Amtrak: Operating Deficit, Government Operation, etc.

David Benton wrote:By 2022, I think the question will be the ratio of Acela type equipment to regional type equipment. If Acela 2 is successful , I can't see why they wouldn't buy more of them, over more Amfleet replacements. One reason I can see , what to do with the ASC64's they have just brought , but a lashup between the 64's and a Acela type car would be possible.

They'll still be using the 64s on Long Distance and Regional trains the stray off the corridor - to Virginia, Vermont, Maine, Upstate NY, and to Harrisburg. The only reduction to Regional trains i see will be to those that don't stray away from the electric catenaries, and there aren't that many left anymore. Just check the NEC train schedules......
Limiting the trains to just weekdays and Southbound (Westbound Empire) to keep the list shorter.....Here's how I read it..........
67 extends to Newport News
151
111
*89 extends to Savanah
183
641 extends to Harrisburg
79 extends to Charolette
185
643 extends to Harrisburg
141 extends to Springfield
95 extends to Newport News
43 extends to Pittsburgh
*91 extends to Miami
125 extends to Norfolk
645 extends to Harrisburg
171 extends to Roanoke
609 extends to Harrisburg
133 Fr only
647 extends to Harrisburg
649 extends to Harrisburg
*19 extends to New Orleans
85 extends to Richmond
*97 extends to Miami
173
651 extends to Harrisburg
127
129
653 extends to Harrisburg
193
137
655 extends to Harrisburg
55 extends to Vermont
175
187
177
639 extends to Harrisburg
Empire Services
*49 extends to Chicago
63 extends to Toronto
69 extends to Montreal
291 extends to Vermont
233 extends to Albany
235 extends to Albany
255 Fr only, extends to Albany
281 extends to Niagara Falls
283 extends to Niagara Falls

Remember, this exercise only sums up trains running in just one direction......
Total non-Acela trains = 45
Long Distance trains = 5 (11%)
Trains extended beyond electric catenary = 33 (73.3%)
Trains running only under electric catenary = 12 (26.6%)
It's those 12 trains that run only under the electric catenary are the trains the new Acela train sets will probably make redundant. There will still be many trains that Amtrak will need to run those 64s on - like 73% of the existing non-Acela trains running on the corridor. .

Wow!!! This thread has really taken some twists and turns here... I am reminded of a glide path Amtrak once promoted.

Additional OPERATING revenue for necessary expansions as Acela II's are launched, replacement of the Amfleets, train sets that can contract and expand with demand but still be able to fit in the same size service "car barns," enough Acela II's running every half hour on the southern section and every hour on the northern section, the potential that NEC operations could even leverage a 5% fare discount, etc. Generating enough OPERATING revenue to service the debt and still yield a break even scenario..... Sounds good!

But be sure to keep a piggy bank for the CAPITAL cost requirements.

When the house of cards comes to a halt because Amtrak has NOT equally addressed the CAPITAL COST requirements of the infrastructure these trains run on (eg the crumbling NEC) what happens to the OPERATING revenue then? The NEC infrastructure is only going to endure more stress as additional trains and increased frequencies pound away at the rail bed. I take heed of David Gunn's comments too. Moreover, a successful launch of the Acela - delayed as it was - hinged on infrastructure improvements - some of which were never done. Are we heading for round 2 with Acela II, or how can this be mitigated, knowing capital improvements take years to complete?

The NEC requires a lot of capital so trains can currently operate on it, and it will only require more in the future, especially with increased frequencies and more cars pounding along on the rails to add even more stress to a stressed out system.

What's my point? Be careful with break even analysis and deficits going away. True, they may be operating deficits, but be sure to understand any operating benefits with capital cost requirements on the larger picture.

jp1822 wrote:What's my point? Be careful with break even analysis and deficits going away. True, they may be operating deficits, but be sure to understand any operating benefits with capital cost requirements on the larger picture.

Amtrak's operating budget and capital expenditures are two separate line items in the Congressional appropriation. Amtrak has no requirement (or ability) at the moment to self-fund capital upgrades to physical plant. They are in essence now funding capital upgrades to rolling stock (a fact which should not be looked upon lightly).

Consequently there is no linkage between improved operating results and requirements for capital upgrades (especially those to physical plant). For the time being I would expect this approach to continue. The things that could change all of this would be additional high speed service that captures market share and enhances Amtrak's revenues. For the moment the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project would appear to be the most likely candidate but that is still several decades away from initiation of service.

gokeefe wrote:

jp1822 wrote:What's my point? Be careful with break even analysis and deficits going away. True, they may be operating deficits, but be sure to understand any operating benefits with capital cost requirements on the larger picture.

Amtrak's operating budget and capital expenditures are two separate line items in the Congressional appropriation. Amtrak has no requirement (or ability) at the moment to self-fund capital upgrades to physical plant. They are in essence now funding capital upgrades to rolling stock (a fact which should not be looked upon lightly).

Consequently there is no linkage between improved operating results and requirements for capital upgrades (especially those to physical plant). For the time being I would expect this approach to continue. The things that could change all of this would be additional high speed service that captures market share and enhances Amtrak's revenues. For the moment the Southeast High Speed Rail (SEHSR) project would appear to be the most likely candidate but that is still several decades away from initiation of service.

