Passenger Trains > Amtrak survives sequester, CR approval, intact

Well, pretty much, and will even end FY2013 with an operating surplus:

http://www.railwayage.com/index.php/passenger/intercity/fy13-budget-bill-leaves-amtrak-intact.html?channel=41&utm_source=WhatCounts+Publicaster+Edition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Illinois+lands+federal+HrSR+funds%3b+Amtrak+FY13+budget+remains+intact&utm_content=Full+Article

Sorry for the long url, cut-and-pasting may be necessary!

That reference to a "surplus" comes from a quoted statement from the National Association of Railroad
Passengers (NARP).

NARP is playing tricks with words by saying that "Amtrak will actually show a surplus in operating budget."

"BUDGET" is the key word. "Actually" is a trick by a wordsmith to make people think with incredulity about
the statement. Note that nowhere does NARP use the word "profit."

Yet the gullible, in the media and elsewhere, are interpreting this as meaning an operating profit.

This does NOT meant that operationally, Amtrak will earn a profit. It means that its revenues will exceed
what it has projected in its operating budget, meaning that if there is no desire to reduce its total losses,
they can use that extra revenue, over the budgeted amount, elsewhere, such as "to pay down the
CAF Viewliner acquisition..."

This could well reduce the interest that Amtrak would otherwise be paying on the financing of the Viewliner
order.

Those who have seen the spreadsheets issued by Amtrak for ridership and revenue will have noted a column
where it shows how operating revenues compared to budget. That is where a PLUS number has been shown some
of the time, and it's what NARP is referring to by a "surplus."

It is NOT AN OPERATING PROFIT nor an operating SURPLUS in the sense that Amtrak will take in more money from
fares and other charges for running trains, than it costs them to operate them.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/13 09:57 by GenePoon.

The media might be misusing that information, Gene... but how is NARP playing tricks if NARP is calling it a surplus and in that category it is a surplus?

What is it the comedians say, sometimes a duck is a duck (or something like that... I can't remember the exact quote).



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/13 09:55 by erielackawanna.

erielackawanna Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The media might be misusing that information,
> Gene... but how is NARP playing tricks if NARP is
> calling it a surplus and in that category it is a
> surplus?
>
> What is it the comedians say, sometimes a duck is
> a duck (or something like that... I can't remember
> the exact quote).


See my post above. The "SURPLUS" is in revenues over what was revenues were predicted (budgeted).

It does not mean that revenues exceed expenses.

Take it from a wordsmith: it's a trick with words...NARP is not lying but making it easy for the
gullible to make a leap of assumption. People will see "SURPLUS" and ASSUME it means "profit."

We on TO should be smart enough to see past that.

ASSUME = to make an A$$ out of U and ME.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/13 10:36 by GenePoon.

Cooking the books to make it appear that the subsidy is smaller may be one thing, but Mr. Boardman freely admits that there are $6 billion in unmet track, caternary, and power station needs on the 457 mile northeast corridor, not counting New York City proper. The tunnel projects and the Farley Post Office conversion are something akin to the Boston big dig, it may show up as a $20 billion series of projects, but the true costs will turn out to be "overbudget" by $50-100 billion, in 2013 dollars.

Do not forget that Amtrak's entire available credit line for probably the next 30 years has already been exhausted for the Siemen's electric locomotive project. And that does not count the Acela trainset replacement program, which nobody has even put a pencil to yet. Assuming the Siemens electrics arrive on schedule, there will likely be no trackage left to run-on, due to the continued deterioration of the electrical grid, and additional damage caused by hurricane Sandy. As yet, there is no firm damage repair estimate for the Sandy damage, much of it still undetected "enhanced depreciation."

Operating revenues do meet costs in the 21,000 mile "western network" where the government rents trackage from private companies. This has happened because zero capital has been earmarked for new locomotives or cars, and because maintenance has been deferred. The few infrastructure improvements that have taken place, such as in Illinois and Michigan, have been with "off-budget" one-time FRA grants administered under the Bush-era economic stimulus programs, and the few equipment improvements such as repair of wrecked and damaged cars, also took place with one-time-only "free" grant money. The 15 locomotives re-habbed with "TIGER" money were also off budget.

