Even if you could point to a single train and say, "this makes a profit" what good would it do?
For one thing do you think it would still make a profit without the rest of the system?
Even if it did, is this what we really want or need in a NATIONAL rail system?
I think not.
Just my two cents.
Railroad Forums
List of self sustaining or profitable trains/routes
- Discussion related to Amtrak also known as the National Railroad Passenger Corp.
Moderators: GirlOnTheTrain, mtuandrew, Tadman
by crazy_nip
amazingly, give or take a couple trains, without the burden of the NEC and its trains, long distance would look much better on the books...
hint hint...
they would still lose money, but it would be a fairer ballgame
gotta cut the bleeders like the sunset and a couple others though
cut the sunset (completely) use that equipment to make the cardinal or a superliner train again, send those sleepers to the florida trains
heck, you could even make the sunset an amfleet coach only train through to NOL. it would be a PIG, but maybe it wouldnt lose so much money
hint hint...
they would still lose money, but it would be a fairer ballgame
gotta cut the bleeders like the sunset and a couple others though
cut the sunset (completely) use that equipment to make the cardinal or a superliner train again, send those sleepers to the florida trains
heck, you could even make the sunset an amfleet coach only train through to NOL. it would be a PIG, but maybe it wouldnt lose so much money
by jp1822
During certain months, you may find that the Acela Express can cover its "direct costs" with the revenue it takes in (not all months though and I don't recall the yearly record at the moment), but I am almost certain you can not say this for any month for the Regionals. The Regionals, operatingon the NEC, are huge money losers. So the NEC trains, which I consider to be Regionals and Acela Express, do not even cover their Direct Costs.
But as I sated on other threads, and what is reiterated above by some other members, the NEC is a huge money pit when you have to factor in the infrastructure costs to maintain the high speed operation (if you want to call it high speed).
I now call it hit or miss high speed. The system south of New Haven (older catenary etc.) not only has lower speed restrictions than its northern counterpart, but is getting more and more unreliable every year. Service disruptions galore this winter - and I experienced it first hand.
But as I sated on other threads, and what is reiterated above by some other members, the NEC is a huge money pit when you have to factor in the infrastructure costs to maintain the high speed operation (if you want to call it high speed).
I now call it hit or miss high speed. The system south of New Haven (older catenary etc.) not only has lower speed restrictions than its northern counterpart, but is getting more and more unreliable every year. Service disruptions galore this winter - and I experienced it first hand.
by mlrr
I should have made that clearer in my initial post, for that I'm sorry.
When I learned that train(s?) like the Auto Train make(s?) a profit, I understood/understand that this is outside of infrastructure costs and other things but simply from an operating standpoint and so I was curious as to what other trains fall into the same category of being able to take in enough revenue to meet or exceed the operating cost of that train only.
I saw that the answer to this question might be something that may determine what routes have the most chances of survival in the eyes of private operators (outside of the NEC) God forbid Amtrak goes under. Some plans call for Amtrak to just operate its trains while infrastructure costs were left up to state and local governments (which I'm not convinced with yet). I do not wish to stray too far from the main topic of this thread and so back to the topic at hand.
As jp1822 put it, what trains in the Amtrak system cover their "direct costs" and I assume it’s safe to use the word "cover" even if the income exceeds the direct costs.
When I learned that train(s?) like the Auto Train make(s?) a profit, I understood/understand that this is outside of infrastructure costs and other things but simply from an operating standpoint and so I was curious as to what other trains fall into the same category of being able to take in enough revenue to meet or exceed the operating cost of that train only.
I saw that the answer to this question might be something that may determine what routes have the most chances of survival in the eyes of private operators (outside of the NEC) God forbid Amtrak goes under. Some plans call for Amtrak to just operate its trains while infrastructure costs were left up to state and local governments (which I'm not convinced with yet). I do not wish to stray too far from the main topic of this thread and so back to the topic at hand.
As jp1822 put it, what trains in the Amtrak system cover their "direct costs" and I assume it’s safe to use the word "cover" even if the income exceeds the direct costs.
by wigwagfan
The routes that have the greatest chance of survival are those routes which have a rider demand for the route.
The problem, which can easily be found if you view any of the available financial reports in the Press & Media section of Amtrak's own website, is that its costs far surpass its revenues, no matter how you spin it or look at it.
