North Carolina NCDOT-Amtrak Carolinian Service

SouthernRailway wrote:OK, so I'm seeing that if you don't count the capital costs of buying and maintaining the train cars, locomotives, or other infrastructure (or depreciation), and if you count government subsidies, then the Carolinian makes a profit.

That's not profit in the real world. All that shows is that since Amtrak already bought the equipment and pays for infrastructure, and since NC chips in for the trains, it's helpful for Amtrak's finances to run the train.

The cost of maintenance of the rolling stock is included in the operating cost. The capital cost of replacing the equipment is what the Capital Charge column is for. If you want to get way off in the weeds on how the cost of operating the service is allocated or determined, the methodology used to derive the allocated cost numbers in the Route Performance table has been agreed to by Amtrak, all of the states that will be required to provide state subsidies for routes of < 750 miles (except Indiana DOT which refused to go along) and the Surface Transportation Board in accordance with Section 209 of the 2008 PRIAA act. If you want to see what costs are included in the allocation, see
http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents ... 083111.pdf
and a viewgraph briefing package to explain it:
http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents ... 061011.pdf

afiggatt wrote:

SouthernRailway wrote:OK, so I'm seeing that if you don't count the capital costs of buying and maintaining the train cars, locomotives, or other infrastructure (or depreciation), and if you count government subsidies, then the Carolinian makes a profit.

That's not profit in the real world. All that shows is that since Amtrak already bought the equipment and pays for infrastructure, and since NC chips in for the trains, it's helpful for Amtrak's finances to run the train.

The cost of maintenance of the rolling stock is included in the operating cost. The capital cost of replacing the equipment is what the Capital Charge column is for. If you want to get way off in the weeds on how the cost of operating the service is allocated or determined, the methodology used to derive the allocated cost numbers in the Route Performance table has been agreed to by Amtrak, all of the states that will be required to provide state subsidies for routes of < 750 miles (except Indiana DOT which refused to go along) and the Surface Transportation Board in accordance with Section 209 of the 2008 PRIAA act. If you want to see what costs are included in the allocation, see
http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents ... 083111.pdf
and a viewgraph briefing package to explain it:
http://www.highspeed-rail.org/Documents ... 061011.pdf

Nice! Thanks, afiggatt.

SouthernRailway, you have not seen the real world of transportation if you think that carriers don't make real profits on routes that are subsidized by locals via capital or operating help. Essential Air Service is real world. Terminals paid for by locals, Runways paid for by Feds (or an airbase gifted, as at Orlando International, whose code is MCO because it was McCoy AFB basically gifted to the City of Orlando--a capital cost savings which Orlando can pass along to airlines, and we don't complain that the airlines' accounting isnt' real), waivers of landing fees for initiating new service. When airlines make profits this way, they still flow as profits through their GAAP accounted financials. Also what truckers and bus companies pay in motor fuel taxes for their use of the highways is a tiny fraction of the costs they impose due to their vehicle's heavy weight and heavy pounding of the pavement that is *not* paid for by motor fuel taxes (cars subsidize trucks as far as pavement wear goes, but we don't as Schneider National to show its ROW subsidies on its books).

So this is managerial accounting of the normal kind, designed to say where assets are best deployed. If every state deal looked as good as the Carolinian, Amtrak could be privatized as a for-profit operator just like Veolia.

And as afiggat notes, the capital charge when it finally appears, will pretty much just be cost-of-owning (depreciation/replacement cost) with everything else, (like mileage and maintenance) already in "operating" but is complicated by 1) operational pooling of rolling stock 2) differences in how some rolling stock is owned, leased, or was sold-and-leased-back over time 3) historical differences in deals as they were cut on a state-by-state, route-by-route basis. 4) Routes (like the Carolinian, Lynchburg, and NPN/NFK/RVR) that operate partly as Amtrak's train between WAS and NYP/BOS, and partly as state-paid extensions (how do you allocate the cost of a whole train moving between the two parts of the system, by train-mile, car-mile or seat-mile, by passenger, or by city-pair--all are possible/permissable/valid under GAAP).

