Convicted OneConvicted One wrote the following post 19 hours ago: Personally, I believe that your expectation that you deserve an explanation from a professor of cost allocations in accountancy is a little on the grandiose side.
My post: " I'd like to see a real accountant. preferably a professor of cost allocations in accountancy examine Amtrak's allocation formulae. I think it was noted before on here (JPS?) that the RPA critique was not written by anyone expert in cost allocation methodolgy. My recollections are that almost everyone feels they are treated unfairly in this endeavor in corporations."
oltmanndAt the end of the day, the idea that Amtrak's "costs", properly divided [divined] by God's own cost accountants will uncover some vast moderate conspiracy and shine true, heavenly light onto the "preferred answer" is just a lot of bologna.
runnerdude48Most college students I know either have a car or bum a ride from a friend. Some ride the train occasionally but only if there are no other options. Sharing the cost of a tank of gas is cheaper than an Amtrak ticket.
WAY BACK WHEN I was in college at Purdue - Freshmen and Sophomores weren't permitted to have cars on campus. Getting the 150 miles South to my home at the time was a chore - either trying to find a ride with someone going further South or using my thumb. Railroad passenger service wasn't an option either, while Lafayette had service and my home town had service, there was no possible connection between the services. This was before the formation of Amtrak.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACD JPS1 In 2018 Amtrak spent $93.1 million on advertising, down from $106.7 million in 2017 and $104.2 million in 2016. In 2017 Amtrak launched a multi-media campaign “Break the Travel Quo”. The program featured a series of videos lauding travel by Amtrak and poking light hearted fun at the obvious alternatives. You can sample some of the videos on YouTube. Search for “Break the Travel Quo”. Most of the Amtrak ads that I have seen have touted the NEC and/or other corridors. Probably for a good reason! It is were rail travel makes sense; it is where Amtrak can compete effectively against the alternatives. Advertising the long-distance trains that are used by less than 1 percent of intercity travelers is throwing good money after bad, and Anderson probably knows it.
JPS1 In 2018 Amtrak spent $93.1 million on advertising, down from $106.7 million in 2017 and $104.2 million in 2016. In 2017 Amtrak launched a multi-media campaign “Break the Travel Quo”. The program featured a series of videos lauding travel by Amtrak and poking light hearted fun at the obvious alternatives. You can sample some of the videos on YouTube. Search for “Break the Travel Quo”. Most of the Amtrak ads that I have seen have touted the NEC and/or other corridors. Probably for a good reason! It is were rail travel makes sense; it is where Amtrak can compete effectively against the alternatives. Advertising the long-distance trains that are used by less than 1 percent of intercity travelers is throwing good money after bad, and Anderson probably knows it.
It seems like Amtrak is underestimating the need for marketing and advertizing. It is easy to say that "we don't provide that service because nobody is asking for it." But good marketing will make them ask for the service. And the ads have got to be really and truly good. Those "Travel Quo" ads are thoroughly lame. It seems to be a signature of public sector advertising to produce ads trying so hard to impress with their cleverness that they step all over the message. The message of the Travel Quo ads is "Come and ride the train for a really creepy experience."
Personally, I believe that your expectation that you deserve an explanation from a professor of cost allocations in accountancy is a little on the grandiose side. I think that is why you felt a bit of "pushing back" from me.
Bob Johnston's article as source was good enough for me, and that is why I intended earlier that if you wished to dispute that, then your dispute was with him, not me.
FWIW, I've worked for years for a national organization that allocated central costs to satellite offices, and can tell you that there is no one altruistic formula for such allocations that any professor is likely to point you to. Such apportionment, so long as in conformance with tax law, is pretty much up the the authority running the show, and will push the agenda that said authority desires.
I think that is where the "treated unfairly" mentality that you alluded to earlier originates. Those who might prefer a different agenda, specifically.
Convicted OneCharlie, if that was your actual intent, then I misread you, and I am sincerely sorry for the confusion.
Sure No problem. I hope you gained some understanding.
Moving on, it would be interesting to examine the details of cost allocation as used by one of the Class One roads. Although he was not an accountant, I have a feeling Greyhounds might shed some light on that black hole, judging by his stories about the IC's lack of comprehension of the concept of marginal revenue.
charlie hebdoso the reader can refer to that complete work for elucidation.
Charlie, if that was your actual intent, then I misread you, and I am sincerely sorry for the confusion. Sorry also that I could not provide an additional source beyond the one you already had.
And if you feel that I was nasty with you, I hope that you will accept my humble apology about that also.
Convicted One oltmannd Blah, blah, blah, 1971 deal, blah, blah, blah. Could you please cite a source for that?
oltmannd Blah, blah, blah, 1971 deal, blah, blah, blah.
Could you please cite a source for that?
I got yer source right here, buddy!
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndBlah, blah, blah, 1971 deal, blah, blah, blah.
runnerdude48So what happened to "Amtrak and Millennials"?
What about the millenials, indeed!
Any why does poor Amtrak always wind up at the foot of some grand conpiracy that just has to nefariously direct money some "here" where some don't prefer it as opposed the "there" that some like?
