Pennsylvanian may end

[AmtrakBlue]

I always assumed that the "Main Line" was the Philadelphia suburbs as far west as maybe PAR, LNC or at a stretch, HAR.

Nope, "Main Line" refers to the railroad all the way to PGH.

Interesting. It might be a difference with the railroad, as I know the locals in the area only consider the Main Line the suburb towns of Philadelphia..

At least that's what I came across here. But that's cleared up now.

One of the other reasons I wouldn't imagine anything happens to Keystone is that a lot of politicians use it It really is a very convenient way to travel between Harrisburg and Philadelphia.

Two different Main Lines. They're talking about a main line of railroad tracks, not "the Main Line" in Philly.

 

[Barciur]

I see. Misunderstanding. Thanks for your clarifications, especially fairviewroad's.

 

[henryj]

Its better that I, as a PA taxpayer, be forced to chip in $45/$66 for each of their tickets?
Unlike with the Feds, PA has to have a balanced budget. So, every penny spent, has to come from the taxpayers. Is there $45/$66 of "value" to the PA taxpayer for each passenger on the Pennsylvanian traveling west of Harrisburg? The answer to that, is the answer to if PennDOT should pick up the cost.

Where does $45 or $66 dollars per passenger come from? According to the September 2012 monthly report, the Pennsylvanian had 212,006 passengers in FY12. The total loss before OPEBs ($0.3 million) and Capital Charge (n/a) was $5.6 million. If Penn DOT were to provide $5.6 million as a placeholder amount, that works out to $26.44 per passenger. I have not followed Pennsylvanian ticket prices, but Amtrak appears to have increased the average price or more riders are paying higher bucket prices due to increased ridership. Despite Hurricane Sandy, ridership on the train was up +4.0% and ticket revenue up +12.3% for the first 2 months of the fiscal year (Nov 2012 monthly report).

If the subsidy was $20 per passenger would that be ok? That is a small subsidy compared to the non-toll roads in PA.

As for the budget concerns, Gov. Corbett is proposing to lift the obsolete $1.25 per gallon wholesale tax base limit which would bring in a projected $1.9 billion in badly needed annual revenue for state transportation funding. If the state legislature passes a bill to do that, $5 million or so for keeping the Pennsylvanian running is a tiny portion of $1.9 billion. Maybe there could be some small funding for upgrades to the Harrisburg to Pittsburgh corridor to improve trip times along with funds for eastern Kesytone projects.

Once again, I do not believe Amtrak's numbers for this train. The 195 miles from NY to Harrisburg is already occupied by the NEC trains and Pennsylvania's Keystone service with dozens of trains a day. So the only 'overhead' pertaining to this train is the remaining 249 miles between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. Only two of those stations are manned besides Pittsburgh and it is shared with the Capitol. So I do not believe that this train loses 5.9 million dollars a year. If the state of PA wants to pay Amtrak 5.9 million to run the train that is their business. Otherwise they should take bids from outsiders to run it. Amtrak is just gouging them.

 

[jis]

Once again, I do not believe Amtrak's numbers for this train. The 195 miles from NY to Harrisburg is already occupied by the NEC trains and Pennsylvania's Keystone service with dozens of trains a day. So the only 'overhead' pertaining to this train is the remaining 249 miles between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. Only two of those stations are manned besides Pittsburgh and it is shared with the Capitol. So I do not believe that this train loses 5.9 million dollars a year. If the state of PA wants to pay Amtrak 5.9 million to run the train that is their business. Otherwise they should take bids from outsiders to run it. Amtrak is just gouging them.

While Amtrak may or may not be gouging them, Pennsylvania is among the states that has signed on to the formula that is to be used to compute these numbers. So it is not like they did not agree to it already. It is just that they do not think it is necessary to run the train if it costs that much.
Of course trying to run that train using an alternate operator is unlikely to come that cheap either specially if they want to run it to Philly and not just terminate it at Harrisburg. And then they will have to figure out where to maintain the consist, after of course they have managed to acquire the necessary equipment. PA does not own any of the equipment that is used in Amtrak PA service. So there are several practical hurdles to cross before PA can go off on its own. There is nothing that they can do other than pay Amtrak according to the formula they already signed on to, to continue the service at present without interruption.

