Amtrak February 2013 Monthly Performance Report

[Anderson]

Amtrak February 2013 Monthly Performance Report

NEC
Acela: Ridership was off slightly for February (most blame can be found in the missing day vs. 2012), but I'm not inclined to fret over the loss of 1300 riders in nearly 260,000 here. What stands out is the revenue situation all the same: Revenue was up 7.9% amid a slight dip in ridership, resulting in an increase in PPR of nearly 8.5% ($154.77 vs. $142.69 in February of last year).
--On profitability, YTD the Acela shows a pre-OPEB contribution of $100.4m (post-OPEB is $96.9m). In January, these numbers were $82.1m (+$18.3m) and $79.3m (+$17.6m).
Regional: I honestly don't know how this happened, but fares jumped nearly 12% year over year (PPR was $69.00 vs. $61.73 last February) while ridership was off slightly. Again, I'm not about to fret...it was a shorter month than FY12 had, and even if it were a "real" dip, I'd take it for this much more cash coming in.
--On profitability, YTD the Regionals show a pre-OPEB contribution of $54.1m (post-OPEB is $49.8m). In January, these were $44.1m (+$10.0m) and $41.5m (+$8.3m).
Overall Profitability: I feel compelled to state at the start that about $16m in expenses were added between the Feb-12 MPR and the Feb-13 MPR for FY12 through February. No clue where those numbers came from. With that sour note out of the way, profitability continues to be strong here. In February alone, the NEC added about $7m in additional ticket revenue.
-Interesting, the net contribution in February was more than the net contribution in January.

-The trend seems on course for the Regionals to generate at least $100m pre-OPEB for the year, and for the Acelas to generate somewhere north of $200m at a bare minimum. Honestly, the margins should be better as we get out of winter, and I'd expect them to come in a good bit above these lowball targets.

Short Corridors
Overall, this was a real hit-or-miss category, and there wasn't a good pattern to seek out. There were a few losers:
-The Downeaster, due to weather (per the report notes, the train would have broken even in terms of ridership but for the snowstorm in spite of losing a day).
-The Hiawatha, which more or less broke even after accounting for the lost day
-The Heartland Flyer
-The Adirondack (weather again, I suspect)
-The Cascades (mudslides and buses, oh my!)
-The Capitol Corridor (which has been having chronic issues)

There's also the technical matter of the Newport News/Norfolk route. Ridership there was up about 5% between the two routes (42,308 vs. 40,204 last year); between the lost day and (presumably) the snowstorm impact, it's not great...but it's not awful.
-And of course, I've got a word or two for the budgeting folks...they forecast ridership growth month-over-month on the Norfolk train in February vs. January (9998 vs. 8827). Considering that February is routinely the worst month of the year for ridership (both due to its off-season nature and due to being, well, short), how they predicted that ridership would spike from 142/train to 178/train is truly beyond me. The route is still ahead of budget for both riders and revenue, so I'm not worried here...but I'm wondering what the ridership is going to look like going into March and April.

A bunch of the other trains hovered around break-even (either up slightly or down slightly). In this category, we find the Empire and Maple Leaf services, the Vermonter, the Wolverine, the Lynchburger, the Mules, the Pennsylvanian, the Carolinain, the Piedmont, etc.

Of note, the Mules are wearing about a 10% fare hike well (PPR of $28.14 vs. $25.58 last year), and the Pennsylvanian is doing the same with a bit over a 5% hike ($42.91 vs. $40.74).

And now for the big winners:
-The Pacific Surfliner. Though ridership is off about 5% vs. FY11, revenue is up 14.2% (translating into around a 20% fare hike) and the rebound vs. 2012 continues. Ridership is up almost 5% vs. last year, and up about 8-9% once you account for the lost day. February 2012 was just an awful month here.
-The Ethan Allen
-The Illini/Saluki

[Corridors done...I'll deal with the LD stuff later]

Abbreviations:
-PPR: Per-passenger revenue. The average price of a ticket sold on a given line.
-OPEB: Other Post-Employment Benefits

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Another abbreviation:

-TY: Thank You! :hi:

 

[jis]

Another abbreviation:
-TY: Thank You! :hi:

Or as the Ffrench would say MB!

