Government shutdown...

Yep, we shouldn't be surprised that the party whose patron saint believed that government is the problem would revel in the chance to "shut it down." They're all as happy as pigs in slop (right now), but karma can be a bitch.

Gerrymandering has basically created concentration camps around the country of birds of a feather who flock together. Too bad we can't end that practice somehow; it can't be what the founding fathers envisioned.

When does Amtrak run out of cash? Have they begun to conserve cash "behind the scenes"?

The press release says they can continue as usual for days or weeks. This should come to a head by mid-month when the debt payment is due.

Tadman wrote:Mod note: Be careful about your politics. The politics of the shutdown DO NOT concern Amtrak funding, so let's leave politics out of the discussion of Amtrak's operations during a shutdown.

Amen!

In the event the shutdown lasts longer than "short term":
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-10-0 ... tdown.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I agree with Thanksgiving just under two months away this could snowball into a big mess.

BenH wrote:

Suburban Station wrote:

R36 Combine Coach wrote:Would 403b routes (state-funded) less likely to feel effects of a long term shutdown?

403b is a dead law, I suppose they are 209 trains now. the more 209 funded trains exist the more stable amtrak would be without federal support. at most risk would be the money losing long hauls that don't even cover the cost of operation in the winter months (possibly excepting the florida trains.)

I'm not sure that I agree. I doubt that Amtrak will pick and choice which lines they will continue to operate when/if their cash on hand starts to run out. I would be surprised to see them shutdown certain routes in favor of others. This would be like the U.S. Park service closing some parks while keeping others open.

Of course I could be wrong.

We will know more if/when Amtrak releases their contingency plans for the federal government shutdown.

It's not favorites if they stack the trains based on profitability (or how much money they lose), and then cut from the bottom until the NEC is making just a bit more than the rest of the system is losing, making them about cash-neutral. That way they could provide as much service as possible while surviving the shutdown.

Mod note: political comment redacted. Seriously guys, keep it clean.

CTRailfan wrote:It's not favorites if they stack the trains based on profitability (or how much money they lose), and then cut from the bottom until the NEC is making just a bit more than the rest of the system is losing, making them about cash-neutral. That way they could provide as much service as possible while surviving the GOPShutdown.

What's interesting about this is that the long/longer distance trains that aren't exactly money makers/minor losses serve traditionally conservative/GOP strongholds so if they would be the first to go that could potentially turn some tables. Depending on which side one blames for causing the shutdown in the first place of course... *sigh*

jamesinclair wrote:Im concerned this will affect Thanksgiving trains.

Those responsible for the shutdown were elected on the following platform:
Government sucks
Government is too big
Shut down everything we dont need

The shut down is their dream come true. They have no incentive to end it any time soon. Its not unrealistic to see this going on for over a month. Luckily, Thanksgiving is very late this year


Speaking of thanksgiving, when do those specials tend to get announced?

I have traveled on thanksgiving on both transit and amtrak, and i can tel you right now, if those extras are canned, there will be repercussions going forward in the realm of public perception.

I would think Thanksgiving weekend would be cash positive. I mean, if the trains are full and extras are needed, there has to be enough income coming in on those days to pay for the salaries and fuel, right? Make the cuts during the dead season right after Thanksgiving and after New Years when hardly anyone is traveling. But if the stalemate lasts that long, I think we're going to have much bigger problems than making sure Amtrak is running.

I think you folks are "jumping the gun" here. Thanksgiving is still many weeks away and I would be willing to bet that things will be worked out by then. Even if they were not, that should not stop Amtrak from providing the service that is need for that big weekend.
Noel Weaver

My main question is that in the event Amtrak has to curtail service on all or part of its routes, what is going to happen to the various commuter agencies who also operate along Amtrak routes or are operated by Amtrak? Things won't be pretty if Penn Station has to close its doors...

CTRailfan wrote:cut from the bottom until the NEC is making just a bit more than the rest of the system is losing, making them about cash-neutral.