 

[Paulus]

Its better that I, as a PA taxpayer, be forced to chip in $45/$66 for each of their tickets?
Unlike with the Feds, PA has to have a balanced budget. So, every penny spent, has to come from the taxpayers. Is there $45/$66 of "value" to the PA taxpayer for each passenger on the Pennsylvanian traveling west of Harrisburg? The answer to that, is the answer to if PennDOT should pick up the cost.

Where does $45 or $66 dollars per passenger come from? According to the September 2012 monthly report, the Pennsylvanian had 212,006 passengers in FY12. The total loss before OPEBs ($0.3 million) and Capital Charge (n/a) was $5.6 million. If Penn DOT were to provide $5.6 million as a placeholder amount, that works out to $26.44 per passenger. I have not followed Pennsylvanian ticket prices, but Amtrak appears to have increased the average price or more riders are paying higher bucket prices due to increased ridership. Despite Hurricane Sandy, ridership on the train was up +4.0% and ticket revenue up +12.3% for the first 2 months of the fiscal year (Nov 2012 monthly report).

If the subsidy was $20 per passenger would that be ok? That is a small subsidy compared to the non-toll roads in PA.

As for the budget concerns, Gov. Corbett is proposing to lift the obsolete $1.25 per gallon wholesale tax base limit which would bring in a projected $1.9 billion in badly needed annual revenue for state transportation funding. If the state legislature passes a bill to do that, $5 million or so for keeping the Pennsylvanian running is a tiny portion of $1.9 billion. Maybe there could be some small funding for upgrades to the Harrisburg to Pittsburgh corridor to improve trip times along with funds for eastern Kesytone projects.

Once again, I do not believe Amtrak's numbers for this train. The 195 miles from NY to Harrisburg is already occupied by the NEC trains and Pennsylvania's Keystone service with dozens of trains a day. So the only 'overhead' pertaining to this train is the remaining 249 miles between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. Only two of those stations are manned besides Pittsburgh and it is shared with the Capitol. So I do not believe that this train loses 5.9 million dollars a year. If the state of PA wants to pay Amtrak 5.9 million to run the train that is their business. Otherwise they should take bids from outsiders to run it. Amtrak is just gouging them.

Overhead costs really don't appear to be a factor, it averages out to about $47 per train-mile (a percentage of which is F&B) which is a rather reasonable figure for direct costs. Quite frankly, overhead seems to be the Freemasonry of rail fans; always blamed, rarely actually at fault.

 

[PRR 60]

Once again, I do not believe Amtrak's numbers for this train. The 195 miles from NY to Harrisburg is already occupied by the NEC trains and Pennsylvania's Keystone service with dozens of trains a day. So the only 'overhead' pertaining to this train is the remaining 249 miles between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. Only two of those stations are manned besides Pittsburgh and it is shared with the Capitol. So I do not believe that this train loses 5.9 million dollars a year. If the state of PA wants to pay Amtrak 5.9 million to run the train that is their business. Otherwise they should take bids from outsiders to run it. Amtrak is just gouging them.

While Amtrak may or may not be gouging them, Pennsylvania is among the states that has signed on to the formula that is to be used to compute these numbers. So it is not like they did not agree to it already. It is just that they do not think it is necessary to run the train if it costs that much.
Of course trying to run that train using an alternate operator is unlikely to come that cheap either specially if they want to run it to Philly and not just terminate it at Harrisburg. And then they will have to figure out where to maintain the consist, after of course they have managed to acquire the necessary equipment. PA does not own any of the equipment that is used in Amtrak PA service. So there are several practical hurdles to cross before PA can go off on its own. There is nothing that they can do other than pay Amtrak according to the formula they already signed on to, to continue the service at present without interruption.

By "signed on to" do you mean that states agreed to a specific cost allocation, or that Congress imposed that on them? Even assuming that the formula is acceptable, are you saying that Amtrak inputs into that formula are not to be questioned?