Amtrak's loss is just slightly more than its labor cost, which is its single largest expenditure. Amtrak makes outrageous contributions to Railroad Retirement, yet why are many of its employees covered by RRB and not social security and a regular 401(k) plan (particularly those employees who are not in operating, or traditional railroad jobs)?
Amtrak operates passenger trains with dozens of empty seats - why not run one or two fewer coaches on its trains (which means less equipment maintenance)?
Amtrak owns 80 stations - no airline owns their own airport.
Yes - there are certain fixed costs that are system wide that if part of Amtrak were privatized, those fixed costs would have to be duplicative (i.e. reservations centers, maintenance facilities) - but then again those costs can be minimized. For example, the state of Oregon already owns and operates a reservation call center for both its state parks, as well as Washington State Parks. So, if Amtrak Cascades were to go entirely to those two states, there is already a facility that could be used, with minimal cost.
Can a passenger train make a profit? At least an above-the-rail profit, and maybe a small contribution to infrastructure, I truly believe so. Can Amtrak make a profit, even above-the-rails? I don't think so. Yes, there have been varying reports that the Empire Builder, the Acela Express and Auto Train can, and I know some of the 403(b) supported trains do after the state subsidy is included (because for accounting purposes Amtrak considers the state subsidy as income). But I don't think Amtrak is capable of such, until it reduces its internal costs.
The problem, which can easily be found if you view any of the available financial reports in the Press & Media section of Amtrak's own website, is that its costs far surpass its revenues, no matter how you spin it or look at it.
Amtrak's loss is just slightly more than its labor cost, which is its single largest expenditure. Amtrak makes outrageous contributions to Railroad Retirement, yet why are many of its employees covered by RRB and not social security and a regular 401(k) plan (particularly those employees who are not in operating, or traditional railroad jobs)?
Amtrak operates passenger trains with dozens of empty seats - why not run one or two fewer coaches on its trains (which means less equipment maintenance)?
Amtrak owns 80 stations - no airline owns their own airport.
Yes - there are certain fixed costs that are system wide that if part of Amtrak were privatized, those fixed costs would have to be duplicative (i.e. reservations centers, maintenance facilities) - but then again those costs can be minimized. For example, the state of Oregon already owns and operates a reservation call center for both its state parks, as well as Washington State Parks. So, if Amtrak Cascades were to go entirely to those two states, there is already a facility that could be used, with minimal cost.
Can a passenger train make a profit? At least an above-the-rail profit, and maybe a small contribution to infrastructure, I truly believe so. Can Amtrak make a profit, even above-the-rails? I don't think so. Yes, there have been varying reports that the Empire Builder, the Acela Express and Auto Train can, and I know some of the 403(b) supported trains do after the state subsidy is included (because for accounting purposes Amtrak considers the state subsidy as income). But I don't think Amtrak is capable of such, until it reduces its internal costs.
by RMadisonWI
According to Amtrak's October, 2004, monthly report, the following trains made a "profit" in FY04 (excluding net depreciation and interest expense):
Acela Express: $65.9 million
Metroliner: $5.2 million
Pere Marquette: $700,000.
In addition, they made $2.4 million running specials.
Of course, the Pere Marquette receives a couple million dollars in payments from Michigan, so that train wasn't really profitable (for Amtrak, it was, but not operationally).
The Piedmont broke even, according to the same data (but also after state subsidies).
The NEC as a whole made $10 million, but it lost $18 million the previous year.
Back in November, I posted some RPS data from 1998 or 1999 for the Northeast Corridor. That gives some idea of how the above numbers are determined. I really don't have the time to go digging through that six-year-old data to find any other trains' financial results. Perhaps someone with a lot of time on their hands (and also the understanding of what they are looking at when they see complicated financial data generated from an obscure cost-accounting system) wants to go through the FOIA process of obtaining more recent RPS data. I would if I had the time, but I don't (and won't until June at the earliest).
Acela Express: $65.9 million
Metroliner: $5.2 million
Pere Marquette: $700,000.
In addition, they made $2.4 million running specials.
Of course, the Pere Marquette receives a couple million dollars in payments from Michigan, so that train wasn't really profitable (for Amtrak, it was, but not operationally).
The Piedmont broke even, according to the same data (but also after state subsidies).
The NEC as a whole made $10 million, but it lost $18 million the previous year.
