TRAVEL writers are abuzz about a new paper from the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, that looks at the problems with Amtrak, America's government-subsidised passenger rail service. The paper's authors argue—as Gulliver has before—that the railroad company's financial problems stem from its unpopular, expensive and slow long-distance routes. As I wrote in October, long-haul passenger train trips, especially at Amtrak speeds, are for hobbyists, people with lots of time and tiny budgets, and people who are afraid of flying. Private enterprise can cater to those travellers, but it's unclear whether the government should. A smaller, more profitable, more focused intercity and regional rail service, even one supported by the federal government or the states, would be easier for this blog to countenance.

As the authors note, "combined, Amtrak's short-distance corridors generated a positive operating balance in 2011—while corridors over 400 miles returned a negative operating balance". The majority of the company's losses are from its ten longest routes—those over 1,000 miles—which, in 2011, returned -$465m. (Amtrak's total losses were $506m.) The next five longest routes account for another -$133m. It is clear that covering miles doesn't make money.

Focusing on route-by-route costs, as Brookings does, can be deceiving. Once you allocate overhead costs, such as depreciation ($663m, which Amtrak treats as a company-wide cost as it has yet to produce a formula for allocating it to individual routes), the picture for the rail network looks grim. The prescription, however, remains the same: long-haul routes are Amtrak's biggest financial burden, and it should scrap them. Fixing the problem, unfortunately, won't be that easy. As a throwaway last line in this Wall Street Journal story explains: "Cutting long-distance services would likely face opposition from lawmakers in the affected areas." Amtrak's long-haul routes exist because without them the train company would serve only half of the 46 states it currently runs to. For the remaining 23, it would be the end of the line, and Congress would never allow that.