 

[henryj]

Its better that I, as a PA taxpayer, be forced to chip in $45/$66 for each of their tickets?
Unlike with the Feds, PA has to have a balanced budget. So, every penny spent, has to come from the taxpayers. Is there $45/$66 of "value" to the PA taxpayer for each passenger on the Pennsylvanian traveling west of Harrisburg? The answer to that, is the answer to if PennDOT should pick up the cost.

Where does $45 or $66 dollars per passenger come from? According to the September 2012 monthly report, the Pennsylvanian had 212,006 passengers in FY12. The total loss before OPEBs ($0.3 million) and Capital Charge (n/a) was $5.6 million. If Penn DOT were to provide $5.6 million as a placeholder amount, that works out to $26.44 per passenger. I have not followed Pennsylvanian ticket prices, but Amtrak appears to have increased the average price or more riders are paying higher bucket prices due to increased ridership. Despite Hurricane Sandy, ridership on the train was up +4.0% and ticket revenue up +12.3% for the first 2 months of the fiscal year (Nov 2012 monthly report).

If the subsidy was $20 per passenger would that be ok? That is a small subsidy compared to the non-toll roads in PA.

As for the budget concerns, Gov. Corbett is proposing to lift the obsolete $1.25 per gallon wholesale tax base limit which would bring in a projected $1.9 billion in badly needed annual revenue for state transportation funding. If the state legislature passes a bill to do that, $5 million or so for keeping the Pennsylvanian running is a tiny portion of $1.9 billion. Maybe there could be some small funding for upgrades to the Harrisburg to Pittsburgh corridor to improve trip times along with funds for eastern Kesytone projects.

Once again, I do not believe Amtrak's numbers for this train. The 195 miles from NY to Harrisburg is already occupied by the NEC trains and Pennsylvania's Keystone service with dozens of trains a day. So the only 'overhead' pertaining to this train is the remaining 249 miles between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. Only two of those stations are manned besides Pittsburgh and it is shared with the Capitol. So I do not believe that this train loses 5.9 million dollars a year. If the state of PA wants to pay Amtrak 5.9 million to run the train that is their business. Otherwise they should take bids from outsiders to run it. Amtrak is just gouging them.

Overhead costs really don't appear to be a factor, it averages out to about $47 per train-mile (a percentage of which is F&B) which is a rather reasonable figure for direct costs. Quite frankly, overhead seems to be the Freemasonry of rail fans; always blamed, rarely actually at fault.

$47 per train mile is actually very high for a little 5 or 6 car train with no sleeper or dining service. $26 per train mile would be more in the ball park for operating costs. And Amtrak is running other coach only trains of about the same size that lose very little, break even or even show an operating profit. So you have to wonder what is wrong with this one. The state of PA might save money they give to Amtrak by stopping this train, but Amtrak will actually be a loser overall as I doubt they can save anything by dropping it.

 

[Ryan]

It's all the fault of the bloated overhead. Get rid of management, the website, ticketing systems, all those expensive iPhones, Customer service reps and the train will make money hand over fist.

 

[Paulus]

Its better that I, as a PA taxpayer, be forced to chip in $45/$66 for each of their tickets?
Unlike with the Feds, PA has to have a balanced budget. So, every penny spent, has to come from the taxpayers. Is there $45/$66 of "value" to the PA taxpayer for each passenger on the Pennsylvanian traveling west of Harrisburg? The answer to that, is the answer to if PennDOT should pick up the cost.

Where does $45 or $66 dollars per passenger come from? According to the September 2012 monthly report, the Pennsylvanian had 212,006 passengers in FY12. The total loss before OPEBs ($0.3 million) and Capital Charge (n/a) was $5.6 million. If Penn DOT were to provide $5.6 million as a placeholder amount, that works out to $26.44 per passenger. I have not followed Pennsylvanian ticket prices, but Amtrak appears to have increased the average price or more riders are paying higher bucket prices due to increased ridership. Despite Hurricane Sandy, ridership on the train was up +4.0% and ticket revenue up +12.3% for the first 2 months of the fiscal year (Nov 2012 monthly report).

If the subsidy was $20 per passenger would that be ok? That is a small subsidy compared to the non-toll roads in PA.