 

[henryj]

I look at these reports from a different perspective, as in only LD trains. Overall revenue was 207.2 million. Operating costs were 263.2 million. Per rider operating loss was $31 and cost recovery was 78.7% The Auto train covers it costs as does the Palmetto. The Meteor and CONO come close. Biggest losers were the CZ, LSL and SWC in that order. I don't count overhead as we know Amtrak just allocates that wherever they choose. Operating costs I calculate based on the length of the route and the hours to transit that route using Amtrak own costs as published in several of their reports and based on the number of cars on the train and the number of locomotives. Operating costs include fuel, track rent, switching, maintenance of equipment, labor OBS and T&E, Diner costs, station and agent costs. Actual costs that could be saved by discontinuing a specific train would be even less as the equipment and many of the employees would just be reassigned so probably the LD trains cover their avoidable costs. Revenues, of course, come from the February reports.

 

[Paulus]

You do know that when avoidable costs have been published, the LD trains, minus Palmetto and Auto Train, don't break even, right? Or is the FRA in on the conspiracy now?

 

[Nathanael]

I look at these reports from a different perspective, as in only LD trains. Overall revenue was 207.2 million. Operating costs were 263.2 million. Per rider operating loss was $31 and cost recovery was 78.7% The Auto train covers it costs as does the Palmetto. The Meteor and CONO come close. Biggest losers were the CZ, LSL and SWC in that order.

Unfortunately, the numbers you're looking at include overhead. Honestly, it's hard to get numbers without overhead...
If you actually look at only avoidable costs, the LSL is one of the best-performing financially of all the long-distance trains, as we know from the slideshow Boardman provided.

I don't count overhead as we know Amtrak just allocates that wherever they choose. Operating costs I calculate based on the length of the route and the hours to transit that route using Amtrak own costs as published in several of their reports and based on the number of cars on the train and the number of locomotives.

Bzzzt. You're just estimating using average costs, but in fact the costs are different depending on Superliners vs. single-level trains, mountains vs. flat routes, CSX track costs versus UP track costs, etc....
I think your estimates are no good. We know the LSL does better than the CONO.

Operating costs include fuel, track rent, switching, maintenance of equipment, labor OBS and T&E, Diner costs, station and agent costs.

Amtrak and the states have spent a lot of time working out how to allocate this, for PRIIA purposes, and you haven't. First point: there is only one unique station on the Lake Shore Limited, namely Erie PA, and it's unstaffed. This means avoidable costs are extremely low.

Actual costs that could be saved by discontinuing a specific train would be even less as the equipment and many of the employees would just be reassigned so probably the LD trains cover their avoidable costs. Revenues, of course, come from the February reports.

 

[Nathanael]

(Correction: the LSL has a second unique station somewhere in Ohio, also unstaffed.)

 

[henryj]

You do know that when avoidable costs have been published, the LD trains, minus Palmetto and Auto Train, don't break even, right? Or is the FRA in on the conspiracy now?

Show me the reports and numbers.

 

[henryj]

I look at these reports from a different perspective, as in only LD trains. Overall revenue was 207.2 million. Operating costs were 263.2 million. Per rider operating loss was $31 and cost recovery was 78.7% The Auto train covers it costs as does the Palmetto. The Meteor and CONO come close. Biggest losers were the CZ, LSL and SWC in that order.

Unfortunately, the numbers you're looking at include overhead. Honestly, it's hard to get numbers without overhead...
If you actually look at only avoidable costs, the LSL is one of the best-performing financially of all the long-distance trains, as we know from the slideshow Boardman provided.

I don't count overhead as we know Amtrak just allocates that wherever they choose. Operating costs I calculate based on the length of the route and the hours to transit that route using Amtrak own costs as published in several of their reports and based on the number of cars on the train and the number of locomotives.

Bzzzt. You're just estimating using average costs, but in fact the costs are different depending on Superliners vs. single-level trains, mountains vs. flat routes, CSX track costs versus UP track costs, etc....
I think your estimates are no good. We know the LSL does better than the CONO.

Operating costs include fuel, track rent, switching, maintenance of equipment, labor OBS and T&E, Diner costs, station and agent costs.

Amtrak and the states have spent a lot of time working out how to allocate this, for PRIIA purposes, and you haven't. First point: there is only one unique station on the Lake Shore Limited, namely Erie PA, and it's unstaffed. This means avoidable costs are extremely low.

Actual costs that could be saved by discontinuing a specific train would be even less as the equipment and many of the employees would just be reassigned so probably the LD trains cover their avoidable costs. Revenues, of course, come from the February reports.

It would make little difference even if we could get the actual numbers. They have to change drastically to have any meaningful effect. So average numbers do work very well. I don't care whether you like my numbers or not.

 

[henryj]

There are many different opinions on this. This one from RailPAC entitled "Passenger Trains Make Money"

http://www.railpac.org/2013/03/15/passenger-trains-make-money/

It all comes down to that 'bloated overhead'.

 

[Paulus]

You do know that when avoidable costs have been published, the LD trains, minus Palmetto and Auto Train, don't break even, right? Or is the FRA in on the conspiracy now?