A fraction of the people using Amtrak NEC trains are on them because they have business to do with the government or they are government employees on government business. If the government is shut down there's no reason to make those trips. If ridership falls 5 percent is the NEC still making money? 10 percent? How much of it is business trips to government vendors who will be cancelling trips etc while the government is shut down.
How much of the travel on the NEC is government employees who will cancel their pleasure trip because they are furloughed? A native Marylander who started his or her career in a suburban Federal office and took the promotion that meant relocating to Trenton? Who cancels the trip for their cousin's 25th wedding anniversary party, traveling between Trenton and BWI, because they don't know how long they will be furloughed.
Shutting down the government is going to affect ridership on the NEC. Maybe enough to move to "break even" or "loses money"

For Amtrak, the shutdown is all about cash flow. So long as they have enough cash on hand to finance their operations, there is no reason to suspend services during the government shutdown. Whether any particular route is profitable or not in an accounting sense should not be an issue unless the shutdown lasts for quite a long time. They have some flexibility to delay capital improvement projects and new procurement, and in principle they may be able to borrow money for the short term (possibly problematic due to restrictions added over the past 15 years) or to accept advances of money owed to them by the states. I expect that is what would happen if the cash position got so low as to threaten NEC or state-supported operations.

mkellerm wrote:For Amtrak, the shutdown is all about cash flow. So long as they have enough cash on hand to finance their operations, there is no reason to suspend services during the government shutdown. Whether any particular route is profitable or not in an accounting sense should not be an issue unless the shutdown lasts for quite a long time. They have some flexibility to delay capital improvement projects and new procurement, and in principle they may be able to borrow money for the short term (possibly problematic due to restrictions added over the past 15 years) or to accept advances of money owed to them by the states. I expect that is what would happen if the cash position got so low as to threaten NEC or state-supported operations.

Agreed. Unless or until they need a payment from FRA to finance day-to-operations, the shutdown (even if several weeks in length) will have little effect. They've got a number of ways to move money around in order to keep the trains running for quite some time.

NH2060 wrote:

CTRailfan wrote:It's not favorites if they stack the trains based on profitability (or how much money they lose), and then cut from the bottom until the NEC is making just a bit more than the rest of the system is losing, making them about cash-neutral. That way they could provide as much service as possible while surviving the GOPShutdown.

What's interesting about this is that the long/longer distance trains that aren't exactly money makers/minor losses serve traditionally conservative/GOP strongholds so if they would be the first to go that could potentially turn some tables. Depending on which side one blames for causing the shutdown in the first place of course... *sigh*

True. But a lot of the GOP folks seem to want to see passenger trains gone altogether. The concept of high speed rail doesn't seem to get through their thick skulls. Of course the Dems pay a lot of lip service to "high-speed rail" and yet the high speed rail the Obama administration has been pushing is just souped up diesel trains doing 110, not actual 225mph HSR...

ct rail: you and others herein fail to appreciate that hsr is a non-starter in our country. geography is the knock-off. the costs can never be recovered. presently, folk involved in hsr projects are simply working on grants from various sources including possible suppliers. we have a wonderful airflights system . roads that easily offset any hsr cost/benefit analysis. the concept of low-information voters comes to mind when we see these few hsr proposals floated for general consumption. passenger rail is not economically viable as evidenced by all the various passenger rail operations. rather than criticize our elected officials, appreciate that they do not go down the flawed hsr path. ken patricvk

KEN PATRICK wrote:ct rail: you and others herein fail to appreciate that hsr is a non-starter in our country. geography is the knock-off. the costs can never be recovered. presently, folk involved in hsr projects are simply working on grants from various sources including possible suppliers. we have a wonderful airflights system . roads that easily offset any hsr cost/benefit analysis. the concept of low-information voters comes to mind when we see these few hsr proposals floated for general consumption. passenger rail is not economically viable as evidenced by all the various passenger rail operations. rather than criticize our elected officials, appreciate that they do not go down the flawed hsr path. ken patricvk

Even in the Northeast, which has the population density to justify HSR? One can make the argument that between Philly and DC, taking the train might get you door to door faster than flying. After all, airports tend to be away from city centers and you have to go through security and who knows how long delays can be on the tarmac?