At the end of the day, the idea that Amtrak's "costs", properly divided by God's own cost accountants will uncover some vast moderate conspiracy and shine true, heavenly light onto the "preferred answer" is just a lot of bologna.
Maybe not balogna. Maybe something worse. Because....Amtrak does not fairly conpensate the host roads for the use of their RR. They don't. They never have.
Blah, blah, blah, 1971 deal, blah, blah, blah. That was a LOOOONG time ago. It's susposed to last forever? "Hey RRs! Remeber when we took your money losing passenger trains? Your CEO was 8 years old then? Really! You could look it up..."
And guess what?
That doesn't matter, either. Why? Because the host roads are okay with it the way it is. Really. They're really not trashing the timekeeping on purpose, you know. At the absolute worst, it's benign neglect.
And Amtrak's board and 538 owners are okay with it, too.
So, give it up!
And those millenials? What about them? Why aren't more of them on the trains?
That's a question that matters.
OvermodIt shouldn't matter, of course, since we're all friends here.
It also shouldn't matter, because it doesn't matter.
Overmod, that most of the 'controversy' over this could have been avoided just by noting it was Johnston's argument, not 'yours'?
As soon as asked, I believe that I attributed the idea which I expressed to it's source. Plagiarism isn't even on the scope here, be realistic.
Do we even have a plaintiff with a grievance here?
Convicted One Overmod ... with the moral niceties such as copyright and crediting authors observed, Two words: "fair use"
Overmod ... with the moral niceties such as copyright and crediting authors observed,
charlie hebdoyou become personally nasty
Really? You believe that I've been nasty? How so?
Overmodwith the moral niceties such as copyright and crediting authors observed,
Two words: "fair use"
Convicted One charlie hebdo Posting somebody else's remarks (with no citation) and then expecting that it is therefore immune from direct criticism or questioning on here is not the way intelligent people discuss things. I'll tell ya what Charlie, if you can get Bob Johnston to engage you personally here and state that the claims in his magazine article of snow removal being allocated to the Miami station were inaccurate (and I think we both understand how likely that is to happen), then I will gladly apologize to him for using his "work" without citation.
charlie hebdo Posting somebody else's remarks (with no citation) and then expecting that it is therefore immune from direct criticism or questioning on here is not the way intelligent people discuss things.
I'll tell ya what Charlie, if you can get Bob Johnston to engage you personally here and state that the claims in his magazine article of snow removal being allocated to the Miami station were inaccurate (and I think we both understand how likely that is to happen), then I will gladly apologize to him for using his "work" without citation.
You truly don't get it and in your befuddlement, you become personally nasty. Citations are not used so the reader can discuss a usage with the author. They are used to show the source for material and opinions used in a scholarly (even a high school term paper) so the reader can refer to that complete work for elucidation. Citations are also a safeguard against a form of intellectual property infringement known as plagiarism.
And BTW. I never said what Johnston said was inaccurate. Stop inserting your thoughts into my posts.
charlie hebdoPosting somebody else's remarks (with no citation) and then expecting that it is therefore immune from direct criticism or questioning on here is not the way intelligent people discuss things.
Note how sensibly this fur-fight could have been avoided -- and with the moral niceties such as copyright and crediting authors observed, too! -- with a simple "Johnston said in Trains..." or whatever when the point was raised.
I am probably guilty more than anyone of mentioning things that might have been someone's opinion at some time without 'disclaimer'. That doesn't change the value of acknowledging one's sources where possible, particularly in emotionally-charged contexts (which I must frankly say I did not expect this topic to be, but 'the truth was otherwise'.
Doesn't the Johnston article that was the source of this have its own comments section? That would be the place to have the 'discussion' about things like the author's supposed methodology and what-not. Then any gems of wit could be referenced here via link...
charlie hebdo http://trn.trains.com/bonus/amtrak Very much what lawyers call hearsay. I'd like to see a real accountant. preferably a professor of cost allocations in accountancy examine Amtrak's allocation formulae. I think it was noted before on here (JPS?) that the RPA critique was not written by anyone expert in cost allocation methodolgy. My recollections are that almost everyone feels they are treated unfairly in this endeavor in corporations.
http://trn.trains.com/bonus/amtrak
Very much what lawyers call hearsay. I'd like to see a real accountant. preferably a professor of cost allocations in accountancy examine Amtrak's allocation formulae. I think it was noted before on here (JPS?) that the RPA critique was not written by anyone expert in cost allocation methodolgy. My recollections are that almost everyone feels they are treated unfairly in this endeavor in corporations.
I disagree in the methodology your using here.
You cannot label an item hearsay unless you trace the source of the fact that was presented. In this case TRAINS Magazine is relying on NARP now called RPA (which in my view is a mistake as that organization is hardly level headed when it comes to passenger trains). Regardless though you have to actually go to the NARP (RPA) report that TRAINS sourced to see where that alleged fact is comming from. In the case of NARP(RPA) they are citing other reputable organizations such as the Amtrak OIG and the GAO. Though it is unclear specifically on why they think that cost allocation is unfair in Amtrak's case. They make it clear by citing OIG and GAO that Amtraks cost allocations system on a per passenger train route basis is a mess.
