"(Freight railroads) are now getting back into passenger rail"

[jis]

I hardly think its a fair market approach. There is no competition so the government being the sole provider can charge what every it chooses. Sure you can choose not to use the service. However its a bit like saying I don't like the power companies prices so I think they can just shut off my electric. Not very practical. I don't know many people who think its a underpriced service.

Even the government cannot charge whatever it wants if it expects to keep the trains full. And if the trains are not reasonably loaded, inevitably they will stop running sooner or later. Even the alleged government understands that. And at the government is charging for the entire thing anyway. The question is how much through ticket fares and how much through taxes.

In the US where by far the primary mode of transportation is the automobile and there is ample infrastructure in place, sure , except in a few crowded corridors it is quite practical in a preponderance of cases (unfortunately) to just stop serving and let things take care of themselves. That is what we in the rail advocacy community are trying to prevent from happening. But doing so by undercharging so much below what the market will bear that the subsidy becomes overly burdensome is also a sure way to lose the service.

 

[Ispolkom]

I agree my point on the fares was somewhat exaggerated. I just checked amtrak chicago to los angles. The actual cost of a room is about 5 times the coach fare. If you figure that in previous eras the room was about half more than the coach ticket it would actually be about 10 times the cost it used to be. Still a rather hefty increase in my book.

Sure, but a one-way coach ticket in 1964 cost $58.60. That's about $400 in 2012 dollars. Coach on the Southwest Chief? $156. If you actually look at pre-Amtrak prices, you'll see that sleeper prices are broadly similar to what they are now, but coach prices were much higher pre-Amtrak. This makes comparing the ratio between the coach and sleeper prices meaningless, because the main reason the ratio is so high is that now coach prices are much cheaper, adjusted for inflation.

 

[HeadingNorth]

I think it's also important to be clear about what the government does and doesn't do for Amtrak.

Generally speaking, the federal government provides financial support to keep the trains running and, in "good" times, to add equipment. It sets rules about safety (FRA), and sometimes, rules about where the money can go: which trains can go where (like shorter routes requiring state support in PRIIA) and in "bad" times, how much can be spent on food (as we've seen). Most of the time (aside from actions by certain members of Congress in the 70s, for example), it doesn't decide about specific trains, and it doesn't decide prices, either.

Amtrak certainly makes decisions with Congress and its board in mind, but sleeper prices are not an explicit government decision or plot. Yes, if more sleeping cars were paid for, prices might come down. And maybe we'd like to see more sleeping cars (just like some people might want to see more hospitals or schools or museums or spaceships or fighter jets or even tax cuts) but government money can't pay for more of all of these things at once.

 

[RRUserious]

Just let the transport industries be managed by the same geniuses who managed banking since 2000. Everything will be MUCH better than having government involved. Alan Greenspan says "the markets will take care of everything because the markets know everything". And if they need help, perhaps the IMF will pitch in with extra help. In no time, the railroads will be as prosperous as....................Greece!

 

[Trogdor]

Just let the transport industries be managed by the same geniuses who managed banking since 2000. Everything will be MUCH better than having government involved. Alan Greenspan says "the markets will take care of everything because the markets know everything". And if they need help, perhaps the IMF will pitch in with extra help. In no time, the railroads will be as prosperous as....................Greece!

I don't see why the choice has to be government involvement vs. being run like the financial industry.

The railroads have run themselves pretty well for quite some time.

Warren Buffett bought a railroad, so he must have a bit more confidence in them than that.

 

[cirdan]

Private industry always does a better job of providing goods and services than government does. I continue to support government owned Amtrak because its the only LD passenger RR that we have serving the public interest. Look at some of the old RR films and you can see the elegance, gourmet meals and great service that was once provided to the rail passengers by the private railroads. I would welcome the private railroads getting back into passenger service. For instance when George Pullman's company controlled the sleepers they ran efficiently and provided top notch service, comfort and passenger accommodations. Back then you slept on a mattress not on a sleeping pad but admittedly showers were few to be had. The gourmet trained chefs, waiters, and porters worked hard and provided nothing short of service excellence. Compare that to today where the food is so so, and many of the conductors,SCA's and waiters, are lazy, disinterested and arrogant. Cushy government jobs that are incentive free and last a lifetime can never compete with those in private industry.

