If you had to cut an Amtrak route, which one would you cut?

[jis]

And immediately cue in the arguments about allocated costs etc.

Depending on which part of the accounting you are looking at using which lens, most of them are cash positive above the rails before allocated costs, which are somewhat arbitrary, are thrown in. After you throw all allocated costs including capital costs and remove all government sourced funds, nothing is profitable, naturally almost.

If Amtrak did its accounting like a private company, like VIA does, it would count all government grants as income, and then almost everything will be profitable, even after depreciation possibly.

So it all depends on which axe one wants to grind in a particular conversation.

 

[Lonestar648]

That would be an interesting comparison, Amtrak current accounting statements verses doing the accounting like a typical corporation. Same revenue, just reported two different ways. Does Amtrak management feel the need to report a negative picture so they continue to be supported in Congress?

 

[Trogdor]

That would be an interesting comparison, Amtrak current accounting statements verses doing the accounting like a typical corporation. Same revenue, just reported two different ways. Does Amtrak management feel the need to report a negative picture so they continue to be supported in Congress?

Amtrak already posts their audited GAAP financial statements (i.e. "like a typical corporation") on their website, audited by Ernst & Young LLP in January for FY17 (ended September 30, 2017).

 

[jis]

^^^ what he said

I agree, but my post did say if you had to cut one.

Related thread: If you had to cut off one of your fingers, which one would you cut off?

Answer: That would be dumb. Don't cut your fingers off.

Yeah, pretty dumb question to start with. But that is pretty par for the course too.

 

[jis]

That would be an interesting comparison, Amtrak current accounting statements verses doing the accounting like a typical corporation. Same revenue, just reported two different ways. Does Amtrak management feel the need to report a negative picture so they continue to be supported in Congress?

Amtrak already posts their audited GAAP financial statements (i.e. "like a typical corporation") on their website, audited by Ernst & Young LLP in January for FY17 (ended September 30, 2017).

No Amtrak does not report their finances like a private corporation. If it reported like a private corporation it would place the federal government grant on the earnings side of the ledger like VIA does with their government grant, or Boeing does for their defense contracts. Amtrak reports its finances like a transit agency of the government. Just because GAAP is used by corporations as required by law, does not mean anyone who uses GAAP report like a private corporation.

Amtrak's accounting practices are mostly forced on them by Congress and FRA. They don't do most of what they do as a matter of choice. They are required to report things in the form that they do, except for a few minor variations.

 

[Trogdor]

Amtrak treats the federal subsidy as an equity investment, not revenue, as the federal government owns the company.

Amtrak isn't selling service to the federal government (which is different from Boeing and defense contracts, as they are selling something that the federal government is buying). They are providing service, as directed by their owners, who then put up money to cover losses.

I suppose one could look at it as two sides of the same coin, but if a private corporation got money from its owners to cover an operating loss, it generally shouldn't be recorded as revenue.

 

[cpotisch]

The real problem with this thread is that the question “Which route would you cut?”, can mean a million things. It could be whatever has low ridership, high operating costs, high redundancy, lack of support, etc. Depending on how you interpret the question, basically any route could be the ideal candidate to get the ax.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Personally, I would not cut a single train.

^^^ what he said

I agree, but my post did say if you had to cut one.

Related thread: If you had to cut off one of your fingers, which one would you cut off? Answer: That would be dumb. Don't cut your fingers off.

As a middle-aged middleclass adult I'm sure you've already had to make dozens if not hundreds of "lesser evil" choices in your life, whether you wanted to or not. In the case of Amtrak I'd probably choose the Sunset Limited. In the case of my fingers I'd probably choose my pinky. But then I'm not beholden to some silly idea that indecision and lack of participation leads to a more favorable outcome.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

Personally, I would not cut a single train.

^^^ what he said

I agree, but my post did say if you had to cut one.

Related thread: If you had to cut off one of your fingers, which one would you cut off? Answer: That would be dumb. Don't cut your fingers off.