Back in November, I posted some RPS data from 1998 or 1999 for the Northeast Corridor. That gives some idea of how the above numbers are determined. I really don't have the time to go digging through that six-year-old data to find any other trains' financial results. Perhaps someone with a lot of time on their hands (and also the understanding of what they are looking at when they see complicated financial data generated from an obscure cost-accounting system) wants to go through the FOIA process of obtaining more recent RPS data. I would if I had the time, but I don't (and won't until June at the earliest).
by John_Perkowski
Mr Wigwagfan:
Please read this last point of mine again. It doesn't matter which corporation owns what, if the corporation is not charging enough to cover the service it provides:
John Perkowski
Please read this last point of mine again. It doesn't matter which corporation owns what, if the corporation is not charging enough to cover the service it provides:
John_Perkowski wrote: <big snip>I say again: NO BUSINESS can hope to make a profit if it charges less than it needs to provide the good or service!
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
by David Benton
<big snip>As i have said before , i dont know why transport in general is subsidised so heavily . but ti is done in most countries throughout the world , so i guess there is a reason .
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.
I say again: NO BUSINESS can hope to make a profit if it charges less than it needs to provide the good or service!
John Perkowski
by crazy_nip
David Benton wrote:As i have said before , i dont know why transport in general is subsidised so heavily . but ti is done in most countries throughout the world , so i guess there is a reason .because no one could afford to travel...
do you think that if amtrak coach was priced like sleepers are now (IE:6-8 hundred dollars one way for a typical LD one way trip) that ANYONE would ride??
because that is likely the "break even" price
by David Benton
I'm addressing all transportation, Mr. Nip , not just Amtrak . if all transport was not subsidised then all modes of transport would cost more , and Amtrak could compete .
I believe farebox recovery on most long distance trains is around 40 - 50 % . therefore you could assume that the unsubsidised cost of a coach fare is roughly double what it is now .
I believe farebox recovery on most long distance trains is around 40 - 50 % . therefore you could assume that the unsubsidised cost of a coach fare is roughly double what it is now .
by David Benton
i would think in the development of a country then subsidisdation of transport was necessary . but in a developed country ? . Is it Benefical that someone can fly across the country for a few hundred $ ?
Subsides require that something must be taxed to provide that subsidy . Remove the subsidy and tax can be reduced , giving us more $$$ to spend on what ever we want . Be it train travel , or something else .
first step is that subsidies must be fair and equal to all modes , but if that is the case , then it comes to a point that the subsideies are not needed .
Subsides require that something must be taxed to provide that subsidy . Remove the subsidy and tax can be reduced , giving us more $$$ to spend on what ever we want . Be it train travel , or something else .
first step is that subsidies must be fair and equal to all modes , but if that is the case , then it comes to a point that the subsideies are not needed .
Moderator worldwide railfan , Rail travel & trip reports
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.
The only train trips I regret are the ones I didn't take.
by John_Perkowski
Mr Benton,
I only WISH I was talking subsidies.
I'm talking about WITH SUBSIDIES FACTORED IN!!!!
Airlines are so bloody competitive with each other, the normal and usual fare charged (not the tariff rate) is a loss leader.
Amtrak uses a fare (not tariff) structure very similar to airlines. Each seat is priced as it is reserved.
Additional question that I don't know is how Air Freight is doing as a component of airline revenue these days? Seems to me that FedEx, UPS, DHL and others have taken the freight away from the pax.
My thoughts.
John Perkowski
I only WISH I was talking subsidies.
I'm talking about WITH SUBSIDIES FACTORED IN!!!!
Airlines are so bloody competitive with each other, the normal and usual fare charged (not the tariff rate) is a loss leader.
Amtrak uses a fare (not tariff) structure very similar to airlines. Each seat is priced as it is reserved.
Additional question that I don't know is how Air Freight is doing as a component of airline revenue these days? Seems to me that FedEx, UPS, DHL and others have taken the freight away from the pax.
My thoughts.
John Perkowski
by John_Perkowski
As an aside, but an interesting one to how freight subsidizes pasengers...
It's worth noting that USPS just yanked mail from 2 airlines, American and
US Airways.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6975976/
Reason? Poor performance--late planes to be specific.
A former Member pointed this out to me.
John Perkowski
It's worth noting that USPS just yanked mail from 2 airlines, American and
US Airways.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6975976/
Reason? Poor performance--late planes to be specific.
A former Member pointed this out to me.
John Perkowski