Tracking FY 2024-25 Ridership and Finances

jimdex said:

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.

Click to expand...

The capital improvements are over several years rewarded by the U.S. government. So that wouldn't be accounted for as a loss.

Bostontoallpoints said:

One could also argue that having people get on and off along the route could increase revenue,

Click to expand...

I don't really see how that could work, unless you're charging substantially higher per-mile fares for shorter trips. Let's consider a hypothetical train route running from Point "A" to Point "D." If a non-stop train leaves Point A" 100% full, it will be 100% full for its entire trip. But if a full train leaving Point A stops at point B to drop off ten passengers and pick up five passengers, it will have five empty seats until it stops at point C. And even if it picks up five new passengers at Point C and arrives at Point D 100% full, it will have generated fewer passenger miles than a non-stop train because of the empty seats between Point B and Point C. All other factors being equal, more passenger miles = more revenue.

Bostontoallpoints said:

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.

Click to expand...

Guess it makes a profit on the cars & trucks.

jimdex said:

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.

Click to expand...

Capital expenses are amortized over years. You're looking for cash flow maybe. I am not an accountant.

Bostontoallpoints said:

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.

Click to expand...

Also remember that passengers on the Auto Train are also paying a stiff charge to transport their car, which may offset the additional expenses involved with the autoracks.

Bostontoallpoints said:

The capital improvements are over several years rewarded by the U.S. government. So that wouldn't be accounted for as a loss.

Click to expand...

Yes, but Amtrak requests similar grants for the Northeast Corridor every year (I believe it's asking for $1.5 billion for fiscal 2025.) If capital costs exceed operating profits every year, that's a net loss.

jimdex said:

I don't really see how that could work, unless you're charging substantially higher per-mile fares for shorter trips. Let's consider a hypothetical train route running from Point "A" to Point "D." If a non-stop train leaves Point A" 100% full, it will be 100% full for its entire trip. But if a full train leaving Point A stops at point B to drop off ten passengers and pick up five passengers, it will have five empty seats until it stops at point C. And even if it picks up five new passengers at Point C and arrives at Point D 100% full, it will have generated fewer passenger miles than a non-stop train because of the empty seats between Point B and Point C. All other factors being equal, more passenger miles = more revenue.

Click to expand...

On the NEC Amtrak charges higher per-mile fares for shorter trips. It is driven by demand using dynamic pricing. In fact Amtrak uses dynamic pricing for their sleepers across the whole system. So say unloading 10 passenger paying $100 a piece but picking up 5 passengers at $300 a piece you can make more money. If you take the NEC from end to end you see this phenomena repeated over and over. Trains empty out at points in Phil and NYP but gain more passengers many of whom are paying higher ticket rates.

jimdex said:

Yes, but Amtrak requests similar grants for the Northeast Corridor every year (I believe it's asking for $1.5 billion for fiscal 2025.) If capital costs exceed operating profits every year, that's a net loss.

Click to expand...

Capitol expenses are actually amortized out over several years depending on the expense. So if the $1.5 billion is amortized out over 10 years that would make it a net profit.

MARC Rider said:

Also remember that passengers on the Auto Train are also paying a stiff charge to transport their car, which may offset the additional expenses involved with the autoracks.

Click to expand...

It is $285 for a standard vehicle.

MARC Rider said:

Also remember that passengers on the Auto Train are also paying a stiff charge to transport their car, which may offset the additional expenses involved with the autoracks.

Click to expand...

It does. Actually the Autorack part of the Auto Train operation is probably the most profitable.

The fact that Auto Train carries way more Sleepers than any other train also helps.

iT IS ALL about revenue passenger miles not riders.. Auto train averages exactly the RPMs for auto train's length. Not the Star.

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.

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.

Click to expand...

There are still plenty of empty seats and rooms all over the network. The corridor trains aren't as capacity constrained as the LD ones.

daybeers said:

There are still plenty of empty seats and rooms all over the network. The corridor trains aren't as capacity constrained as the LD ones.

Click to expand...

Well, I think fairly few people in a location served by good corridor service would jump to an LD sleeper as their first rail experience. They'd take a corridor train, then maybe think "that was good, why not a longer trip?". If they encountered high sleeper prices, I doubt it would dissuade them from continuing to use corridor services. So I consider high sleeper prices dissuading passengers from taking corridor services to be a somewhat absurd argument.

As to empty rooms, I've already said a significant number of empty rooms indicate a failure of yield management. If that's the case, improving yield management practices and attention to sales and demand should solve it. BTW, good yield management should have a few rooms going out empty. If things are consistently sold out over a significant period, it indicates prices are too low for maximum yield.

