Amtrak FY 16 Financial Results

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

http://media.amtrak.com/2016/11/amtrak-delivers-strong-fy-2016-financial-results/

Of course this is Amtrak spinning it in the positive direction but it's getting even closer to "breaking even" (94%) than ever and its "lowest operating loss since 1973" (which happens to be the year I was born. I'm wondering though if the 750 mile rule significantly improved the federal bottom line by shifting financial responsibility of those routes to the states. So you can argue that the trains aren't less unprofitable but Amtrak is passing the buck to others.

So to make up the extra 6% Amtrak would have to either increase revenue, cut costs, or both. I'm sure I can tell which way most of you would prefer. I don't think you can't do both, find and eliminate inefficiencies in Amtrak and pool that money to areas with better chances for revenue growth but that's just my opinion. Maybe a few extra routes will over the long run make Amtrak enough revenue to make up the missing 6 percent but you'd have to convince Congress to pay the startup costs. Hopefully Amtrak is using this data to convince Congress to increase funding. WIck Moorman was discussing the next generation replacements for the Acela (Avelia Liberty). If ridership/revenue increases enough on Avelia Liberty, that would probably cover the LD routes and hopefully a few new ones

 

[PVD]

Even a small cushion of extra equipment would go a long way. Ability to respond to peak demands with added cars, less emergency rental, less delay costs. They should have had added single level capacity both in the form of the VL2, and returned lease cars from the NS purchase by the states by now. Refreshed Horizons would allow a daily Cardinal and the possible single level conversion of the CL, The CL Superliners could certainly be used out west. The state purchased Chargers should give back some diesels, hopefully it will permit more scheduled maintenance (maybe even some full rebuilds), and a few more "protects" The next few years could be interesting.

 

[MARC Rider]

It's interesting that this good financial performance is based on widespread, though small, ridership declines outside of the Northeast Corridor, Capitol Corridor, Pacific Surfliner, Cascades, etc. All of the midwest corridors, except for the Hiawatha and Blue Water, show ridership declines. Even the successful Washington - Virginia corridor trains show ridership declines. The long distance trains also show slight ridership declines, with a number of interesting exceptions (like the Cardinal.) The Empire Builder, Cardinal, Capitol Limited and California Zephyr show ridership increases. The Silver Meteor shows a 1.9% decline, whereas the Silver Star shows a 5% decline. I wonder if the diner experiment is having any effect on that. The 82% increase in Palmetto ridership is, I think, an artifact of their using the train as a Northest Regional from Washington to New York.

I wish the table also showed ticket revenues broken down for each of these services so that one could examine the relation between ridership and ticket revenues. The decline in ridership on many routes could be considered a bit disturbing if it continues, as it could be argued that passenger rail is not doing as well as it should be doing to justify its inclusion as a publicly supported transportation mode. Financial stability is a means to an end. The end is keeping passenger rail as a viable alternative to other transportation modes. Even if a rail service is highly profitable, if it doesn't maximize the number of cars kept off the roads or reduce short-hop airline flights, it's not reaching its full potential.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I wish the table also showed ticket revenues broken down for each of these services so that one could examine the relation between ridership and ticket revenues.

https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/515/889/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-September-2016-Preliminary-Unaudited.pdf

 

[WoodyinNYC]

I wish the table also showed ticket revenues broken down for each of these services so that one could examine the relation between ridership and ticket revenues.

https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/515/889/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-September-2016-Preliminary-Unaudited.pdf

On pages A-3.3 and A-3.4, monthly and full year, ridership figures per train are in the columns to the left, and revenue per train is in the columns to the right. Current year, prior year, budget.

 

[MARC Rider]

I wish the table also showed ticket revenues broken down for each of these services so that one could examine the relation between ridership and ticket revenues.

https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/515/889/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-September-2016-Preliminary-Unaudited.pdf

Seek and ye shall find. Thank you.

