List of self sustaining or profitable trains/routes

RailBus63 wrote:This would also be dependent on legislation that would extend Amtrak's current right to operate passenger trains on freight railroads to new operating companies, although the compensation amounts need to be revised to reflect the increased value of those 'slots' on the host railroads. Doing right by the freight railroads will get them on your side and go a long ways towards ensuring the success of the new rail ventures.

Jim D.

While on matters regarding Labor, I should best defer to our Members such as Mr. Weaver, who hold/held seniority within a craft, I'd like to address the portion of Mr. Jim D's message as it relates to Class One access.

As we have noted numerous times in the past, Amtrak simply "gets what they pay for" regarding Class One performance. Apparently, the performances provisions between Amtrak and the roads were renegotiated during 1996. Amtrak simply could/would not pay what the roads wanted to ensure the "pretty darned good' timekeeping that existed throughout the "later seventies and eighties".

Today, with the combination of increased traffic and the "disinvestment' of routes and track capacity, I must wonder if the access that apparently a "number of us" around here seem to think Amtrak should obtain is even possible - at any price!

JA wrote:The reason why Amtrak is having the problems they are is because evryone thinks that Amtrak and Southwest are worlds apart. Sorry, they ARE NOT

Of course they are—especially in terms of infrastructure funding. They certainly are worlds apart in terms of actual destinations served. Perhaps your view as a transportation operator, versus being a passenger, is clouding your judgment on this matter? Imagine having to pay a disproportionate amount of money for operating on I-80...

They both transport passengers on a national service grid

You say this without defining the "grid". And simply because both Amtrak trains and Southwest planes transport human beings from a point A to a point B does not make them any less of "worlds apart".

let's not get into the habit of discounting modes because they aren't trains

Sure...as soon as Congress in DC does so.

Lufthansa certainly wouldn't agree with the assertion that "trains are not planes" since they get involved in both

What's their primary business? Certainly, they are not taking business away from DB, in their home country. I have yet to hear of large "Zughansa" networks in Germany...

Islip is 90 minutes away from NYC by rail/taxi, less by direct taxi or car. So, you can get from Southwest territory to NYC without changing carriers

Without changing carriers...but I haven't heard of Southwest Taxi or Southwest Bus on "the Island", and certainly not "LIRR by Southwest". 90 minutes is a long time—1½ hours. Compare that with actually being in Manhattan, on the train...

variable operating costs

Again: Southwest does not have the infrastructure costs on the order of a Northeast Corridor to deal with...

Irish Chieftain wrote:Southwest can't get you to Manhattan. Amtrak can. (Southwest can't even get you to JFK, LGA or EWR.) And would you care to factor in the full infrastructure cost of the various airports to the Southwest figures, not just the cut-rate landing fees? At the same time, subtract the cost of the NEC from the Amtrak figures, and then see what you end up with.

Amtrak can't get me to many places either...?

Amtrak is also a fixed network, whereas airlines can pretty much fly between any two points they wish (and so they do so, based on market conditions, not because the road exists and that's all there is.) Amtrak is dependent on the condition of the available railroad routes, and certainly no one would ride if the average train speed was in the 20s.

Because of scheduling, Amtrak serves some major communities very inconveniently (for example, Spokane, Washington, population about 150,000 or so, served by two Empire Builders, both between 12:00 AM and 3:00 AM. Southwest, on the other hand, has numerous arrivals/departures to numerous cities, throughout daylight hours.

Finally - where exactly is the proof of "cut-rate" landing fees? Landing fees, as far as I am aware, are based on aircraft size, not on negotiations with the airlines. Furthermore, airport infrastructure is paid for with departure taxes, gate rental, facility rental, car rental taxes, parking fees, etc. etc. etc. OK, some capital costs are paid for through FAA grants, but if you're opposed to those grants then you should also be opposed to grants for Amtrak too.

There is a reason Southwest picks and chooses its airports. It just won't fly to airports that are too expensive - i.e., Denver International Airport. Then again, since they are still profitable despite NOT flying into DIA or JFK, they must be doing something right and understand the basics of supply and demand.

