List of self sustaining or profitable trains/routes

As we all know the system as a hole is not profitable however; in recent months I've learned that some routes actually do generate a profit. In light of the most recent threat of Amtrak elimination, this may be a factor that determines what trains/routes are saved while other's are axed.

Before I stray from my intended purpose of this post:

In keeping up (as much as possible) with Amtrak and its history, I noticed that Amtrak's Auto Train is (was?) actually a self sustaining train/route as its revenue meets or exceeds its operating expenses. This was noted on a tape I recently acquired; Amtrak 30, produced in 2001/20002. Frankly I find this a bit hard to believe as I would assume a great deal of work is involved with loading up auto racks and unloading them. But whatever the case may be, it appears to generate a profit. I am curious as to how it is able to do this and I am extremely surprised at how "practical" it appears to be. The long string of auto racks at the rear of the train must mean that people are using the train to a great extent.

The video also indicated that at one time the Pennsylvanian was self sustaining to the point where state funding was no longer needed, but this was when Amtrak was involved in its aggressive mail and express campaign so I'm sure that had allot to do with it.

What other trains or routes in the Amtrak system generate a profit. I don't expect the list to be long but I figure there may just be some other surprises out there.

Thanks!

It all depends on how profit is defined.
Some of the routes may make an operating profit, but as a whole, none of Amtrak's routes make money. To get a complete picture, car, locomotive and, in the northeast physical plant, maintenance need to be accounted for.

That all said, how many roads or airports make a profit? None. The whole discussion of profitability is a farce as apple and oranges are almost always compared. For a slightly better comparison, note that on an aggregate basis the entire US airline industry has lost money since World War II.

- Stephen

I've heard that the Empire builder covers it's direct costs as well as the Auto Train, and Acela as well.

However, this does not mean profitable. Run these trains standalone and you'll soon be in the hole even excluding capital costs, as you need to cover costs like reservations & ticketing, stations staffing, and other overhead costs

Does AOE count? That's about the only one you could say does.

I would not count AOE since it is a charter operation. Not a common carrier scheduled operation.

I know the NEC covers Direct Costs.

Note that AOE is privately held, and does not publish financial statements. So we in the general public have no way of knowing whether it is profitable or not. All we can tell is that the company's owners have had adequate sources of financing to keep it operating.

When Norman Mineta was in Charlotte the other day (I was there with sign in hand; why weren't you? ) he made a point of saying that the Carolinian covers its operating costs. That is after you add in the subsidies provided by North Carolina for operation within the state. I believe that it is in the red once you factor in depriciation, however.

I am comfortable positing that no Amtrak train is profitable under any reasonable definition of that concept.

AmtrakFan wrote:I know the NEC covers Direct Costs.

Regretably, the NEC trains actually LOSE the most money of most all trains amtrak has

they MAKE the most revenue, but are the biggest profit LOSERS because you have to factor in power generation, track maintenance, dispatching costs as well as direct operating costs (crews, fuel, car maintenance, station costs, etc)

Crazy Nip,
What is the difference between Direct Cost and InDirect Costs. Oh Yes the Empire Builder CAN RECOVER ALL OF THIS DIRECT COSTS.

Mr. Nip is likely correct regarding the rest though especially with maintenance and dispatching issues.

Robert Panaigua

Amtrak loses more money on the NEC because it has to pay for upkeep of the entire physical plant plus costs to operate and dispatch the trains

any revenue generated by operating trains goes directly to pay for these operational costs. They LOSE more money keeping up the plant and dispatching the trains than they make running them. hence they lose money

on the long distance trains, they have none of these expenses, they pay a flat access fee to the railroads and that is it. any money made or lost operating the trains can be attributed directly to fuel, crews and car/engine maintenance and station rent/staffing.

on the NEC they have the cost of operating the trains, plus the cost of maintaining the track, power generation for the NEC caternary (is very high volt 25 hz power generated in dedicated power plants, not run off of regular 480/220/120vac/60hz residential/commercial power lines), etc

what is so hard to understand about this?

Remember, folks, tha Auto Train was privately run and went broke when it actually had to fix or replace cars (damaged in a derailment? I don't remember the details...). Amtrak ended up running the service. And, the Auto Train is the closest to "profitable" of any Amtrak train.
In 1970 the Florida railroads were making operating profits on their trains and considered not joining Amtrak. One reason they decided to join was that they realized that their operating profits would not cover replacing rolling stock, which would have to be done soon.
You can rest assured that if there were an Amtrak route that actually made a profit after fully-allocated costs (that includes capital costs), the government would have long since sold it to private operators. Despite neocons blathering about privatizing Amtrak, there is not one single private operator who has expressed any interest in running any Amtrak routes. If the government wants to privatize routes (as opposed to abandoning them) the new private operators will have to be given large subsidies, although the subsidies may be called something else. The subsidies would probably be higher than those given to Amtrak because they would have to provide an actual profit to the private operator.

GBN... please feel free to edit this based on your experience as our resident CPA:

This is *my* assessment of what should be direct costs:

Fuel
Crewing
Payment to railroad for operation of train
Pro rated costs of stations
- Osceola, IA: 100% of the cost assigned to CZ, since it's the only train serving the station.
- LA Union Passenger Terminal: Each train (Amtrak, Amtrak California, and Metrolink) ideally pays a share of the cost.
Cleaning and service at termini including all consumable supplies.
Pro rated share of ROW costs for NEC.
Cost of equipment

Indirect costs:
Corporate operations
Post-wreck recovery
Shopping (cyclic as well as repair and rebuild)

Dollars to doughnuts, Amtrak has far fewer items in its direct costs list than I do. That's why, as Mr Norman well knows, there is a Financial Accounting Standards Board. That, plus guidance from the ICC (now STB) tell the railroads, including Amtrak, how they are to account for business.

Bottom line: Passenger travel (rail or air) is substantially underpriced compared to costs. Those of you who were on the old Forum saw my postings comparing, in constant dollars, tariff fares from LA-Chicago in 1960 v 2002. It's hard to make money when the corporation is not covering the costs of doing business.

John Perkowski