True, but that was a different age. We also had chauffeurs drive our cars back then rather than doing so ourselves. But that was because these luxuries were reserved to only a small percentage of the population, those who could afford it. The super-rich don't make much use of trains any more and so Amtrak has to cater to the rest of us at prices that we can afford. The democratisation of rail travel comes at the cost of losing some of the luxuries

 

[cirdan]

When commuter trains jammed to capacity day after day can't cover all their daily operating, let alone capital costs, there is a problem with the profitabiity of passenger rail transportation.

Or a problem with the pricing.

If you look at history you will find that corrected for inflation, rail travel in the past was much more costly than it is today.

Railroads were inefficient, had lots of staff and lots of waste. But they could afford it because people were prepared to pay high fares.

A lot of this waste is nostalgically remembered as service and comfort.

Today, a massively subsidized road system is setting the tone and railroads have to adjust their prices to below their costs to be able to hold onto or gain passengers. And this besides themselves being far more efficient than they were then (fewer staff, more efficient locomotives etc)

So unless road and air traffic is forced to face its real costs, rail will need subsidies to survive.

 

[MARC Rider]

And on a second thought: A politically unpopular move right now, and one with its own list of costs and troubles, but one that would revolutionize rail travel in the United States to a level where great benefits for all were to be had: Nationalization of the rail infrastructure.

NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.

Look at the sorry state of the highway infrastructure in this country, and give me one good reason why we should treat rail the same way.

2) Railroads pay property taxes to the localities through which they pass through. Nationalize that, and what happens to that property tax base?

Actually, my experience is that the highway infrastructure, even in states with crappy roads, like Michigan, is far superior to the state of a lot of the railroad track I ride over, or observe from the road. This is esepcially true with the railroad bridges, some of which look like rusting hulks ready to cave in at any minute.

Anyway, American highways are built and maintained by the states, with a nice dollop of Federal funds, yes, but it's the states that actually build and maintain them.

As for the property tax issue, that's an excellent argument for putting the infrastructure under some sort of public (or at least non-profit NGO) control. The property tax bill is one reason why railroads have had trouble competing with other modes. It's also probably a reason why the railroad companies don't want to invest too much in their infrastructure, and why, in terms of available technology, even our best railroads are at third world levels. Why improve their property any more than the minimum needed if it just means that your tax bill is going to rise? As for the local jurisdiction that collect the property taxes, tough luck. In most cases, the local economy benefits from having the infrastructure located there instead of some place else, why should they be greedy? If they want to have more money to spend on SWAT teams for the local police department, let them raise taxes from the voting residents of their jurisdiction.

 

[Ryan]

Actually, my experience is that the highway infrastructure, even in states with crappy roads, like Michigan, is far superior to the state of a lot of the railroad track I ride over, or observe from the road. This is esepcially true with the railroad bridges, some of which look like rusting hulks ready to cave in at any minute.

Looks can be deceiving.

 

[Karl1459]

There may actually be some (corporate) merit and interest here.

First, Amtrak is showing a 85% fare/cost recovery on operations. If the private railroads can find a way to increase fares 18% (100/85) then passenger rail becomes a break even.

Second, Many posts over the years have decried the inefficiencies of Amtrak's labor costs, rules, and politically demanded protection for certain classes of employees. IF the private RR's could negotiate a more efficient/lower labor cost might occur. Also being able to make use of car repair personal and engineers for both freight and passenger may make sense from a time management standpoint. These efficiencies could make the financials look potentially black.

Third, Freight railroads could have a positive marketing by branding passenger rail as theirs. Many RR's over the years used their passenger trains as a advertising for their freight services. Being able to get a businessman from point A to point B in a timely and comfortable manner tended to lay the groundwork for a freight salesman to suggest that freight could be gotten from point A to point B. Freight rail has been successful in garnering most of the medium to long distance bulk freight, but gave away the "retail" carload and truckload business. If they want to increase their sales (and profits) they have to go after the "retail" and get it back. To do this they need to regain the operational expertise to deliver freight ON TIME, which is easily exercised by passenger trains. Marketing needs are that the "black eye" of delayed service (READ UP HERE) not happen.