But my original point was that fares don't need to be that high as to reach "maximum yield". Empty rooms being a good thing is not the thinking Amtrak should be following. Amtrak should not be in the business of making a profit at the expense of ridership.

zephyr17 said:

So I consider high sleeper prices dissuading passengers from taking corridor services to be a somewhat absurd argument.

Click to expand...

Where did I say that? Corridor prices can sometimes be extremely high too; if a potential first-time rider looks at taking one and is priced out, they may be discouraged from looking again. That's a lost rider.

daybeers said:

But my original point was that fares don't need to be that high as to reach "maximum yield". Empty rooms being a good thing is not the thinking Amtrak should be following. Amtrak should not be in the business of making a profit at the expense of ridership.


Where did I say that? Corridor prices can sometimes be extremely high too; if a potential first-time rider looks at taking one and is priced out, they may be discouraged from looking again. That's a lost rider.

Click to expand...

1. I said a few rooms across a period of time, which indicates that pricing is optimized. I also said that if any significant number of rooms go out empty it represents a failure of yield management and things need to be adjusted. Implicitly that means lowering prices to overcome price resistance and increase demand.

2. Again, assuming rational yield management, high prices for corridor seats are a result of high demand for an inherently finite capacity (how many cars can you have on a train?). If demand is high, somebody else will buy the seat instead of the dissuaded individual. This seems to play out in reality. The per mile prices on the NEC, where demand is established, strong, and consistent, seem much higher than the per mile prices on, say, the Cascades, where demand is less established and is still being built. Coach, on the Cascades, can be dead cheap. My November 3rd trip from Everett to Vancouver is $22.50 for a Senior Flexible fare. That is 123 miles at 18.3 cents per mile. Is it unfair that an 8:23 am Flexible ticket between New York and Philly on a Regional in a couple weeks is $50, 91 miles at 55 cents a mile?

That Amtrak's current sleeper capacity constraints may be in large part self inflicted do not change the fact that capacity is constrained. I do not eliminate the possibility of deliberate action to maintain high fares while cutting costs, but I also think Hanlon's Razor, "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" may apply. Amtrak management has no shortage of stupidity.

That Amtrak's current sleeper capacity constraints may be in large part xxxx (intentional).

No one here can say 100 percent Amtrak isn’t being intentional in keeping capacity reduced and suppressing revenue in that way. Everyone see’s all the capacity and head scratching decisions like just reported V1’s to stay in mothballs.
Unfortunately there’s no true watch dog calling Amtrak out. We are in uncharted territory, Amtrak has fought for its existence its entire 50 plus years, it’s never fought a battle from within like it is now though.

I don’t see Gardner as incompetent. I see him crazy as fox. He’s a politician playing the hand dealt after seeing how him and Anderson went down in flames in 2018.

Cost pre mile, at least for the EB, depends on the portion of the whole route booked as shown in the right hand column below:


Don't know if this sort of thing applies to the NEC or if this eight year old data still applies, but I suspect it does. Here, the ¢ / mile nearly doubles if only 1/5 of the route is booked.

Edit: just did a quick check on the NEC using NER 95 Business Class from BOS to WAS:
• Whole route was 65¢ per mile
• Half route averaged 88¢ per mile for a 35% increase in cost per mile.

Chart above shows a 40% increase in cost per mile for half route. Didn't bother chopping up the NEC into more segments.

I have a suspicion that the VL2 fleet has recently been pulling focus and shop resources away from the VL1 reactivations.

Bostontoallpoints said:

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.

Click to expand...

Don’t forgot those 200-300 autos at maybe $250/vehicle.

zephyr17 said:

Again, assuming rational yield management, high prices for corridor seats are a result of high demand for an inherently finite capacity (how many cars can you have on a train?)....The per mile prices on the NEC, where demand is established, strong, and consistent, seem much higher than the per mile prices on, say, the Cascades

Click to expand...

Much higher than anywhere else in the country (or world) that I'm aware of. The most I've ever paid for an intercity coach trip on Amtrak or on a trip to Europe was around 25 cents a mile.
Re "how many cars you can have on a train," Amtrak's traditional maximum was 18 (though I have seen photos of a late-70s or early-80s Broadway Limited with 22.) I know there are length constraints on some of the tracks in Boston South Station but it boggles my mind why Amtrak runs such short NEC trains and is buying such capacity-constrained trainsets for the future. I can't help thinking they could carry twice as many people between New York and Washington if they had the equipment and the desire, just like they could on the Florida trains and the Coast Starlight, among others.

niemi24s said:

Cost pre mile, at least for the EB, depends on the portion of the whole route booked....
Don't know if this sort of thing applies to the NEC or if this eight year old data still applies, but I suspect it does. Here, the ¢ / mile nearly doubles if only 1/5 of the route is booked.