States coming late to the game (NC and VA) got essentially commercial-quality deals: State pays the cost of ownership of the rolling stock off Amtrak's books as the contribution to the route. The rolling stock isn't free, but being free to Amtrak, Amtrak will be free to account the routes profitable to it, just like Southwest was profitable because it inherited all of Dallas Love field's capital stock at cut-rate prices, though it was built-and-paid-for by the Braniffs of the world and often takes incentives to start service to a new city (e.g. Panama City, Florida, which waived landing fees that usually pay for the runway). Or

The more I familiarize myself, the more I see that the Carolinian's rolling stock (here's a manifest http://www.bytrain.org/equipmt.html) was paid for separately by NC as its way of keeping some costs off Amtrak's books, the same way cities attract air service. With those costs off, Amtrak makes a profit as far as it is concerned, and its managers are best off chasing such profits as are identified under S209 and dumping routes that don't show such profits.

Or Amtrak will show losses on the capital account for NC which NC has already provided for (if Amtrak has to "pay" for its rolling stock, it would also find that NC, by buying such rolling stock, has already funded that loss). Either way, NC's subsidy is real, but Amtrak's profits can be real too. Having bought its railcars, NC needn't appropriate a continuing operating subsidy, which is important politically. And such routes are many times more sustainable and worth celebrating here.

Arlington wrote:

afiggatt wrote:Terminals paid for by locals, Runways paid for by Feds (or an airbase gifted, as at Orlando International, whose code is MCO because it was McCoy AFB basically gifted to the City of Orlando--a capital cost savings which Orlando can pass along to airlines, and we don't complain that the airlines' accounting isnt' real), waivers of landing fees for initiating new service. When airlines make profits this way, they still flow as profits through their GAAP accounted financials. Also what truckers and bus companies pay in motor fuel taxes for their use of the highways is a tiny fraction of the costs they impose due to their vehicle's heavy weight and heavy pounding of the pavement that is *not* paid for by motor fuel taxes (cars subsidize trucks as far as pavement wear goes, but we don't as Schneider National to show its ROW subsidies on its books).

...And as afiggat notes, the capital charge when it finally appears, ...

I'll certainly acknowledge that I missed a few things in my earlier posts.

I've served in the transportation industry for years. I have also been involved in transit at the local government level. There, all of our routes were analyzed based on how much of the total costs were covered by passenger fares. Some routes received special subsidies from businesses or various government entities in addition to the normal operating subsidies that we got (just as the Carolinian does), but we still calculated what portion of costs for those routes were paid by fares; we didn't claim that they were "profitable" even though those special subsidies paid for pretty much all of their costs. We just noted that other grants paid for those routes and acknowledged their "real" performance.

For Essential Air Service, nobody claims that those routes are "profitable"; that's why they're subsidized! Perhaps airlines reflect contributions to their bottom lines due to government subsidies for those routes, but airlines certainly don't go around emphasizing the "profits" they make from them. (To the contrary, Amtrak does so on comparable routes.)

Airports aren't the financial responsibility of airlines; Amtrak's cars and rails are its responsibility. Whether they should be is another story, but each type of operator should include all costs for which it's responsible in determining profits when announced to the general public.

And as I said, the capital charge isn't yet shown...when it is, these "profitable" routes won't be profitable.

SouthernRailway wrote:For Essential Air Service, nobody claims that those routes are "profitable"

Mesa Airlines, Cape Air, Gulfstream claim the routes are profitable to them as operators. The only complaint is that the route-award process is competitive, and the profits are like crack cocaine (to quote J. Ornstien, Mesa's long-time CEO).

SouthernRailway wrote:Airports aren't the financial responsibility of airlines; Amtrak's cars and rails are its responsibility

Blanket statements like this are not possible with respect to capital costs (rail, rolling stock, and stations). This is the semi-private sector: You get or pay what you negotiate.

Under PRIIA s209, Amtrak will still not charge routes for equipment Amtrak does not own, and this will affect different routes differently. To the Carolinian, I believe this note will apply from page 8 of the Cost Methodology Policy linked above.