Which in a practical sense roughly translates into "Sometimes life is unfair so rather than play any sort of role in the outcome I'll just ignore the problem and let someone else decide for me." Which is a funny thing to say, because as a middle-aged middleclass adult I'm sure you've already had to make dozens if not hundreds of "lesser evil" choices in your life, whether you wanted to or not. In the case of Amtrak I'd probably choose the Sunset Limited. In the case of my fingers I'd choose my pinky. But then I'm not beholden to some silly idea that indecision and lack of participation leads to success.

Yeah last time I let someone else choose which LD train to cut I lost my train. So throw someone else under the bus or you could lose your train.

Hey, if you don't want to participate in this thread, no one's forcing you.

 

[Ryan]

You don't save your train by putting other trains down.

You save your train by advocating for it.

 

[jebr]

So throw someone else under the bus or you could lose your train.

Okay, sounds good. Let's get rid of all the Northeast Regional and Acela trains. If the states want the corridor to exist, they can fund it themselves.

From an advocacy standpoint, it's generally pretty dumb to advocate killing train routes just because someone has a personal vendetta against specific trains or specific segments. (It's generally dumb for an Amtrak fan to advocate cutting any routes, but if you do at least pick the least profitable ones and/or ones that have the lowest amount of political support.)

With that in mind, were I forced to choose a train to kill, it'd be the Sunset Limited. It's economic performance isn't great, it currently only run three days a week, and there's not a whole lot of political support for it along its route. (In fact, if I remember correctly there was a Senator who forgot that train even ran through his state!) Ideally it'd be better to put some money into it and make it better and more frequent, but if we had to cut one route that would be the one I'd cut.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

You don't save your train by putting other trains down. You save your train by advocating for it.

Let's drop the soothing but irrational Pollyanna mindset and get real for a moment. Over a long enough timeline most if not all of Amtrak's long distance routes are likely to succumb to the growing stress of increasing costs and reduced funding. Our federal government abandoned any meaningful opportunity to save all of Amtrak's long distance network with [the] latest round of tax cuts. Tax changes this big (and sloppy) are a generational move. Most of us won't live long enough to see another massive tax plan enacted. What we have now is what we will continue to have for a very long time, and there simply won't be enough federal money or support for Amtrak to remain this large forever.

Some may hope that state funding will pick up the shortfall but states that are the most pro-rail (in both direct funding and usage) are the states that are likely to suffer the greatest financial harm from the new federal tax structure. With billions more being earmarked for even more border guards and stations, more Berlin walls, more surveillance systems, and wartime weaponry there won't be enough money left over to keep everything we had before. You can vote out the people who did this but you cannot realistically expect to vote in another major federal tax structure in our lifetimes. Which means that, at some as yet unknown point in the future, we will likely have to start picking and choosing which routes to save and which routes to abandon. Or we can simply ignore the problem and let someone else decide for us.

[Edited for grammar and formatting]

 

[Ryan]

Right.

And when that time comes, stand up for your train and make the case for why it should be kept.

 

[brianpmcdonnell17]

From my personal perspective, the route that matters the least to me is the Auto Train as I don't drive and it is essentially independent from the rest of the system (no shared stations or transfers). Because of the major facilities unique to this train, Amtrak could save a lot of money by cancelling it as well as gaining an abundance of equipment. However, because of the large amount or revenue it generates, it still may not make sense from Amtrak's perspective.

If we are defining a route as having an independent name, the least felt cancellation would probably be the Illini or Saluki, as the entirety of the route would be left with two frequencies. Another possibility could be the Hoosier State, which runs only four times per week and at poor hours. If we limit it to LD routes, I would eliminate the Palmetto as it is entirely redundant with the exception of Dillon, SC which could be picked up by the SM. However, since no more than one station would be lost, this would probably not save much money. Other than the Palmetto, I would choose to eliminate the Cardinal due to it's tri-weekly schedule and poor calling times at Indianapolis and Cincinnati.

