losers because Amtrak is running them or are they money losers regardless? Auto-Train is Long Distance train and used to be a private company and a 1.8 million loss per year is not a lot for one train a day. Given Auto-Train ran two trains a day (one from Louisville) and made a profit some years. Is that annual operating loss due to the incredible lack of smarts of Amtrak management or is it really the route and the concept? I would argue the former vs the latter. So I wouldn't necessarily curse all the LD trains in one bucket.
Further this is "operating profit" which for the trains only involves expenses above the rail. Further in the NEC, primarily Amtrak assesses the costs, outside the NEC, I'm willing to bet a larger part of the train cost is not via Amtraks hand.
Additionally in the link in my post above, Amtrak openly admits to charging the LD line of trains $115 million a year to use the NEC. That is a LOT of money for how many LD trains using the NEC (I am guessing most travel NY to DC only)? Is that $115 million only above the rail costs? To be consistent it should be but who really knows?
Amtrak says it has a $38 Billion backlog to NEC investments and they just added another $500 million to that backlog last year. Which just out of amazing coincidence is close to matching what they say the LD Network is costing them. Almost like Amtrak is using the financial claims to sell a story.
Personally, I would love to see Amtrak exit the LD train market as I think it might open one or two routes to a private operator for tour or cruise purposes. I think 1 or 2 decently run trains is better than 10 crappy Amtrak LD trains (not to mention the sewer smell in some of their restrooms). I think they should find a way to open the NEC to competition by removing maintence and operations of the NEC from Amtraks hands.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.