Passenger Trains > Amtrak pax-miles, train-miles, load factors, FY 2014

Amtrak continually tells us about how many butts they put into seats
in the Northeast Corridor. What many suspect because of far longer
travel distances, but never can get Amtrak to say, is that in
passenger-miles...each passenger mile is one passenger riding for one
mile, and is said by some to be the most proper measure of how much
transportation is being produced...the Northeast Corridor is the
least productive part of the company.

Here the statistic that Amtrak DOESN'T tell us, for FY 2014:


PASSENGER-MILES (includes over 3 million on NEC Spine Special
Trains, and over 4 million on State Corridor Special Trains;
none on Long Distance Special Trains)

NEC Spine 1,931,319,000
State Corridors 1,961,953,000
Long Distance 2,760,957,000



State Corridor trains logged the most train-miles, with Long
Distance second and the NEC last:

TRAIN-MILES (includes 14,000 on NEC Spine Special
Trains, 10,000 on State Corridor Special Trains;
none on Long Distance Special Trains)

NEC Spine: 9,094,000
State Corridors: 15,232,000
Long Distance: 14,732,000



The seat-miles comparison:

SEAT-MILES (includes over 9.2 million on NEC Spine Special
Trains, 5.9 million on State Corridor Special Trains;
none on Long Distance Special Trains)

NEC Spine: 3,462,836,268
State Corridors: 4,607,897,790
Long Distance: 4,678,361,006



What percentage of the seats have butts in them:

LOAD FACTOR (load factors on NEC Special Trains 33.8%,
State Corridor Special Trains 72.2%, no Long Distance
Special Trains)

NEC Spine: 55.8%
State Corridors: 42.6%
Long Distance: 59.0%

-source: AMTRAK



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/17/14 16:48 by GenePoon.

Thanks for that revealing look at the various Amtrak services. I wonder if revenues for these services match up with these ridership numbers? Its been a long time, but I believe Trains magazine once published an article which showed the long distance trains to be the strongest producers of revenue in the system. AA

Stanford White
Carmel Valley, CA

I wonder how many times the average LDT coach seat is filled each trip. I'd guess several times, whereas the NEC is likely once as more riders go start point to end point.

So, those $1.50 - $2 per mile fares on Acela are less useful than a nine cents per mile fare on the Sunset Limited?

I dunno, it seems to me that filling a seat with a $2 a mile butt is worth more than a nine cents a mile butt. And, being able to turn a train two and a half times daily is better than turning it once a week.

To: Lakawanna484

I agree. The extremely high fares Amtrak gets on the NEC brings in tons of money--some of which, Mr. Boardman tells us, is transferred to LD trains as a "cross subsidy" so-to-speak.

Anyway, I believe Mr. Poon has often told us that Amtrak "cooks the books"; so why should he use these alleged "cooked figures" to prove any kind of point?

In my view, the NEC is the only "safe" Amtrak service in the upcoming chile political climate. Any "cuts" to Amtrak will come elsewhere. And, if any new "infrastructure" money is appropriated by the new Congress; it will be for the NEC--never for the LD trains. So, what's not to like about the NEC?

Joe



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/18/14 09:35 by floridajoe2001.

agentatascadero Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thanks for that revealing look at the various
> Amtrak services. I wonder if revenues for these
> services match up with these ridership numbers?
> Its been a long time, but I believe Trains
> magazine once published an article which showed
> the long distance trains to be the strongest
> producers of revenue in the system. AA

Passenger miles are only one factor in getting revenues. The actual revenue numbers are published and available. One should not need to use any other number to come to any conclusions regarding a statistic that is published as primary data already. Passenger-miles numbers without revenue per passenger-mile is meaningless. I bet you could get even higher passenger-mile numbers if you reduced the revenue per passenger-miles number to $0.00. So what? :)

yet another mindless attack on NEC I am afraid. Such is not going to save the LD trains, unfortunately.

I'm interested to see and compare the costs as well as the revenue for each service. That would paint a better picture of how well each performs. Also just imagine what longer trains on the current routes (more seat miles with slightly higher costs to operate) with the same load factors would do for revenue and cost recovery. Probably wouldn't break even but would come a lot closer.

thetuck Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm interested to see and compare the costs as
> well as the revenue for each service. That would
> paint a better picture of how well each performs.
> Also just imagine what longer trains on the
> current routes (more seat miles with slightly
> higher costs to operate) with the same load
> factors would do for revenue and cost recovery.
> Probably wouldn't break even but would come a lot
> closer.

A good suggestion, but you'd necessarily have to rely on Amtrak's accounting to begin. That opens up the box of capital / long term improvements, regular maintenance and repairs, etc. These boards are filled with discussions of the generosity of assumptions in deciding which bucket to use to describe a particular task. Mind numbingly dull stuff that makes a loss turn into a profit, and vice versa. Magic, almost.

It's fairly simple. The NEC provides a high-value product, which allows a high fare to be charged, making operations profitable, while long distance services suffer from a low value product (overnight coach) which largely appeals to people looking for the cheapest way to travel, plus a high-fare, high-cost product, the sleepers, which are in short supply and appeal to many, including novelty riders looking for a unique experience.

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's fairly simple. The NEC provides a high-value
> product, which allows a high fare to be charged,
> making operations profitable, while long distance
> services suffer from a low value product
> (overnight coach) which largely appeals to people
> looking for the cheapest way to travel, plus a
> high-fare, high-cost product, the sleepers, which
> are in short supply and appeal to many, including
> novelty riders looking for a unique experience.


The NEC also benefits from the huge advantage that air fares for business travelers in the northeast are very high. Congested and slot controlled airports limit competition, so air fares can stay high. Amtrak prices its Acela and some regional services alongside the premium air fare, which is how it gets those $1.50 to $2 a mile fares.

Business travelers don't have the hassles that some travelers face. With pre-check or Global Entry, security lines are non-existent. Premium boarding, would you care for a drink, sir? You can get from curbside to seat 3A at Newark in 15 minutes just about every time.