posted
I'm certain some around here, myself being one, have noted the absence of late the Monthly Performance Reports. TRAINS Newswire has also noted the "absence" and the "non-response" from Amtrak:
That’s because sometime in early October, the company removed its monthly performance reports from the “About Amtrak” portion of its website, replacing them with “Host Railroad Reports” which only outline who has been "naughty" and "nice" in the timekeeping department. These were previously included as a section of the monthly performance reports.
Trains News Wire noted the absence weeks ago and asked Amtrak why the historical information was deleted, whether the deletion was permanent, and who at the company made the decision to remove the reports. The passenger railroad has yet to respond.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I noticed, from the ridership chart posted by Mr. Palmland, that the Amtrak Wolverine seems to have a healthy gain in ridership.
The latest Passenger Train Journal magazine also shows a nice gain, for the Wolverine, of 26.2% from 2016 to 2017.
I wonder if there is a reason for the increase in Wolverine popularity? I also wonder what the ridership would be if the Wolverine extended to Toronto and if we get expedited border crossing into Canada.
Richard
Posts: 1909 | From: Santa Rosa | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Richard, the Wolverines route is Chi-Pontiac. Detroit is an intermediate stop and not even having the most boardings/alightings on the route (Ann Arbor wins the prize).
Further, the Detroit station is North on the GT of the Junction to access the Tunnel to Canada. Therefore, any train as you proposed would be dependent on International traffic, which is something Michigan would be loath to fund.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Looks like a seven page "coloring book" is the replacement. However ridership and revenues by route remain.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
I was most interested in this statement on route performance:
“ Page 7 Note: Going forward, Amtrak will report Adjusted Operating Earnings as the key financial measure to evaluate results. Adjusted Operating earnings represents Amtrak’s cash funding needs and is a reasonable proxy for Federal Operating Support needed in line with the appropriation. Route level Adjusted Operating Earnings will replace the previously reported “Fully Allocated Contribution/(Loss)” which was based on Net Income/(Loss)”
Those numbers were head out in the new spreadsheet and results about as expected. The biggest losers: SWC, CZ, EB at $5M+. Could there be a connection with the reports this month that the first two are reported down to 1 sleeper with roomette price as much as $1k. Econ 101 - supply and demand management.
On the positive side were the corridor services with all VA services having a positive cash flow as well the Adirondack and Vertmonter plus a few others. The popular Pacific Surliners were the biggest losers at about $2M. I suspect we will begin to see more changes as Mr.Anderson gets more involved.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why, oh why, oh why must every darned important human service that any government entity provides for us ordinary people be required to "pay for itself" with revenues from only the end users???
There is something seriously wrong with our leaders if they think that everything absolutely must pay for itself with only the funds from the end users.
Good grief!
Posts: 211 | From: California | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Margaret, I pray you know how much I respect your thoughts that you share at this Forum - even when I disagree.
The enabling legislation RPSA 70 mandated Amtrak to be a for-profit business enterprise. Now history has shown that to be some kind of joke, as even today when Amtrak is almost approaching a "profit" using "cookie jar accounting", full recovery of the capital costs is "way down the road" (likely neither you or I will ever see it).
But look at where Amtrak has come. Demand for rail travel is the strongest it has been since the "three choices" (fully developed air and highway, plus rail) for land transportation have been in place. This is a time when whatever rhetoric eminates from either 1 or 1600, Amtrak delivers needed transportation in an economic and efficient manner. Now is not the time for choruses of "bring back..." or starting a Luxotrain service - especially since everyone tried has flopped.
Posts: 9976 | From: Clarendon Hills, IL USA (BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.71) | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you very, very much for the compliment, Gil! (If I am not being presumptuous in calling you "Gil".)
ALL organizations that run ONLY passenger trains will flop financially = not even break even, because they are so expensive to run because all passengers need the following things that NO freight ever needs:
Air Water Food Seats and beds BATHROOMS! Windows On-board crews to attend to varous passenger needs Good HVAC systems Stations Comfortable ride On-time arrivals and departures
ALL of the above are expensive, so of course no passenger train can ever really "make money". From what I have read, the biggest source of revenue that made passenger trains seem to be profitable in pre-Amtrak days was the US Post Office, in the form of those RPOs. When that was ended in 1967, the end was certain for most passenger trains, if Amtrak had not been created. And it was created to fail, as many claim, but -- here it still is, limping along on a starvation budget. Heck, the Eveready Bunny seems like it has no stamina at all when compared to Amtrak!
So - all companies that operate passenger trains need to also run freight trains, as freight trains are much, much less expensive to operate than are passenger trains, and thus make a lot more money ,a d actually generate nice profits for the companies that operate them. No freight ops = permanently i the red.
Yeah I agree - now is not the time to try to bring back any trains or start any new deluxe trains I just hope poor Amtrak survives, in spite if its aging equipment and the bad employees it sometimes has. (Superliners are now at old as or older -- at 36 years old -- than the cars they replaced in 1981, which were then at least 27 years old.) And AFAIK there are no plans or funds to replace any of the P42s that power all LD trains. Those poor thangs have been "rode hard and put away wet", and are wearing out, and many say they have not been properly maintained.
What I cannot find out is if you added up how much money all of the Class 1 RRs of, say, 1950 spent each year on all of their passenger trains, what that dollar amount would be. I want to know that so I can use a simple Inflation Calculator to see how that compares to Amtrak's annual appropriation in the past, say, 5 years. I am sure the figure I am trying to find would be gigantic, compared to Amtrak's comparatively tiny annual appropriation -- but I still want to know that figure.
In the mean time, let's do what we can to keep Amtrak alive.
Posts: 211 | From: California | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Trains’ news wire had a report on comments made by Wick Moorman, retiring again (at year end) . A few caught my eye. This was good news:
“Shabby chic can be fashionable, but not on a passenger train or in a train station, Moorman says, noting the worn-out feel of much of Amtrak’s equipment. When Moorman learned it’s relatively inexpensive to refurbish the interior of Amfleet I cars, he ordered the renewal of the Northeast Regional coach fleet, a program that will then move on to long-distance equipment.”
But this comment left me wondering if sleeper service will be priced even higher:
“And Chief Marketing Officer Tim Griffin came from the airline industry and understands marketing a passenger service, as well as revenue and yield management.“
I’m sorry to see Moorman go. He has made a real positive impact in a short time.
Posts: 2397 | From: Camden, SC | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Therefore, any train as you proposed would be dependent on International traffic, which is something Michigan would be loath to fund."
Not sure of that. Oregon and Washington happily allow British Colombia not to contribute to Cascade services.
In my opinion, one of the likely reasons? Its passengers make the service south of the border more viable. There would likely be no train service to the small communities north of Everett without massive subsidies.
New Hampshire also gets a free ride on the Downeaster services. It pays nothing but without its stops MA and ME would likely have to subsidize more.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