Show me the reports and numbers.

Amtrak 2009

Amtrak progress reports 2005-2009

 

[afigg]

If I may make comments on the actual February 2013 monthly report and not on cost allocation arguments? I will leave it to Anderson to provide a more detailed breakdown, but some comments and notes follow.

First, the February report - and the revised January report - have a revised executive summary format, including new charts for Operating Ratio, adjusted loss, and capital Spend. For year to date, the total revenue of $1,154 million is $5.6 million over budget, while the expenses are running a little under budget. Which is good news. Overall, nothing that different in this report from the previous monthly reports for trends. That February was 29 days last year throws off the month to month comparisons a bit.

Corridor services showing good ridership increases for the 5 month period: Vermonter, Downeaster, Keystone (+4.4%), Wolverine, Pacific Surfliner, San Joaquin, Piedmont.

Corridor services (those not affected by Sandy) showing troubling drops in ridership for the 5 month period: Heartland Flyer, Capitol Corridor, Cascades (may be due to mud slides though).

Route Performance Report: the Lynchburger, Newport News/Richmond, Norfolk regionals are all either returning an operational surplus or break even (NFK).

On-time performance: System-wide OTP down -0.8% to 87.9%. Notable drops in OTP for year to date: Adirondack, Carolinian, maple Leaf, AutoTrain, Crescent, and the Silvers. On the plus side, the Wolverine, Surfliner, SWC, CZ, CL, Cardinal and Sunset Limited all show improvements.

 

[Bus Nut]

Capitol Corridor has known issues right now, but what's up with the Heartland Flyer? Did they raise fares?

 

[henryj]

Capitol Corridor has known issues right now, but what's up with the Heartland Flyer? Did they raise fares?

The HF shows only 97 riders per trip vs 115 last year. Ticket revenues of 741k only cover about 53% of operating costs. The 2mil in revenues includes the state's contributions. The train only runs from OKC to Fort Worth, not much of a market there. It runs on the old Lone Star/Texas Chief route which covered Houston, FW, KC and Chi. To be more successful it would have to be extended to at least KC. I don't see Texas doing any thing with it. If the states have to pick up even more costs I don't think it's going to survive.

 

[henryj]

You do know that when avoidable costs have been published, the LD trains, minus Palmetto and Auto Train, don't break even, right? Or is the FRA in on the conspiracy now?

Show me the reports and numbers.

Amtrak 2009

Amtrak progress reports 2005-2009

I can't read that stuff and I am not going to install 'dropbox' on my computer and it's just 5 year old data now.

 

[jis]

NEC apparently is a very special beast. According to numbers I have seen even NJT's NEC service breaks even above the rail! This is pretty unique for a commuter service route. Of course NJT Rail Operations also has one of the highest cost recovery ratios overall too, in spite of having a few routes that are real dogs.

 

[VentureForth]

Interesting that the Acela revenue increase was not as much as the Regionals. Perhaps folks are finding that the perceived value of Acela is negligible for the cost than the NER?

 

[Ryan]

You do know that when avoidable costs have been published, the LD trains, minus Palmetto and Auto Train, don't break even, right? Or is the FRA in on the conspiracy now?

Show me the reports and numbers.

Amtrak 2009Amtrak progress reports 2005-2009

I can't read that stuff and I am not going to install 'dropbox' on my computer and it's just 5 year old data now.

Keep on being awesome, Henry. You ask for the reports, he provides them and then you refuse to read them. You don't have to install anything to click on the link and read the PDF.
It's good to see (despite the compaining of some) that revenue is up without seriously impacting ridership - who would have thought that revenue management worked!

 

[jis]

It would make little difference even if we could get the actual numbers. They have to change drastically to have any meaningful effect. So average numbers do work very well. I don't care whether you like my numbers or not.

Would an accurate reading of that sentiment be that any numbers that do not line up with your pet theory shall be ignored, or massaged using whatever assumptions necessary until they match?

 

[henryj]

Keep on being awesome, Henry. You ask for the reports, he provides them and then you refuse to read them. You don't have to install anything to click on the link and read the PDF.

You may be able to read them, but I cannot. The PDF does not come up.

 

[henryj]

It would make little difference even if we could get the actual numbers. They have to change drastically to have any meaningful effect. So average numbers do work very well. I don't care whether you like my numbers or not.

Would an accurate reading of that sentiment be that any numbers that do not line up with your pet theory shall be ignored, or massaged using whatever assumptions necessary until they match?