A lot of interesting stuff. Look at page A-3.5. Silver Star(vation) sleeper ridership up 7.5%, but ticket revenues down 11.9% (was almost a million dollars out of 7-8 million total revenue). I wonder how much they saved not having the diner. Silver Meteor sleeper ridership was down 3.7%, revenue was down 3.1% (about $300K out of 11-12 million total revenue). Hmmm.

 

[seat38a]

It's interesting that this good financial performance is based on widespread, though small, ridership declines outside of the Northeast Corridor, Capitol Corridor, Pacific Surfliner, Cascades, etc. All of the midwest corridors, except for the Hiawatha and Blue Water, show ridership declines. Even the successful Washington - Virginia corridor trains show ridership declines. The long distance trains also show slight ridership declines, with a number of interesting exceptions (like the Cardinal.) The Empire Builder, Cardinal, Capitol Limited and California Zephyr show ridership increases. The Silver Meteor shows a 1.9% decline, whereas the Silver Star shows a 5% decline. I wonder if the diner experiment is having any effect on that. The 82% increase in Palmetto ridership is, I think, an artifact of their using the train as a Northest Regional from Washington to New York.

I wish the table also showed ticket revenues broken down for each of these services so that one could examine the relation between ridership and ticket revenues. The decline in ridership on many routes could be considered a bit disturbing if it continues, as it could be argued that passenger rail is not doing as well as it should be doing to justify its inclusion as a publicly supported transportation mode. Financial stability is a means to an end. The end is keeping passenger rail as a viable alternative to other transportation modes. Even if a rail service is highly profitable, if it doesn't maximize the number of cars kept off the roads or reduce short-hop airline flights, it's not reaching its full potential.

The Pacific Surfliner was hit with multi months of no weekend service this year. This was all due to track upgrades and bridge replacement work it probably could have passed the 3million mark.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I wish the table also showed ticket revenues broken down for each of these services so that one could examine the relation between ridership and ticket revenues.

https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/515/889/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-September-2016-Preliminary-Unaudited.pdf

Seek and ye shall find. Thank you.

A lot of interesting stuff. Look at page A-3.5. Silver Star(vation) sleeper ridership up 7.5%, but ticket revenues down 11.9% (was almost a million dollars out of 7-8 million total revenue). I wonder how much they saved not having the diner. Silver Meteor sleeper ridership was down 3.7%, revenue was down 3.1% (about $300K out of 11-12 million total revenue). Hmmm.

In FY16, the "Total Costs excl. OPEB's, PRJ, APT Asset Allocation and IG Costs" for the SS was $63.1 million (page C-1). In FY15 (page C-2), the same number was $77.0 million or $13.9 million more (page C-3). If cutting costs by $13.9M causes revenue to drop $3.7M (total revenue), it sounds good to me.

 

[west point]

There will be from year to year various disruptions due to weather, track upgrades, wrecks, etc. There will be and has been routes that suffer from disruptions different years. That said the trend is up slightly except for a couple years. Note how train miles were fairly even with 2015.

Let us take overall ridership and revenue growth. Then compare each ridership growth or decline with revenue. There are definitely some routes ridership growth zero or = but revenue growth. That would denote riders going longer distances, That is this poster's heartburn over using only ridership. Average revenue passenger miles (RPMs) changes would denote how train route is performing. RPMs are only given for the system and not each route or train. Bad accounting to the public.

 

[WoodyinNYC]

Let us take overall ridership and revenue growth. Then compare each ridership growth or decline with revenue. There are definitely some routes ridership growth zero or = but revenue growth. That would denote riders going longer distances. . . .

I've always figured that when revenue growth outpaces ridership, it was simply due to higher ticket prices -- where the traffic would bear it. LD trains like the Empire Builder carry 300,000 or so riders. Some corridor trains carry about a million. When the average ticket price goes up by a couple of dollars, or more, the effect on the bottom line can be dramatic.

Yes, longer-distance trips are also good for revenue. The most famous case hereabouts is how the Lynchburger pulled short distance riders (Charlottesville/Lynchburg-D.C.) riders off the Crescent, opening seats for longer distance passengers (Atlanta/Charlotte-D.C.).

