Trump and Amtrak/Budget cutting funding

[afigg]

President Trump thinks like a businessman and not a politician. He will most likely push for cuts to those routes loosing money. Same goes for other federal programs loosing too much money. He said he's going to drain the swamp and that includes spending. Elections have consequences but remember that Congress has to approve the budget and allot can happen before it is finalized.

When discussing the budget slashing proposals from the Trump administration, it is quite likely that President Trump himself has not even read the budget specifics for the various transportation department items, let alone has had said anything to his staff about funding the Amtrak LD routes. That is, if Trump is even aware of Amtrak's long distance trains. It has become quite clear that Trump is not a details guy at all. Not even close. So let's not talk about the budget cut proposals as something Trump himself is involved in. The decisions on what is in the Administrations proposed budgets are being made by the staffers, the ideologues who have landed positions in the White House and agency heads. I suggest we stick to referring to the proposed budget as coming from the "Trump Administration" and not Trump himself in any way.

Besides the appropriations funding amounts from Congress, what will matter to Amtrak is who fills the key positions in the Department of Transportation, like the head of the FRA. If those positions get filled by anti-passenger rail and anti-transit advocates, they could make for a challenging 4 years for Amtrak and the major city transit agencies.

 

[afigg]

We are getting a clue in the fate of the Trump's Administration budget slashing proposals in the FY2017 appropriations. The federal government has been running on continuing resolutions since the start of October. The Hill reports that a budget agreement has been reached in Congress, so the FY2017 appropriations may be passed in the next few days. Yes, seven months into the fiscal year with only 5 months left. It may be stupid, but that is what our political process has come to.

The Hill: Congress has deal to fund government through September

Besides the Amtrak capital and operational funding levels, I have not seen any recent reports on how much funding, if any, the TIGER grant program will get going forward. Even if the TIGER program survives, the guidelines may be revised to favor road and highway projects over transit, commuter & intercity passenger rail, and local pedestrian and bike trail projects. Even if the TIGER grant guidelines are left mostly unchanged, the political appointees in the US DOT will weigh in on the decisions on which project applications get funding.

 

[Lonestar648]

Is anyone in Congress really wanting to discuss the Budget? Neither side wants to discuss a budget, thus the continuation of the continuing resolutions to avoid a nasty fight, a and everyone (Congress) can party together after hours. Next year at this time the House will be worrying about re-election, so anything budget will be postponed until after the 2018 election.

 

[afigg]

An early report from the Washington Post on what is in the FY2017 omnibus appropriations agreement:

AMTRAK:

The nation’s passenger rail service, a quasi-government organization, gets $1.5 billion, a $105 million increase from the last budget year.

From another news report that didn't get specific, I suspect that much of the $105 million in additional funding is for the NEC. Regardless, the takeaway is that the big funding cut proposal is not getting any traction for the current fiscal year. Anyway, the news and public interest organizations will be spending days, if not weeks, figuring out all the pieces that are in the 1600 page $1 trillion plus appropriations bill.

 

[jis]

Is anyone in Congress really wanting to discuss the Budget? Neither side wants to discuss a budget, thus the continuation of the continuing resolutions to avoid a nasty fight, a and everyone (Congress) can party together after hours. Next year at this time the House will be worrying about re-election, so anything budget will be postponed until after the 2018 election.

There have been significant discussions going on about the 2018 budget in addition to the 2017 CR. Nobody expected 2017 to be anything but a CR anyway, since it really is not a full appropriation, but a filler. Trump tried to tack on all sorts of additional stuff and was mostly beaten off.

2018 involves substantive discussions since Congress has to put a budget together as there is no one there that pays much attention to Trump's proposals as far as I can tell. It should be interesting to see how things go after the appropriation passes this week. From NARP our goal is to get the full appropriation in line with the FAST Act Authorization. We have generally heard that full appropriation will be difficult, but also an appropriation significantly less than 2017 levels is unlikely. But we'll see. As usual the Senate is more sympathetic than the House, but even the House will probably not be proposing significantly less than 2017 levels.

