We could argue about the statistics until the cows come home. A phrase that reveals my dairy farm upbringing!
Amtrak's labor costs appear to be high for a variety of reasons. If it were privatized and forced to compete on a level playing field with alternative service providers, it would need to do a better job of managing its personnel costs.
This is true whether we are talking about the NEC or any segment of passenger rail in the U.S.
Rio Grande Valley, CFI,CFII
MidlandMike schlimm Several posters in the past have contended that the western LD ridership is not primarily between the endpoints, but rather the intermediate cities. Amtrak is not there for railfans. If NB or CO or IA or UT do not want to pay for services but their citizens want it, then they can exert pressure at the ballot box. If they do not, let the CZ die an unmourned death, except for a few thousand railfans. Railfans are not the majority of the average passengers I was talking about. Most voters don't seem to even want to raise their gas taxes to fix the crumbling roads, so what is the chance they will support corridor trains? Only a handful of states support rail service. A Balkanized/disconnected rail service would be too weak to be effective.
schlimm Several posters in the past have contended that the western LD ridership is not primarily between the endpoints, but rather the intermediate cities. Amtrak is not there for railfans. If NB or CO or IA or UT do not want to pay for services but their citizens want it, then they can exert pressure at the ballot box. If they do not, let the CZ die an unmourned death, except for a few thousand railfans.
Several posters in the past have contended that the western LD ridership is not primarily between the endpoints, but rather the intermediate cities. Amtrak is not there for railfans. If NB or CO or IA or UT do not want to pay for services but their citizens want it, then they can exert pressure at the ballot box. If they do not, let the CZ die an unmourned death, except for a few thousand railfans.
Railfans are not the majority of the average passengers I was talking about. Most voters don't seem to even want to raise their gas taxes to fix the crumbling roads, so what is the chance they will support corridor trains? Only a handful of states support rail service. A Balkanized/disconnected rail service would be too weak to be effective.
Johnny
schlimm MidlandMike Corridor only trains may be more efficient in a physical sense, but I wonder if average travelers would find them always useful. As a railfan, I would love the Zephyr route broken down into daylight segments, provided there were station attached hotels (like in Canada.) I get to see the railroad and scenery by day, and then get a good nights sleep in a bed on solid ground. However, I don't know how many average passengers want to take 2 days to Denver and 3 to SLC. Amtrak wanted to start a corridor train to Omaha, via Quad Cities/Des Moines, but Iowa was not interested. I also doubt Nebraska would support a corridor thru their state. Several posters in the past have contended that the western LD ridership is not primarily between the endpoints, but rather the intermediate cities. Amtrak is not there for railfans. If NB or CO or IA or UT do not want to pay for services but their citizens want it, then they can exert pressure at the ballot box. If they do not, let the CZ die an unmourned death, except for a few thousand railfans.
MidlandMike Corridor only trains may be more efficient in a physical sense, but I wonder if average travelers would find them always useful. As a railfan, I would love the Zephyr route broken down into daylight segments, provided there were station attached hotels (like in Canada.) I get to see the railroad and scenery by day, and then get a good nights sleep in a bed on solid ground. However, I don't know how many average passengers want to take 2 days to Denver and 3 to SLC. Amtrak wanted to start a corridor train to Omaha, via Quad Cities/Des Moines, but Iowa was not interested. I also doubt Nebraska would support a corridor thru their state.
I think some LD routes should be federally funded but others should require state support to continue to run. I'm not sure the CZ should be one of the ones that should require state funding because there are five fairly large markets (Chicago, Denver, Salt Lake City, Sacramento, and San Francisco Bay Area) along the route and if the CZ went away Denver and SLC would have no service at all. If I had to axe a western LD train, I'd say Empire Builder and run corridor service between Chicago, Milwaukee, and Minneapolis and between Seattle/Portland and Spokane. In between Minneapolis and Spokane are there any major cities? But the EB does have good ridership and revenue, more than the California trains.
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Job=Locomotive_Engineer/Salary
http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Employer=Amtrak_(The_National_Railroad_Passenger_Corporation)/Salary/by_Job
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
CMStPnP MidlandMike Locomotive engineers= $ 28,54/hr, $ 59,360/year I am not a Locomotive Engineer but are you sure that is correct? I would tend to think 70k / year. I thought Senior Amtrak Engineers make over 6 digits. Am I wrong here?