Of course, added capacity adds riders and revenue. When the Stimulus paid for 90 or so wreck cars to be rehabbed and restored to work, the good effect was widespread.

Next year most of the Stimulus-paid rebuilding projects will kick in: the upgrades on the Cascades Seattle-Portland, the 110-mph stretches on the Lincoln Service and Wolverines routes, faster Piedmonts, new signals and a massive bottleneck removed around Albany -- affecting at least 6 trains, and then the next year the much faster New Haven-Hartford segment will open cutting time for the Vermonter and the Shuttles. Most of these projects will see more frequencies, more cars or more seats-per-car, and faster timetables -- "about an hour" out of St Louis-Chicago, for example. I promise that ticket prices will rise, because after all, the faster product is worth more. So ridership will soar, and revenue could soar more! But I couldn't begin to sort out the various factors at play.

 

[Just-Thinking-51]

New Haven - Hartford - Springfield Shuttles are to be replaced with State Of Connecticut trains. More service yes, but not sure you can go to Amtrak.com to buy tickets. (Think Shoreline Service). You may only have the Vermonter with limited stops left.

 

[west point]

Missed one important metric that will really give us an idea of how a route is doing and improving ( or losing ). Others have proposed that the ultimate measure is Revenue passenger miles per train mile. Would go further and say RPM per train mile for each leg of a train's operation. Even Amtrak's out of date computer system should give us a graph each month that would show each leg and ultimate amount. Compare that month's values with several past years. But will Amtrak ever disclose ? Probably not unless congress demands.

 

[Eric S]

New Haven - Hartford - Springfield Shuttles are to be replaced with State Of Connecticut trains. More service yes, but not sure you can go to Amtrak.com to buy tickets. (Think Shoreline Service). You may only have the Vermonter with limited stops left.

Replaced? Are you sure about that? It was my understanding that they were to be augmented by Hartford Line commuter trains, not replaced by them.

 

[daybeers]

New Haven - Hartford - Springfield Shuttles are to be replaced with State Of Connecticut trains. More service yes, but not sure you can go to Amtrak.com to buy tickets. (Think Shoreline Service). You may only have the Vermonter with limited stops left.

Replaced? Are you sure about that? It was my understanding that they were to be augmented by Hartford Line commuter trains, not replaced by them.

Yes, the plan so far is for the Hartford Line trains to augment the Amtrak Shuttles. Also, some Regionals go to Springfield from both WAS and Virginia.

 

[jis]

New Haven - Hartford - Springfield Shuttles are to be replaced with State Of Connecticut trains. More service yes, but not sure you can go to Amtrak.com to buy tickets. (Think Shoreline Service). You may only have the Vermonter with limited stops left.

Replaced? Are you sure about that? It was my understanding that they were to be augmented by Hartford Line commuter trains, not replaced by them.

Correct, supplemented, not replaced. Similar to ConnDOT service between New Haven and New London.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Missed one important metric that will really give us an idea of how a route is doing and improving ( or losing ). Others have proposed that the ultimate measure is Revenue passenger miles per train mile.

More discussion of PM/TM: http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/66476-passenger-miles-per-train-mile-metric/

I would say there needs to be some middle ground metric. The Empire Builder has the highest ridership of any LD train and the highest revenue of any LD train other than the Auto Train. But it's also about twice as long as many of the other LD routes and costs way more (only the California Zephyr cost more to run during FY 2016). The FRA uses the stat and it was the main criteria to determine which routes were cut in 1979.

Would go further and say RPM per train mile for each leg of a train's operation. Even Amtrak's out of date computer system should give us a graph each month that would show each leg and ultimate amount. Compare that month's values with several past years. But will Amtrak ever disclose ? Probably not unless congress demands.

You're assuming Congress wants us to know. The more data out there allows armchair quarterbacks like me to compare routes and if we ever see Amtrak cuts again to say Train X should go over Train Y. I'd believe Congress (or at least certain members) would prefer we don't know so when one of them wants to protect their route and someone else's has to be cut instead there isn't a ton of public data that make them look bad.

