I read the article in the September issue of TRAINS Magazine. Interesting approach to split out infrastructure from passenger train operation. Even so I don’t think they are going to pull that metric off…though I realize these days it is easier to get funding if you appear to agree with everything the person at the top says (as implied in the article in TRAINS). I don’t think that is more than a very short term solution and any agency or quasi-governmental corporation that follows that model will lose whatever credibility they have left with the public, 
2 Likes
Fairy tales rarely become fact.
2 Likes
Throughout it’s history Amtrak has done this again and again. So frustrating to watch with their Congressional funding appeals. They never seem to learn how badly this ends up with the Congress relationship. The only Amtrak CEO I thought did an excellent job was Mr. Crane from Southern Railway. Crane told it like it was with no fantasy.
2 Likes
Stanley Crane never worked for Amtrak. I am assuming you mean Claytor?
2 Likes
That’s the guy!
2 Likes
Further, I think he meant the ‘good Claytor’ (William), not the ‘bad Claytor’ (Bob).
1 Like
When those on the lee side of financial mountains do everything they can to see if the winds contain any elements of financial rail fall. Walking into Congress they are already in a lose - lose equation.
2 Likes
That’s important you know. 
The Congress might not really know much about the passenger train business and some might be convinced that profitability is an objective Amtrak can reach. I saw that confusion before in the past, which is my concern of here we go again..
3 Likes
Would separating service from infrastructure entail selling off the trackage and electrification system they own?
2 Likes
I reckon they’re trying to cling on for the next four years. If they can say they’ll be profitable in 2028, then in 2028 they’ll have different senators, representatives, and other individuals. It does create distrust but I believe this is why they’re doing this.
2 Likes
Quite possibly a different cast in House and Senate as soon as 2026.
1 Like
Yes, they did this before in the past. I agree that is the strategy.
3 Likes
Hopefully not, since that is what the UK did, and it was a financial disaster.
Maybe they are separating operation from infrastructure figuring Congress is more likely to fund infrastructure.
2 Likes
Amtrak proposes dividing its core functions into two business segments, i.e. Passenger Train Service (PTS) and Infrastructure Construction (IC). What is being proposed, in a nutshell, is segments in the same company, which for financial reporting purposes is the National Railroad Passenger Corporation.
PTS will be responsible for train operations. IC will be responsible for operating and maintaining Amtrak’s infrastructure, i.e. rights-of-way, stations, other real estate, etc.
PTS revenues and expenses will probably continue to flow from the same sources. So too for IC expenses. How IC will generate revenues is unclear. Presumably, it will get some if not most of its revenues through transfers from Amtrak, as well as direct payments from other sources, i.e. commuter railroads, freight operators, station vendor rents, etc.
Transfer payments between segments of the same company can be a sticky wicket. They are subject to manipulation if not monitored carefully.
Amtrak’s financials are based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). Presumably, the company will continue to produce consolidated financial statements, which will roll up the results from PTS and IC. The consolidated bottom line probably will not differ greatly from current reporting.
To achieve operational breakeven by 2028 would require turning around more than 50 years of continuous net operating losses. In FY24 Amtrak Route Level Results showed an Adjusted Operating Earnings (AOE) loss of $705.2 million. The NEC had an AOE of $267.8 million, which was offset by losses of $251.5 million for the State Supported trains and $635.1 million for the Long-Distance trains. An ancillary charge of $54.9 million and an infrastructure adjustment of $141.3 million rounded out the difference.
The State Supported train losses shown in Amtrak’s financials do not reflect the state subsidies. Amtrak books the state support payments as revenue, which masks the total amount of government subsidies. The state subsidies in 2024 were approximately $350 million.
For each service line to breakeven on operations in FY24, State Supported train fares would have had to increase an average of $17.35 per rider; for the Long-Distance trains it would have been $148.69 per rider. The average system increase would have been $57.23 per rider. These numbers will increase substantially by 2028 to offset increases in operating expenses, especially salaries, wages and benefits.
Salary, wages, and benefits are Amtrak’s biggest expense challenge to achieving operating profitability. In FY24 they accounted for 64.8% of operating expenses and 77.4% of operating revenues. Comparatively, as examples, FY24 salary, wages and benefits accounted for 43.2% of Southwest Airlines operating expenses. For Jet Blue they accounted for 32.8% of operating expenses.
2 Likes
That suggests they are overpaying employees.
Balt’s memes about stats and accounting notwithstanding, something clearly stinks with Amtrak. Station restaurants would only worsen the problem.
1 Like
THanks PJ81 Good to have that data.
1 Like
It suggests they have far too many employees for the revenue obtained. Whether you “overpay” them is a different question. From a standard of ‘wage sufficient to compensate for living conditions’ – perhaps not. From a standard of assuring high-quality service under all conditions – a great deal of evidence appears to be saying ‘yes’.
The problem is how to get that percentage of cost down. You won’t do that by ‘cutting wages’ no matter how the Government may devolve. So the answer has to be related to numbers of personnel on or associated with trains – and reducing numbers means changes, big changes, in how trains are run.
2 Likes
Yes you’re probably right to a great extent. But to really know, we would need to revisit the wage structures at Amtrak operating crews, conductors, attendants, food and beverage et al. I recall at that time that the wages for engineers seemed significantly higher than those on freight lines. Perhaps comparing the costs for other personnel on other nations’ passenger rail lines in in order but beyond what I care to do. Perhaps support costs for commissary, (or DK’s station kitchen?) repair shops also? Or perhaps it’s just as you say, but I don’t recall seeing an army of staff onboard.
I’m not that concerned with T&E cost in this part of the discussion. Remember that Amtrak power consists are single-manned. There are other ‘policy matters’ than just fair salary involved in Amtrak’s recruiting, training, and operations for engineers, and while we might want to “revise” some of that (perhaps along the lines Joe wanted to do), I’d concentrate on the more likely ‘excess’ of crew expense.
I wouldn’t bother – they would mean little objectively, either for comparison or as potential source of alternatives.
I personally think a ‘unionized’ commissary system is beyond Amtrak’s means at present – supply should be privatized, with proper redundant alternative sourcing, etc., and the cost and food quality brought into line.
Successful restaurant chains (in my experience, YMMV) quietly own their own equipment supply and maintenance company… usually an additional profit center for the owners. Since so much of Amtrak’s equipment is standardized (and optimized for perceived purpose at the time it was ordered), having a network of providers knowledgeable in the equipment when prompt or scheduled service is required would likely work better than whatever Amtrak’s craft structure presently involves. I still grimly remember the scooter travesty, where car moves and shop tinkering wound up being billed to the tune of over $25,000 to move a couple of seats.
It’s not like that picture of the staff lined up outside the UP train… but you have repeated stories of staff doing ‘paperwork’ in passenger lounge space, and trouble when existing crew have to do extra work during emergencies. It should be easy to determine the number of staff changes over the course of a given LD trip – probably pushing 3x the on-train personnel at any given moment – and how they are paid when ‘engaged to be waiting’.
1 Like
Seeing costs and man-hours for each LD route would be useful. The numbers are probably quite high for the 2-night routes, congruent with the UP City photo. I recall CMStPnP had some good stories about crews in need of courtesy training. That was certainly a problem in the old Penn Central days!
The wages for the engineers needed for one 2-night run are not even comparable to that of onboard attendants. And why can’t wages be compared with those of comparable freight engineers and crew in Western Europe?