Tracking FY 2024-25 Ridership and Finances

shop deals on amazon
Shop deals on ebay
Advertise with us
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Unfortunately this management does not see it that way. I expect Gardner and the BOD to get more aggressive in front of Congress to let them drop some trains. Poor financials whether legit or self induced don’t help the matter. Inflating LD costs and a more stingy Congress could see things turn South very quickly. This may not be the thread but I also don’t see a LD order being placed. Just more hemming and hawing although as of recently it’s just been quiet.

The fares really need to be addressed. The long standing saying was Amtrak shouldn’t be a land cruise. Ironically now a 7-14 day cruise can be found much cheaper than 2 nights in an Amtrak bedroom. $3500 ish CHI to SEA/EMY/LAX. 7 night cruises can be found under $500. It may be an apple to oranges comparison but that’s my families rational for no trips in the last 2 plus years. We used to take 3 LD trips a year. Amtraks just not a good value in today’s travel market and it looks like people are finally getting wise.
 
Last edited:
Amtrakfflyer said:
Unfortunately this management does not see it that way. I expect Gardner and the BOD to get more aggressive in front of Congress to let them drop some trains. Poor financials whether legit or self induced don’t help the matter. Inflating LD costs and a more stingy Congress could see things turn South very quickly. This may not be the thread but I also don’t see a LD order being placed. Just more hemming and hawing although as of recently it’s just been quiet.

The fares really need to be addressed. The long standing saying was Amtrak shouldn’t be a land cruise. Ironically now a 7-14 day cruise can be found much cheaper than 2 nights in an Amtrak bedroom. $3500 ish CHI to SEA/EMY/LAX. 7 night cruises can be found under $500. It may be an apple to oranges comparison but that’s my families rational for no trips in the last 2 plus years. We used to take 3 LD trips a year. Amtraks just not a good value in today’s travel market and it looks like people are finally getting wise.
Click to expand...
The only way to lower sleeper fares is to increase inventory. They are not a good value proposition and no one really says that they are. Other travel modes, cruises and First Class air, present better, sometimes much better, value propositions, but that is immaterial. The prices are due to very constrained inventory that doesn't meet demand, not the product's value.

The prices will remain high, and perhaps rise higher as more capacity is lost due to wrecks, until more cars are ordered, built and put into service, if that ever happens. I share your skepticism there.

Supply better meeting demand is the only actual solution.
 
But the fares don't need to be as high as they are, regardless of the supply or the revenue they pull in. They suppress ridership and discourage first-time riders, the most important demographic that Amtrak desperately needs to convince.
 
daybeers said:
But the fares don't need to be as high as they are, regardless of the supply or the revenue they pull in. They suppress ridership and discourage first-time riders, the most important demographic that Amtrak desperately needs to convince.
Click to expand...
No, they could give it away if they wanted to forgo revenue. I don’t think they want to, though. In a market economy a scarce commodity is rationed by price, which is what they're doing.

"Supress ridership". Forgive me, but I actually laughed out loud at that. I didn't use the LOL or the emoji because I really did laugh. If you don't have capacity, you aren't suppressing anything, since you sold all you have to sell.

As to first time riders, there appear to remain enough curious about overnight train travel to fill out what little capacity there is. Whether or not they return is a different question, but there are others after them.

What seems to get lost in this is how limited the inventory really is. Currently the biggest Superliner sleeper consists are two sleepers and a transdorm.
That means on any departure there are at most 30-34 roomettes (depending how many are released for sale in the transdorm) 10 bedrooms, 2 accessible rooms, and 2 family or rooms. Some train have far less, like the Sunset with one sleeper and no transdorm. It really doesn't take very much demand at all, in an absolute sense, to consume that.

I disagree with Amtrak management about a lot things and have a generally low opinion of their intelligence and competence, but they are right in this. You get the revenue you can out of the assets you have. If they screw up their yield management so that more than a few rooms consistently go out empty year round, then they'll need to adjust the approach and lower prices. Amtrak does seem to have a near infinite capacity for screwing up, so that is entirely possible.