Fourth, If the freight railroads take over passenger, but are allowed to run it as a national system without duplication and competition of routes, (read waiver of anti-trust rules between railroads) many of the inefficiencies of operation and routing could be avoided. Look to keep through ticketing and the Amtrak reservation system, with individual trains specific RR operated and branded.

Fifth, Subsidies are likely going to be a part of long distance rail, especially for capital replacement/improvement. I expect the "big boys" would have better results keeping stable funding than Amtrak now does. And you bet they are going to try to get higher rail use charges figured into their equations.

Do I expect this to happen soon? NO! But who expected CSX and NS to acquire Conrail as soon as they did? And if CSX and NS had offered to take over CR 5 years earlier would the govenment PAID them to take it? If sometime in the next 10 or 20 year with the prices of fuel and the likely reductions of subsidies to highway and air Amtrak would actually become profitable when would you think the RR's would want to make their offer?

 

[jis]

And on a second thought: A politically unpopular move right now, and one with its own list of costs and troubles, but one that would revolutionize rail travel in the United States to a level where great benefits for all were to be had: Nationalization of the rail infrastructure.

NO. NO. NO. NO. NO.

Look at the sorry state of the highway infrastructure in this country, and give me one good reason why we should treat rail the same way.

2) Railroads pay property taxes to the localities through which they pass through. Nationalize that, and what happens to that property tax base?

As for the property tax issue, that's an excellent argument for putting the infrastructure under some sort of public (or at least non-profit NGO) control.

Actually it is not an argument at all. It is an argument for getting rid of taxes on vital transport infrastructure, and it should not be necessary to place it under public ownership to achieve that. The fact that local authorities get to collect tax from infrastructure is a historical silliness in this country that should be discontinued as soon as possible.

The property tax bill is one reason why railroads have had trouble competing with other modes. It's also probably a reason why the railroad companies don't want to invest too much in their infrastructure, and why, in terms of available technology, even our best railroads are at third world levels.

You have no idea (a) what third world railroads are like and (b) how good our best railroad's rail infrastructure is. So I have no idea where to begin this argument, unless of course your are stating this a hyperbole to make some point.

In any case it is true that property tax bill is a problem, and it is also true that the states are slowly but surely learning that they are themselves in competition to get business to make it their home or not, and they are learning that if they continue to tax railroads at the level that they have in the past the railroad will simply move its operation somewhere else or not allow the state to develop passenger service over their property. Witness how New York State has revised their railroad property tax rules in order to be able to build the second track from Albany to Schenectady for example.

So the fix is to stop taxing railroads RoW property at special high rates based on how many tracks occupy said property, not nationalize the railroads.

Why improve their property any more than the minimum needed if it just means that your tax bill is going to rise? As for the local jurisdiction that collect the property taxes, tough luck. In most cases, the local economy benefits from having the infrastructure located there instead of some place else, why should they be greedy? If they want to have more money to spend on SWAT teams for the local police department, let them raise taxes from the voting residents of their jurisdiction.

Exactly!

 

[Anderson]

I agree my point on the fares was somewhat exaggerated. I just checked amtrak chicago to los angles. The actual cost of a room is about 5 times the coach fare. If you figure that in previous eras the room was about half more than the coach ticket it would actually be about 10 times the cost it used to be. Still a rather hefty increase in my book.

Sure, but a one-way ticket in 1964 cost $58.60. That's about $400 in 2012 dollars. Coach on the Southwest Chief? $156. If you actually look at pre-Amtrak prices, you'll see that sleeper prices are broadly similar to what they are now, but coach prices were much higher pre-Amtrak. This makes comparing the ratio between the coach and sleeper prices meaningless, because the main reason the ratio is so high is that now coach prices are much cheaper, adjusted for inflation.

I did a case study on this a while back with the Florida services from Orlando to Richmond, DC, Philly, and New York (on the grounds that these trains were still profitable for SCL, meaning that I wasn't comparing fares to a major money-loser). That's about what I found: High bucket sleeper is usually a bit higher than the old Pullman equivalents would have cost. Low bucket sleeper is usually somewhat lower. However, IIRC high bucket coach still falls short of the old coach fares.

The general gist is that if Amtrak could double its coach fares and not lose any business in the process, you would have your pre-Amtrak fare system back and a lot of your trains would be hovering at break-even. Realistically...this isn't happening anytime soon.