Over $400 million of "excess ticket revenues" and grant money has also gone to CAF for new low level cars. This program, already two years behind, will only benefit three trains, the Crescent, Silver Star, and Silver Meteor (assuming they still exist when the cars are finally produced). But, it is a positive step. Baggage cars from CAF may slop over and benefit other trains some day, not just the Crescent, Star, and Meteor. The Lakeshore and Cardinal may also eventually benefit from receiving additional first class capacity, which is currently severely strained system-wide.

Little has been done to address the needs of the existing am-fleet and superliner portion of Amtrak's equipment inventory, all of which must be replaced within the next decade or two (unless the FRA condemns the cars sooner).

Just because the payroll is being met under a ponzi-bookkeeping scheme is not an indication of the health of Amtrak or any other form of transportation in the US.

We have a long way yet to go just to keep our chins above the rising water.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/13 11:25 by amt207.

To: Gene Poon:

Don't know why it's so hard for you to grant Amtrak any degree of success.

Amtrak plays by established accounting practices whose figures are certified every year. If guys like Mica, in all those hearings, have never accused Amtrak of playing accounting "tricks", but you say they do; then apparently you must be in error.

Amtrak is a great company, achieving amazing things on a shoe string budget. "Surplus" or "Profit"; either one is OK with me. I refuse to be a "success denier".

Joe

I just hope it does pay off, it'll help on the long run and hopefully things can get a lot better, like adding more LD trains to the network, especially the ones they shouldn't of gotten rid of!

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> To: Gene Poon:
>
> Don't know why it's so hard for you to grant
> Amtrak any degree of success.
>
> Amtrak plays by established accounting practices
> whose figures are certified every year. If guys
> like Mica, in all those hearings, have never
> accused Amtrak of playing accounting "tricks", but
> you say they do; then apparently you must be in
> error.

In common psyche, "accounting trick" is almost equal to "accounting fraud", thus it is best to avoid using that term regardless of the fact that it technically means "accounting methodology", and refers to something that, most of the time, is completely legal.

Gene Poon clearly explained what "operating surplus" really means: revenue minus expenses is equal to a number that is greater than originally budgeted. Profit is explicitly defined as revenue minus expenses is GREATER THAN zero. Calling an operating surplus "profit" is very misleading!!

> Amtrak is a great company, achieving amazing
> things on a shoe string budget. "Surplus" or
> "Profit"; either one is OK with me. I refuse to
> be a "success denier".
>

What AMAZING things has Amtrak achieved?? Other than just being operationally competent.....sometimes??

A "great company" doesn't put up with the poor level of onboard service that is sometimes provided and frequently documnted here.

Joe often equates filling seats with tremendous success. While filling seats is good, increasing revenue per seat mile is much better. Although Amtrak doesn't compute or release a return on its invested capital, that would be better yet.

Lackawanna484 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Joe often equates filling seats with tremendous
> success. While filling seats is good, increasing
> revenue per seat mile is much better. Although
> Amtrak doesn't compute or release a return on its
> invested capital, that would be better yet.

But it does publish RASM and it has been improving. And even more surprisingly, they seem to have managed to hold the growth rate of CASM at a level slightly lower than the growth rate of RASM, which is usually a good thing. Now let us see if they can continue the trend. Afterall three months does not make a very long trend.

Also, any day I'd take operating results that come in better than budget than one that comes in worse than budget. At least when I read it, I read it for what was stated and my convoluted mind at least did not jump up and converted "surplus in operating budget" to "profit". That does take a leap of imagination.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/26/13 14:20 by Jishnu.

Sorry I wasn't more clear in my original post -- I meant what the story said, a surplus in operating budget, which is obviously not a profit and I didn't even imply that. There is nothing wrong with pointing out successes in comparison with projected budgets, sales, costs, whatever, so long as it is reasonable clear what is being bragged about, most organizations, public and private, do it all the time. I think this little blurb is clear enough, unlike the statements from foreign mining companies that show up in the coal (especially) discussions on the Western Board now and then.

It is worth noting that while this was indeed a NARP quote, the article is from Railway Age, not the MSM.

So why didn't NARP (anyone remember the World According to Garp?) also include its analysis of Expenses, if all is going so well?