 

[afigg]

Found a link to a House committee webpage with what is supposed to the final appropriations bill. Excerpts from Division K PDF (warning nuts and bolts details):

NORTHEAST CORRIDOR GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION
The agreement provides $328,000,000 to allow the Secretary to make grants for activities associated with the Northeast Corridor (NEC), defined as the main line between Boston, Massachusetts and the District of Columbia, and the facilities and services used to operate and maintain the line. In addition, the agreement directs all operating profits related to the NEC to be assigned and used on the NEC, as required by section 24317©(l)© of title 49, United States Code. Amtrak projects a fiscal year 2017 net operating profit of $397,400,000 on the NEC, yielding a total funding level of $725,400,000 for the NEC.

The agreement allows Amtrak to undertake new capital projects and encourages Amtrak to prioritize strategic rail infrastructure improvements at critical points in the rail network that would improve current services or create new capacity.

The agreement allows Amtrak to transfer funding between the NEC and the National Network consistent with requirements under section 24317(f) and (g) of title 49, United States Code and requires Amtrak to report the amount of any transfer, the purpose, and effect on services consistent with section 24317(g)(2) of title 49, United States Code.

The agreement allows the Secretary to retain up to one-half of one percent of the total provided to Amtrak for project management and oversight costs and requires not less than $50,000,000 to bring Amtrak-served facilities and stations into compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. It also allows up to $5,000,000 of the Northeast Corridor Grants to fund the Northeast Corridor Commission expenses.

NATIONAL NETWORK GRANTS TO THE NATIONAL RAILROAD PASSENGER CORPORATION

The agreement provides $1,167,000,000 to allow the Secretary to make grants for activities associated with the National Network. National Network Grants provide operating and capital funding for expenses of Amtrak's entire network, including long-distance routes that operate on the NEC. The agreement also provides that the Secretary may retain up to an additional $2,000,000 to fund expenses associated with the state supported route committee.

Other stuff:

The agreement directs Amtrak and FRA to submit a detailed congressional budget justification consistent with the structure authorized in P.L. 114-94, to the House and Senate Committees on Appropriations for fiscal year 2018. The agreement also directs FRA to coordinate with Amtrak to complete the feasibility study on establishing service at airports that are adjacent to the mainline of the Northeast Corridor no later than 60 days after enactment of this Act, and directs Amtrak to provide a report no later than 120 days after enactment of this Act comparing actual food and beverage savings for fiscal year 2016 with projections.

TIGER grant program survives for FY2017.

The agreement provides $500,000,000 for capital investments in surface transportation infrastructure, commonly known as the "TIGER" program, to remain available until September 30, 2020. The agreement does not include funding for planning or design Activities.

 

[Carolina Special]

Evidently the Trump budget for FY2018 will be released next Tuesday, according to OMB Director Mulvaney speaking at the Federalist Society and as reported by the Washington Examiner. This is supposed to be a much more detailed budget than the "skinny" version released for FY2017.

Assuming this happens on time, you can probably prepare to start hollering at your local congress person by Tuesday evening.

 

[Palmetto]

And DOA at Congress, if history is any teacher.

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Evidently the Trump budget for FY2018 will be released next Tuesday, according to OMB Director Mulvaney speaking at the Federalist Society and as reported by the Washington Examiner. This is supposed to be a much more detailed budget than the "skinny" version released for FY2017.

Here is NARP's initial passenger rail focused review...

After an initial reading of the Fiscal Year 2018 budget, NARP has identified the following threats to rail and transit:

—Eliminated $630 million to Amtrak’s long-distance trains, $560 million below FAST Act authorized levels. While this budget still provides $525 million for the National Network—flip-flopping on an earlier proposal to eliminate all funding—this budget will still mean the end to Amtrak’s long-distance services. After years of stagnant funding, aging equipment and stations, and increased ridership demands, Amtrak’s budget for the National Network is already down to the bone. Gutting half its budget will result in a slow-motion collapse of the lines that provides the only Amtrak service to 23 states, and the only nearby Amtrak service for 144.6 million Americans

—Flatlines funding for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor at $235 million, $280 million below FAST Act authorized levels. With tens of billions in critical capital investment needed urgently on the Northeast Corridor, stagnant funding levels will shut the door on a number of urgent projects to improve reliability on the corridor.

—Funds FAST Act rail grant programs at $51 million, $375 million below the levels authorized for FY2018 in the FAST Act. The budget focuses token funds on the programs targeted at large metropolitan areas, ignoring restoration programs pushed by Senators representing rural areas.

