Amtrak load factors, per train FY 2008

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.

WICT106

OBS Chief
Joined
Sep 8, 2003
Messages
890
Location
Wisconsin
From another forum. the load factors are arrived at by taking the passenger miles divided by seat miles for each route. From the September 2008 monthly report.

FY 2007 FY 2008

Lower Upper Lower Upper

Northeast Corridor 48.0% 48.9% 51.3% 52.1%

Other Corridors 39.4% 41.1% 42.9% 45.0%

Long Distance 56.4% 57.3% 58.5% 59.3%

Amtrak Total 47.7% 50.5% 49.3% 53.4%

Acela/Metroliner 58.7% 59.3% 61.7% 62.1%

Regional 42.9% 44.7% 47.1% 48.2%

Ethan Allen 38.1% 39.5% 39.1% 43.3%

Vermonter 33.3% 41.9% 44.9% 46.4%

Albany-Niagara 44.9% 46.4% 52.8% 55.4%

Downeaster 34.7% 37.6% 27.9% 32.2%

New Haven-Springfield 42.7% 43.0% 46.6% 47.0%

Keystone 31.2% 32.4% 32.6% 35.6%

Empire 33.5% 34.3% 34.4% 35.3%

Chicago-St.Louis 33.3% 47.4% 43.8% 47.1%

Hiawathas 37.0% 40.8% 36.2% 42.2%

Wolverines 51.7% 52.8% 54.3% 55.3%

Illini/Saluki 42.5% 46.5% 0.0% 100.0%

Ill Zephyr/Sandburg 23.1% 45.5% 41.9% 43.5%

Heartland Flyer 35.1% 42.9% 35.5% 44.8%

Pacific Surfliner 33.8% 35.8% 35.0% 37.2%

Cascades 45.2% 47.1% 53.4% 56.4%

Capitols 26.0% 26.9% 28.2% 29.2%

San Joaquins 34.1% 35.7% 37.0% 39.2%

Adirondack 63.4% 68.1% 42.9% 100.0%

Blue Water 66.0% 68.2% 79.7% 81.7%

Washington-Newport News 42.9% 51.5% 56.4% 62.3%

Hoosier State 35.4% 35.6% 35.2% 35.5%

Kansas City - St. Louis 28.9% 29.6% 36.7% 37.6%

Pennsylvanian 62.1% 63.3% 72.8% 74.4%

Pere Marquette 60.7% 66.1% 65.2% 68.1%

Carolinian 58.6% 70.4% 45.5% 77.8%

Piedmont 39.7% 41.0% 42.6% 43.9%

Silver Star 56.2% 57.0% 57.6% 58.3%

Cardinal 51.3% 51.7% 54.7% 55.2%

Silver Meteor 59.1% 60.0% 61.4% 62.3%

Empire Builder 59.8% 61.6% 61.8% 63.5%

Capitol Limited 59.8% 60.5% 65.5% 66.3%

California Zephyr 51.0% 51.8% 51.0% 51.7%

Southwest Chief 64.5% 65.6% 62.5% 63.6%

City of New Orleans 57.4% 58.3% 62.5% 63.4%

Texas Eagle 50.6% 51.4% 52.5% 53.3%

Sunset Limited 52.0% 52.3% 55.4% 55.7%

Coast Starlight 57.9% 58.7% 60.8% 61.6%

Lake Shore Limited 59.7% 60.3% 63.1% 63.7%

Palmetto 44.5% 45.3% 50.2% 51.1%

Crescent 47.1% 47.7% 50.7% 51.3%

Auto Train 57.9% 61.3% 61.9% 65.0%

Figures like these can be used by advocates when arguing pro or con with those who are non rail fans.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When looking at these numbers, I also noted that the "money losing" long distance trains actually have *higher* load factors than either the NEC or the various State supported corridors.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Fixed!

Code:
									 FY 2007			   FY 2008
						   Lower	  Upper	  Lower	  Upper	
Northeast Corridor			 48.0%	  48.9%	  51.3%	  52.1%
Other Corridors				39.4%	  41.1%	  42.9%	  45.0%
Long Distance				  56.4%	  57.3%	  58.5%	  59.3%
Amtrak Total				   47.7%	  50.5%	  49.3%	  53.4%