Jis, I don't have any 'pet theories'. I just use Amtrak published numbers extrapolated to the various trains. Amtrak did publish some cost numbers in some of the early PR reports, then they stopped furnishing those in later reports. What the numbers show is that the longer the route and the more hours it takes the higher the costs. Duh. Most of the LD trains suffer from lack of enough equipment to take advantage of ridership peaks and low below Greyhound coach fares and not enough first class fares. A good example in the East are the silvers. The Meteor does well, the Star much less so because it lacks the additional sleeper revenue and it's route is longer in miles and hours. Miles and hours add up to higher labor costs which is why the CZ does so poorly. Since the locomotives and rolling stock are pooled, maintenance costs are just allocated probably based on train miles. There is no way to actually track those costs by train. But labor costs can be tracked by train as can fuel and track rent and probably commissary costs. Those are the big costs items. Station and agent costs for LD trains are usually insignificant. The administrative costs like accounting, security, reservation system, etc. are just overhead as is management. Auto Train is the most interesting as I just cannot make it lose money vs operating costs. lol. Lots of high revenue first class passengers.

 

[jis]

Here is the OIG's Audit Report of Amtrak.

In general it gives a good grade but not excellent to Amtrak's accounts.

You can get some idea about Amtrak's accounting system and what factors gravitate against it being more precise at the present time. it is also clear that all the allocation decisions are not purely Amtrak business driven manipulation as is alleged by some. At least I do not see any evidence that there is any malfeasance involved in how cost allocations are done, specially regarding the claims of transferring NEC costs to the rest of the system, as alleged by some. One can have differences of opinion on some cost allocation items, but it does not appear that there is any gross cost transfers of that sort, or IMHO the OIG Audit would have commented on that. Of course when one extrapolates one is making all sort of assumptions which are always going to be open to challenge.

Just as an example, it is explicitly stated that fuel costs currently are not tracked per train and there apparently is no plan to do so because it is said that it is not cost effective to track it per train! It is also interesting that it is FRA that wants to push the statistics based avoidable cost computation, which the auditor does not think has any basis in economic theory. So it would appear that Amtrak is stuck between FRA and OIG.

I found the report quite revealing in its own special way.

 

[Paulus]

Also from that report:

While RPS regularly issued performance reports as late as 6 weeks after the end of each reporting period—each month of the fiscal year—Amtrak officials told us that APT will require only 14 business days following the end of the month to produce reports. This reporting time meets the timeliness requirements of Amtrak’s management and aligns more closely to the reporting timelines of comparable railroads.

That explains quite handily the increased speed with which these reports come out.

 

[henryj]

Here is the OIG's Audit Report of Amtrak.
In general it gives a good grade but not excellent to Amtrak's accounts.

You can get some idea about Amtrak's accounting system and what factors gravitate against it being more precise at the present time. it is also clear that all the allocation decisions are not purely Amtrak business driven manipulation as is alleged by some. At least I do not see any evidence that there is any malfeasance involved in how cost allocations are done, specially regarding the claims of transferring NEC costs to the rest of the system, as alleged by some. One can have differences of opinion on some cost allocation items, but it does not appear that there is any gross cost transfers of that sort, or IMHO the OIG Audit would have commented on that. Of course when one extrapolates one is making all sort of assumptions which are always going to be open to challenge.

Just as an example, it is explicitly stated that fuel costs currently are not tracked per train and there apparently is no plan to do so because it is said that it is not cost effective to track it per train! It is also interesting that it is FRA that wants to push the statistics based avoidable cost computation, which the auditor does not think has any basis in economic theory. So it would appear that Amtrak is stuck between FRA and OIG.

I found the report quite revealing in its own special way.

Thanks Jis, that is really interesting. It would be nice if Amtrak would publish operating expenses by route and even itemize the big ones, like labor, maintenance, fuel, track rent, etc. Also interesting that Amtrak only tracked 5% of it's expenses and allocated the rest. Now with the new system they track 20% and allocate the rest. Other railroads track 80%. I worked with SAP and this type of stuff including many accounting system conversions, so when they make statements like "APT and SAP were independently designed and not fully integrated. This lack of integration has required Amtrak to develop a software bridge.............." Been there, done that. And it's often not pretty. What this says is, until we are furnished more detailed data, my estimates are as good as any. If you look at the pie chart on page 18 they list fully allocated, mostly overhead, charges at 41%. I get 44% for the LD trains. They list maintenance at 18%. I get 15%. They list other ops/transportation at 41% and I get 38%. So my numbers are 'ball park'. I would hope the change to separate business units and better accounting will eliminate much of the doubt and arguments about costs. Anyway, thanks for that link. I saved the report. I have fun with this even if certain parties do not like my results.