Long standing questions about Amtrak accounting

[AmtrakFlyer]

 

[TinCan782]

Article two years old (Mar 13, 2021) but, I guess this still goes on.

 

[Everydaymatters]

I couldn't open it, but it probably is about an operating "loss".

 

[Septa9739]

It is. It’s the idea that Amtrak misappropriates expenses to the LD Service Line to improve the appearance of the NEC and State-Supported Service Lines by doing things like appropriating snow removal costs to Miami or allocating track maintenance seemingly unfairly to long distance trains. Apparently Amtrak ultimately picked up its accounting practices from the PRR, which had by the late Fifties developed the practice of misappropriation of expenses to long distance passenger trains to help gain ICC approval for cancellation of service. There is obviously something wrong. E.g. It makes no sense for the Silver Star and Auto Train to have effectively the same cost allocations despite the AT having two designated terminals requiring significant human and capital resources and the significantly larger OBS staffing. The problem is I’m not sure at this point anybody really knows how to untangle the mess, and even if they did, I doubt Amtrak really wants to see that their “cash cow” might not actually be so.

 

[west point]

Interesting comment to FRA.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenge...uest-for-comment-on-amtrak-l-d-service-study/

 

[jis]

Interesting comment to FRA.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenge...uest-for-comment-on-amtrak-l-d-service-study/

Some very useful information in this article, specially about who was responsible for the LD performance metrics in response to the 2005 bill. Responsibility was FRA's which was delegated to the Volpe Center.

Any way, much fodder to drive an informed discussion...

The APT document which is the subject of the criticism leveled in the article, and by many here, in its latest incarnation can be found at (286 page PDF document):

Update on the Methodology for Amtrak Performance Tracking (APT)

As has been pointed out by Marc Maglieri of Amtrak, the output based on this document cannot be used for projecting forward to determine future disposition of trains or services. Also it has no bearing on the FRA Long Distance Service Study.

 

[DavidSh]

At the end of the day, what would actually be useful for planning would be:

• The change in required subsidies for adding or dropping particular services, and
• The change in overall benefit to the People of such an add or drop.

And the effect of adding both service A and service B isn't necessarily the sum of the individual effects.

 

[west point]

I think that Maglieri's answer is a real symptom of the whole cost accounting scheme. FRA should just consider above rail costs and the whole house of Amtrak's cards might fall. As pointed out Amtrak is not following the law. Whether the 60, 000 ( or just 6000 ) manual rules is way too much. ( snow removal MIA ).

Amtrak‘s response, from spokesperson Marc Magliari: “Claims regarding APT have nothing to do with the FRA’s Amtrak Long-Distance Service Study. APT was developed by DOT’s Volpe Center in response to a requirement in a 2005 Appropriations Act that DOT retain a consultant to develop a route performance system that reflects the performance of Amtrak’s existing routes. It is not a cost projection methodology that could be used to project the capital and operating costs of adding new routes. The Volpe Center’s most recent update on APT (Update on the Methodology for Amtrak Performance Tracking (APT), pages 16-20) directly responds to and addresses Papp’s criticisms.”

 

[jis]

I think that Maglieri's answer is a real symptom of the whole cost accounting scheme. FRA should just consider above rail costs and the whole house of Amtrak's cards might fall. As pointed out Amtrak is not following the law. Whether the 60, 000 ( or just 6000 ) manual rules is way too much. ( snow removal MIA ).

Could you explain which "House of Cards" you are referring to, and where it might fall?

Also could you be quite specific about which law Amtrak is not following?

I am sure each of us have our ideas but I am curious what is it that you are exactly talking about.