Acela/Metroliner			   58.7%	  59.3%	  61.7%	  62.1%
Regional					   42.9%	  44.7%	  47.1%	  48.2%
Ethan Allen					38.1%	  39.5%	  39.1%	  43.3%
Vermonter					  33.3%	  41.9%	  44.9%	  46.4%
Albany-Niagara				 44.9%	  46.4%	  52.8%	  55.4%
Downeaster					 34.7%	  37.6%	  27.9%	  32.2%
New Haven-Springfield		  42.7%	  43.0%	  46.6%	  47.0%
Keystone					   31.2%	  32.4%	  32.6%	  35.6%
Empire						 33.5%	  34.3%	  34.4%	  35.3%
Chicago-St.Louis			   33.3%	  47.4%	  43.8%	  47.1%
Hiawathas					  37.0%	  40.8%	  36.2%	  42.2%
Wolverines					 51.7%	  52.8%	  54.3%	  55.3%
Illini/Saluki				  42.5%	  46.5%	   0.0%	 100.0%
Ill Zephyr/Sandburg			23.1%	  45.5%	  41.9%	  43.5%
Heartland Flyer				35.1%	  42.9%	  35.5%	  44.8%
Pacific Surfliner			  33.8%	  35.8%	  35.0%	  37.2%
Cascades					   45.2%	  47.1%	  53.4%	  56.4%
Capitols					   26.0%	  26.9%	  28.2%	  29.2%
San Joaquins				   34.1%	  35.7%	  37.0%	  39.2%
Adirondack					 63.4%	  68.1%	  42.9%	 100.0%
Blue Water					 66.0%	  68.2%	  79.7%	  81.7%
Washington-Newport News		42.9%	  51.5%	  56.4%	  62.3%
Hoosier State				  35.4%	  35.6%	  35.2%	  35.5%
Kansas City - St. Louis		28.9%	  29.6%	  36.7%	  37.6%
Pennsylvanian				  62.1%	  63.3%	  72.8%	  74.4%
Pere Marquette				 60.7%	  66.1%	  65.2%	  68.1%
Carolinian					 58.6%	  70.4%	  45.5%	  77.8%
Piedmont					   39.7%	  41.0%	  42.6%	  43.9%
Silver Star					56.2%	  57.0%	  57.6%	  58.3%
Cardinal					   51.3%	  51.7%	  54.7%	  55.2%
Silver Meteor				  59.1%	  60.0%	  61.4%	  62.3%
Empire Builder				 59.8%	  61.6%	  61.8%	  63.5%
Capitol Limited				59.8%	  60.5%	  65.5%	  66.3%
California Zephyr			  51.0%	  51.8%	  51.0%	  51.7%
Southwest Chief				64.5%	  65.6%	  62.5%	  63.6%
City of New Orleans			57.4%	  58.3%	  62.5%	  63.4%
Texas Eagle					50.6%	  51.4%	  52.5%	  53.3%
Sunset Limited				 52.0%	  52.3%	  55.4%	  55.7%
Coast Starlight				57.9%	  58.7%	  60.8%	  61.6%
Lake Shore Limited			 59.7%	  60.3%	  63.1%	  63.7%
Palmetto					   44.5%	  45.3%	  50.2%	  51.1%
Crescent					   47.1%	  47.7%	  50.7%	  51.3%
Auto Train					 57.9%	  61.3%	  61.9%	  65.0%
 
I think one has to be careful in interpreting the significance of Amtrak load factors, particularly in comparison to air travel. Typical airline load factors are in the 75 to 80% range, while Amtrak is reporting 50 to 60%. But, the Amtrak numbers are not really comparable to airline numbers. Unlike a flight segment which is point-to-point only, a train makes multiple stops. It leaves, makes stops, fills, makes more stops, empties, and then get to the end of the line. So a train that leaves 40% full, fills up 1/3 along the way. stays full to the 2/3 mark, and then runs 40% full the rest of the way would have a load factor of 60%. Yet, that train was, for all practical purposes, a sell-out. Because of that anomaly, Amtrak load factors will always be low as compared to airlines. Add to that the relatively low cost of carrying extra seats on a train (compared to flying a larger aircraft), and any comparison to airline load factors is not really valid.

The one exception to that is the Auto Train, and even that comes with some disclaimers. The Auto Train is truly a point-to-point service. There is no getting on or off en route. But, the seat capacity of the Auto Train is inflated by the sleeping cars. For statistical purposes, Amtrak assumes the roomettes and bedrooms are two seats each, and the family room is four seats each. If a single books a roomette or a family of three books a family room, statistically one seat is considered unsold. However, once that room is booked, that seat is not available to be sold, so that portion of the load factor that appears to be an unsold seat is not truly that.

All of this is simply to say that the load factor statistic, as it relates to Amtrak, is both a valid measure and a misleading measure. It is valid as a measure of month-to-month Amtrak operation. As a comparison to other travel, specifically air, it is apples and oranges.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If the adirondack has 100% load factor, does this mean the number of tickets sold match the number of seats available ?
 
If the adirondack has 100% load factor, does this mean the number of tickets sold match the number of seats available ?
I would think that a 100% load factor is really possible only in theory, since it would require that every single revenue seat be occupied between every single set of station pairs, every single day.

Methinks there's something wrong with at least some of these numbers.
 
If the adirondack has 100% load factor, does this mean the number of tickets sold match the number of seats available ?
I would think that a 100% load factor is really possible only in theory, since it would require that every single revenue seat be occupied between every single set of station pairs, every single day.

Methinks there's something wrong with at least some of these numbers.
That and there's a 0% somewhere. I'd say the 100's and 0's are data incongruencies.

