March 2018 MPR

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.

Anderson

Engineer
Joined
Nov 16, 2010
Messages
10,462
Location
Virginia
First of all, the link:
https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/corporate/monthlyperformancereports/2018/Amtrak-Monthly-Performance-Report-March-2018.pdf

For obvious reasons, I am hard-pressed to do my old analysis. However, there are a few things that stand out:
-Amtrak's planning has me very confused. There's a mention of the plan involving an extra 250m seat-miles this year. While some of this was almost assuredly fouled by the 501 crash, I can't see that accounting for more than about 5-10% of the shortfall (at the higher end, part of the effect being the hit to Eugene and/or Vancouver service by using lower seat-count Superliner sets). If the planning folks were building the N-S order into things for this year, the planning folks were deluded.

--The hit to state corridor ridership here is a bit more believable, since I think we were all expecting the extra service on the Cascades to add quite a few riders.

--This is also probably responsible for the hit to CASM, as IIRC Amtrak had to take a major charge dealing with that crash.

--Train-miles is another odd situation: Somehow, they were expecting to add about 750k train-miles YTD. Two new Cascades round trips only gets you 67,320 train-miles over three months. Even going to 110 days of service, that's only 82,280 miles added, and as far as I can tell, adding a round-trip on the Piedmonts, a second LYH-WAS round-trip, and a round-trip Chicago-Quad Cities also wouldn't come close to achieving the required miles (I think that all four additions would get you somewhere in the ballpark of 200k miles). I feel like I must be missing some disruption from Q1/Q2 of FY17 that Amtrak did not expect to see repeated.

-Does anyone want to explain how, on the Empire Corridor, "Operating Revenue" is less than "Gross Ticket Revenue"? My best guess is that there is something very wonky going on with crediting ticket revenue for, say, the Ethan Allen or Adirondack (or the long-haul Empire trains) when the ticket is booked on the NYP-ALB corridor (e.g. the ticket revenue gets credited to the "Empire Service" line but the credit for the purposes of Amtrak billing New York turns around and lands on the other train).
 
All I can say is that the accounting seems even more borked than before. Frankly the best investment Anderson could make would be a decent accounting team so that he actually had some business data to work with (which he... doesn't).
 
Unfortunately, all extant account statements present a view of reality which attempts to communicate what someone likes to think is the situation. The question is whose view and for what purpose.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From what I can tell, ridership and ticket revenue numbers are accurate. Load factors and RASM/CASM are probably as well. Cost allocation, on the other hand, is always dubious-at-best (let's not forget the wild swings in some years on various routes).
 
Could the wide swings have anything to with the host a particular train runs over? I would think the HQ overhead should be allocated equally by mile or passenger or both.on non state routes.
 
Back
Top