blue streak 1 schlimm [. Someone thought most cars were for the NEC. The fleet of LD cars is huge because so many are needed because of the low sustained speeds. Common miscomputation. If you study Amtrak's fleet strategy you will find that the Amfleet-2s have much more mileage than the Amfleet1s even though the 1s are much older. Average speed of the -2s probably much higher because they usually operate about 36 hours in the East before layover and then go out within 24 or less hours. The Superliner fleet probably gets 48 Hours on long distance before layover. So remember 24 hours a day average speed of -2s is higher. Cannot get mileage while writing this post of the other fleets as computer will not switch back and forth from post to site.
schlimm [. Someone thought most cars were for the NEC. The fleet of LD cars is huge because so many are needed because of the low sustained speeds.
[. Someone thought most cars were for the NEC. The fleet of LD cars is huge because so many are needed because of the low sustained speeds.
That makes sense. Utilization is higher, but productivity (in revenue per day) is llkely lower because value of service is lower.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
ruderunner Mileage seems to make the most sense to me, that's likely what puts the most wear and tear on equipment. And yes include dwell, it's an expense associated with running that train.
Mileage seems to make the most sense to me, that's likely what puts the most wear and tear on equipment. And yes include dwell, it's an expense associated with running that train.
A mile at 125 mph is worse than a mile at 79 mph. A mile on 3 degree curves is worse than a mile on tangent.
The point is, it isn't easy to do costing. And, the method of allocation is going to depend on what question you're trying to answer. Full allocation isn't going to get you avoidable costs - those are two different and serve to answer different questions. Costing is very poor "what if" tool.
oltmannd A mile at 125 mph is worse than a mile at 79 mph. A mile on 3 degree curves is worse than a mile on tangent. The point is, it isn't easy to do costing. And, the method of allocation is going to depend on what question you're trying to answer. Full allocation isn't going to get you avoidable costs - those are two different and serve to answer different questions. Costing is very poor "what if" tool.
Wouldn't the depreciation be calculated on a schedule based on years used, not mileage or some other measure of degree of use? Amtrak sets the life for equipment in years up to 42 and uses the group method for the class (all the various sub-types are treated equally), it but does not specify the specific life of passenger cars in the auditor notes. It uses a straight-line depreciation method, meaning equal amounts of depreciation expense are charged each year. In most settings, railroad cars are considered to have a service life of 15 years.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Oltmannd, good point about the varibles of mileage. But, considering the history of the various routes, Amtrak should be able to say which routes have hihger maintainence associated with them.
Schlimm, I don't believe deprecitation based on mileage is used in accounting, though there are various schedules that can be used (straight line is one)
And there seems to be some miscommunication/misunderstanding about my comment that Amtrak spends more on equipment for the NEC. I didn't mean to imply that they bought more/have more equipment for the NEC, just spent more. Either on upgraded/newer equipment or new service add ons. Acknowledging that the NEC stuff is specialized and does cost more, it just seems that there is an imbalance on whats provided for the NEC and whats provided for the LD fleet (much of which is frankly ancient) Or said differently, the NEC gets what it needs comparatively easily compared to getting new LD equipment.
And no doubt the NEc has better utilization than LD or the regionals.
Modeling the Cleveland and Pittsburgh during the PennCentral era starting on the Cleveland lakefront and ending in Mingo junction
Superliners are younger than all Amfleet
Amfleet II is younger than Amfleet I
Horizon is slightly younger than Amfleet
Acela is slightly younger than Viewliners.
So, on the avg, LD trains have younger eqiupment than NEC.
6. Current Fleet Composition Amtrak has not acquired any new equipment since 2002. The entire fleet is generally quite old, which creates numerous financial, marketing, and operating challenges. The age profiles of the existing fleet are as follows: Table 4: Amtrak Passenger Car Portfolio Amtrak Passenger Car Fleet - Age
Equipment Type Active Units 12/1/2011 Year Started Age in 2012 Mileage Amfleet I 473 1974 to 1977 35 - 38 Years 4,125,000 Horizon 95 1988 to 1990 22 - 24 Years 2,750,000
Surfliner (c) 49 2000 to 2002 10 - 12 Years 1,580,000
California Cars 78 1995 -1996 17 - 18 Years 1,875,000
North Carolina Cars 12 1950s 60+ Years 675,000
Amfleet II 145 1980 to 1981 31 - 32 Years 5,640,000
Heritage 99 1948 to 1956 56 - 64 Years 5,000,000
Viewliner / LDSL 51 1995 to 1996 16 - 17 Years 3,065,000
Superliner (I & II) 428 1979 - 1996 16 - 33 Years 4,880,000
Auto Carrier 80 2005 7 Years 1,160,000
Acela 20 * 1999 to 2000 12 - 13 Years 1,620,000
(from pages 22-23) http://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/36/921/2012-Amtrak-Fleet-Strategy-v3.1-%2003-29-12.pdf
The Superliner II fleet of 140 cars 1993-94 at a cost of $340 million (average per car = $2.43 mil.)
Acela: $1.2 billion for the 20 trainsets (6 coaches plus 2 power cars at each end) 15 extra high-speed locomotives and the construction of maintenance facilities in Boston, New York, and Washington.
In most instances depreciation is a function of the expected life of the asset, as stated in years, although partial years may be used in some instances.
The number of years that an asset is expected to last is determined by a primary driver(s) that correlates with the expected wasting of the asset, e.g. the number of miles that the equipment can be operated before it is ready for salvage. Time is also a factor, although it is seldom a primary factor.
Amtrak probably calculates the expected useful life of its equipment on expected miles to salvage divided by the number of anticipated annual operating miles. However, without access to the company's records, it is not clear what variable(s) it uses.
The amount of the annual depreciation is determined by dividing the initial cost of the asset by the years of its expected useful life. The cost of the asset includes the acquisition price, transportation-in, set-up costs, training, and capitalized interest, reduced by any expected salvage value.
If the equipment is subsequently overhauled, and the cost of the overhaul meets the GAAP capitalization tests, i.e. extends the useful life of the equipment, or increases the units of output, or increases the quality of the outputs, the cost of the overhaul is capitalized, which usually changes the depreciation schedule.
The accounting models used to determine the useful lives of the equipment, as well as the estimated salvage value, are audited robustly by the external auditors. The notion that the numbers are just cobbled together, based on the differing whims of the cost accountants, is wrong.
If Amtrak's cost and depreciation models materially distorted its financial statements, the external auditors would be compelled to issue a qualified opinion. Amtrak has never received a qualified auditor's opinion. That is not to say that its cost accounting cannot be improved. Apparently it can be. But its costing models are not distorting its financial statements.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.