Be careul... There is a linkage between improved operating results and good infrastructure, which is funded by capital monies. Amtrak has an indirect (if not direct) responsibility on both (e.g. can't cast a blind eye). Acela II's have to be designed (and financial models built) based on a lackluster infrastructure to which they will operate on. Well aware of how Amtrak is funded and also how the Amfleet Refresh is being funded.

It’s more likely that some in Congress tie Amtrak’s operational and capital expenditure budgets together and underfund both, whether out of duty to the free market or to airline & bus interests. I’m not too sanguine about Amtrak’s odds in this Congress even with its record profits, especially since there are only so many hills a pro-transit representative can figuratively die upon.

All public roadway are owned by federal, state or local government. Many bus services are in that condition as well. Most airports - same thing. Some airlines even get subsidies. All of this infrastructure is paid for by taxpayers whether they use it or not.
The only rail infrastructure paid for by taxpayers is Amtrak owned or defense related. All the freight railroads own the tracks but have to pay taxes on the infrastructure. All rail passenger service is government owned except tourist lines.
So should we privatize every road and airport to minimize government or should we embrace rail passenger service?
Personally I hate to drive more than 2 hours and do not fly. I have no problem with paying for transportation infrastructure.
All political parties should support rail passenger service.

What I've seen from "libertarians":
1) They complain that public money is supporting it.
2) They complain when service to their town is discontinued....

D Alex wrote:What I've seen from "libertarians":
1) They complain that public money is supporting it.
2) They complain when service to their town is discontinued....

Not everyone who claims to be a libertarian is.

R&DB wrote:All public roadway are owned by federal, state or local government. Many bus services are in that condition as well. Most airports - same thing. Some airlines even get subsidies. All of this infrastructure is paid for by taxpayers whether they use it or not.
The only rail infrastructure paid for by taxpayers is Amtrak owned or defense related. All the freight railroads own the tracks but have to pay taxes on the infrastructure. All rail passenger service is government owned except tourist lines.
So should we privatize every road and airport to minimize government or should we embrace rail passenger service?
We should privatize every road and airport, yes. Not to "minimize government" but to make sure that the transportation infrastructure pleases customer. Otherwise you have a transportation infrastructure that pleases politicians, and politicians are easily purchased by the builders of transportation infrastructure.

Personally I hate to drive more than 2 hours and do not fly. I have no problem with paying for transportation infrastructure.

I think you meant to say "I have no problem with forcing people to pay for my transportation."

RussNelson wrote:

D Alex wrote:What I've seen from "libertarians":
1) They complain that public money is supporting it.
2) They complain when service to their town is discontinued....

Not everyone who claims to be a libertarian is.

Well, there are those who are, and there are those who claim to be....when it suits them.

Full disclosure, I kinda flirted with being a libertarian in my 20s.

Libertarians and rail have a catch-22.

Libertarians think that rail should pay it's own way. Ok, let's work with that. Hong Kong's system makes a profit because they lease the areas around their stations and that's where the 'big bucks' come from. The transit system is treated like any other industry's "loss leader" - something to get the people into "the store" to buy other stuff.

BUT - if you did that, Libertarians would demand that the government-run transit system sell off the real estate holdings, making it IMPOSSIBLE for the transit system to turn a profit.

there is no way to have a good mainline passenger rail system without govt controlling it and the freight lines; the only place railroads could be private is with shortlines.

Thank you all for your participation, after consultation with Jeff Smith and Andrew, this thread is now permanently closed.

.…..this presentation at the Cato Institute.

https://www.cato.org/events/romance-rai ... on-we-need" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here is a synopsis:

Romance of the Rails: Why the Passenger Trains We Love Are Not the Transportation We Need

Book Forum

October 10, 2018
11:30AM to 1:30PM EDT

Hayek Auditorium, Cato Institute

Featuring the author Randal O’Toole, Senior Fellow, Cato Institute; with comments by Art Guzzetti, Vice President of Policy, American Public Transportation Association; Jim Mathews, President, Rail Passengers Association; and Marc Scribner, Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Institute; moderated by Jason Kuznicki, Editor, Cato Institute.

Like many Americans, Randal O’Toole loves passenger trains, yet he acknowledges that intercity passenger trains and — outside of the New York region — urban rail transit play little role in American life today. The replacement of passenger trains with cars, buses, and airplanes is similar to many other recent technological replacements: word processors replacing typewriters, calculators replacing slide rules, telephones replacing telegraphs, and cell phones replacing land lines. However, only for passenger trains has the government spent billions of dollars a year attempting to turn back the clock and slow that replacement. O’Toole’s book Romance of the Rails asks why this is so and whether passenger rail has a significant role to play in the future. Art Guzzetti, an advocate for urban rail transit; Jim Mathews, an advocate for intercity passenger trains; and Marc Scribner, an advocate for free-market transportation, will offer their comments on the book. …

The panel discussion runs for an hour and a half. I watched the first twenty minutes. While some might expect any presentation by the Cato Institute to be a passenger train "bashing", this appears to be otherwise.

More time, I'll watch more of it.

If Randall O'Toole "loves passenger trains," how come he's opposed every passenger train effort -- from transit to LD -- ever presented in the past 30 years or so? Strange sort of love.