As for the budget concerns, Gov. Corbett is proposing to lift the obsolete $1.25 per gallon wholesale tax base limit which would bring in a projected $1.9 billion in badly needed annual revenue for state transportation funding. If the state legislature passes a bill to do that, $5 million or so for keeping the Pennsylvanian running is a tiny portion of $1.9 billion. Maybe there could be some small funding for upgrades to the Harrisburg to Pittsburgh corridor to improve trip times along with funds for eastern Kesytone projects.

Once again, I do not believe Amtrak's numbers for this train. The 195 miles from NY to Harrisburg is already occupied by the NEC trains and Pennsylvania's Keystone service with dozens of trains a day. So the only 'overhead' pertaining to this train is the remaining 249 miles between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. Only two of those stations are manned besides Pittsburgh and it is shared with the Capitol. So I do not believe that this train loses 5.9 million dollars a year. If the state of PA wants to pay Amtrak 5.9 million to run the train that is their business. Otherwise they should take bids from outsiders to run it. Amtrak is just gouging them.

Overhead costs really don't appear to be a factor, it averages out to about $47 per train-mile (a percentage of which is F&B) which is a rather reasonable figure for direct costs. Quite frankly, overhead seems to be the Freemasonry of rail fans; always blamed, rarely actually at fault.

$47 per train mile is actually very high for a little 5 or 6 car train with no sleeper or dining service. $26 per train mile would be more in the ball park for operating costs. And Amtrak is running other coach only trains of about the same size that lose very little, break even or even show an operating profit. So you have to wonder what is wrong with this one. The state of PA might save money they give to Amtrak by stopping this train, but Amtrak will actually be a loser overall as I doubt they can save anything by dropping it.

I would dearly love to see your sources for claiming $26 per train-mile is more in the ballpark or a list of what those other Amtrak train services are; the only ones I'm aware of that break even or show an operating profit are the Regional and Virginia trains, both of which have higher ridership and fares (and for that matter, Lynchburg operates at $62.55 per train-mile). Presumably there is some grand conspiracy by not only Amtrak but all the commuter rail operations and foreign rail operators to hide their costs since $26 per train-mile is significantly lower than anybody else in the world.

Incidentally, whatever update turned all replies into WSYWIG is really irking me, is there a way for me to turn it off?

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

***? Why is Lynchburg so expensive! It was growing like crazy!

 

[Paulus]

***? Why is Lynchburg so expensive! It was growing like crazy!

It's cheaper than the Regionals or Acela; about as expensive as the Surfliner.

 

[Swadian Hardcore]

***? Why is Lynchburg so expensive! It was growing like crazy!

It's cheaper than the Regionals or Acela; about as expensive as the Surfliner.

Then I don't expect the Pennsy to run at $26.

 

[trainviews]

$47 per train mile is actually very high for a little 5 or 6 car train with no sleeper or dining service. $26 per train mile would be more in the ball park for operating costs. And Amtrak is running other coach only trains of about the same size that lose very little, break even or even show an operating profit. So you have to wonder what is wrong with this one. The state of PA might save money they give to Amtrak by stopping this train, but Amtrak will actually be a loser overall as I doubt they can save anything by dropping it.

And while there is a few exceptions, most others have operating ratios somewhere in the ballpark of 50 %...

The Pennsy being hooked up on the NEC indicates that it could or should do better as some of the other wellrunning trains (financially) are found here (Virginia services, Carolinian). But the reality is probably that the Pennsy with its' curvy alignment is too slow for that. Slow running times not only gives fewer passengers, it also drives up costs. An extra hour of running time is an extra hour of staff and an extra hour of equipment running - costs you really can't pass on to the passengers as they will go "hey I only got the xx miles from Pittsburgh to Harrisburg", referring to the parallel highway. I have not looked into the actual numbers, but I suspect a large part of the problem lies here: Too many miles and too slow running on them. This is an inherent problem to the route that will be very expensive to do anything about, and whoever ends up subsidising it should probably acknowledge that it's not a route that will be likely to turn a profit.

The Pennsys other problem is that the timing of it today is more or less maximized for connections with the Cap (even though they are not to great). and not for convenient service to the largest possible number of local passengers on the route. Amtrak has done this for network effect, and if I were Pennsylvania I would not pay for that. So either Amtrak has to retime the train which would probably give more passengers on the Pennsy, but fewer connecting to the Capitol Limited paying expensive long distance tickets, or Amtrak should foot part of the bill to keep that traffic.