In the meantime, the best thing they can do is improve the experience and so the value proposition. Ensuring the windows are clean would be a good start. Deep sixing Flex. Acting to make onboard service consistent at a decent level is a fond wish of mine.
 
Last edited:
zephyr17 said:
"Supress ridership". Forgive me, but I actually laughed out loud at that. I didn't use the LOL or the emoji because I really did laugh. If you don't have capacity, you aren't suppressing anything, since you sold all you have to sell.
Click to expand...
Ridership is suppressed by Amtrak not operating at least 80% of its full inventory of cars. We all know that its past and present practices of cost savings over revenue enhancements. As far as LD trains loosing a lot of money IMO that may be a red hearing.

We all suspect that cost allocations are very suspect. The example of the cost of snow removal at MIA station is very questionable. That makes one wonder what items are being allocated to LD services that no one has found. Now if any LD route is terminated then all the LD costs will be spread out on the remaining LD trains. Is that what we want? Take any LD route . If one or maybe even two new round trips are added almost no fixed station costs would increase. many station with one round trip has to keep 4 agents on staff to meet odd ball schedule time and then overtime if one train is very late. More trains might only need zero or one additional agent to cover the station hours.

IMO only above rail operating costs of a train should be considered for determining if it is needed. The Sunset and Cardinal operating 3 time a week just looses all

So, Get the equipment and the necessary marketing to entice persons to ride. There is no marketing here because there is no available seats. MORE LATER.
 
west point said:
Source?
Click to expand...
It’s reported in the linked Trains article. I think it’s becoming obvious this management is playing games to sabotage the LD network. Keeping the V1’s in mothballs while the capacity crisis is going on is just another of countless examples. Ron Batory spelled it out in front of Congress last month saying Anderson and Gardner were deceitful and made up false claims trying to discontinue the SWC. Anderson was the figurehead but it’s always been Gardners policies. Think about the experimental trains they talked about, catering to a new crowd of riders. That’s exactly what we have now. Long term riders of the past have been disenfranchised and now they are just seeing how much money they can charge new riders for the experience of train travel. Instead of the 5 trains they claimed they wanted to keep Congress has forced them to operate all of them. That also explains their lack of urgency with the mothballed cars and new car order.
 
Last edited:
thefirewarde said:
And they provide a critical transportation service, economic stimulus to the communities they serve, and relieve pressure on the nation's road system. All of those are reasonable things to pay for. The myth that all rail transit should be entirely user subsidized, in a way that air transportation and
thefirewarde said:
And they provide a critical transportation service, economic stimulus to the communities they serve, and relieve pressure on the nation's road system. All of those are reasonable things to pay for. The myth that all rail transit should be entirely user subsidized, in a way that air transportation and road transportation isn't, is ludicrous.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Never said that trains shouldn't be subsidized. Why does the Auto Train make $10 million while the Silver Star loses $50 million? Is it the extra 600 miles the Star travels? The Silver Star even has over 100 thousand more passengers. Every state subsidized train is an Amtrak loser. Shouldn't those trains break even on Amtrak's books?
 
Bostontoallpoints said:
Never said that trains shouldn't be subsidized. Why does the Auto Train make $10 million while the Silver Star loses $50 million? Is it the extra 600 miles the Star travels? The Silver Star even has over 100 thousand more passengers. Every state subsidized train is an Amtrak loser. Shouldn't those trains break even on Amtrak's books?
Click to expand...
Just on the face of it Silver Star requires more equipment sets (and hence more maintenance) more operating staff and more OBS, actually almost twice for OBS and more than twice for operating staff. Labor cost is one of the larger cost components of operation. Auto train does require additional staff for handling the Auto Racks loading and unloading but that is lower cost Labor than the highly skilled operating staff. Auto train also is able to sustain a higher revenue level than the Star. That is summary is why there is a difference between the finances of the Auto Train and the Star.

