"10 Things Amtrak Won't Tell You"

[VentureForth]

". The company is projecting an operating loss of $507 million for the fiscal year ended in September -- even more than its $420 million loss in 2010 -- and next year, it expects to lose $616 million.

I find this stat really hard to believe. Are they actually saying that considering that Amtrak has changed little in the last two years (while ridership is still growing) that its losses are growing by 90M a year?

Can someone please veryify this? :help:

According to their own reports, their net operating losses have increased steadily over the last three years.

 

[afigg]

66 takes that long to make the run.

Edit: I went ahead and took your point and made it into a comment on the site, VF. We'll see if it garners any discussion.

Yes. And to go from DC to NYC, it can cost $237 and take 3 hours 50 minutes. But not on the same train (Acela peak price and Regional 66). Taking the highest business class price and the slowest overnight train and lumping them together as if they were the same shows the bias of the article.

If Amtrak is that slow and expensive between BOS and NYP, then why are the trains often sold out? The customers are not being forced to take the train over Megabus, Boltbus, driving, or flying. Anyway, when the 2 track delays in the Metro-North section due to bridge replacement are finally done, Amtrak should be able to get back to the sub 3:30 NYP-BOS Acela trip times.

Something I have wondered about Megabus and Boltbuses is what their on-time performance is? Amtrak posts constant status updates that can be followed and OTP analysis in their monthly reports. But I have not seen numbers on how often do the Megabuses and Boltbuses make their scheduled arrival times. Given the traffic between DC to NYC and NYC to Boston with all to frequent traffic jams, the buses have to get stuck in them.

 

[AlanB]

Wow, Alan - you're really a wiz with all of those numbers.

I've been at this for a while and have had time to do extensive research.

 

[Big Iron]

Wow, Alan - you're really a wiz with all of those numbers.

I've been at this for a while and have had time to do extensive research.

You are our pro-rail Yoda. :lol:

 

[Anderson]

Wow, Alan - you're really a wiz with all of those numbers.

You know, this (and the Virginian Pilot article) got me thinking - if we took even a small portion of the time we spend here arguing about the finer points of Amtrakdom and instead spent it on commenting on articles like these in a coordinated fashion, we might be able to make some headway into the public perception of Amtrak.

This had actually crossed my mind late last night...especially if we could get some coordination with other boards that I know folks are members of, I think we could probably arrange for a stream of comments either supporting pro-rail articles or tearing apart anti-rail articles, and get them out fast enough to basically block up the first page or two of comments on these things.

And yes, I would even include some openly right-wing publications in this (i.e. National Review Online, etc.) where we'll get blasted...but at least forcing some of the fight onto the other side's home turf would be a win (and besides, I'd like to see a "surprise swarm" catch them more or less off guard).

 

[saxman]

Sometimes read the comments, but I usually feel stupid or mad afterward. This is true for just about any online article. You're going to see some stupid comments and wonder if any of those people have any education. Sometimes, I'll try to correct some people, but often it gets overwhelming and my knowledge is not quite as extensive as some. And trying to Google my facts takes some time as well. So I just give up and let it go.

 

[gatelouse]

Only 26 comments as of post time. Given that the article's been out for a day, it looks like it's generated minimal interest outside of the rail community and hence, minimal damage. Still, glad that people called out the factual errors in the article. Linking an Acela price to a padded overnight Regional schedule is simply disingenuous and reflects poorly on the journalist.

Anyone else want to draft AlanB for the next NARP President?

 

[PRR 60]

I always find comments to be amusing. I read them for entertainment value.

In this article, the comments on both sides - pro and anti-rail - have plenty of pieces of inaccurate information. It's just par for the course. Commenters are not subject to fact checking.

 

[Ryan]

Neither are article writers, it seems.

 

[guest]

Just read an article on line that says the Pentagon is fighting a reduction of the military bands' budgets from $400 million to a "paltry" $250 million next year.