And, Amtrak's OWN reports show that Acela and Metroliners are the only consistently profitable trains because the costs of the NEC infrastructure are not even applied against the revenues of those trains. So you would reduce system-wide costs, but those trains that lose a ton of money (like the Sunset Limited) would still lose a ton of money - but only because it's ridership, well, is in the gutter.

Amtrak can't get me to many places either...?

Still apples/oranges no matter how you slice it. Underinvestment versus overinvestment. Nobody can say that Southwest uses a land-based infrastructure that suffers from underinvestment—nobody.

Amtrak is also a fixed network

Fixed? Are you aware of how vast the railroad network was in this country, and still is despite numerous abandonments? Planes can't land anywhere they want—they need airports, which in essence fixes their destinations also.

whereas airlines can pretty much fly between any two points they wish

Trains can still run between "any two points they wish" as well—the rails still connect many, many cities, even though the station facilities may have been allowed to rot...

Finally - where exactly is the proof of "cut-rate" landing fees? Landing fees, as far as I am aware, are based on aircraft size, not on negotiations with the airlines. Furthermore, airport infrastructure is paid for with departure taxes, gate rental, facility rental, car rental taxes, parking fees, etc. etc. etc. OK, some capital costs are paid for through FAA grants, but if you're opposed to those grants then you should also be opposed to grants for Amtrak too

You just tripped yourself up with that argument. If landing fees were based on aircraft size, then Southwest should be serving JFK/LGA/EWR instead of ISP. But they go to ISP. My late father, a travel agent for the better part of four decades, verified to me anecdotally the case of lower landing fees at ISP and other such airports that Southwest goes to—and I do not doubt his word. Landing fees are not set in stone, clearly, nor limited to aircraft size nor airline/airport negotiation—there are other factors at work.

Let us keep our own words in our own mouths—I never once said that I was against FAA grants, but as others do, I point out the hypocrisy of those who support such grants but are opposed to Amtrak getting grants, and grants commensurate to the 22,000 track-miles they operate over.

those trains that lose a ton of money (like the Sunset Limited) would still lose a ton of money - but only because it's ridership, well, is in the gutter

Oh? LD trains still have high ridership, otherwise the trips would be canceled. Where is your evidence for that claim? I admit that it has been 17 years since I rode the Sunset, but that train was full.

There is a reason Southwest picks and chooses its airports. It just won't fly to airports that are too expensive - i.e., Denver International Airport

Thought you said that there are no cut-rate landing fees? How then can one airport be more expensive than another...?

Amtrak's OWN reports show that Acela and Metroliners are the only consistently profitable trains because the costs of the NEC infrastructure are not even applied against the revenues of those trains

A reference to specific report and page would be appreciated.

"Thought you said that there are no cut-rate landing fees?"

Meaning, a given airport doesn't charge one airline $2 per thousand pounds and another airline $1. That's probably true, isn't it?

I worked at an airport briefly back in the late 90's (not for an airline) and the landing fees at the airport were the same for all airlines, actually based on aircraft type. A 747 was charged more than, say a 737. The rate was set based on weight and the ammount of space they took up at the terminal. There was a flat rate for smaller planes like lier jets and single engine planes like pipers and cesna's. I dont know about at other airports, but at the one I worked at, all the airlines paid the same.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

Amtrak can't get me to many places either...?

Still apples/oranges no matter how you slice it. Underinvestment versus overinvestment. Nobody can say that Southwest uses a land-based infrastructure that suffers from underinvestment—nobody.

How is it a comparison of "underinvestment" to "overinvestment"? The point is that Amtrak is not a truly "national" system. The argument was that Amtrak was a "vital" link between two communities, but in fact rarely does a community's actual transportation requirements mirror its Amtrak route. Look at the Empire Builder, for example, specifically Whitefish, Montana. Most people in Whitefish don't go west or east, they go south to Missoula. And there is (and never has been) a railroad that went south. Same with Shelby, Montana - the major route is I-15 north/south, not U.S. 2 west/east.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

Amtrak is also a fixed network

Fixed? Are you aware of how vast the railroad network was in this country, and still is despite numerous abandonments? Planes can't land anywhere they want—they need airports, which in essence fixes their destinations also.

whereas airlines can pretty much fly between any two points they wish

Trains can still run between "any two points they wish" as well—the rails still connect many, many cities, even though the station facilities may have been allowed to rot...