Click to expand...

The effect is more extreme for sleepers than for coaches.
From my home station of Whitefish, MT, I can go the 150 miles to Shelby for 15 cents a mile, the 600 miles to Portland for 14, or the 1600 to Chicago for 12, if I hunt for an un-busy day.

I was just looking at the numbers from 2019. The year Amtrak almost broke even, ($29 million loss).

https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/...Monthly-Performance-Report-September-2019.pdf

The NEC made $569 million with 12.5 million passengers. So today, there is essentially the same amount of passengers using the NEC but revenue is down on the Acela. I suspect this because of the over all decrease in business travel. Regionals are up 1 million, while Acela is down about 600 thousand since 2019.

Also many of the state supported routes made money with many almost at break even.
The long distance trains were still money losers although $100 million less so. The Auto Train lost $6.7 million.
I also like how they put a column for Average Load factor.

Bostontoallpoints said:

Also many of the state supported routes made money with many almost at break even.

Click to expand...

Beware that in accounting for state funded service, state subsidies are considered to be equivalent to revenue. So for most states, 'Breaking even" does not mean what many think it means. If federal subsidy were treated the same way then Amtrak would be break even or slightly profitable as things stand today.

jis said:

Beware that in accounting for state funded service, state subsidies are considered to be equivalent to revenue. So for most states, 'Breaking even" does not mean what many think it means. If federal subsidy were treated the same way then Amtrak would be break even or slightly profitable as things stand today.

Click to expand...

Understood. My point here is that at least the state supported routes didn't cost Amtrak money.

Here are the August monthly stats for the whole system. Most trains have been in a holding pattern for months, but there are a few exceptions. Can anyone spot them?

Also new this month, the Cascades has passed the Keystone Service to become the system’s 4th busiest route.

September data (year-end) should be here soon. Then there will be a couple different things I want to look at.

Septa9739 said:

Train	Aug	% of 2019
Acela	281,900	101%
Regional	959,500	122%
Ethan Allen	8,900	148%
Vermonter	10,700	104%
Empire West	57,300	133%
Downeaster	56,700	93%
Springfield Shuttle	46,200	142%
Keystone	104,300	79%
Empire South	123,500	114%
Great River Service	22,300	New
Lincoln Service	53,800	95%
Hiawatha	58,500	70%
Wolverines	39,500	82%
Illini/Saluki	25,900	117%
Illinois Service	12,000	69%
Heartland Flyer	6,600	106%
Pacific Surfliner	201,400	74%
Cascades	108,100	123%
Capitol Corridor	85,400	56%
San Joquin	76,500	85%
Adirondack	3,300	22%
Blue Water	18,600	103%
Roanoker	28,700	144%
Newport News	34,900	104%
Cannonball	44,200	130%
Richmond	13,800	142%
Missouri River Runner	17,600	125%
Pennsylvanian	22,700	109%
Pere Marquette	9,800	98%
Carolinian	30,300	221%
Piedmont	29,100	158%
Silver Star	33,700	99%
Cardinal	7,500	77%
Silver Meteor	26,000	77%
Empire Builder	39,400	81%
Capitol Limited	16,000	74%
California Zephyr	29,700	81%
Southwest Chief	24,400	75%
City of New Orleans	21,000	122%
Texas Eagle	29,900	106%
Sunset Limited	5,900	81%
Coast Starlight	31,300	75%
Lakeshore Limited	36,100	95%
Palmetto	28,200	97%
Crescent	24,700	90%
Auto Train	22,900	103%

Here are the August monthly stats for the whole system. Most trains have been in a holding pattern for months, but there are a few exceptions. Can anyone spot them?

Also new this month, the Cascades has passed the Keystone Service to become the system’s 4th busiest route.

September data (year-end) should be here soon. Then there will be a couple different things I want to look at.

Click to expand...

Cannonball's a good name for the Norfolk NER: straight alignment, express to Petersburg, and there's a cannonball in the wall of St. Paul's Church in Norfolk. Lord Dunmore shot it from a British ship on the first day of 1776. But as Miles in Transit says, "bring back flag stops!"

Thanks for posting this stuff -- definitely interesting! Wish there was a way to adjust, extract or combine to get a clearer Hiawatha picture. It has not 100% versus 2019 but now that about 15% of CHI-MKE-CHI trips (14 of 96 weekly) are under Borealis there's no solid way to know how close CHI-MKE-CHI is to full recovery.