I notice all around improvement, the Cascades and the Penny and CL seem to have the most improvement in ridership.
 
I run my own small business here in the UK, our "Financial Year" (FY) runs to 1st April to March 31st. If the Amtrak FY is the same, the 2008 figures will not yet reflect the supposed increases in ridership due to the high gas prices...?

Ed B)
 
Amtrak's fiscal year runs October 1 to September 30, like the rest of the US federal government. Currently, they are in FY09.
 
Would data be available to compare load factors in the 1940's and 1950's with these numbers? Would this same information be available for all Amtrak years as well? Having these numbers would be a much better judge of how Amtrak is doing now, perhaps.
 
Given the above info, it's not looking as though the train useage has risen much this year after all, despite all the hooha about gas prices and increased airline fares..Is there any concrete evidence of growing train use in America, or was it all just a minor 5 minute wonder?

Ed B)
 
Given the above info, it's not looking as though the train useage has risen much this year after all, despite all the hooha about gas prices and increased airline fares..Is there any concrete evidence of growing train use in America, or was it all just a minor 5 minute wonder?
There is only so far that train usage can grow given the current system. See the excellent explanation of train load factors a couple of posts above. Most Amtrak trains run sold out during the most popular parts of their routes, be it corridor or long distance trains. LD trains don't generally have very much room to grow because the areas where they're running below capacity are just not heavily populated areas. Corridor trains don't have a lot of room to grow because most people who want to ride them are going to want to go to the same destination, so while a seat may be unoccupied for part of the route, it is still technically "sold" to that destination and must remain unoccupied until the passenger who purchased it actually boards. (It didn't used to be this way - Amtrak used to run trains standing room only, but I think they ended that practice some time ago.)

This doesn't mean a specific seat needs to remain unoccupied all the time, but there needs to be capacity waiting for ticketed passengers to board. So, say there's one seat left on a train, and it's available all the way from Boston to Washington. Now say you have two passengers, one of which wants to go from Boston to Washington and one of which wants to go from New York to Washington. The passenger from New York buys first. As luck would have it, no passengers want to get off in New York. (Ok, this isn't the most realistic example, but it's just for the sake of argument.) So unfortunately for the guy in Boston, to him the train is going to show up as "sold out" when he tries to book it, even though there is an empty seat from Boston to New York. And that empty seat counts against the load factor, even though the train is technically sold out.

Given all the different possible city pairs, this situation happens many times per run on every single train. And Amtrak can't just continuously drop and add cars throughout a route to adjust for loads.

As Amtrak made clear in their last report to congress, they have a perpetual equipment shortage even to meet demand on current routes, much less open new routes. A train with a load factor of 60% may in fact be sold out through the most profitable and popular parts of the route.

A rise of 3% in a year is pretty good, considering the capacity issues. And if you look at the trains that rose vs. the trains that fell, it's the ones Amtrak has really been pushing that seem to have risen the most (Cascades, especially). Those are probably not coincidentally also the trains with the most excess capacity.

On the other hand, it's likely that load factors will drop in the near future, just because of the economy... but they're dropping for the airlines too. People are just traveling less right now.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Corridor trains don't have a lot of room to grow because most people who want to ride them are going to want to go to the same destination, so while a seat may be unoccupied for part of the route, it is still technically "sold" to that destination and must remain unoccupied until the passenger who purchased it actually boards. (It didn't used to be this way - Amtrak used to run trains standing room only, but I think they ended that practice some time ago.)
That's not true, either for seats or accommodations.

For example if an otherwise sold out train has only one seat available between Washington and Philly, but that seat is sold from Philly to NY, a passenger boarding south of Philly and only wanting to travel to Philly can and will be sold a ticket for that seat.

On the other hand, if they wanted to go one stop past Philly to Trenton, then the system will not sell them a seat.

And the converse is true too. If the train is sold out NY to Philly, no one will be able to buy a ticket from NY to DC. But someone who wants a ticket from Philly to DC will still be able to buy a ticket.
 
Given the above info, it's not looking as though the train useage has risen much this year after all, despite all the hooha about gas prices and increased airline fares..Is there any concrete evidence of growing train use in America, or was it all just a minor 5 minute wonder?
Ed B)
Interesting but not necessarily correct conclusion! How would one take into account the fact that an average NEC Regional is now 8 cars in length whereas last year they were averaging 6 cars or less. Load factor by itself doesn't tell the whole story.

You need to look at the total passenger miles number and not just load factors, to reach any conclusion about growth or lack thereof of train usage.
 
I'm curious to know how these numbers compare with passenger service in the 40's and 50's and the early years of Amtrak. Is there any statistical resource available online that would provide this info?

FY 2007 FY 2008

Lower Upper Lower Upper

Amtrak Total 47.7% 50.5% 49.3% 53.4%

I realize that it would be very difficult to make comparison on specific services since there may be no direct parallel between pre-Amtrak service lines and current, but, can some overall comparison be made between the two?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top