Yes, Amtrak IS a fixed network. Amtrak REQUIRES a suitable railroad. Yes, there were at one time many more railroads in this country than what exist today, but NEVER was every single railroad suitable for passenger trains. Otherwise, you'd be considering crudely built logging railroads and construction railroads as part of Amtrak's possible network, as well as branchlines that never once had a passenger train, branchlines and secondary routes whose last passenger trains operated back in the 1920s and 1930s...

Do you truly, honestly think that, for example, the route from Portland, Oregon, to Tillamook is suitable for a regular passenger train? The top speed on the railroad is (and has historically been) 20 miles an hour! Or the route from The Dalles to Bend, where the top speed is 40 miles an hour. And, trains will never travel from Eugene, Oregon, to Boise, Idaho via Bend, Oregon, because a railroad NEVER existed between those two points - the only rail route is southeast to Chemult and north to Bend, or north to Portland and east to The Dalles, then south to Bend. And that still leaves Bend-Boise, where the only route is north to The Dalles and east. And, as I previously mentioned, Whitefish to Missoula, Montana - never has a railroad existed between those two points.

OK, so why don't we build "high-speed" rail across our country? Well, sure, why not. Except those "high-speed" trains travel at a speed shy of 200 MPH. The airplane will STILL make the trip in half the time at 550 MPH. With absolutely, positively NO infrastructure costs (since the airports already exist.)

The stations, or lack thereof, is a nonissue. Stations can always be built. Amtrak itself has built new stations (Tacoma, Washington, is an example), and other communities have built new stations as well (i.e. Oakland, California, Oregon City, Oregon). Many communties have built temporary stations just to have an Amtrak train stop, until passenger counts dictate a more permanent station. (See Tukwila, Washington, whose station is a plywood built platform, or the town in Arizona whose station was a converted California Zephyr observation car.)

Airplanes CAN fly between any two points, they are not dependent on an infrastructure below it. Yes, planes do require an airport. Name a major community that does not have an airport. Some airports are smaller than others, fine. Fly a smaller plane that can land on shorter runways. All passenger trains, in order to travel 79 MPH, require suitable track - regardless of the physical size of the train. Even a Colorado Railcar DMU or a Budd RDC, if it wants to travel at 79 MPH, requires the same track infrastructure as a 20 car Superliner train. The airport comparison would be that all passenger airports require a main runway that is 125 feet wide and 12,000 feet long and can support a fully loaded 747-400ER, even if the airport's only passenger traffic consists of three daily flights by a Bombardier Dash 8-Q200 (which is a 34 seat twin-turboprop aircraft.)

Irish Chieftain wrote:

Finally - where exactly is the proof of "cut-rate" landing fees? Landing fees, as far as I am aware, are based on aircraft size, not on negotiations with the airlines. Furthermore, airport infrastructure is paid for with departure taxes, gate rental, facility rental, car rental taxes, parking fees, etc. etc. etc. OK, some capital costs are paid for through FAA grants, but if you're opposed to those grants then you should also be opposed to grants for Amtrak too

You just tripped yourself up with that argument. If landing fees were based on aircraft size, then Southwest should be serving JFK/LGA/EWR instead of ISP. But they go to ISP. My late father, a travel agent for the better part of four decades, verified to me anecdotally the case of lower landing fees at ISP and other such airports that Southwest goes to—and I do not doubt his word. Landing fees are not set in stone, clearly, nor limited to aircraft size nor airline/airport negotiation—there are other factors at work.

Landing fees can and do vary BY AIRPORT. The airlines are also responsible for gate and ticket counter rental, which vary BY AIRPORT.

It is up to the individual airport operator to determine what to charge. Denver International Airport, for example, is a brand new airport that cost a hell of a lot of money to build. Thus, it has to recoup those fees by passing it onto its users. And Southwest decided that it can't serve that airport, and pass those fees onto its passengers, and maintain the quality of its service within its fare structure.

JFK is another airport that, due to supply and demand based on its location, can charge higher fees to its users.