Why would they start breaking even now in a higher labor cost environment when they were the very reason that the private railroads got rid of them? The Government owned pixie dust? Of course the books could be arranged to move some costs to the central budget line thus moving losses off of the books of individual trains. But they still would be losses in the overall financial statement of Amtrak.
 
jis said:
Why would they start breaking even now in a higher labor cost environment when they were the very reason that the private railroads got rid of them? The Government owned pixie dust? Of course the books could be arranged to move some costs to the central budget line thus moving losses off of the books of individual trains. But they still would be losses in the overall financial statement of Amtrak.
Click to expand...
Just asking, are labor costs actually higher than pre-Amtrak, when adjusted for inflation. I don't know, just asking. The number of people struggling to make ends meet suggests maybe not.

Also, today there is an increased overall population (US population rose from 207 million to 337 million according to Google), which means that even if market share has dropped as a percentage, in absolute numbers things are not going to be that bad. More population also puts more pressure on roads, strengthening the argument for alternatives. Pre pandemic we were seeing Amtrak carry more passengers than ever before in its history.

Then there are also things like modern equipment being more rational and permitting streamlining of maintenance and operations and fuel economies in a way that would not have been possible in 1971. Today there are also computer based booking systems, ERP systems etc etc that did not exist in 1971 and must surely have permitted a radical rationalization of back-office operations. Surely if this is not producing some economic kickback, Amtrak is doing something terribly wrong.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
jis said:
The only solid number we have is the overall subsidy that Amtrak has received each year, and that has stayed more or less constant or gone up over the years, after accounting for inflation, while total amount of service provided and total amount of equipment deployed has gone down. Make whatever one wants to of it.

https://railroads.dot.gov/grants-loans/directed-grant-programs/federal-grants-amtrak
Click to expand...
I assume these figures do not include payments received from states for supported services. So in reality the shortfall is worse that that even.
 
jis said:
The only solid number we have is the overall subsidy that Amtrak has received each year, and that has stayed more or less constant or gone up over the years, after accounting for inflation, while total amount of service provided and total amount of equipment deployed has gone down. Make whatever one wants to of it.

https://railroads.dot.gov/grants-loans/directed-grant-programs/federal-grants-amtrak
Click to expand...
My concern is Gardner calls Congresses bluff so to say and says the LD network now costs some absurd inflated number that they aren’t willing to pay. Where’s the checks and balances when all we have is Amtrak accounting and their less than stellar transparency. Enough people in Congress were weary of Amtrak management that they gave the new route study to the FRA knowing Amtrak management wouldn’t take new LD routes seriously. I wish they would have gave the LD order to the FRA as well. We might have had an order placed by now, who knows. After all Amtrak is just an operator of LD routes at the request of Congress in Amtraks own words.
 
Last edited:
Bostontoallpoints said:
All of the state supported trains you list are losing money. The NEC corridor is hitting it out of the park making $234.6 million. With the exception of the Auto Train, which made $9.8 million, all long distance trains are big money losers.
Click to expand...
I don't want to minimize the importance of the NEC, but it only makes a profit if you exclude the annual capital expenses. Most LD trains run on freight railroad tracks, so there's a different accounting method: many of the ongoing capital expenses that benefit LD routes are financed by the freight railroads, then passed along to Amtrak in the form of trackage fees, thus becoming operating expenses for Amtrak. In other words, some costs that would be capital expenses on the NEC would be operating expenses for LD trains. So when you compare operating "profits" on the NEC with operating losses on the LD trains, you're really comparing apples with oranges.
 