MidlandMike Locomotive engineers= $ 28,54/hr, $ 59,360/year
I am not a Locomotive Engineer but are you sure that is correct? I would tend to think 70k / year. I thought Senior Amtrak Engineers make over 6 digits. Am I wrong here?
I thought it should have been higher also, but the above figure is what BLS said. This may be a problem with averages for statistics. If you average $70,000 for class I engineers with those on the extra board and short line engineers, maybe $60,000 is a good average.
MidlandMikeLocomotive engineers= $ 28,54/hr, $ 59,360/year
MidlandMikeCorridor only trains may be more efficient in a physical sense, but I wonder if average travelers would find them always useful. As a railfan, I would love the Zephyr route broken down into daylight segments, provided there were station attached hotels (like in Canada.) I get to see the railroad and scenery by day, and then get a good nights sleep in a bed on solid ground. However, I don't know how many average passengers want to take 2 days to Denver and 3 to SLC. Amtrak wanted to start a corridor train to Omaha, via Quad Cities/Des Moines, but Iowa was not interested. I also doubt Nebraska would support a corridor thru their state.
JPS1 Here are some additional compensation and benefits statistics from carriers that haul people. For Southwest Airlines compensation and benefits in 2015 were 40.6 per cent of consolidated operating expenses and 32.2 per cent of consolidated revenues. For Jet Blue the figures were 29.6 per cent and 24.0 per cent. For Megabus, which is owned by StageCoach Group, the figures were 40.1 per cent and 37.6 per cent. For VIARail the numbers were 41.9 per cent and 91.5 per cent. Commercial airlines and intercity bus operators deliver a different service than a passenger train. They have different labor contracts. Cross border comparisons are difficult. The U.S. includes in compensation and benefits costs items that in many other countries are paid for by taxes. Health insurance is the biggest example that I can think of now. Amtrak's on-board employees appear to be paid more than comparable employees for the carriers that they are competing with. A waiter, or any other Amtrak on board service employee, received an average wage of $25.54 per hour in 2012. The total cost, including benefits and employer paid taxes, was $41.19 per hour according to the Office of Inspector General. Clearly, to get a better understanding of the comparative labor costs, as well as the numerous other factors the impact Amtrak's cost structure, one would need to spend a great deal of time pulling the numbers together. And be able to understand what she or he is reading. The fact that Amtrak's compensation and benefits expenses consume a high percentage of its revenues and expenses should be an indicator for management to take a serious look at the root causes. If Amtrak were privatized, which I favor, it would be compelled to get a better handle on its costs.
Here are some additional compensation and benefits statistics from carriers that haul people.
For Southwest Airlines compensation and benefits in 2015 were 40.6 per cent of consolidated operating expenses and 32.2 per cent of consolidated revenues. For Jet Blue the figures were 29.6 per cent and 24.0 per cent. For Megabus, which is owned by StageCoach Group, the figures were 40.1 per cent and 37.6 per cent.
For VIARail the numbers were 41.9 per cent and 91.5 per cent.
Commercial airlines and intercity bus operators deliver a different service than a passenger train. They have different labor contracts.
Cross border comparisons are difficult. The U.S. includes in compensation and benefits costs items that in many other countries are paid for by taxes. Health insurance is the biggest example that I can think of now.
Amtrak's on-board employees appear to be paid more than comparable employees for the carriers that they are competing with.
A waiter, or any other Amtrak on board service employee, received an average wage of $25.54 per hour in 2012. The total cost, including benefits and employer paid taxes, was $41.19 per hour according to the Office of Inspector General.
Clearly, to get a better understanding of the comparative labor costs, as well as the numerous other factors the impact Amtrak's cost structure, one would need to spend a great deal of time pulling the numbers together. And be able to understand what she or he is reading.
The fact that Amtrak's compensation and benefits expenses consume a high percentage of its revenues and expenses should be an indicator for management to take a serious look at the root causes. If Amtrak were privatized, which I favor, it would be compelled to get a better handle on its costs.
Southwest and Jet Blue are discount airlines, and you would need to also consider legacy airlines for an average. Rather than that, I looked at Bureau of Labor Statistics wage tables:
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes_nat.htm#53-0000
Airline pilots annual wage= $ 136,400, Flight attendant= $ 46,750
They did not give hourly wages apparently because of seasonality/part time.