—Slashes $499 million from the TIGER grant program, zeroing out the highly successful program that invests in passenger rail and transit projects of national significance;

—Cuts $928 million from the Federal Transit Administration’s “New Starts” Capital Investment Program, which is crucial to launching new transit, commuter rail, and light-rail projects.

—Even the oft-touted infrastructure investment package falls short. Not only will the investment be spread out over 10 years, the $200 billion in proposed infrastructure spending (not the $1 trillion promised in the campaign) is secured through an accounting gimmick, and will be offset by $95 billion in assumed Highway Trust Fund cuts after 2020.

And DOA at Congress, if history is any teacher.

I can understand why you'd say that. After all, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had repeatedly stated that they support passenger rail as a fundamental function of our federal government and they have vowed not to allow Trump to decimate Amtrak's funding. Oh, wait, no they haven't.

 

[bretton88]

Evidently the Trump budget for FY2018 will be released next Tuesday, according to OMB Director Mulvaney speaking at the Federalist Society and as reported by the Washington Examiner. This is supposed to be a much more detailed budget than the "skinny" version released for FY2017.

Here is NARP's initial passenger rail focused review...

After an initial reading of the Fiscal Year 2018 budget, NARP has identified the following threats to rail and transit:

—Eliminated $630 million to Amtrak’s long-distance trains, $560 million below FAST Act authorized levels. While this budget still provides $525 million for the National Network—flip-flopping on an earlier proposal to eliminate all funding—this budget will still mean the end to Amtrak’s long-distance services. After years of stagnant funding, aging equipment and stations, and increased ridership demands, Amtrak’s budget for the National Network is already down to the bone. Gutting half its budget will result in a slow-motion collapse of the lines that provides the only Amtrak service to 23 states, and the only nearby Amtrak service for 144.6 million Americans

—Flatlines funding for Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor at $235 million, $280 million below FAST Act authorized levels. With tens of billions in critical capital investment needed urgently on the Northeast Corridor, stagnant funding levels will shut the door on a number of urgent projects to improve reliability on the corridor.

—Funds FAST Act rail grant programs at $51 million, $375 million below the levels authorized for FY2018 in the FAST Act. The budget focuses token funds on the programs targeted at large metropolitan areas, ignoring restoration programs pushed by Senators representing rural areas.

—Slashes $499 million from the TIGER grant program, zeroing out the highly successful program that invests in passenger rail and transit projects of national significance;

—Cuts $928 million from the Federal Transit Administration’s “New Starts” Capital Investment Program, which is crucial to launching new transit, commuter rail, and light-rail projects.

—Even the oft-touted infrastructure investment package falls short. Not only will the investment be spread out over 10 years, the $200 billion in proposed infrastructure spending (not the $1 trillion promised in the campaign) is secured through an accounting gimmick, and will be offset by $95 billion in assumed Highway Trust Fund cuts after 2020.

And DOA at Congress, if history is any teacher.

I can understand why you'd say that. After all, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had repeatedly stated that they support passenger rail as a fundamental function of our federal government and they have vowed not to allow Trump to decimate Amtrak's funding. Oh, wait, no they haven't.

McConnell and Ryan might not have said that per se, but many Republicans sure have. The national network still enjoys broad support in Congress.

 

[A Voice]

Here is NARP's initial passenger rail focused review...

After an initial reading of the Fiscal Year 2018 budget, NARP has identified the following threats to rail and transit:

—Eliminated $630 million to Amtrak’s long-distance trains, $560 million below FAST Act authorized levels. While this budget still provides $525 million for the National Network—flip-flopping on an earlier proposal to eliminate all funding—this budget will still mean the end to Amtrak’s long-distance services. After years of stagnant funding, aging equipment and stations, and increased ridership demands, Amtrak’s budget for the National Network is already down to the bone. Gutting half its budget will result in a slow-motion collapse of the lines that provides the only Amtrak service to 23 states, and the only nearby Amtrak service for 144.6 million Americans

The fact that the proposed budget from the administration, still likely heavily influenced by groups such as the Heritage Foundation, proposed any money for the long-distance services is both very revealing and potentially encouraging. President Trump is not starting from a position of complete elimination of national network services, as have several previous (conservative) administrations. If Congress and the (inexperienced) Trump team would manage to get their act together, they might actually be able to work together to accomplish something towards a reasoned national transportation policy in the next four or eight years.