And I guess it might end with the latter, maybe disguised as paying a part for through cars.

 

[jis]

Once again, I do not believe Amtrak's numbers for this train. The 195 miles from NY to Harrisburg is already occupied by the NEC trains and Pennsylvania's Keystone service with dozens of trains a day. So the only 'overhead' pertaining to this train is the remaining 249 miles between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh. Only two of those stations are manned besides Pittsburgh and it is shared with the Capitol. So I do not believe that this train loses 5.9 million dollars a year. If the state of PA wants to pay Amtrak 5.9 million to run the train that is their business. Otherwise they should take bids from outsiders to run it. Amtrak is just gouging them.

While Amtrak may or may not be gouging them, Pennsylvania is among the states that has signed on to the formula that is to be used to compute these numbers. So it is not like they did not agree to it already. It is just that they do not think it is necessary to run the train if it costs that much.
Of course trying to run that train using an alternate operator is unlikely to come that cheap either specially if they want to run it to Philly and not just terminate it at Harrisburg. And then they will have to figure out where to maintain the consist, after of course they have managed to acquire the necessary equipment. PA does not own any of the equipment that is used in Amtrak PA service. So there are several practical hurdles to cross before PA can go off on its own. There is nothing that they can do other than pay Amtrak according to the formula they already signed on to, to continue the service at present without interruption.

By "signed on to" do you mean that states agreed to a specific cost allocation, or that Congress imposed that on them? Even assuming that the formula is acceptable, are you saying that Amtrak inputs into that formula are not to be questioned?

Yes, the states have agreed to a specific cost allocation formula. Only Indiana in the group of states that have Amtrak service did not sign the agreement.
I am not (or at least did not intend to imply that I am ) saying anything about questioning or not. In fact I have my own qualms about some of the cost allocation stuff. All that I said is that the formula at present is a done deal. It of course could be reopened for negotiation but is unlikely in the short term, since it will probably require an act of Congress which is patently incapable of acting on anything these days.

 

[henryj]

The $47 number is Amtrak's cost which includes overhead. The $26 is direct cost only. Trains that come close to breaking even and certainly performing better cost to revenue wise than the Pennsylvanian include Maple Leaf, Hiawathas, Illinois Zephyr, Washington-Lynchburg, Washington-Newport News, Kansas City-St. Louis, Pere Marquette, Carolinian, and Piedmont to name a few. As for speed, the train only averages around 50mph NY to Harrisburg and 45mph Harrisburgh to Pittsburgh. I don't see anything wrong with the timing eastbound unless you want to leave a little later. Westbound it could leave NY earlier. It spends 25-30 minutes in Philly........why? It takes 15 min longer than an express Keystone to go from Philly to Harrisburg. Why? There are your slow schedule problems.

 

[Eric S]

Isn't the extended dwell time in PHL due to switching from electric to diesel locomotives? And slower run time PHL-HBG due to running with diesels rather than electrics?

 

[Paulus]

The $47 number is Amtrak's cost which includes overhead. The $26 is direct cost only. Trains that come close to breaking even and certainly performing better cost to revenue wise than the Pennsylvanian include Maple Leaf, Hiawathas, Illinois Zephyr, Washington-Lynchburg, Washington-Newport News, Kansas City-St. Louis, Pere Marquette, Carolinian, and Piedmont to name a few.

Again, I need you to provide a source for the $26 or it is nothing more than simply the say so of a random person on the internet. As for coming close to breaking even, the Pere Marqeutte has a farebox recovery of only 53.71%, Kansas City-St. Louis is 32.32%, Illinois Zephyr 32.32%, Hiawathas 58.91%, and Piedmont 42.74%. The Pennsylvanian's farebox recovery is 59.12% by contrast. Only the Virginia trains, NERegional, Acela, and Carolinian have farebox recovery levels above 90% and can be said to be close to breaking even (and of those, only the Carolinian does not). To be fair, this includes F&B expenses while excluding their revenue since Amtrak doesn't break them out, but that's a matter of only a few percentage points.