Some routes make use of assets owned by third parties such as host railroads or state and local governments. States and Amtrak, as necessary, will be responsible for their pro rata share of any capital investments required on these non‐Amtrak owned assets based on usage of these assets by state‐supported and other users such as Amtrak long distance and/or commuter.

In other words, if North Carolina owns it, Amtrak's pro-rata share is Zero (and your blanket "responsibility" statement fails). For the Carolinian, its rail costs are paid in operating costs, and the rolling stock costs will either be 0 (these are Amtrak's financials, after all) or will be put in, but then have to be backed out as "pre paid" by NC.

For Virginia, while they contributed refurbed equipment to the Amtrak pool to ensure equipment availability for its new service, Amtrak owned the equipment and so Amtrak Virginia will be charged for 100% of its "use units" going forward (losing the any rights to the equipment, and paying now toward future replacement costs). Maine, on the third hand, has always wet-leased its rolling stock from Amtrak and doesn't have any past "sunk" capital to benefit from (as NC does) or "lose" (as VA kind of has), but may see its lease rates go up as Amtrak starts charging replacement-cost rates rather than depreciation rates.

As long as North Carolina pays for its own rolling stock (very smart of them, btw) it will cost NC less to cut a deal which Amtrak can consider profitable.

Arlington wrote:Under PRIIA s209, Amtrak will still not charge routes for equipment Amtrak does not own, and this will affect different routes differently. To the Carolinian, I believe this note will apply from page 8 of the Cost Methodology Policy linked above.

Some routes make use of assets owned by third parties such as host railroads or state and local governments. States and Amtrak, as necessary, will be responsible for their pro rata share of any capital investments required on these non‐Amtrak owned assets based on usage of these assets by state‐supported and other users such as Amtrak long distance and/or commuter.

In other words, if North Carolina owns it, Amtrak's pro-rata share is Zero (and your blanket "responsibility" statement fails). For the Carolinian, its rail costs are paid in operating costs, and the rolling stock costs will either be 0 (these are Amtrak's financials, after all) or will be put in, but then have to be backed out as "pre paid" by NC.

North Carolina only owns the equipment for the Piedmont trains, not the Carolinian. That equipment comes out of the general east coast pool. North Carolina pays maintenance costs for the equipment used by the Carolinian - it was about $3M a year in 2008-09 - but does not and to my knowledge has not paid any capital charges (interest or depreciation) on the equipment, or paid to refurbish Amtrak-owned equipment in the past decade. The FY09 contract between NC and Amtrak is available online; Appendix III has the revenue cost breakdown.

http://www.bytrain.org/fra/general/amtr ... _08_09.pdf

Note the blanks for Interest -Rolling Stock and Depreciation - Rolling Stock. Under PRIIA, North Carolina is going to have to start paying a capital charge for the Carolinian (but not for the Piedmont, for the reasons you indicated).

Ok, I am mistaken as to which route the NC-owned rolling stock is deployed. The Carolinian will have to pay something for its capital-use-units (annual share of future replacement costs) on the Carolinian's share of the NEC equipment pool. The Carolinian's capital charges (if not already included in wet-lease style operating costs) will go up and it may not appear profitable to Amtrak. Meanwhile, it will be the Piedmont that will see the Zero capital-use-charges in Amtrak's financials because it isn't Amtrak's capital being used.

NEVERTHELESS...the Carolinian is running an operating profit for Amtrak which puts it in a preferred position to actually be able to afford its rolling stock in the long term.

When #80 was arriving Staples Mill Rd station on Sun. Dec. 9 at 4:09 pm (2'04" LT),a crew member radioed the dispatcher to inform him that the were to pick up three engines from TK 5. The train did not leave until 7:33 pm. Trains #90, #195, #91 and #53 were all held out until TK 3 became available for them to do their station work (and for #53 to pass thru).

Andy

twropr wrote:When #80 was arriving Staples Mill Rd station on Sun. Dec. 9 at 4:09 pm (2'04" LT),a crew member radioed the dispatcher to inform him that the were to pick up three engines from TK 5. The train did not leave until 7:33 pm. Trains #90, #195, #91 and #53 were all held out until TK 3 became available for them to do their station work (and for #53 to pass thru).