I am disappointed that NARP would paint this in a completely negative light, however. It is hardly a ringing endorsement of passenger rail, but it is a glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel. The budget proposal has far, far bigger issues than what it would do for rail and transit (and, of course, those numbers will change).

And DOA at Congress, if history is any teacher.

I can understand why you'd say that. After all, House Speaker Paul Ryan and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell had repeatedly stated that they support passenger rail as a fundamental function of our federal government and they have vowed not to allow Trump to decimate Amtrak's funding. Oh, wait, no they haven't.

McConnell and Ryan might not have said that per se, but many Republicans sure have. The national network still enjoys broad support in Congress.

Where it always has, and where the real decisions (and budget numbers) will be made. I know some people want to believe Amtrak is in mortal danger, and while in politics probably nothing is ever completely off the table, passenger rail still enjoys widespread support in Congress and among the populace.

 

[Philly Amtrak Fan]

So the game plan should be to campaign for the full (roughly) $1.1 billion (or more if you can get it) allocation to LD services as opposed to the cut to $525 million.

But if it $525 million, there is no reason financially Amtrak has to or should cut all LD service. Even the most costly train according to the FY 2016 report, the Southwest Chief (https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/188/327/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-September-2016-Final-Audited,0.pdf ) costs $115 million. So you now see why I don't want to say "all or nothing". IF (big if) we can only get the $525 million, hopefully we can make the most of that $525 million and be happy the $525M isn't zero rather than shut down the entire Amtrak LD system. This is Plan B, Plan A is to get the $1.1 billion back (actually $1.0333B in the report). But we need to at least prepare for Plan B rather than just have ALL of the LD trains disappear. Unless we get the full subsidy required, we need (either by our words or by our wallets in the form of ridership/revenue) to tell Amtrak/Congress which are the ones we want to keep (not me, we). We let them decide and look what happens.

 

[A Voice]

So the game plan should be to campaign for the full (roughly) $1.1 billion (or more if you can get it) allocation to LD services as opposed to the cut to $525 million.

But if it $525 million, there is no reason financially Amtrak has to or should cut all LD service. Even the most costly train according to the FY 2016 report, the Southwest Chief (https://www.amtrak.com/ccurl/188/327/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-September-2016-Final-Audited,0.pdf ) costs $115 million. So you now see why I don't want to say "all or nothing". IF (big if) we can only get the $525 million, hopefully we can make the most of that $525 million and be happy the $525M isn't zero rather than shut down the entire Amtrak LD system. This is Plan B, Plan A is to get the $1.1 billion back (actually $1.0333B in the report). But we need to at least prepare for Plan B rather than just have ALL of the LD trains disappear. Unless we get the full subsidy required, we need (either by our words or by our wallets in the form of ridership/revenue) to tell Amtrak/Congress which are the ones we want to keep (not me, we). We let them decide and look what happens.

No. The very worst thing we could possibly do at this point is to tell Congress that certain trains should be eliminated - even if we could make an objective argument that it was for the overall good to save most other services. Rather, express support for passenger rail in general and specifically those trains which serve your region (and that your representatives will primarily care about).

Further, with the horse trading and political maneuvering necessary to pass a budget, combined with the smoke & mirrors accounting of passenger train operating expenses (versus capital expenses), it is not necessarily accurate that a $525 million national network budget number would mean the end of any routes or services nationwide - corridor, regional, or even long-distance. The total Amtrak FY2018 appropriation is much more important (and possibly any attached legislative mandates). A total budget in the ballpark of previous years' numbers likely means business as usual (which is a huge problem going forward given Northeast Corridor infrastructure requirements, but I digress).

 

[jis]

One has to be a total ***** to tell Congress to eliminate a specific train IMHO. Asking to fund a specific project makes sense though there are not reasonable means of doing that these days apparently. So the most reasonable thing to do is to get the funding level upto the best level one can. One goal should be to also try to minimize legislative mandates because that is how Congress does the dreaded micromanagement.