Source

 

[afigg]

The $47 number is Amtrak's cost which includes overhead. The $26 is direct cost only. Trains that come close to breaking even and certainly performing better cost to revenue wise than the Pennsylvanian include Maple Leaf, Hiawathas, Illinois Zephyr, Washington-Lynchburg, Washington-Newport News, Kansas City-St. Louis, Pere Marquette, Carolinian, and Piedmont to name a few. As for speed, the train only averages around 50mph NY to Harrisburg and 45mph Harrisburgh to Pittsburgh. I don't see anything wrong with the timing eastbound unless you want to leave a little later. Westbound it could leave NY earlier. It spends 25-30 minutes in Philly........why? It takes 15 min longer than an express Keystone to go from Philly to Harrisburg. Why? There are your slow schedule problems.

Doing a quick check, the Pere Marquette had a 54% ticket cost recovery in FY2012 for total costs before OPEBs compared 64% for the Pennsylvanian. If you are looking at the Route Performance table in Amtrak's monthly reports, the total revenue column include state subsidies. The Pere Marquette gets support from MI, the Pennsylvanian does not. Hence the issue with the Pennsylvanian.

The Carolinian is arguably the most similar service to the Pennsylvanian - once a day service, switches between electric and diesel and runs a fair number of miles beyond the NEC. The Carolinian has a better cost recovery, but it has the advantage of a number of city pairs off of the NEC with seat turnover in VA, at Raleigh, and the Piedmont corridor allowing for more ticket sales.

As noted, the schedule for the Pennsylvanian reflects the engine switch at 30th Street and slower acceleration of the diesel between PHL and HAR. Still, Amtrak did take padding out of the schedule for the east bound train in the most recent timetable.

 

[henryj]

Isn't the extended dwell time in PHL due to switching from electric to diesel locomotives? And slower run time PHL-HBG due to running with diesels rather than electrics?

Well I don't know but it's electric all the way to Harrisburg. It doesn't take 30 minutes to switch locomotives......ooh yeah, it's Amtrak. It's even slower NY to Philly. I assume it's just padding they built into the schedule.

 

[henryj]

The $47 number is Amtrak's cost which includes overhead. The $26 is direct cost only. Trains that come close to breaking even and certainly performing better cost to revenue wise than the Pennsylvanian include Maple Leaf, Hiawathas, Illinois Zephyr, Washington-Lynchburg, Washington-Newport News, Kansas City-St. Louis, Pere Marquette, Carolinian, and Piedmont to name a few.

Again, I need you to provide a source for the $26 or it is nothing more than simply the say so of a random person on the internet. As for coming close to breaking even, the Pere Marqeutte has a farebox recovery of only 53.71%, Kansas City-St. Louis is 32.32%, Illinois Zephyr 32.32%, Hiawathas 58.91%, and Piedmont 42.74%. The Pennsylvanian's farebox recovery is 59.12% by contrast. Only the Virginia trains, NERegional, Acela, and Carolinian have farebox recovery levels above 90% and can be said to be close to breaking even (and of those, only the Carolinian does not). To be fair, this includes F&B expenses while excluding their revenue since Amtrak doesn't break them out, but that's a matter of only a few percentage points.

Source

Paulus this has been discussed adnauseum on here. I just use Amtrak's own numbers that they publish in their PRIIA reports. They are in the 'ball park' and based on those the train should break even on direct operating costs recovery. You seem to have more information so you may be right. In comparing trains, I just used Amtrak's own performance reports. If Pennsylvania isn't paying anything toward running this train, then you have to wonder why all the other states have to pay. I think Amtrak just charges the states whatever they can get. They need it to support the NEC. Like I said, if this train is discontinued Amtrak won't save a penny in overhead. They will probably lose money. No one involved in 'overhead' will be laid off and the operating people will probably just be absorbed into other operations.

 

[Paulus]

The $47 number is Amtrak's cost which includes overhead. The $26 is direct cost only. Trains that come close to breaking even and certainly performing better cost to revenue wise than the Pennsylvanian include Maple Leaf, Hiawathas, Illinois Zephyr, Washington-Lynchburg, Washington-Newport News, Kansas City-St. Louis, Pere Marquette, Carolinian, and Piedmont to name a few.

