Amtrak should be glorybound these days, considering the alternatives to taking the train. Last year, more than 1 of every 4 airline flights were delayed, canceled, or diverted. The situation is so bad at Newark Airport that Continental Airlines regularly issues Amtrak tickets to stranded passengers. Gas prices are high, and auto traffic keeps worsening, according to U.S. News and World Report.

Yet Amtrak's finances are so dire it could be out of business in less than two years. The railroad lost a record $944 million in the last fiscal year. Chronically underfunded, beset by high labor costs, and compelled to run money-losing long-distance trains to appease key members of Congress who want train service in their home states, Amtrak has never come close to making a profit since it was created to take over the nation's failing passenger train network in 1971. The company enjoyed a modest 4.7 percent increase in ridership last year, but lost an average $16.38 on every ticket it sold.

Which makes it hard to make a profit just by increasing volume. Of the 41 routes Amtrak ran last year, 14 lost more money per passenger than the year before, according to an internal Amtrak analysis obtained by U.S. News. Sixteen routes lost more than $50 per passenger, and 10 lost more than $100. Even its most profitable train, the Metroliner, earned only $38 per passenger. All other trains on its busy corridor between Boston and Washington, D.C., lost money.

Fed up. Amtrak has faced financial crises before, but Congress has always come to the rescue, most recently in 1997 when it provided an emergency $2.2 billion. But this time, the stakes are higher. As a condition of that bailout Congress required Amtrak to wean itself of federal operating subsidies by Dec. 2, 2002, or face the prospect of reorganization or liquidation. Amtrak officials say they can do it, by drastically cutting expenses, while growing more revenue from high-speed rail as well as express freight and mail services. But last year, Amtrak missed its deficit reduction target by about $100 million, and the General Accounting Office recently warned Congress that "it is unlikely that Amtrak will eliminate its need for federal operating subsidies as directed." Even if Amtrak hits its targets, it will still need at least $4 billion in capital investment to repair unsafe tunnels, bridges, and other aging infrastructure.

Delays in the launch of its new high-speed Acela Express service between Washington, D.C., and Boston partially explain Amtrak's financial woes. In test runs, the train's wheels repeatedly cracked and Amtrak wound up spending $20 million advertising service that it couldn't yet offer. Today, Amtrak reports that ridership on the Acela Express exceeds initial projections, but critics say the service is not fast enough to be competitive with airlines. "Acela will not cause the removal of a single flight," says Joseph Vranich, a disillusioned former Amtrak spokesman. In 1969, the now bankrupt Penn Central Railroad operated a train that took only two minutes longer than the fastest Acela to cover the Washington-to-New York segment.

Seeking other sources of revenue, Amtrak has expanded its mail and express freight business. It earns a small profit on its mail contracts, but there's an ongoing debate over how much, if at all, express freight contributes to the bottom line. Certainly the results have been mixed. Last year, Amtrak put on a train between Chicago and Janesville, Wis., primarily to go after freight business. The freight loadings failed to meet expectations­and Amtrak wound up losing $493 per passenger on the service.

For all its woes, Amtrak has big plans. Its recently released strategic plan calls for $30 billion in federal support, which Amtrak promises to use to expand high-speed rail. Many critics concede the need for greater investment in high-speed rail but question how much of that investment should be trusted to Amtrak. "Look, these people have been on the taxpayer's dime to the tune of $23 billion since 1971," says Sen. John McCain. "Now they want another $30 billion over the next 20. And this is the outfit that said when it was created that it would be self-sufficient in two years. Now it's clear it's not going to be self-sufficient­and we need a national debate over what to do about it."