We spend $400 million on almost 200 military bands in all three services and can't afford $500 million to support a national rail network, as inadequate as it is?

Something's rotten in the state of Denmark, and Hamlet would not be happy if he were to be a 21st-century American citizen...

 

[DET63]

You--ok, we--may not like this, but it's probably accurate:

8. "High-speed rail? Not anytime soon."
Amtrak's latest high-speed-rail plan proposes a $117 billion investment in a train network capable of hitting speeds of 186 to 220 miles per hour (its fastest trains now max out at 150 mph), projected to wrap up in 2040. But given the economy, critics say that's unlikely. In fact, Rep. John Mica (R-Fla.) recently introduced a plan to cut federal funding for certain Amtrak lines and allow private companies to submit bids to run high-speed trains along the Northeast Corridor, the rail route connecting Boston to Washington.

 

[cirdan]

According to their own reports, their net operating losses have increased steadily over the last three years.

Maybe somebody who knows more about accounting than I do can expound on this.

Does that net operating loss include investments that have been going on, such as refurbishment of rolling stock.

Also, how does Amtrak write-off its rolling stock?

I guess there must be some linear depreciation over 25 or 30 years or so?

So once the equipment hits that 30 year limit that depreciation stops and suddenly on the balance sheet it becomes more economical. But that isn't a real saving but a quirk of the accounting system, isn't it?

Similarly, if such equipment is refurbished or replaced, the depreciation starts ticking again and appears as costs even if no actual money is being spent.

 

[eagle628]

Pathetic display of "journalism," I would've expected much better from a website with the Wall Street Journal logo at the top.

WSJ is owned by News Corp and is decidedly conservative in its editorializing, so the article was no surprise. :wacko:

Yes, but a) the article is not an editorial and b) regardless of bias; I would expect any publication to take the time to check its articles for accuracy--for instance, it says that Amtrak has not bought any new equipment since the 1980s, which is simply not true.

 

[afigg]

Maybe somebody who knows more about accounting than I do can expound on this.

Does that net operating loss include investments that have been going on, such as refurbishment of rolling stock.

Also, how does Amtrak write-off its rolling stock?

I guess there must be some linear depreciation over 25 or 30 years or so?

So once the equipment hits that 30 year limit that depreciation stops and suddenly on the balance sheet it becomes more economical. But that isn't a real saving but a quirk of the accounting system, isn't it?

Similarly, if such equipment is refurbished or replaced, the depreciation starts ticking again and appears as costs even if no actual money is being spent.

The Amtrak monthly and annual reports which discuss depreciation, property costs, and many other things can be found at their website Reports & Documents page at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1237608345018&cid=1241245669222 . An accountant can follow the reports better than I can, but I'll take a shot at it. Some excerpts from the FY10 financial report:

"The useful lives of locomotive, passenger car and other rolling stock assets for depreciation purposes range up to 40 years. Right-of-way and other properties (excluding land) are depreciated using useful lives ranging up to 105 years."

"During fiscal year 2000, Amtrak entered into twelve defeased sale-leaseback transactions involving 624 in-service passenger coaches (the “Defeased Sale-Leasebacks”)." The base terms ranged from 23-29 years.

So the depreciation of the current rolling stock is complicated by that in the year 2000, Amtrak took out leases on the existing equipment, some of which was already over 20 years old by then, to raise cash. Amtrak even took out a mortgage on Penn Station in NY to help meet payroll in the wake of the "glidepath to profitability" era. Paying off that debt doesn't help with the annual costs. However, Amtrak has been exercising early buy-out options on the leases to reduce their debt. As part of the PRIIA act, according to one of the financial plans, Amtrak will be getting direct payments from the Treasury to exercise early buyout options on a number of the leases over the next several years. $420 million of direct transfer if I recall correctly. This will retire a fair amount of debt and will allow Amtrak to take on additional debt, but this time to purchase new rolling stock to increase revenue (and at very low interest rates if the FRA RRIF loan program can be used).