I don't know if that report I found back in 1979 was ever meant to be disclosed to the public and back in 1979 there wasn't the internet of 2016 at least. Could you imagine the anger back in the late 70's/early 80's if people lost their train and then hear a less "successful" train got saved instead? Do you think it's a coincidence the last two significant route cuts (mid 90's, mid 2000's) there was no report to Congress (or I haven't found them yet) to justify which routes were cut and which weren't? You think I'm a pain in the butt now, could you imagine what kind of a stink I would've made if I were on this board back in 2004?

 

[jis]

You provide that kind of granular data readily to Congress and there will be further micro management advising Amtrak on discontinuing little segments of LD trains thus completely gutting the LD network. Be very careful what you wish for and its unintended consequences. The data that you want to use for your own Monday morning quarterbacking is much more dangerous in the hands of people who have actual power to make their Monday morning quarterbacking to actually force changes that would be undesirable.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

You provide that kind of granular data readily to Congress and there will be further micro management advising Amtrak on discontinuing little segments of LD trains thus completely gutting the LD network. Be very careful what you wish for and its unintended consequences. The data that you want to use for your own Monday morning quarterbacking is much more dangerous in the hands of people who have actual power to make their Monday morning quarterbacking to actually force changes that would be undesirable.

Did the 1979 cuts spell the end of the LD network? How about the mid 90's or mid 2000's? Just because one or two LD routes get cancelled doesn't mean the whole system is going away. I think you and others are afraid a certain train will be the one canceled and to you that's the end of the world. I wasn't here on this board when the Three Rivers got canned. Were you all saying it's the end of the LD system as we know it? Did you even care the TR got cut?

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

The other assumption I think you're making is that this data would be used to determine where to cut service. What if this data is used to increase service? What if Congress/Amtrak figure out say 22,386 passengers transfer between the CL and Pennsylvanian (Blue Ribbon Report, October 2015: https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/873/180/Chicago-Gateway-Amtrak-Blue-Ribbon-Panel-Final-Report.pdf)and eventually the through cars get put through? The data in theory could be used both ways although the skeptic and past history can certainly make you believe it will be used against Amtrak and not for them.

 

[jis]

LOL! Did you maybe miss the recent election?

 

[Carolina Special]

The detailed data may be useful to Amtrak's competitors, meaning the bus lines and airlines. There are potentially valid reasons for keeping it private.

Admittedly it could make management look bad, which is a less valid reason.

 

[neroden]

LOL! Did you maybe miss the recent election?

What, the election where Democrats won seats in both the House and Senate? That one?

OK, this should actually be split off into its own thread, but I sat down and read the 10-page "white paper" from Trump's website which lays out Trump's tax-breaks-for-private-infrastructure plan:

http://peternavarro.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/infrastructurereport.pdf

Context: http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2016/11/16/13628382/donald-trump-infrastructure-plan

Here's the thing about this. There is only one type of transportation infrastructure which can actually pencil out profitably for investors, even with this tax break. It's not roads. It's not air travel. It's railroads. This might actually enable Texas Central to finance its railway, and it might enable Amtrak to get private funding for its upgrade projects, and so forth.

This election was a much more mixed bag than most people think.

 

[jis]

But not as far as what happens with federal funding is concerned. it is going to be a tough slog. I am really trying to stay away from the other broader issues in this Amtrak thread, but just figuring out how to keep the lights on at Amtrak LD through at least the first two years. In all likelihood Nathaniel you and I probably agree a lot on the broader picture and longer term, but my concern is the immediate future of federal funding.

 

[west point]

Actually the data is available from the FRA but on a quarter basis. latest is the second quarter 2016 Table 5 of this link

http://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L18308#p1_z25_gD_lRO_y2016

 

[neroden]

I'm actually betting we'll see another Continuing Resolution for 2018. The odds of this arguing gang passing a budget are low.