However, I don't want any of these trains to be eliminated. In fact, most of them could be strengthened by service improvements. For example, the Cardinal/Hoosier State could be strengthened by corridor service west of Cincinnati, daily service east of Cincinnati, or at least an improved schedule. The Palmetto has the potential to provide an alternative schedule to Miami that arrives in the morning and departs at night. As to the Illini/Saluki, improved frequencies may help there as well, but I don't see a major issue on that route and only selected it as it is the only corridor service I can think of with 3+ frequencies all named individually.

 

[railgeekteen]

From my personal perspective, the route that matters the least to me is the Auto Train as I don't drive and it is essentially independent from the rest of the system (no shared stations or transfers). Because of the major facilities unique to this train, Amtrak could save a lot of money by cancelling it as well as gaining an abundance of equipment. However, because of the large amount or revenue it generates, it still may not make sense from Amtrak's perspective.

If we are defining a route as having an independent name, the least felt cancellation would probably be the Illini or Saluki, as the entirety of the route would be left with two frequencies. Another possibility could be the Hoosier State, which runs only four times per week and at poor hours. If we limit it to LD routes, I would eliminate the Palmetto as it is entirely redundant with the exception of Dillon, SC which could be picked up by the SM. However, since no more than one station would be lost, this would probably not save much money. Other than the Palmetto, I would choose to eliminate the Cardinal due to it's tri-weekly schedule and poor calling times at Indianapolis and Cincinnati.

However, I don't want any of these trains to be eliminated. In fact, most of them could be strengthened by service improvements. For example, the Cardinal/Hoosier State could be strengthened by corridor service west of Cincinnati, daily service east of Cincinnati, or at least an improved schedule. The Palmetto has the potential to provide an alternative schedule to Miami that arrives in the morning and departs at night. As to the Illini/Saluki, improved frequencies may help there as well, but I don't see a major issue on that route and only selected it as it is the only corridor service I can think of with 3+ frequencies all named individually.

The Auto Train is very profitable though. I chose the Illini because even if it was canceled, the corridor would still have 2 a day service.

 

[cpotisch]

From my personal perspective, the route that matters the least to me is the Auto Train as I don't drive and it is essentially independent from the rest of the system (no shared stations or transfers). Because of the major facilities unique to this train, Amtrak could save a lot of money by cancelling it as well as gaining an abundance of equipment. However, because of the large amount or revenue it generates, it still may not make sense from Amtrak's perspective.

If we are defining a route as having an independent name, the least felt cancellation would probably be the Illini or Saluki, as the entirety of the route would be left with two frequencies. Another possibility could be the Hoosier State, which runs only four times per week and at poor hours. If we limit it to LD routes, I would eliminate the Palmetto as it is entirely redundant with the exception of Dillon, SC which could be picked up by the SM. However, since no more than one station would be lost, this would probably not save much money. Other than the Palmetto, I would choose to eliminate the Cardinal due to it's tri-weekly schedule and poor calling times at Indianapolis and Cincinnati.

However, I don't want any of these trains to be eliminated. In fact, most of them could be strengthened by service improvements. For example, the Cardinal/Hoosier State could be strengthened by corridor service west of Cincinnati, daily service east of Cincinnati, or at least an improved schedule. The Palmetto has the potential to provide an alternative schedule to Miami that arrives in the morning and departs at night. As to the Illini/Saluki, improved frequencies may help there as well, but I don't see a major issue on that route and only selected it as it is the only corridor service I can think of with 3+ frequencies all named individually.

I would very much agree that Auto Train is pretty much it's own thing: no shared stations, special equipment, meals in coach, take your car, only two stations, etc. It's very much on it's own in the Amtrak system. However, it manages to be frequently sold out (and bear in mind it's a huge train) despite tickets being pretty pricey. The Auto Train has very high demand and I believe it's very profitable, as railgeekteen said.