Again, I need you to provide a source for the $26 or it is nothing more than simply the say so of a random person on the internet. As for coming close to breaking even, the Pere Marqeutte has a farebox recovery of only 53.71%, Kansas City-St. Louis is 32.32%, Illinois Zephyr 32.32%, Hiawathas 58.91%, and Piedmont 42.74%. The Pennsylvanian's farebox recovery is 59.12% by contrast. Only the Virginia trains, NERegional, Acela, and Carolinian have farebox recovery levels above 90% and can be said to be close to breaking even (and of those, only the Carolinian does not). To be fair, this includes F&B expenses while excluding their revenue since Amtrak doesn't break them out, but that's a matter of only a few percentage points.

Source

Paulus this has been discussed adnauseum on here. I just use Amtrak's own numbers that they publish in their PRIIA reports. They are in the 'ball park' and based on those the train should break even on direct operating costs recovery. You seem to have more information so you may be right. In comparing trains, I just used Amtrak's own performance reports. If Pennsylvania isn't paying anything toward running this train, then you have to wonder why all the other states have to pay. I think Amtrak just charges the states whatever they can get. They need it to support the NEC. Like I said, if this train is discontinued Amtrak won't save a penny in overhead. They will probably lose money. No one involved in 'overhead' will be laid off and the operating people will probably just be absorbed into other operations.

Amtrak estimated $13.7 million in direct allocated costs for a second frequency Pennsylvanian, or $42.27 per train-mile (toss in some inflation since then). That's in line with the avoidable costs per train-mile in this report.

And Pennsylvania will have to pay starting this year, that's the whole point of this thread, that they might not pick up the tab and so the train will be discontinued. Furthermore, there is an openly known formula for the charging of states, which was signed on to by the states, and which does not include overcharging in order to fund the NEC, which is perfectly capable of paying for itself.

 

[jis]

Isn't the extended dwell time in PHL due to switching from electric to diesel locomotives? And slower run time PHL-HBG due to running with diesels rather than electrics?

Well I don't know but it's electric all the way to Harrisburg. It doesn't take 30 minutes to switch locomotives......ooh yeah, it's Amtrak. It's even slower NY to Philly. I assume it's just padding they built into the schedule.

Pennsylvanian runs diesel from Philly to Pittsburgh, while the Keystones run electric between Philly and Harrisburg.
It's even slower than what in the New York to Philly segment? It takes about the same time that NE Regionals take for that run.

 

[henryj]

You can look up the PennDOT reports on funding here:

ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/Bureaus/PublicTransportation/GeneralInformation/Act44FundPresentation.pdf

The public transportation fund even gets money from the Turnpike Authority. Penn has the Keystone service to contend with as well as SEPTA in Philly and they even support intercity bus services. Amazing. So the Pennsylvanian is just a minor player here and it certainly doesn't alleviate any congestion on the Turnpike, in fact it probably costs PennDOT money in lost tolls and fuel taxes plus it has to pay for the train as well. The only benefit is the train runs through territory west of Harrisburg that does not have direct access to the Turnpike.

 

[henryj]

NEC, which is perfectly capable of paying for itself.

This statement is of course a joke as the NEC doesn't come even close to paying for itself. We all pay, all 50 states, for maintianing the NEC. Revenues only cover it's direct operating costs, at least according to Amtrak accounting. You have to wonder what Amtrak allocates in user fees to trains like the Pennsylvanian or the LD trains that use the corridor. Do they give those trains the same bargain basement rates they pay the freight railroads or do they just stick it to them? lol.

 

[Paulus]

NEC, which is perfectly capable of paying for itself.

This statement is of course a joke as the NEC doesn't come even close to paying for itself. We all pay, all 50 states, for maintianing the NEC. Revenues only cover it's direct operating costs, at least according to Amtrak accounting. You have to wonder what Amtrak allocates in user fees to trains like the Pennsylvanian or the LD trains that use the corridor. Do they give those trains the same bargain basement rates they pay the freight railroads or do they just stick it to them? lol.

The NEC does pay for itself however. What it doesn't pay for are upgrades and other major capital expenses, but state and Federal grants pay for that.