Losses Lowest Since 1975

[cirdan]

I must categorically disagree with this. By this standard, adding a large number of low-ridership trains would improve Amtrak's performance...even if those trains consumed hundreds of millions of dollars in added subsidies. I can definitely see arguments for looking at things on the basis of losses per passenger (or losses per passenger-mile), but ridership alone is a dubious metric for the fact that it encourages running any train as long as you might have a few spare cars sitting around.

Edit: To put this another way, Amtrak should simply run corridors at full frequencies 24/7 even if trains running at the off hours or on weekends are only picking up a few passengers.

I can see what you're saying, but it isn't always that black on white.

Passengers on a loss-making train may be continuing their journey on a more profitable train. Sometimes a second (or third, or forth etc) train per day may make a round trip or day trip possible that wouldn't be possible if there was only one train. So a loss in one part of the system may be enabling a profit in another part.

 

[Anderson]

I must categorically disagree with this. By this standard, adding a large number of low-ridership trains would improve Amtrak's performance...even if those trains consumed hundreds of millions of dollars in added subsidies. I can definitely see arguments for looking at things on the basis of losses per passenger (or losses per passenger-mile), but ridership alone is a dubious metric for the fact that it encourages running any train as long as you might have a few spare cars sitting around.

Edit: To put this another way, Amtrak should simply run corridors at full frequencies 24/7 even if trains running at the off hours or on weekends are only picking up a few passengers.

I can see what you're saying, but it isn't always that black on white.

Passengers on a loss-making train may be continuing their journey on a more profitable train. Sometimes a second (or third, or forth etc) train per day may make a round trip or day trip possible that wouldn't be possible if there was only one train. So a loss in one part of the system may be enabling a profit in another part.

Oh, I understand that, and I'm familiar with the idea of loss leaders. My issue was more with indiscriminately doing so, just running trains because there was unused equipment at a given time regardless of demand or connections. That's what solely using ridership as a metric of success would likely lead to, I suspect. For example, there's probably a market for another few trains into VA per day...but if you extend the 2:25 AM weekend arrival in WAS down to RVR (and only to RVR because of turning schedules)? Probably not going to add too many riders with a 4:35 AM SB arrival.*

*And this is actually what I mean by indiscriminate. Extending that into Hampton Roads, with a roughly 7 AM arrival, and then turning the train for a mid-morning return might make sense and serve a market. It might even allow exchanging crews with the existing Norfolk trains, depending on the setup and timing. Even the Richmond option might make sense if you needed to pull an equipment move into RVR for one of the morning frequencies and the cost of deadheading the train in is close enough to the cost of just operating the train as a revenue mov. But if you just "run the train to run the train" and stuff equipment into use somewhere because it's sitting around for a few hours too long, you're going to have issues.

 

[Nathanael]

Oh, ridership by itself shouldn't be the *only* metric used, but I think it's the best starting point. My next metric would be load factor.