An older airport, however, does not cost as much to operate because it's been there. Likewise, smaller airports don't cost as much because there is less infrastructure to maintain. Are you telling me that the FAA should institute a set landing fee for every aircraft landing at every airport, regardless of the actual cost of the airport?

Irish Chieftain wrote:

those trains that lose a ton of money (like the Sunset Limited) would still lose a ton of money - but only because it's ridership, well, is in the gutter

Oh? LD trains still have high ridership, otherwise the trips would be canceled. Where is your evidence for that claim? I admit that it has been 17 years since I rode the Sunset, but that train was full.

See the Amtrak Reform Council's final restructuring plan, page 96; or any of Amtrak's monthly performance plans which show monthly ridership by train. Available at www.amtrak.com, in the "press/media" section.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

There is a reason Southwest picks and chooses its airports. It just won't fly to airports that are too expensive - i.e., Denver International Airport

Thought you said that there are no cut-rate landing fees? How then can one airport be more expensive than another...?

See above. Airport fees are more than landing fees. Are you telling me that airlines don't pay rent for gate space, ticket counters, cargo terminals, etc.?

Irish Chieftain wrote:

Amtrak's OWN reports show that Acela and Metroliners are the only consistently profitable trains because the costs of the NEC infrastructure are not even applied against the revenues of those trains

A reference to specific report and page would be appreciated.

Again, see above - Amtrak Reform Council final restructuring plan, and Amtrak monthly performance reports available from their webpage. I take the time to read the reports before I post messages on these boards. They are public documents, guaranteed by the Freedom of Information Act.

Why oh why do we continue to discuss "profits" as a means to an end?Profits are a mere capitalist tool designed to limit and focus discussion away from the broader more meaningful contexts of public service and need. Conservative pundits use the limited language/context of capitalism to disort and add negative connotations to the conversation about intercity rail. Meanwhile dismissing the short comings of the current fly drive system that has seen billions of Federal/State and local dollars drained away from creating a balanced transportation system.

Better--although not great-- are terms like "sustaining" since it implies an economic situation that while a particular train maybe covering its cost it may not always depending on circumstance. Thus we avoid the stigma of profit/loss--sucess/failure.

Current landing fee schedule for NY's Kennedy Airport; the heavier the plane the higher the fee:

CHARGES For The Use Of The Public Landing Area, Public
Passenger Ramp and Apron Area, Public Cargo Ramp and
Apron Area and Public Aircraft Parking and Storage Area
I. Public Landing Area Charges
1. (a) Except as set forth in paragraph 1.(b) below, the charge for each aircraft takeoff shall be $5.60
(effective 01/01/05) per thousand pounds of maximum gross weight, provided that the minimum
charge for each such takeoff shall be:...........................$25.00*;
* With the exception of scheduled commuter air carriers maintaining a schedule of one or more
round trips per day, at least five days a week into a single airport, pursuant and subject to a Port
Authority permit, the minimum fee for each such take-off shall be $20, provided that the
minimum fee for each such take-off by an aircraft which either takes-off or lands (or both)
between the hours of 3:00 P.M. and 10 P.M. shall be $50.
(b) For each aircraft either landing or taking off or both landing and taking-off between the hours of
3:00 P.M. and 10:00 P.M. every day there shall be an additional charge of $100 in addition to the
charge based on maximum gross weight.
(c) The additional charge of $100 set forth in paragraph 1.(b) above shall not apply to helicopters,
scheduled commuters or airlines.

Amtrak's monthly performance reports don't tell you what was or was not included in the expenses of the trains. They do, however, note that the individual train financial performance numbers are based off of their Route Profitability System (RPS). RPS takes infrastructure costs into account when determining the cost of maintaining a route.

The reports do break out the FRA Defined Train Cost which is:

FRA Defined Train Contribution / (Cost) represents train revenues less FRA allowable expenses. FRA allowable expenses include train costs,
primarily train crews, food and beverage, fuel, railroad costs and commissions and certain shared costs, primarily equipment maintenance and reserves.

It also gives us the remaining direct costs, which would include infrastructure maintenance, and total non-direct costs which would include
overhead and management. Depreciation, Interest and Impairment costs
are not included. Infrastructure capital expenditures would generally be
depreciated over a period of time and thus be considered under depreciation.