Incidentally the separation between Capital and Expense has been quietly buried. Now it is just $X for NEC and $Y for National Network (which includes LD and State Supported Corridors). Those are the two main accounts other than of course mandatory things like RR Retirement Contribution, OIG etc.And then there are the few additional lines that NARP talks about that have relevance to Amtrak. And then there is the FTA appropriation which also has significant impact on NEC infrastructure, since a bunch of it is funded through transit agencies, including most likely the Portal North Bridge, and possibly significant portions of other Gateway related projects.

 

[Lonestar648]

The negotiations need to start above what is wanted knowing it will be reduced. If the negotiations start with eliminating some LD routes then for sure those will be gone, if not more. Almost need to negotiate from the stand point, all or nothing. Does Congress want the grid lock of a complete shut down? No.

 

[Acela150]

The FY 18 budget was released today.. And as soon as it came out many GOP members were quoted as saying that "It's going no where" and that's it's instantly "DOA".

 

[RPC]

Per Lonestar above, Trump's own "Art of the Deal" says to open with way more than you expect to achieve, as that gives you plenty of wiggle room in the negotiations. So, unrealistic as it might be, I'd open with fully funded Gateway, daily Cardinal and SL, and restored Chicago-Pittsburgh-New York service.

 

[jis]

The budget process typically would not involve discussion of individual trains, except those that are on the political radar already, like the Gulf Coast service.

Gateway is on the radar screen big time so it will get attention specially since the DoT Secretary has also been on record stating so.

A good starting position would to ask for full FAST authorized funding and funding for Gateway consistent with the full funding of 50% of its projected cost over ten years prorated annually. Full FAST funding levels will actually give enough wiggle room for many of the individual trains and services and even funds for some rolling stock acquisition with leveraged loans.

Interestingly, the legislative assistant of the Chair of the House Appropriations Committee told us that we should be careful how much we push for Amtrak, since getting a huge amount of money for it without adequate support across the board in Congress, only paints a larger target on its back for adverse treatment the next year. Of course the way to address that is to see that the anti-Amtrak guys in Congress get defeated in the next election, but that may be a tall order.

 

[A Voice]

After an initial reading of the Fiscal Year 2018 budget, NARP has identified the following threats to rail and transit:

—Eliminated $630 million to Amtrak’s long-distance trains, $560 million below FAST Act authorized levels. While this budget still provides $525 million for the National Network—flip-flopping on an earlier proposal to eliminate all funding—this budget will still mean the end to Amtrak’s long-distance services. After years of stagnant funding, aging equipment and stations, and increased ridership demands, Amtrak’s budget for the National Network is already down to the bone. Gutting half its budget will result in a slow-motion collapse of the lines that provides the only Amtrak service to 23 states, and the only nearby Amtrak service for 144.6 million Americans

Did NARP edit the news copy posted above (not negative enough the first time or something)? It now reads as below (where do they get $525 million in national network costs which don't include the long-distance services?). Something doesn't add up here.

—Eliminated $630 million to Amtrak’s long-distance trains, $560 million below FAST Act authorized levels. This budget provides $525 million for the National Network, but targets all funding to the state supported services and other costs, calling for an end to all of Amtrak’s long-distance routes.

Realistically, however, the proposal would likely shut down the entire National Network, state-supported trains and all. After years of stagnant funding, aging equipment and stations, and increased ridership demands, Amtrak is already running the national rail system on a threadbare budget. Gutting half of the National Network funding will likely result in a slow-motion collapse of the entire network.

Per Lonestar above, Trump's own "Art of the Deal" says to open with way more than you expect to achieve, as that gives you plenty of wiggle room in the negotiations. So, unrealistic as it might be, I'd open with fully funded Gateway, daily Cardinal and SL, and restored Chicago-Pittsburgh-New York service.

Honestly, the FY2018 budget needs to include only realistic service expansions with serious, concrete, and politically supported proposals which are legitimately close to fruition; Specifically the City of New Orleans extension and possibly the Crescent Star, maybe a daily Cardinal. Too long a wish list is arguably counterproductive.

Through cars on the Pennsylvanian seems so obvious, once Amtrak has the equipment, I wonder just how much political capital we need spend fighting for such a minor (though important) alteration. Gateway involves more parties than just Amtrak and should be an obvious candidate for infrastructure investment if (big IF) Congress can stop playing politics and the Trump administration gain some experience in how to get things done in Washington.