Bus drivers, intercity= $ 19.31/hr, $ 40,160/year
Locomotive engineers= $ 28,54/hr, $ 59,360/year
Rail transportation workers= $ 27.52/hr, $ 57,230/year
An ATK onboard service worker earns about $5,000/year less than the average railroad worker, and $5,000 more than a (part seasonal?) flight attendant, $10,000 more than a bus driver, and way way less than an airline pilot. So it puts the ATK onboard worker in the middle.
Comparing ATK's compensation percent of costs with other forms of transportation, ignores other costs of doing business among the various modes. Airlines pay so much for fuel, that Delta bought their own refinery. I agree that to understand what is going on here, one would need to spend a great deal of time pulling numbers together. It kind of takes the fun out of railfaning.
schlimm JPS1 No correlation was intended. The figures show that passenger trains, especially the long distance ones, are labor intensive. The number of workers required for a NEC or California corrider train, as examples, is considerably less than the long distance trains. Moreover, given their better on-time performance, primarily because of the shorter distances covered, they require less over time and away from home quartering expense. And that is strong evidence of why short corridor segments are much more efficient than stringing several togther into an LD train route. Eg.: the CZ. Better if shorter corridors, such as CHI-Omaha; Omaha-DEN; SLC-DEN run separately. There could be services during the hours passngers want, trains would be more likely to be on-time and labor costs would be far less than long, sleep-equipped LD trains.
JPS1 No correlation was intended. The figures show that passenger trains, especially the long distance ones, are labor intensive. The number of workers required for a NEC or California corrider train, as examples, is considerably less than the long distance trains. Moreover, given their better on-time performance, primarily because of the shorter distances covered, they require less over time and away from home quartering expense.
And that is strong evidence of why short corridor segments are much more efficient than stringing several togther into an LD train route. Eg.: the CZ. Better if shorter corridors, such as CHI-Omaha; Omaha-DEN; SLC-DEN run separately. There could be services during the hours passngers want, trains would be more likely to be on-time and labor costs would be far less than long, sleep-equipped LD trains.
Corridor only trains may be more efficient in a physical sense, but I wonder if average travelers would find them always useful. As a railfan, I would love the Zephyr route broken down into daylight segments, provided there were station attached hotels (like in Canada.) I get to see the railroad and scenery by day, and then get a good nights sleep in a bed on solid ground. However, I don't know how many average passengers want to take 2 days to Denver and 3 to SLC. Amtrak wanted to start a corridor train to Omaha, via Quad Cities/Des Moines, but Iowa was not interested. I also doubt Nebraska would support a corridor thru their state.
Victrola1 The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies appropriations bill passed by the Senate last week includes a measure that would require Amtrak to spend profits from its Acela and Northeast Regional service on critical capital and safety improvement projects in the Northeast Corridor (NEC). The bill calls for $1.42 billion for Amtrak, a $30 million increase from last year's spending bill. That amount would include $345 million for a new NEC account and $1.075 billion for Amtrak's national network, according to a press release issued by U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy's (D-Conn.) office. http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Legislation-would-require-Amtrak-to-spend-NEC-profits-on-the-corridor--48345 What are the implications of this bill should it pass and become law?
The Transportation, Housing and Urban Development and Related Agencies appropriations bill passed by the Senate last week includes a measure that would require Amtrak to spend profits from its Acela and Northeast Regional service on critical capital and safety improvement projects in the Northeast Corridor (NEC).
The bill calls for $1.42 billion for Amtrak, a $30 million increase from last year's spending bill. That amount would include $345 million for a new NEC account and $1.075 billion for Amtrak's national network, according to a press release issued by U.S. Sen. Chris Murphy's (D-Conn.) office.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/amtrak/news/Legislation-would-require-Amtrak-to-spend-NEC-profits-on-the-corridor--48345
What are the implications of this bill should it pass and become law?
Ahhh, the Northeast again. Demanding all profits Amtrak makes in the NEC be spent in the NEC but at the same time refusing to pay what Amtrak asks it to......
http://www.universalhub.com/2016/mbta-sues-amtrak-derail-29-million-demand-running
I personally do not care about the provision that NEC profits are spent on NEC projects. However, I must strenously insist that each NE Commutter line pay fair and reasonable costs to Amtrak for running their trains and until that happens the NEC will continue to be a financial basket case.