Andy

Wow! You asked this in the Noted/Questioned Major Delay thread and when no one responded, you started a new thread, two days later!

Let's take a guess: We'll look at the information that Mr Gregoryprice provided (on the day in question) Unique Equipment Sightings Thread (incl. Private Vehicle) and combine that with your scanner report.

I didn't do too well the last time I played this game, so can we try it again?

Here's the puzzle

_ngin_ probl_ms...and lots of th_m!


Would you like to buy a vowel or solve?

If you need the chronology, it might work better if you sent pms!

It was a big week for passenger service on the NCRR. The CIAA basketball tournament was held in Charlotte, NCDOT ran one Piedmont set with four coaches plus the normal combi car, the other set was run with four coaches, a standard combi, plus the Yadkin River combi which is configured with 34 seats. The normal equipment set is three coaches on weekends (and one coach is often locked for the midday trip). I believe that this was all of the currently available NCDOT gear.

While NCDOT gets some grief for its refurbed heritage gear it is nice that they have the capacity and flexibility to accommodate demand spikes like this. I would think ridership will explode if/when the new downtown Charlotte station ever materializes.

I see no reason for the grief. It's a nice small fleet that was heavily rebuilt and seems to work quite well. It'd be different if the cars were going all explode-o-matic like the AEM7-DC fleet, but I don't understand that to be the case.

Tadman wrote:I see no reason for the grief. It's a nice small fleet that was heavily rebuilt and seems to work quite well.

It's old - that must mean it's obsolete and should be scrapped.

Is there any work underway to raise speeds above 79 mph as part of the stimulus awards? I thought 90 mph was in the cards, but I haven't read anything recently about that.

Matt Johnson wrote: Is there any work underway to raise speeds above 79 mph as part of the stimulus awards? I thought 90 mph was in the cards, but I haven't read anything recently about that.

No construction is (yet) underway from Charlotte to Raleigh. I believe that they just finished up the necessary public hearings for the grade crossing closures and are wrapping up the final engineering. I can't find the project schedule at the moment, but I believe that work will commence by the end of the year. I don't know why the project is proceeding so slowly, unfortunately there is some new political risk given the new governor combined with the (very) right leaning legislature.

CSX did revise the plans for the scheduled NS/CSX grade separation in downtown Charlotte -- they wanted the width of the trench increased to accommodate double track.

EDIT: I have found some bits and pieces,

The Charlotte maintenance facility is scheduled for property acquisition "Winter 2013" http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/CharlotteRailMaint/
Concord to Charlotte track: Property acquisition began "spring 2012" http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/RailHaydockJunker/
Salisbury to Kannapolis: Property acquisition began "spring 2012" http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/RailReidKannapolis/
Hopson Rd grade crossing (near Raleigh): Construction began February 2013: http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/U-4716/

Charlotte NS/CSX grade separation: begins construction "Fall 2013" http://www.ncdot.gov/projects/charlottemainline/

That is not all of the projects on the NCRR line

Matt, I don't know if you're alluding to the turboliners being old and must be scrapped, but you had better chill out ASAP. You're on public notice. Get a grip or get a blog, but you're not long for this forum if you keep this up.

You'll notice Ken Patrick is absent, and you're next on the list. This place is for discussion, not one-sided broadcasting.

Two Sundays back I borded this train northbound @Arlington, Va.

Including the engine change at US in DC and the scheduled stops, we were about 44 minutes EARLY arriving @ Newark-PS. Train was SRO upon boarding at Arlington but I noted at least 65% of the patrons de-trained at US. En route I learned that from US north this train is 'no boarding' all the way to NYPenn so we spent less than 40-45 seconds at each stop.

Bottom line is my trip from Arlington to Newark Penn took only 3hrs. 10 minutes !!

Is this SOP only on Sundays ? If so, I'm gonna do this in the future.

Thanks for any comments.

A quick look at the timetable would have told you that it is a discharge only train from Washington every day.
But I very much doubt you got on at Arlington, VA since there is no station there. Did you mean Alexandria?