 

[RCrierie]

It was also politics that enabled passenger rail's competition to thrive, while maintaining heavy regulation of what would otherwise be commercial decisions.

I'm reading a book "The Box" on containerization, and the amount of regulation and governmental rate fixing and interference in the 'free market' of the time was pretty astounding. The ICC basically set rates for everyone, and woe betide you if you tried to streamline your business, and then cut rates to attract a bigger market share...

 

[George Harris]

I did a case study on this a while back with the Florida services from Orlando to Richmond, DC, Philly, and New York (on the grounds that these trains were still profitable for SCL, meaning that I wasn't comparing fares to a major money-loser). That's about what I found: High bucket sleeper is usually a bit higher than the old Pullman equivalents would have cost. Low bucket sleeper is usually somewhat lower. However, IIRC high bucket coach still falls short of the old coach fares.
The general gist is that if Amtrak could double its coach fares and not lose any business in the process, you would have your pre-Amtrak fare system back and a lot of your trains would be hovering at break-even. Realistically...this isn't happening anytime soon.

A couple of points:

I do not think doubling coach fares could be done without losing a lot of if not most of the coach passengers. You are looking at a time before deregulation of air fares, so to make your comparison valid, you would need to compare air fares as well, and not just the walk up and buy it fare, but the plan for cheapest you can get air fares.

Also, in the 1960's time frame the cost of the fixed facilities was divided among all trains, including the heavy head end and a couple of old coaches slow trains, not just the high passenger count streamliners.

While the SCL streamliners were profitable above the rail, this was probably not true in total. Likewise, they knew that there would come a time that the equipment would required major refubishment, rebuilding, or replacement, capital expenditures they could not justify from a busninss standpoint. If these trains were truly profitable, SCL would likely have stayed out of Amtrak.

 

[MikefromCrete]

Back in the day, fares were regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission and were the same, every day of the year. There were no "buckets." By the way, is there any proof that SCL Florida trains were profitable "above the rail?" A lot of railfans make that statement, but I don't recall any talk about such profits during the approach to "A Day." Perhaps they were profitable when the trains carried mail, but once the Post Office stopped using the rails, every line probably dropped into the red.

 

[George Harris]

Back in the day, fares were regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission and were the same, every day of the year. There were no "buckets." By the way, is there any proof that SCL Florida trains were profitable "above the rail?" A lot of railfans make that statement, but I don't recall any talk about such profits during the approach to "A Day." Perhaps they were profitable when the trains carried mail, but once the Post Office stopped using the rails, every line probably dropped into the red.

I think you are probably correct. Southern and D&RGW did not stay out of Amtrak because their passenger trains were profitable. D&RGW I do not know much about, but for Southern there was one and only one main thing: They did not want Amtrak on their rails. Overall, the company was quite profitable as railroads go, the result of a serious effort throughout the 1950's and 1960's to imporve tracks and operations. Instant or short term gratification is not part of railroading. Major efforts require years of effort to reap the benefits. Likewise, it can take several years for the results of neglect to turn into disasters. They were willing to absorb the loss to maintain their independence, and felt that running a top class passenger service consisting of only a couple of trains on their 10,000 mile system had advertizing value as well. In fact, they would run the Crescent in two sections on heavy travel days, something so far as I know, Amtrak does not do. Southern also had a reasonable large pool of good quality passenger equipment to draw from. It is worth noting that Southern did start dropping trains as soon as they were able, and if I remember correctly were trying to drop the Crescent if they could not get into Amtrak without putting in significant money.

Given the strong independent streak in most railroaders, I think if the SCL trains were profitable or anything close to it, they would have also stayed out. The other point to remember was, that if a railroad did not join Amtrak they were required to maintained their passenger traians for a specific minimum period of time. Also, there was the RF&P situation. The SCL did not get to Washington. Their north end was at Richmond. If RF&P joined Amtrak, and Amtrak was not interested in through running with SCL, then what? Although SCL was joined at the hip with RF&P for any access to the northeast, freight or passenger, they did not control them. They did have some ownership interest, but I do not at this time rememeber how much or much otherwise about the ownership breakdown for RF&P, but I do remember this: About 25% was owned by the State of Virginia retirement system.

