RAILforum: At last, detailed financial reports!

This is topic At last, detailed financial reports! in forum Amtrak at RAILforum.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.railforum.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/11/2203.html

Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :

I just found these on the Amtrak website. Highly detailed monthly financial reports for January and February. http://www.amtrak.com/press/performancereports.html

They cover everything from administrative costs to train costs, losses from sleeping car cancellations, losses from weather related problems, etc, etc. It has a section on on-time performance and lots of other interesting charts and graphs. The February report runs 99 pages in PDF format.

I've only had time to briefly skim the February report so far, but this looks just like the thing I've been looking for. Real world financial reporting, instead of the misleading fully-allocated "loss per passenger" summaries.

Posted by TBlack (Member # 181) on :

I agree, a fabulous report, even if you have to read some of the pages sideways! Have they been posting this all along?

I can see that AMTRAK lists passengers and gross revenue per train, but I can't see that they report expenses that way also - am I wrong?

Posted by CG96 (Member # 1408) on :

quote:
Originally posted by TBlack:
I agree, a fabulous report, even if you have to read some of the pages sideways! Have they been posting this all along?

No. this is the first time that Amtrak has done anything like this.

quote:
I can see that AMTRAK lists passengers and gross revenue per train, but I can't see that they report expenses that way also - am I wrong?

One thing I noticed here is that the profit (loss) is listed in a fashion that led me to think that it was on a "per-route" basis. This (to me) made the numbers of the NEC trains look very good on a "per train" basis when compared to, day, the Empiure Builder. this contrasts with my personal experience of riding the always-busy Builder, and the numbers presented in this report make the LD trains look like enormous losers (when there have been several articles in Trains magazine & other publications that indicate that it is the maintenance- and capital-intensive NEC which is the source of many of Amtraks losses. I regret that I have no source of evidence for this statement.

Perhaps other members of the forum with more advanced accountancy training or experience will weigh in with their opinions.

Posted by TBlack (Member # 181) on :

quote:
Perhaps other members of the forum with more advanced accountancy training or experience will weigh in with their opinions. [/B]

I took the time to find the expenses per route, and you're right, the presentation is such that the NEC comes up with a profit and the rest of the system with a loss. What is not explained is the allocation of indirect costs to the various routes. Of the total $736 mm in costs YTD to run all the routes, $300 mm is indirect cost. Therefore, the allocation formula is pretty critical - not explained in the report.

The report does mention that LD ridership is up 17% for the 5 months of this year as compared to last year and that NEC is up only 9.8%.

Also, curiously, there are 1322 people in the marketing and sales department, which includes customer service. Does anyone else think that's a lot for what we're getting?

Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :

Yeah, it looks like they're still reporting only the fully allocated costs for the LD trains. I find it very hard to believe that these trains have costs that are two or three times higher than the revenue.

Out of 99 pages, why can't we get itemized expense reports for the LD trains???

[This message has been edited by Mr. Toy (edited 05-13-2004).]

Posted by Yellowstonetim (Member # 3113) on :

I think that the NEC would always be the most profitable portion of Amtrak. While the good long distance trains like the Empire Builder, California Zephyr and Southwest Chief may be consistently full, when you analyze the dollar income per passenger, how long each passenger is on the train per dollar paid, passenger turnover, etc. and then compare this with the labor and equipment expenses, there can be no comparison.

In the NEC you have more passengers and more $ per mile traveled and less expenses. The more passengers you have that go a shorter distance and the higher turnover makes for more profit.

Someone who takes the California Zephyr all the way from Chicago to Emeryville is on the train for two nights and parts of three days for one relatively inexpensive ticket. Amtrak provides crews, lounge cars, etc. for all that distance.

In other words, I think it is inherent in railroad travel that high-volume, short-distance will almost always generate the highest revenue.

I wish this were not so.

This is my opinion and is not based on a detailed review of the financial information or a detailed understanding of railroad travel.

Posted by Charles Reuben (Member # 2263) on :

Well, since Yellowstonetim is going to make a speculation on where all the money goes, I have one of my own: Sleeper cars.

Those of you on this board who have gotten to know me are probably aware that I have never actually been on a sleeper. And you may, rightfully, think I may be somewhat jealous of you and may say some things that are not necessarily kind. However, I will try to be somewhat reasoned in my arguments.

First of all, even on a cruiseship, every single passenger is expected to pay for their accommodation. Not just the ticket, but the room itself. Those of you who buy a sleeper are well aware of the great deal you are getting, should you decide to share your room with another person. Granted, the overall fare is still about four times higher than a single coach seat, but split between two or more people, the equation become much more equitable.

Secondly, I am not an expert on sleeper cars, but it would seem to me that even with the higher fares sleeper patrons dish out, that money does not even come close to the cash it takes to keep that car running properly. Those Amtrak attendants don't come cheap and neither does the maintenance to keep all those exclusive mechanical perks up and running.

As one of the few individuals on this board who cannot fly, it is in my interest to see that Amtrak keeps its long distance routes running, not as some sort of land cruise but as a practical way of getting me around the country.

I am not altogether convinced that Amtrak is paying enough attention to the economics of running the sleeper cars. I know, I know, you guys are paying a lot for your accomodations, but if you look at the fares that the American Orient Express or even VIA is charging for sleepers, you will readily see that you are getting off very, very easy.

I think those bean counters need to take a long, hard look at the economics of running the sleepers versus running the coach cars and make painful changes accordingly.

Otherwise, there may no longer be any long distance routes, period.

[This message has been edited by Chucky (edited 05-14-2004).]

Posted by 2HOT4U (Member # 2928) on :

I did I ever survive without these.
Im gonna print it out and sleep with it EVERY NIGHT.

Posted by jp1822 (Member # 2596) on :

I knew Amtrak's liabilities - particularly its debt - was nothing to sneeze at, but looking at these financial reports, it is indeed complicated, and at first glance - overwhelming. Not a fan of the debt structure Amtrak took on during the Warrington years. Although the sales-leasebacks provided the company with needed cash, it was a very short-sighted move.

Posted by Mr. Toy (Member # 311) on :

Tim and Chucky, I don't think its a good idea to speculate on which types of services cost more without seeing real numbers. It is just that sort of speculation that critics of LD trains feed off of. The fact is, we don't really know. And we won't know until Amtrak releases itemized expense reports for each train.