Its a loser operation with no accountability

To: Lakawanna484

Sorry you can't see that "filling seats" IS a great success for Amtrak.

These seats are filled with something politicians call "voters"; and politicians are the most important people in the world as far as Amtrak is concerned--much more important than you or me. We fans can love or hate Amtrak; it doesn't matter. We can't affect funding.

But, if politicians can be presented with record (voter) ridership figures; it makes it easier for Amtrak's friends to vote funding; and harder for Amtrak's enemies to succeed in their attacks. Herein lies the true value in "filling seats" that I think you overlook.

So, yes, I consider "filling seats" a great success; but not the only one. Another great success is Acela's reversal of the Air/Rail market. Of course, some would immediately dismiss this as "nothing"' but I don't because politicians themselves "fill seats" on Acela--another "great success".

Joe

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So, yes, I consider "filling seats" a great
> success; but not the only one. Another great
> success is Acela's reversal of the Air/Rail
> market.

If you think that "filling seats" is a great success, I suggest you read this book.

http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Market-Share-Briefings/dp/product-description/0609609882

Of course, I am sure that it would be a waste of time, as the facts of business seem to get lost in your quotation marks...

Typhoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> floridajoe2001 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > So, yes, I consider "filling seats" a great
> > success; but not the only one. Another great
> > success is Acela's reversal of the Air/Rail
> > market.
>
> If you think that "filling seats" is a great
> success, I suggest you read this book.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Market-Share-Briefi
> ngs/dp/product-description/0609609882
>
> Of course, I am sure that it would be a waste of
> time, as the facts of business seem to get lost in
> your quotation marks...


And the fact that Amtrak is NOT a business but a political entity is clearly lost on you......

Its survival is not dependent on its stock price, or its P&L statement, or its ROI, or its IRR, or, when it gets down to it, even the number of fannies in seats, it depends on votes in the House and the Senate and the signature of the President. And those DO depend on the number of fannies in seats and how much noise they make about having those seats available. Like it or not the ordinary rules of business do not apply -- but then they don't apply to really-big business either!

Thanks, lowater. Yes, I'm afraid that typhone, like so many others, don't realize what a political animal Amtrak is.

No need to brush up on "Business Books"; or "How to make a profit" books". Amtrak simply does not exist in this world. It lives in the world of political friends and enemies; getting votes in Congress; and dealing with sub-committees.

This is what so many rail fans dislike about Amtrak; but it's all we have. Passenger train would not exist without politics.

So, rising ridership--to politicians--means "rising national support"; and that's why these ridership records are such a big deal.

Joe

floridajoe2001 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>Passenger train
> would not exist without politics.
>
> Here or anywhere else in the world. The endless bitching about Amtrak's business practices and lack of profitability are meaningless, except for politically motivated bloviators eager to, well, bloviate.

ARt House

lowwater Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Typhoon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > floridajoe2001 Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > So, yes, I consider "filling seats" a great
> > > success; but not the only one. Another great
> > > success is Acela's reversal of the Air/Rail
> > > market.
> >
> > If you think that "filling seats" is a great
> > success, I suggest you read this book.
> >
> >
> http://www.amazon.com/The-Myth-Market-Share-Briefi
>
> > ngs/dp/product-description/0609609882
> >
> > Of course, I am sure that it would be a waste
> of
> > time, as the facts of business seem to get lost
> in
> > your quotation marks...
>
>
> And the fact that Amtrak is NOT a business but a
> political entity is clearly lost on you......
>
> Its survival is not dependent on its stock price,
> or its P&L statement, or its ROI, or its IRR, or,
> when it gets down to it, even the number of
> fannies in seats, it depends on votes in the House
> and the Senate and the signature of the President.
> And those DO depend on the number of fannies in
> seats and how much noise they make about having
> those seats available. Like it or not the ordinary
> rules of business do not apply -- but then they
> don't apply to really-big business either!

Nice lowwater, I needed a laugh today. Most of corporate America would be in the same camp with Amtrak by your standards. How many businesses, industries in this country don't rely on Government to some extent? The largest are often entirely dependent on the Government tit. So if your reply was intended as irony you get a 10 for the day!