If you want to read a great book on the subject, I'd suggest Fred Frailey's "Twilight of the Great Trains."
Frailey is: 1) a railfan and, 2) editor of "Kiplinger's Personal Finace". He understands trains and money, and he can write about both of 'em. He writes for TRAINS frequently.
He's sad that the passenger trains went away, but he understands why the did. On page 9 he explains that the railroads kept two sets of financial books. One complied with government regs and accounted for cost in the prescribed manner. The other books only burdened a railroad's passenger service with its direct, avoidable, expenses.
Overall, the railroads were at about break even on passengers in their private books around 1960; loosing $10 million in 1960 and making $17 million in 1961. The government calculated deficit was $458 million. The railroad companies knew that number was bogus and ignored it,
That all changed starting in 1967 when the government took the mail away. That made the losses very real and the railroads had to get rid of the Super Chief, Empire Builder, Peoria Rocket, etc.
Bob:
The answer unfortunately, is that you're probably looking at a range of years in the post-war era. Given the large numbers of orders for new cars (and the size of those orders) from 1945 through 1950, it's likely that the downturn began after 1950 and that different roads got into the red on passenger operations from then onwards. Many years ago a gentlemen who an external auditor for the Pennsylvania Railroad in the post-war era told me that commuter operations were in the red (financially, no pun intended) before WW II and that long haul trains had a brief resurgence during the Korean War but then fell off very quickly. I saw a quote to the effect that the New York Central reported its first loss on passenger operations, around $50 million, for 1953.
1956 is a real threshold year for rail passenger service in general since that's when the Interstate Highway Act was passed, but I think that a lot of the damage to passenger revenues was done by postwar government investments in airports and air traffic control.
The point about the ending of the US Mail contract was very good, and a similar point could be made about the fall-off in revenue from railway express operations - with the eventual loss of the mail contract being the breaking point for many roads.
Some of the rail historical associations probably have old financial reports available that would provide a better picture of what was going on.
Mike
many branchlines held on to their passenger trains until the end of WW2 because of the RPO's...........but again thats another thread................
For all kinds of reasons we don't need to go into now, let's not forget that most of the U.S. mail -- and the RPO's -- were very quickly yanked from the trains by the Post Office in about 1966-68.
Hitherto, what the gov't paid the RR's to sort and deliver mail from their trains counted as a not insignificant, albeit indirect, subsidy to the operation of passenger trains.
cooslimited wrote: Also, from what I've read and heard, I get the impression that the railroads (Southern Pacific comes to mind.) didn't want anything to do with passenger trains towards the end. Is that correct?
Also, from what I've read and heard, I get the impression that the railroads (Southern Pacific comes to mind.) didn't want anything to do with passenger trains towards the end. Is that correct?
Oddly enough, Espee was slightly sychzo about passenger trains. I remember reading that they were willing to live with nos. 98 and 99 (The Coast Daylight) and maybe The Del Monte (running between downtown San Francisco and somewhere around Monterey/Carmel), but they wanted to drop all other passenger services. Espee even offered to buy its San Francisco Penninsula patrons 12-passenger vans, and have them drive themselves to-and-from work, just to be relieved of their commuter operations.
Yes, those were the glory years when the mighty and supremely arrogant Southern Pacific was the railroad that many railfans just loved to hate!
cooslimited wrote: It's my understanding that the railroads couldn't just discontinue a passenger run whenever they wanted to, but needed some form of Government regulatory permission, is that correct?
It's my understanding that the railroads couldn't just discontinue a passenger run whenever they wanted to, but needed some form of Government regulatory permission, is that correct?
You are quite correct, prior to 1958, state Public Utility Commissions had to approve passenger train discontinuances. The Transportation Act of 1958 provided for ICC jurisdiction of interstate passenger train discontinuances and appellate jurisdiction on intrastate passenger train discontinuances. At any rate, the whole discontinuance procedure had a lot of political overtones, especially at the state level, and there seemed to be little consistency in determining which runs would be allowed to be discontinued and which would have to continue operating for another year.
Some of the stories I've heard makes it sound like the railroads actually took unofficial measures to discourage people from riding the trains. Was there any truth to that?
1. The New Haven Railroad in the McGinnis Years is an excellent book.
2. Possibly David Gunn would take a seat on the Amtrak Board, where he could do enormous good!
daveklepper wrote:How about a campaign to get David Gunn back on the job?
In numerous interviews Mr. Gunn emphatically stated he had no desire to return to Amtrak. We'd do better cloning Pat Mginnis, some one NH and B&M fans despise! Then there's Robert R. Young...
I read somewhere that the last year in which passenger service as a whole covered its avoidable costs was 1952 or 1953. That's a lot of red ink prior to 1971.
Keep in mind that the ICC formula for allocating costs was developed prior to the development and widespread use of cost accounting by business. Since the formula was a legal requirement, it was later at variance with some accounting standards regarding cost allocation.
Here's a couple of I.C.C.-formula accounting questions.
Prior to Amtrak when did U.S. passenger train service become a deficit proposition according to the I.C.C. "fully allocated costs" formula? Generally this formula includes all costs for running passenger trains including associated wages, fringe benefits, payroll taxes, train dispatching, track maintenance, associated fixed facilities costs (such as stations upkeep, the costs of manning each open station, and dedicated passenger equipment maintenance facilities), running repairs, locomotive fuel and maintenance costs, and equipment acquisition/depreciation charges. I seem to recall that year was 1956.
Prior to Amtrak when did U.S. passenger train service become a deficit proposition according to the I.C.C. "avoidable costs" formula? Generally this formula is the "fully allocated costs" formula less equipment acquisition/depreciation charges. It's based on the notion that the locomotives and passenger cars are already bought and paid for, so what will the carrier save by not running the trains? I seem to recall that year was 1965.
For many eastern carriers burdened with heavy commuter operations, the two years may have been earlier than what their western bretheren experienced. But still, what were those dates?
Login, or register today to interact in our online community, comment on articles, receive our newsletter, manage your account online and more!
Get the Classic Trains twice-monthly newsletter