jis said:
Just on the face of it Silver Star requires more equipment sets (and hence more maintenance) more operating staff and more OBS, actually almost twice for OBS and more than twice for operating staff. Labor cost is one of the larger cost components of operation. Auto train does require additional staff for handling the Auto Racks loading and unloading but that is lower cost Labor than the highly skilled operating staff. Auto train also is able to sustain a higher revenue level than the Star. That is summary is why there is a difference between the finances of the Auto Train and the Star.
Click to expand...
I big part of this is the fact that as a non-stop train, an Autotrain trip can be 100% sold out, from departure to arrival. Conventional long-distance trains are always going to have some empty seats, as people get on and off at stations along the route.
 
jimdex said:
I don't want to minimize the importance of the NEC, but it only makes a profit if you exclude the annual capital expenses. Most LD trains run on freight railroad tracks, so there's a different accounting method: many of the ongoing capital expenses that benefit LD routes are financed by the freight railroads, then passed along to Amtrak in the form of trackage fees, thus becoming operating expenses for Amtrak. In other words, some costs that would be capital expenses on the NEC would be operating expenses for LD trains. So when you compare operating "profits" on the NEC with operating losses on the LD trains, you're really comparing apples with oranges.
Click to expand...
I don't think it is apple to oranges comparison, maybe green apples to mackintoshes. I fully understand the capital expenses of the NEC owned tracks versus the non-Amtrak owned tracks of the other routes. Amtrak has been rewarded with $2billion to make improvements on the NEC. Do you really think that if Amtrak paid trackage fees on the NEC it would negate the $235 million profit? The operating expenses are not broken down so NEC track repair may very well be an operating expense, thus negating trackage fees of the LDs.

Maybe running multiple full trains daily along with adding trains and cars to meet demand might be more profitable than one train daily? What if Amtrak added more sleeper cars to LDs and another train 12 hours later?

Long term I think it is important that Amtrak explores all revenue enhancements.
 
jimdex said:
I big part of this is the fact that as a non-stop train, an Autotrain trip can be 100% sold out, from departure to arrival. Conventional long-distance trains are always going to have some empty seats, as people get on and off at stations along the route.
Click to expand...
One could also argue that having people get on and off along the route could increase revenue,
 
Bostontoallpoints said:
IAmtrak has been rewarded with $2billion to make improvements on the NEC. Do you really think that if Amtrak paid trackage fees on the NEC it would negate the $235 million profit?
Click to expand...
I may be missing something, if but Amtrak had to spend $2 billion on capital improvements on the NEC, and it only made a $235 million in operating profits, that would strike me as a $1.7 billion loss.
 
jis said:
Just on the face of it Silver Star requires more equipment sets (and hence more maintenance) more operating staff and more OBS, actually almost twice for OBS and more than twice for operating staff. Labor cost is one of the larger cost components of operation. Auto train does require additional staff for handling the Auto Racks loading and unloading but that is lower cost Labor than the highly skilled operating staff. Auto train also is able to sustain a higher revenue level than the Star. That is summary is why there is a difference between the finances of the Auto Train and the Star.

Why would they start breaking even now in a higher labor cost environment when they were the very reason that the private railroads got rid of them? The Government owned pixie dust? Of course the books could be arranged to move some costs to the central budget line thus moving losses off of the books of individual trains. But they still would be losses in the overall financial statement of Amtrak.
Click to expand...
According to the report the operating expenses for the Auto Train is $102.2 million. The operating expenses for the Silver Star is $87.3 million. So it appears to me that the Auto Train would have higher labor expenses than the Silver Star. In fact the Auto Train has the highest expenses of most LD trains with the exception of the Empire Builder, Zephyr and Chief. The Auto Train's biggest difference is revenue compared to the Silver Star. The Auto Train brings in $114 million verses the $38 million that the Star brings in. The Silver Star carries more passengers, 363 thousand verses 253 thousand on the Auto Train. The Auto Train carries 5 super liner sleeping cars (sometimes up to 8 sleepers) and 4 coaches. The Silver Star carries 3 viewliner coaches and 2 sleepers.

I am more inclined to deduce that the Auto Trains larger sleeper capacity and ability to add more sleepers cars are the main reason for the Auto Train's profitability.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top