Get rid or rethink Amtrak

[RudyRockvilleMD]

I got a little ambitious, I went into Amtrak's web site, and I got some figures from their audited consolidated financial statements for FY's (fiscal years*) 2000 - 2003. I am not sure whether farebox recovery would just pertain to passenger related revenue or a combination of passenger related revenue + commuter revenue Nevertheless I used three revenue numbers: Passenger Related Revenue. Passenger Related Revenue + Commuter Revenue, and Total Revenue; the total revenue would be income from all sources except subsidies.

I then divided each of these revenue figures for each year, in turn, by the total expense for the year. The passenger related revenue only income/expense ratio averaged 43% for the four fiscal years. Adding in the commuter revenue raised that ratio to approximately 50% on average. The total income/expense ratio for the four fiscal years averaged around 65%. So the income to expense ratio is more like 65%, depending on how it is measured, rather than 80%. If Amtrak's income to expense ratio were in the 80% I don't think it would have been in as much inancial trouble over the years.

I did something else. I used the income and expense figures for FY 2001 which were provide by Trains. com I added the income of the long distance trains, and I added the expenses of the long distance trains. I subtracted the income of the long distance trains from the total FY2001 income, and I subtracted the expenses of the long distance trains from the total FY 2001 expenses.

Removing the income and the expenses of the long distance trains for FY 2001resulted in a substantially lower loss for that fiscal year, and a substantially lower operating ratio as well.

*For those of you who may not be aware of it the federeal government's fiscal year (FY) runs from October 1 in the calendar year preceding the year of the fiscal year to September 30 in the calendar year of the fiscal year. For example, FY 2001 ran from October 1, 2000 to September 30, 2001.

[Junctionfan]

Does anybody have any comments about my suggestion that Amtrak might benifit using Alstom's Pendolino class tilting trains?

[Overmod]

Hint: Do the Pendolinos conform to FRA impact and loading requirements?

[Junctionfan]

Hmmmmm.....I don't know. I think I know the answer but why? What would the FRA have against them?

[Overmod]

They're not legal for service in the United States unless they meet FRA regulations. You might contact Anna Bennett at Alstom and ask whether any of the Pendolino variants are US compatible, or how the design might be adapted. ( [e-mail] .com )

[Junctionfan]

First I will look at the FRA regulations than I will check out the Alstom site again.

[Overmod]

In case you don't know, search on "49 CFR part 238"

There's a pretty good discussion of what would be appropriate for an "American Pendolino" on the Colorado Railcar DMU site.

[Junctionfan]

I can find neither using Yahoo or Google. Need help please.

[Overmod]

On the FRA regs, start here:

www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_03/49cfr238_03.html

or the beta site for the e-CFR (not the "official" Federal Register html version)

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?sid=70c26f058e5a09d71961fb39fa903edb&c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title49/49cfrv4_02.tpl

(don't forget to remove any spaces or wraps in this)


On the Colorado Railcar DMU: It's not hard to find

http://www.coloradorailcar.com/safety.htm

[Junctionfan]

Can't find anything in the Alstom site to tell if they follow the FRA standards or not. Since you know about thease things better than I do, what is wrong with the Pendolino design that I am missing?

By the way, those DMUs of the Colarado Railcar are cool eh?

[Anonymous]

This is probably an old reply to even older conversations, but here's my take on this subject:

No entity is ever going to be able to efficiently operate inter-city passenger rail service utilizing another's physical plant. Here in the Northeast, freight capacity trends toward increases while maintenance budgets, equipment purchases, and dispatching methods trend toward near gridlock--at times. The best funded, most well-run company in the world could not satisfy its customers offering the schedules available to it by using a freight railroad's left-over track time.

Besides all that, you'll never see any train on the Water Level Route west of Albany, NY running more than 79 m.p.h. unless some MAJOR money is spent on track and signals.

Just my opinion...

[daveklepper]

The 6-times explanation came from one of the rail reporting services, I believe it was "Nawdry" but it might have been one of the others, including Shirley Tennison's frequent mailings.

I much prefer the incremental approach anyway. Look, even with all its problems, Amtrak is attracting more passengers every year. Give David Gunn the money he needs and most of the problems will be solved. I don't expect it to run like a Swiss watch the way the European railways do but I'd be happy to settle for a decent average of what railroading was like in its so-called "Golden Age." Sure we can now rapsodize about how great the Super Chief and El Cap and UP City trains were like, but there was also plenty of material for that best seller, something like "To H_ll in a Day Coach!" Get the equipment repaired, get the Northeast corridor bridges repaired, then ask for money to extend catenary down to Richmond. A Boston connecting tunnel is essential, so the corridor can be Bangor to Richmond. That Chicago rail program is also essential for commuter and freight as well as Amtrak's Union Station access. In the USA, it would be incremental or nothing, since the chances of getting new rights of way for real high speed rail seem pretty slim..

[Modelcar]

...Perhaps another way to help the situation along would be for us all to take a very sharp look at our Congress folks....and try to move the situation a bit to maybe creating a better funding for passenger rail in this country....and one way to try to do that is at the upcoming ballot box.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

...Perhaps another way to help the situation along would be for us all to take a very sharp look at our Congress folks....and try to move the situation a bit to maybe creating a better funding for passenger rail in this country....and one way to try to do that is at the upcoming ballot box.

Or better yet, let the folks in those states which are the most vociferous about Amtrak's "lack of funding" fund it themselves, and quit trying to make the nation's taxpayers pay for this perpetual boondoggle! If the NEC states really want the NEC, then the NEC states should be soley responsible for the funding of the NEC.

It'll never happen, and you know why? Once you folks are forced to pay most or all of the costs of running and maintaining passenger rail (instead of foisting that responsibility on those of us who do not receive the benefits of that taxation), you all will decide that passenger rail isn't worth the taxation after all.

As long as someone else pays for it, Amtrak's just great. Once you all are forced to pay for it, it'll be a different story.

For the last time, put your money where your collective mouths are, and fund it yourselves!

[passengerfan]

With all but one or two U.S. Airlines on the verge of bankruptcy and some experts predicting the American taxpayer may be forced to come up with 18 or 19 Billion dollars just to get them a temporary reprieve why not give amtrak say two billion a year for the next ten years and see what happens. The airlines are already subsidized with the air traffic control system and all of the equipment that intales. Another major expense is coming for the major airports the strengthing of the runways for the new Airbus destined to enter service next year. Only San Francisco International is already ready for this plane except certain alterations are necessary to the terminal building. All of this for airports at Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, Atlanta, Boston, Washington and New York is going to cost the taxpayers additional billions. I say if Airbus is going to build yhe plane then let those governments pay fior the changes to the airports where the new plane will land. If Amtreak was given two billion a year for the next ten years we could have one of the finest rail systems in the world. Stop all of the hidden subsidies to the Airline industry and lets give Amtrak a fair and balanced deal.

[Valleyline]

Running one train per day or less over long distance routes is not a formula designed to attract masses and this has been Amtrak's problem from the beginning. Passenger services at all but major stops are either deficient or non existant and seriously discourage passenger growth. I have used and supported Amtrak since its beginning but when the per passenger subsidy statistics were published ($300 plus per passenger for the Sunset Limited) my view changed. No one has been able to forecast any significant reduction in the per passenger losses even if Amtrak is granted everything it wants for capital expenditures. And Amtrak, to the best of my knowledge, has been unable to justify federal expenditures that would truly make it a viable alternative to the automobile or airlines over long distance routes. Lacking that, it seems that Amtrak or its successor(s) will be limited to serving high density corridor routes that states will be forced to sigificantly fund or lose.