Amtrak On-Time Performance (OTP) Report 

(As Described in Section 154 of Pub. L. 111-117) 

This report includes (1) an update on recent Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) and 

related efforts to improve Amtrak’s on-time performance and (2) Amtrak’s OTP results and 

performance against FRA-established goals. 

(1) OTP Highlights through the Second Quarter of Fiscal Year (FY) 2012 

STB Investigation Under PRIIA Section 213: On January 19, 2012, Amtrak filed a petition 

with the Surface Transportation Board (“STB”), requesting an investigation into the causes 

of the high level of delays to Amtrak trains running on Canadian National (“CN”) tracks and 

making recommendations as to how delays can be reduced. The Passenger Rail Investment 

and Improvement Act of 2008 included a new provision giving the STB the ability to 

investigate the causes of poor Amtrak train performance; this is the first petition that Amtrak 

has filed on this issue. A mediation process is currently ongoing with an expiration date of 

July 2nd, 2012. 

 

Ethan Allen Service – Vermont Railway Operational Performance Improvement Program 

(OPIP): Following the success of the joint Amtrak/Vermont Railway effort to reduce 

delays on the Vermont Railway portion of the Ethan Allen route, Amtrak is now turning to 

the Canadian Pacific (CP) owned portion of the Ethan Allen route, which also hosts the 

Adirondack. Slow orders have been a persistent issue on this segment; during the second 

quarter FY12, slow order delays alone were 1,243 minutes per 10,000 train miles on the CP 

portion of the Adirondack service, and 2,637 minutes per 10,000 train miles on the CP 

portion of the Ethan Allen service. 

Amtrak understands that during the summer of 2012, CP will be performing a significant 

amount of rail replacement that will address a significant portion of the existing slow orders. 

Following this work, Amtrak will look to CP to continue reducing slow orders, and to so 

arrange its maintenance program as to prevent slow orders from growing again. 

Texas Eagle Operational Performance Improvement Program: Amtrak and Union Pacific 

have been working since July 2011 on an effort to reduce delays on the Texas Eagle service. 

The joint team’s efforts thus far have included operational improvements such as a new 

departure protocol at the Ft. Worth, TX station, and slow order improvements. The team’s 

current focus is on reducing Freight Train Interference delays. (As shown in the attachment, 

OTP of the Texas Eagle through the second quarter of FY 2012 is up by 8.7 percent over the 

prior year, and the route’s effective speed has scored the largest increase over the 2008 

baseline of any long-distance route.) 

I-95 Corridor Operational Performance Improvement Program: Amtrak and CSX continue 

their ongoing efforts to improve the performance of services in the I-95 corridor through the 

Atlantic Coast States between the Northeast and Florida. Critical next steps include slow 

order reduction between Richmond and Newport News. 

Publication of Metrics and Standards Reports: Jointly with Amtrak, FRA developed, and 

published on May 12, 2010, the Metrics and Standards for intercity passenger rail services 

as required by Section 207 of PRIIA. The sixth quarterly Metrics and Standards report 

under Section 207 is available on FRA’s webpage at www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/2165.shtml. 
The latest report provides data on Amtrak’s financial, operational, and service quality 

performance through the first quarter of FY 2012. A key feature of the operational 

information is the tabulation of delay minutes that Amtrak experiences on the host railroads 

for each route. The data collected for the first quarter of FY 2012 illustrate Amtrak’s 

reliability experiences across its system, with host railroads not meeting applicable 

standards for delay minutes on most of the Amtrak routes. 

FRA Action on Service Quality of Long Distance Passenger Trains: FRA on May 31 

advertised for a Long Distance Passenger Train Oversight Manager. This position will 

focus on the full range of service quality parameters pertaining to long-distance trains, 

including but not limited to OTP. 

 (2) Goals and Route Performance

Attachment A contains OTP statistics for all Amtrak routes through the second quarter of 

FY 2012. The table provides three pieces of information for each route: 1) progress made 

toward target goals established in 2008, 2) a comparison between FY 2012 results and the 

prior year, and 3) the change in effective speed. Effective speed is defined as a metric that 

uses the scheduled departure time from the origination point of a train, the actual arrival 

time of that train at the scheduled endpoint, and the normal mileage that the train operates 

between the normal scheduled origination point and the normal scheduled arrival point. 

Throughout the history of this OTP report, progress has been focused on the latter two 

metrics. 

As the attachment illustrates, nineteen routes out of forty-one had better OTP (in terms of 

both a higher percent on time versus last year and no decrease in effective speed) through 

March of FY 2012. Of those routes experiencing OTP improvement, ten (seven corridortype and three long-distance trains) are also meeting, or are surpassing, their FRA-defined 

OTP target for FY 2012. While the OTP for each of Amtrak’s lines of business (the 

Northeast Corridor (NEC), other short-distance corridors, and long-distance routes) has 

risen over the previous year, the Northeast Corridor has shown the most improvement. 