Also bear in mind that since the AT runs such weird equipment (lounge car, Deluxe Sleeper), some cars might have to be modified before they could be put on other routes. For example, an AT lounge wouldn't work great on the CZ, for example. And the Deluxe Sleepers would be overkill for almost any normal train.

 

[jis]

Autotrain also operates under a completely different union contract, which has interesting positive effects on its finances too.

 

[railiner]

Indeed, if the long distance Amtrak trains were discontinued, the Auto Train could well return to its roots, as a privately operated entity.

I doubt if any other Amtrak long distance train could do that....

 

[jebr]

I chose the Illini because even if it was canceled, the corridor would still have 2 a day service.

In terms of any discussions where trains would have to be cancelled from the nationwide system, though, the Illini wouldn't be on the list; it's a state-sponsored train so any operational loss is paid for by the State of Illinois (from my understanding, anyways.) Thus, Amtrak wouldn't have the power to cut it other than to cancel the contract with the State of Illinois, which would be a bad move for Amtrak since Illinois makes sure Amtrak is made whole on that train. In a situation where Amtrak had to cut a route for finances, it'd be a long distance train route (it's possible that cuts would happen with the NER and Acelas as well, but that's less likely to completely go away as Amtrak is generally under the impression that the NEC trains are profitable where the LD trains aren't.)

That's why I think, if we were to reach a situation where Amtrak had to cut routes, the Sunset Limited would be top of the list and probably the one I would vote to cut.

 

[cpotisch]

I chose the Illini because even if it was canceled, the corridor would still have 2 a day service.

In terms of any discussions where trains would have to be cancelled from the nationwide system, though, the Illini wouldn't be on the list; it's a state-sponsored train so any operational loss is paid for by the State of Illinois (from my understanding, anyways.) Thus, Amtrak wouldn't have the power to cut it other than to cancel the contract with the State of Illinois, which would be a bad move for Amtrak since Illinois makes sure Amtrak is made whole on that train. In a situation where Amtrak had to cut a route for finances, it'd be a long distance train route (it's possible that cuts would happen with the NER and Acelas as well, but that's less likely to completely go away as Amtrak is generally under the impression that the NEC trains are profitable where the LD trains aren't.)

That's why I think, if we were to reach a situation where Amtrak had to cut routes, the Sunset Limited would be top of the list and probably the one I would vote to cut.

A big problem with the Sunset Limited (but by no means the only problem), is that every connection in NOL requires an overnight. Thus Chicago is the only useful hub to/from the west. If connections to the CONO and Crescent were made same-day, the Sunset Limited could be a pretty useful train. Now, however, anyone wanting connect in New Orleans needs to spend an extra day of their vacation, and pay for a hotel, which is less than appealing.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

I chose the Illini because even if it was canceled, the corridor would still have 2 a day service.

In terms of any discussions where trains would have to be cancelled from the nationwide system, though, the Illini wouldn't be on the list; it's a state-sponsored train so any operational loss is paid for by the State of Illinois (from my understanding, anyways.) Thus, Amtrak wouldn't have the power to cut it other than to cancel the contract with the State of Illinois, which would be a bad move for Amtrak since Illinois makes sure Amtrak is made whole on that train. In a situation where Amtrak had to cut a route for finances, it'd be a long distance train route (it's possible that cuts would happen with the NER and Acelas as well, but that's less likely to completely go away as Amtrak is generally under the impression that the NEC trains are profitable where the LD trains aren't.)

That's why I think, if we were to reach a situation where Amtrak had to cut routes, the Sunset Limited would be top of the list and probably the one I would vote to cut.

A big problem with the Sunset Limited (but by no means the only problem), is that every connection in NOL requires an overnight. Thus Chicago is the only useful hub to/from the west. If connections to the CONO and Crescent were made same-day, the Sunset Limited could be a pretty useful train. Now, however, anyone wanting connect in New Orleans needs to spend an extra day of their vacation, and pay for a hotel, which is less than appealing.

Also ridiculous westbound departure time in San Antonio (graveyard shift) and arrival time in LAX (before 6am), that's two of the biggest markets on the route. Plus, there's always the "it's not daily" argument.