JPS1: What's your accounting opinion of the restructuring?
FRA account structure
JPS1No correlation was intended. The figures show that passenger trains, especially the long distance ones, are labor intensive. The number of workers required for a NEC or California corrider train, as examples, is considerably less than the long distance trains. Moreover, given their better on-time performance, primarily because of the shorter distances covered, they require less over time and away from home quartering expense.
MidlandMike JPS1 In 2015 salaries, wages, and benefits were 49.6 per cent of Amtrak's consolidated operating expenses and 67.8 per cent of its consolidated operating revenues. For CSX compensation and benefits were 37.3 per cent of consolidated operating expenses and 26.7 per cent of consolidated revenues. For UP compensation and benefits were 33.3 per cent of consolidated operating expenses and 22.5 per cent of consolidated operating revenues. The financial statements don't show what percentage of salary, wage, and benefits expense is attributable to overtime. The numbers for the other freight carriers are probably similar to those for CSX and UP. There may be some category definition issues between the companies, but the accounting would be comparable. I fail to see any labor cost correlation between a 2 person freight crew hauling 100 cars, vs., an Amtrak LD train with a dozen crew members. As far as overtime goes, when ATK's trains are running hours late (often by causes beyond their control) what is the mystery.
JPS1 In 2015 salaries, wages, and benefits were 49.6 per cent of Amtrak's consolidated operating expenses and 67.8 per cent of its consolidated operating revenues. For CSX compensation and benefits were 37.3 per cent of consolidated operating expenses and 26.7 per cent of consolidated revenues. For UP compensation and benefits were 33.3 per cent of consolidated operating expenses and 22.5 per cent of consolidated operating revenues. The financial statements don't show what percentage of salary, wage, and benefits expense is attributable to overtime. The numbers for the other freight carriers are probably similar to those for CSX and UP. There may be some category definition issues between the companies, but the accounting would be comparable.
In 2015 salaries, wages, and benefits were 49.6 per cent of Amtrak's consolidated operating expenses and 67.8 per cent of its consolidated operating revenues.
For CSX compensation and benefits were 37.3 per cent of consolidated operating expenses and 26.7 per cent of consolidated revenues. For UP compensation and benefits were 33.3 per cent of consolidated operating expenses and 22.5 per cent of consolidated operating revenues.
The financial statements don't show what percentage of salary, wage, and benefits expense is attributable to overtime.
The numbers for the other freight carriers are probably similar to those for CSX and UP. There may be some category definition issues between the companies, but the accounting would be comparable.
I fail to see any labor cost correlation between a 2 person freight crew hauling 100 cars, vs., an Amtrak LD train with a dozen crew members. As far as overtime goes, when ATK's trains are running hours late (often by causes beyond their control) what is the mystery.
No correlation was intended. The figures show that passenger trains, especially the long distance ones, are labor intensive.
The number of workers required for a NEC or California corrider train, as examples, is considerably less than the long distance trains. Moreover, given their better on-time performance, primarily because of the shorter distances covered, they require less over time and away from home quartering expense.
Thank you for the interesting figures. It shows if quality, semi-HSR service is provided, the public will pay a premium for it. But the speculative percentage of 80% is probably too high.
Since this thread is about the NEC, it seems like a good opportunity to slip in some analytics regarding the NEC.
Sarbox a disaster? Only to some. The FEI, IIA, Chris Cox and Alan Greenspan, among others have praised it.
schlimmI agree that congressional hearing tend to be show trials (for PR benefits). However, Amtrak is not very transparent in its accounting records so it becomes the only way.
One wonders why Congress doesn't put a stop to the problem by specifying exactly how Amtrak should keep its books, and order its public records.
If they can pass a disaster like Sarbox, it should be easy. (My CPA confirmed my opinion that reporting can be done in a straightforward manner if some fairly simple things are done with the financial records and data structures.)
Of course, that assumes that Congress and other stakeholders will be responsible with the transparent records and disclosures. That many of them aren't and probably never would be might account for the perpetuation of 'confusion and delay'.
MidlandMike they have these show hearings on high profile minutia, such as overtime.