Peter E wrote:Why oh why do we continue to discuss "profits" as a means to an end?Profits are a mere capitalist tool designed to limit and focus discussion away from the broader more meaningful contexts of public service and need. Conservative pundits use the limited language/context of capitalism to disort and add negative connotations to the conversation about intercity rail. Meanwhile dismissing the short comings of the current fly drive system that has seen billions of Federal/State and local dollars drained away from creating a balanced transportation system.

Better--although not great-- are terms like "sustaining" since it implies an economic situation that while a particular train maybe covering its cost it may not always depending on circumstance. Thus we avoid the stigma of profit/loss--sucess/failure.

If Amtrak truly provided a public service (as a whole) I would have no problem with your argument. Local transit districts - I agree certainly operate at a loss but because they are deemed by the public as a whole as essential, the public supports the agency through local taxes (i.e. payroll taxes, income taxes, property taxes, gas taxes, etc.)

However, as I mention in another thread, the government has no obligation to offer many of the services that Amtrak's long distance trains offer - i.e. sleeper car space, dining car facilities, etc. That leaves the coach cars, which offer basic transportation. Many of Amtrak's trains, by nature of schedule, frequency, or travel direction, do not even provide a basic service to many communities. So, Amtrak by definition is not "essential"; and by its schedule and frequency, hardly counts as part of a "balanced transportation system".

The NEC, despite having no use for it personally (I live in Oregon), is considered "essential" because it does move a large number of people (both on Amtrak and non-Amtrak trains) in a very densely populated area, as part of a "balance transportation system". But when there are folks who are demanding that my local regional power marketing organization raise its prices to market price instead of production cost because "it doesn't benefit me", why should I subsidize the cost of the NEC that has zero benefit to me? I do feel the NEC is part of the national transportation network (as is the BPA part of the national power grid). But the Amtrak of the Northeast is NOT the same Amtrak as the western United States except in name and common president/board of directors.

It seems that there are many folks who believe that we should dump billions into building a national high speed rail system that would basically allow it to compete with air travel. This concept, even when considered as a way to save the current form of Amtrak, is a very foolish way to spend money when there are much larger crisises facing our country. Such a network would be politicized and turned into huge contracts for certain favored government contractors, the routes gerrymandered for political gain, and in the end still not come close to competing with air travel on any means except on possibly a few routes.

practicepro wrote:The reports do break out the FRA Defined Train Cost which is:

FRA Defined Train Contribution / (Cost) represents train revenues less FRA allowable expenses. FRA allowable expenses include train costs,
primarily train crews, food and beverage, fuel, railroad costs and commissions and certain shared costs, primarily equipment maintenance and reserves.

Are we saying that the Acela and Metroliners DO cover the cost of infrastructure (minus capital expenditures)? In other words, regular on-going maintenance and power generation/distribution?

practicepro wrote:The reports do break out the FRA Defined Train Cost which is:

FRA Defined Train Contribution / (Cost) represents train revenues less FRA allowable expenses. FRA allowable expenses include train costs,
primarily train crews, food and beverage, fuel, railroad costs and commissions and certain shared costs, primarily equipment maintenance and reserves.

It also gives us the remaining direct costs, which would include infrastructure maintenance, and total non-direct costs which would include
overhead and management. Depreciation, Interest and Impairment costs
are not included. Infrastructure capital expenditures would generally be
depreciated over a period of time and thus be considered under depreciation.

Can you please cite the page numbers so I can find this info? I've searched the November monthly report, and did a search on FRA and on "Train Contribution," and Adobe found nothing. Looking at the route performance report (starting on page C-1 of the November report), I also found no such reference.

Looking at the RPS reports from FY99, depreciation (equipment and track) *was* included. I suppose FY04/FY05 RPS reports could be different, but I haven't seen them, so I don't know.

http://www.amtrak.com/pdf/0412monthly.pdf

Page C-1 or pg 83 of the pdf.
Financial Performance of Routes FY05 YTD.

This may be new in the reports. These reports are fantastic and give
a weath of information for us "arm chair" managers. Of course
the truth of the matter is more complex than these reports give us.