Tracking FY 2024 Ridership and Finances

[Bostontoallpoints]

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.

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

 

[jimdex]

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

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.

 

[JamesWhitcombRiley]

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.

Guess it makes a profit on the cars & trucks.

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.

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

 

[MARC Rider]

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.

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.

 

[jimdex]

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

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.

 

[Bostontoallpoints]

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.

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.

 

[Bostontoallpoints]

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.

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.

 

[Bostontoallpoints]

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.

It is $285 for a standard vehicle.

 

[jis]

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.

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.

 

[west point]

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

 

[daybeers]

"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.

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.

 

[zephyr17]

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.

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.

 

[daybeers]

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.

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

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.