 

[Lonestar648]

I suspect that UP has a lot to do with the times in SAS. If the TE, a daily train, moved its termination to LAX, the need for switching would not exist, then maybe with some negotiating with UP for the daily LAX run, the times could be adjusted for SAS. The TE already arrives at 9;55 PM, maybe that could get pushed a bit earlier, so the arrival in LAX could be late evening. That does away with the SL NOL/SAS portion, so is there enough traffic if the daily Crescent was extended to NOL. This is getting rid of the SL but maintaining the current stations. I believe there is a savings by going daily with extending existing routes adding passengers, and extending some passengers time on the train..

 

[Devil's Advocate]

A big problem with the Sunset Limited (but by no means the only problem), is that every connection in NOL requires an overnight. Thus Chicago is the only useful hub to/from the west. If connections to the CONO and Crescent were made same-day, the Sunset Limited could be a pretty useful train. Now, however, anyone wanting connect in New Orleans needs to spend an extra day of their vacation, and pay for a hotel, which is less than appealing.

Also ridiculous westbound departure time in San Antonio (graveyard shift) and arrival time in LAX (before 6am), that's two of the biggest markets on the route. Plus, there's always the "it's not daily" argument.

No joke. Westbound calling at SAS is from midnight until 2:45AM. In LA you could be arriving as early as 4:30 AM. Combine the poor calling times and connections with the three times weekly schedule and it’s a route that struggles to find a reason or purpose for continued existence, even among spendthrift pro-rail passengers like me.

 

[neroden]

Define profit, because, generally speaking, long-distance trains run deficits every year (even the best performing ones).

That's down to bad accounting. If you look at revenues vs. marginal cost of operation, which for some reason Amtrak and Congress want to avoid doing, I am quite sure that the LSL, Star, Meteor, Palmetto, Auto Train, Crescent, Coast Starlight, and Empire Builder are profitable. The Cardinal would be profitable if it ran daily; it has many of the costs of a daily train without the corresponding revenues.

Amtrak prefers to use "allocations", which means arbitrarily dumping random parts of the cost of operating the central reservations system and Beech Grove backshops on particular trains with no rhyme or reason. This is best described as BS.

 

[neroden]

The real problem with this thread is that the question “Which route would you cut?”, can mean a million things. It could be whatever has low ridership,

Out of the non-state-supported trains, that's the Sunset Limited

high operating costs,

Sunset Limited

high redundancy,

Palmetto

lack of support,

Sunset Limited

etc.

Sunset Limited

Depending on how you interpret the question, basically any route could be the ideal candidate to get the ax.

No, it's pretty much always the Sunset Limited.
There seems to be zero political support west of *Beaumont*, for some reason. The three-a-week situation kills ridership and revenue while expenses stay high, but it performs far worse than the Cardinal which has a similar crippling limitation. Much of the route has absolutely no potential for growth -- from San Antonio to El Paso it's not clear that it's worthwhile even putting platforms at the nowheresville stations, and frankly Houston to San Antonio has shown no interest in stations. Houston barely uses the train at all. The cities it does stop in can't even be bothered to fix up their stations, and Phoenix can't be bothered to even have the train run through it, despite decades of Arizona rail advocates attempting to get them to do so.

When I look at the Sunset Limited, I see a train which runs from Los Angeles, with a non-functional stop outside Phoenix, to Tucson, then nonstop to El Paso, then stopping at pointless stations until San Antonio, then nonstop to Houston... this is a bad train route, because there's nothing on the way. East of Houston, it's a better route, and it does have some political support in Louisiana, but apparently not much -- and the Louisiana section will frankly be underwater as Louisiana sinks and sea level rises.

It would still be OK if it could be run daily, but with Union Pacific insisting on maintaining its crippled status, it's hopeless. Unlike pretty much every other route in the country, the Congressmen representing the districts it passes through routinely vote *against* funding Amtrak.