I recall some discussion a few years ago on here that showed that Amtrak had a significantly higher percentage for labor out of total costs and expenses than freight lines. Perhaps excessive use of overtime has something to do with that.
I agree that congressional hearing tend to be show trials (for PR benefits). However, Amtrak is not very transparent in its accounting records so it becomes the only way.
My only experience with an actively kneeling bus came in Detroit eight years ago when my wife and I had to take a bus to get within about half a block of the hotel we were going to stay in (the taxi we were riding in from Windsor developed water cooling problems a little distance from the hotel). That the driver caused the bus to kneel made a geat difference for my wife.
This spring, I noticed that two of the buses that I rode going Washington to Bristol and back had indication that they were courteous--but the drivers let me haul myself up and lower myself back to the ground, using my cane to assist me. There was a portable step on board, and some times it was put on the ground. As it was, I had no real problem. I did notice that one passenger had great trouble in getting up to the floor of the bus once she was inside the door..
I have no problem with Amtrak being held to account more precisely. It's just that Congress does not seem to know how to do it in some meaningful way, so they have these show hearings on high profile minutia, such as overtime.
So even if it is a bit "more than a summary" what of it? It's about time Amtrak was held to account more precisely. After all, it is not a privately-held organization.
In addition to the summaries, they have to delineate the reasons for each overtime waiver. That is what is meant by "more than just a summary"
MidlandMike schlimm the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations each quarter of the calendar year on waivers granted to employees and amounts paid above the cap for each month within such quarter and delineate the reasons each waiver was granted: Provided further, That the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2017, a summary of all overtime payments incurred by the Corporation for 2016 and the three prior calendar years: Provided further, That such summary shall include the total number of employees that received waivers and the total overtime payments the Corporation paid to those employees receiving waivers for each month for 2016 and for the three prior calendar years. Note that the law does not actually specify that the President of Amtrak must appear before a committee, just a report summary. Quite a different animal. But given the predilictions of the GOP, a 'show trial' might be the outcome. However, most of those have been seen by the public as the farces run by the incompetent comedians they are. The text emphasized in bold sounds like more than just a summary.
schlimm the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations each quarter of the calendar year on waivers granted to employees and amounts paid above the cap for each month within such quarter and delineate the reasons each waiver was granted: Provided further, That the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2017, a summary of all overtime payments incurred by the Corporation for 2016 and the three prior calendar years: Provided further, That such summary shall include the total number of employees that received waivers and the total overtime payments the Corporation paid to those employees receiving waivers for each month for 2016 and for the three prior calendar years. Note that the law does not actually specify that the President of Amtrak must appear before a committee, just a report summary. Quite a different animal. But given the predilictions of the GOP, a 'show trial' might be the outcome. However, most of those have been seen by the public as the farces run by the incompetent comedians they are.
the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations each quarter of the calendar year on waivers granted to employees and amounts paid above the cap for each month within such quarter and delineate the reasons each waiver was granted: Provided further, That the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2017, a summary of all overtime payments incurred by the Corporation for 2016 and the three prior calendar years: Provided further, That such summary shall include the total number of employees that received waivers and the total overtime payments the Corporation paid to those employees receiving waivers for each month for 2016 and for the three prior calendar years.
Note that the law does not actually specify that the President of Amtrak must appear before a committee, just a report summary. Quite a different animal. But given the predilictions of the GOP, a 'show trial' might be the outcome. However, most of those have been seen by the public as the farces run by the incompetent comedians they are.
The text emphasized in bold sounds like more than just a summary.
Yeah? Well the text in bolded red sounds like... a summary!
the President of Amtrak shall report to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations by March 1, 2017, a summary of all overtime payments incurred by the Corporation for 2016 and the three prior calendar years...such summary shall include the total number of employees that received waivers and the total overtime payments the Corporation paid to those employees receiving waivers for each month for 2016 and for the three prior calendar years.
No, not a haircut, just a trim.
Excerpt from Senate committee recommendation
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/CRPT-114srpt243/pdf/CRPT-114srpt243.pdf
The Committee recommends $23,274,000 for the Amtrak Office of Inspector General [OIG]. This funding level is equal to the budget request and $1,225,000 less than the fiscal year 2016 enacted level…
Happy now?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.