NARP (RPA) report:
https://www.railpassengers.org/site/assets/files/7353/amtraks_route_accounting_-_fatally_flawed.pdf
Pay specific attention to Appendix A where the snow removal costs were discussed that were assigned to Miami. In this case you had even Amtrak admitting that it was incorrect and correcting the snow removal line item. So you have the accountants at Amtrak admitting it was bad to allocate that cost to Miami. In my view they should know best what is right and wrong if they are running the business but it seems they blew it on various aspects.
However, the whole argument that RPA makes against Amtraks accounting system was that Amtrak was largely in a position to develope and influence it's development when it probably should have been a more neutral body using cost accounting standards. So the conflict of interest they point out there is spot on in my view. You do not need to be a Rocket Scientist or an Accountant to see that is wrong and violates business norms. In effect Amtrak auditing itself on cost methodology. Kind of line Arthur Anderson auditing Enron while it was providing consultants to run Enron who were seeking the advice directly from Arthur Anderson on how to run Enron. In effect Arthur Anderson auditing itself while running Enron.
Convicted One charlie hebdo Very much what lawyers call hearsay. I'd like to see a real accountant. preferably a professor of cost allocations in accountancy examine Amtrak's allocation formulae. Sorry if the source isn't up to your standards, I propose that as the provider of these boards we have to assign a defacto legitimacy to the magazine as a reliable source OR ENGAGE THEM DIRECTLY WITH ANY DISPUTES, perhaps you and Mr Johnston have much to discuss?
charlie hebdo Very much what lawyers call hearsay. I'd like to see a real accountant. preferably a professor of cost allocations in accountancy examine Amtrak's allocation formulae.
Sorry if the source isn't up to your standards, I propose that as the provider of these boards we have to assign a defacto legitimacy to the magazine as a reliable source OR ENGAGE THEM DIRECTLY WITH ANY DISPUTES, perhaps you and Mr Johnston have much to discuss?
You don't get it, do you? Posting somebody else's remarks (with no citation) and then expecting that it is therefore immune from direct criticism or questioning on here is not the way intelligent people discuss things.
charlie hebdoVery much what lawyers call hearsay. I'd like to see a real accountant. preferably a professor of cost allocations in accountancy examine Amtrak's allocation formulae.
charlie hebdoDo you have a link to the document showing that which you could share?
It was part of a rant in Bob Johnston's ongoing assault of Amtrak's policies in the print magazine....couple of months back.
I guess the theory is that passengers boarding in Miami might be destined to stations in the snow belt, so they need to cover their fair share?
So, if that thinking works for snowplows, then why not for sleeper cars?
I read it as well it was in a link to an article someone posted on the Northeast Corridor.
BTW, on the Sleeper issue, Congress has asked Anderson why he has stored the new CAF Viewliner single level Sleepers instead of placing them into service on the Long Distance routes in the East and West to earn revenue. News to me they were stored, I thought they were all in service.
Source for the above, I believe was a Trains Newswire item, Congress sends a letter to Anderson on LD trains or some such title (not 100% sure). It's rolled off in the archive somewhere.......can someone find it?
Convicted One any organization that can justify allocating "snow removal" cost to the Miami station
Do you have a link to the document showing that which you could share?
oltmanndEasy. Worse. It's hard to make money with an asset you only put in service 1/3 of the time. You have to "pay off" the ownership cost (depreciation) with revenue.
Hey, any organization that can justify allocating "snow removal" cost to the Miami station should be able to find a way.
Here's one suggestion: Since every Amtrak customer could potentially one day ride the sleeper, let's just allocate their cost of acquisition into EVERY Amtrak ticket.
oltmannd CMStPnP How would the trains financials change if they could add more sleepers in the Summer to meet demand. Easy. Worse. It's hard to make money with an asset you only put in service 1/3 of the time. You have to "pay off" the ownership cost (depreciation) with revenue. I'd think the way to approach seasonal demand is with yield pricing. Size fleet to somewhere between minimum and avg demand, then price accordingly to maximum revenue.
CMStPnP How would the trains financials change if they could add more sleepers in the Summer to meet demand.
Easy. Worse. It's hard to make money with an asset you only put in service 1/3 of the time. You have to "pay off" the ownership cost (depreciation) with revenue. I'd think the way to approach seasonal demand is with yield pricing. Size fleet to somewhere between minimum and avg demand, then price accordingly to maximum revenue.
Actually the opposite would be true, especially since no one mentioned only using during the summer time. There's a difference between additional sleepers only added during the summer and adding sleepers during the summer. Amtrak used to do that all the time on the Western LD trains, winter service would have 2 Superliner sleepers, come summer time they'd add a third and sometimes a 4th. This was possible because the equipment didn't sit in Beech Grove waiting to be repaired, also, it didn't just sit around the rest of the year. They could easily used the extra equipment in certain corridors during the winter months to supplement regular services, like they do now with the Ski Train. The same could be done between the SF Bay Area and Reno, Los Angeles and Vegas...or any number of other shorter haul seasonal routes...it's all just extra income.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.