 

Underlying the enhanced OTP is a reduction in Amtrak and host railroad-responsible train 

delays. While these favorable developments will inevitably reflect conditions that are sitespecific to each route and host railroad, Amtrak’s publicly-available Monthly Performance 

Reports (MPRs) point to generally applicable reasons for the improving performance.1

During the month of March 2012 compared to March 2011, total delay minutes were down 

by 8 percent. During this same time period Amtrak-responsible delay minutes were reduced 

by 18 percent (17,635 minutes) while host railroad delays were reduced by 6 percent 

(15,311 minutes). 

 

 

1 The Monthly Performance Reports are available on the Internet at 

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1241245669222/1241245669129. Data are from the chart 

entitled “Delay Minutes Performance Report - Summary.” 
Attachment A 

Amtrak On-Time Performance: 2nd Quarter FY 2012 

(data covers Oct 1, 2011 through March 31, 2012) 

 

Test 1:

On-Time Percentage 

(compared to prior year period) 

Test 2:

Constant or 

Better Effective 

Speed 



Indicates 

both tests 

were met 

for OTP 

 Progress

FY 2012 

OTP 

Target 

Change 

from OTP 

Target Amtrak OTP 

Change from 

Prior Year 

Change in MPH 

from October 2008 

Baseline for Last 4 

Quarters 

Northeast Corridor Service (Goal proposed for FY 2012: 95%) 

Acela 95.0% (2.8%) 92.2% 6.1% (0.1) 

Regional Service 95.0% (6.5%) 88.5% 4.3% 0.2 

Other Corridor Services (Goal proposed for FY 2012: 90%) 

Adirondack 90.0% (9.4%) 80.6% (3.8%) 0.7 

Blue Water 90.0% (22.3%) 67.7% (8.4%) 2.5 

Capitols 90.0% 3.9% 93.9% (1.4%) 2.3 

Carolinian 90.0% (10.5%) 79.5% 16.8% 1.1 

Cascades 90.0% (16.5%) 73.5% 0.6% 0.5 

Downeaster 90.0% (4.1%) 85.9% (4.0%) 0.1 

Empire Service 90.0% 4.3% 94.3% 6.9% 2.5 

Ethan Allen Express 90.0% (14.3%) 75.7% 7.1% 1.3 

Heartland Flyer 90.0% (17.9%) 72.1% (8.7%) 2.0 

Hiawatha 90.0% 2.1% 92.1% 5.4% 0.2 

Hoosier State 90.0% (23.2%) 66.8% 4.0% 1.6 

Illini 90.0% (14.5%) 75.5% 30.2% 2.0 

Illinois Zephyr 90.0% 0.4% 90.4% (1.4%) 0.5 

Keystone 90.0% 1.2% 91.2% 3.0% 0.2 

Lincoln Service 90.0% (8.0%) 82.0% 10.5% 2.9 

Maple Leaf 90.0% (9.7%) 80.3% 10.9% 0.2 

Missouri Services 90.0% 2.7% 92.7% (2.4%) 7.9 

Pacific Surfliner 90.0% (13.9%) 76.1% (0.9%) 0.1 

Pennsylvanian 90.0% 4.2% 94.2% 3.2% 0.0 

Pere Marquette 90.0% (34.1%) 55.9% (2.7%) 2.5 

Piedmont 90.0% (15.4%) 74.6% (5.7%) 1.6 

San Joaquins 90.0% (1.2%) 88.8% (3.0%) 1.0 

Vermonter 90.0% (1.7%) 88.3% (2.2%) 2.2 

Wolverines 90.0% (50.1%) 39.9% (10.5%) (0.9) 

Long Distance Trains (Goal proposed for FY 2012: 85%) 

Auto Train 85.0% 1.9% 86.9% 0.5% 0.8 

California Zephyr 85.0% (39.9%) 45.1% (18.5%) 1.7 

Capitol Limited 85.0% (15.3%) 69.7% (3.3%) 1.3 

Cardinal 85.0% (34.0%) 51.0% 12.7% 0.9 

City of New Orleans 85.0% 0.8% 85.8% 15.2% 0.9 

Coast Starlight 85.0% (3.0%) 82.0% 7.7% 1.0 

Crescent 85.0% 0.2% 85.2% 11.4% 0.3 

Empire Builder 85.0% (15.0%) 70.0% 14.4% (0.9) 

Lake Shore Limited 85.0% (7.4%) 77.6% (3.9%) 0.8 

Palmetto 85.0% (2.2%) 82.8% 9.8% 0.6 

Silver Meteor 85.0% (13.4%) 71.6% (1.6%) 0.4 

Silver Star 85.0% (14.0%) 71.0% 2.7% 0.9 

Southwest Chief 85.0% (6.0%) 79.0% (14.1%) (0.2) 

Sunset Limited 85.0% (21.5%) 63.5% (16.8%) 0.1 

Texas Eagle 85.0% (3.6%) 81.4% 8.7% 2.2 