All the stations on the NEC fall under NEC accounts.
For the National Network, there's previously been some relatively immaterially improper capital cost allocation going on between State Supported services and Long Distance trains, but the last few audited financial reports have mostly cleared those out.
It is my understanding LD trains are allocated costs from the NEC for their use of it. That would include station, electric engine cost, personnel, etc. Do you have other information that none of the costs or only a fair share of them are allocated to LD for use of these?
Incorrect. While there are occasions where adding a sleeper car may be warranted, the cost of changing the consist, adding an SCA, possibly adding an engine or recalculating the fuel load AND the costs of lugging an empty car back to Chicago just plunge the train into further losses.
No, correct. Sure there are costs associated with adding a car but the income should be much higher than the added cost. And, that's a silly argument about adding an engine as even Amtrak would know that, if an additional engine, diner or lounge car were required because the existing one(s) were at their limit, it would likely not be a candidate for an added car. I generalized so I'll agree with you that it is not true in ALL cases.
Amtrak needs to improve its revenue management practices and customer relations in order to maximize profits on the LD lines before they go switching around consists.
No! They need to "improve its revenue management practices and customer relations in order to maximize profits..." but there is a limit to what that will accomplish. They need to GROW into breaking even or reduce loss, not cut to do so or they might as well cut to zero which would reduce all losses to zero but then there would be no Amtrak. They need to start thinking of growth ideas. Anderson thought of more intercity trains but he wanted to do it at the expense of LD. Amtrak lost an opportunity IMHO to implement the concept of growth by not having Orlando-Tampa-Miami coach service or just Tampa-Miami on days the Star doesn't run until full daily service is restored on the Star. They even have the engines and cars available from the tar trains that are not being used.
Becoming profitable should not be a mandate of Amtrak.
I never said that. I said "Becoming more profitable
(or reducing loss) [Bold added in this post] does not necessarily require cutting services nor increasing fares. It also can be done by increasing revenue by increasing services."
But it doesn't matter which of those you are talking about. They must increase revenue by increasing services whether that means more trains, more cities on a route, rerouting, offering additional onboard services to bring in more income, etc. They tried that with BC on the LD routes but BC on Amtrak is already inconsistent and it apparently did not work well enough to keep. I have to say they at least TRIED SOMETHING that didn't involve cutting.
However, the load factors on the LD trains from their inception to now shows that you cannot gain more revenue from running the same old products the same old way.
True except they are not trying to get more revenue. All they try is cutting service. (Covid issues apart).
Increasing the LD network services is kind of like saying let's spend all our money on a trip to Mars when we could invest in building a base on the moon and reliable transportation to space.
The LD Network cannot thrive or add new service unless it becomes a luxury land cruise product (ala the Auto Train), or becomes a viable link between other railroad corridors.
The LD Network exists because of Congressional Nostalgia and Federal funding.
Pfftt! "all our money"? No, some of our money. Just like NASA does.
No, it does not require land cruise product. But adding limited "Land Cruise", as you so nicely put it, is offering an add-on product to existing trains that MIGHT increase revenue to REDUCE LOSSES.
It is not nostalgia. It is a service, just like local transit. It deserves federal funding like other interstate services.