 

[A Voice]

Interestingly, the legislative assistant of the Chair of the House Appropriations Committee told us that we should be careful how much we push for Amtrak, since getting a huge amount of money for it without adequate support across the board in Congress, only paints a larger target on its back for adverse treatment the next year. Of course the way to address that is to see that the anti-Amtrak guys in Congress get defeated in the next election, but that may be a tall order.

He makes a legitimate point, but the more I think about it the more convinced I am that such a strategy is mistaken and actually works against the cause of passenger rail. We'll never get anywhere just maintaining the status quo, and expanded and improved service - or even just existing service in a state of good repair - takes money, significantly more than what has been budgeted in the past. Better to be a political target than just sit back and watch the network's slow decline into obsolescence and irrelevance (which would also make it a target politically). Passenger rail is a political animal; There's no getting around that.

 

[jis]

Yeah. But the point still remains that as long as he is the Chair of Appropriations, the budget that comes out of his committee which is what goes to the full House will probably follow the principle elucidated by his chief legislative aid, or something close to it. Tactically, this indicates to me that the actual battle if fought in the Senate has a better chance of being more productive for us rail advocates. We spoke with the Committee Staff for transportation on both sides of the aisle on the Senate side, thanks to Senator Nelson and Senator Thune, and both sides were way more supportive there to our cause than the House Appropriations Chair's staff.

Just an observation, so please don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Bob Dylan]

Spot on jis! Its amazing how so many Americans don't know how the System actually works in Sodom on the Potomac!

 

[dlagrua]

I see no cause for being upset just yet. The White House only proposes and in the case of the 2018 federal budget it looks like the arch conservatives got their way at that end. However, the budget and appropriations are set by the congress. I doubt if passenger rail will disappear. It would be political suicide if LD Amtrak service was eliminated, and congress knows it!

 

[west point]

Whatever house supports Amtrak more we cannot get by the fact that Amtrak passenger equipment is stretched to the limit. So the final appropriations bill must provide funds for both rebuilding any remaining wreck repairs and for new cars. With the problems at N-S maybe get some funds for V-2 coaches.

The Siemens Chargers appear to be coming on line in the next few months so funds for freed up P-42 rebuilds that Moorman stated earlier.

 

[neroden]

The budget process typically would not involve discussion of individual trains, except those that are on the political radar already, like the Gulf Coast service.

Gateway is on the radar screen big time so it will get attention specially since the DoT Secretary has also been on record stating so.

A good starting position would to ask for full FAST authorized funding and funding for Gateway consistent with the full funding of 50% of its projected cost over ten years prorated annually. Full FAST funding levels will actually give enough wiggle room for many of the individual trains and services and even funds for some rolling stock acquisition with leveraged loans.

Interestingly, the legislative assistant of the Chair of the House Appropriations Committee told us that we should be careful how much we push for Amtrak, since getting a huge amount of money for it without adequate support across the board in Congress, only paints a larger target on its back for adverse treatment the next year. Of course the way to address that is to see that the anti-Amtrak guys in Congress get defeated in the next election, but that may be a tall order.

Yeah, this shows his ignorance (not that I'm surprised that an aide is ignorant about the economics of this). Getting a huge amount now and having adverse treatment the next year is actually preferable to the status quo -- provided the "huge amount" is spent on buying new rolling stock (particularly single-level sleepers and locomotives), speeding up trips by buying or improving tracks, etc. -- because appropriate capital improvements increase revenue and reduce operating costs, meaning that less money will actually be *needed* in the future.

Little noticed is that Amtrak is paying off the Penn Station Mortgage next month, which is a $28.5 million per year improvement in the annual budget. I expect the net loss (not the cash flow and not the operating loss -- the net loss, which includes depreciation) to be below a billion dollars for 2017, a record low.

Amtrak has to stop doing penny-wise pound-foolish things like the disruption to Auto Train service quality which has led to a crash in ridership. And its passenger car suppliers have to actually make and deliver cars on time. But if Amtrak can avoid that kind of incompetence, having a large lump sum next year and less the year after is actually a *good* situation for Amtrak.