Back to train offs: Yes, there were teh top Florida streamliners, but there were also a number of low passenger count secondary trains, which by that time with no mail and very little other head end traffic were basically being operated for the fun of it. These traisn would more than negate any profits, if there were any, from the top streamliners.

 

[MikeM]

Back in the day, fares were regulated by the Interstate Commerce Commission and were the same, every day of the year. There were no "buckets." By the way, is there any proof that SCL Florida trains were profitable "above the rail?" A lot of railfans make that statement, but I don't recall any talk about such profits during the approach to "A Day." Perhaps they were profitable when the trains carried mail, but once the Post Office stopped using the rails, every line probably dropped into the red.

I think you are probably correct. Southern and D&RGW did not stay out of Amtrak because their passenger trains were profitable. D&RGW I do not know much about, but for Southern there was one and only one main thing: They did not want Amtrak on their rails.

There were actually three holdouts at the start...

Southern maintained their passenger service for the reasons stated above. They regularly advertised the Southern Crescent on the back page of Trains magazine for many years, featuring the dining car fare. Their service provided the railroad lots of free PR and good will at a time when Amtrak was struggling to put together had national system.

D&RG held out for basically the same reason as Southern. Their Rio Grande Zephyr train ran westbound one day to Salt Lake, eastbound to Denver the next, making three round trips / week, never on Wednesday. Amtrak initially had intended to run over the DR&RG as their preferred route, but railroad management was concerned about losing control of scheduling, plus having to accommodate a daily train each way rather than one train one way about each day.

The missing railroad in the mix was the Rock Island. All railroads joining Amtrak had to pay an "entrance" fee based on some amount of prior year(s) losses on passenger trains. The Rock was struggling at this point pretty badly, and decided it was cheaper to continue to run the two remaining trains on the railroad than pay the entry fee. As a result, the Rock Island Rocket and Peoria Rocket continued to run for several more years. The trains were short, dirty, and poorly maintained, but remained in place.

I recall reading a few months ago that Santa Fe also struggled with the decision to terminate passenger trains for the same reasons as Southern. Santa Fe took considerable pride in their passenger service, and had well maintained equipment. The article I read indicated that Santa Fe actually wanted to see more passenger service retained on their lines, and was disenchanted when so many trains fell off.

 

[railiner]

There were a few interesting footnotes in the history of rail passenger service at Amtrak's creation. In addition to that related above, the Southern, while holding out, let one of its subsidiaries, the Central of Georgia join Amtrak, to rid itself of its portion of the City of Miami.

Another holdout was the Georgia Railroad, which went on to operated a few mixed passenger/freight trains for a few more years, mostly from inconvenient freight yards, on unreliable schedules that appealed only to railfans of that era.

Another tidbit was what were the four original common stock holders of Amtrak at startup? (I believe the US DOT was the sole 'preferred stockholder').

IIRC, they were the PC, BN, MILW, and GTW.

 

[Anderson]

There were a few interesting footnotes in the history of rail passenger service at Amtrak's creation. In addition to that related above, the Southern, while holding out, let one of its subsidiaries, the Central of Georgia join Amtrak, to rid itself of its portion of the City of Miami.

Another holdout was the Georgia Railroad, which went on to operated a few mixed passenger/freight trains for a few more years, mostly from inconvenient freight yards, on unreliable schedules that appealed only to railfans of that era.

Another tidbit was what were the four original common stock holders of Amtrak at startup? (I believe the US DOT was the sole 'preferred stockholder').

IIRC, they were the PC, BN, MILW, and GTW.

IIRC, I think there may have been a few more shareholders at the start This is, of course, obscured by the fact that the common stock is now broken up between BNSF, CP, CN, and American Premium Underwriters (the corporate successor to PC).

With SCL, my understanding is that the Florida trains were profitable...but they were probably losing money hand over fist on enough of the side/other routes to force the drop. It is also possible that they had gotten stuck with enough redundant trains on part of the system post-merger to cause a headache (I'm thinking possibly some of the mail locals were still stuck in train-off fights). I would point out that as late as the mid-70s, there were still five Northeast-Florida trains running daily in peak season:

-The Silver Meteor

-The Silver Star

-The Champion

-The Vacationer/Florida Special*

-The Auto-Train

That's a lot of demand to be filling; honestly, it might well have been as much as half of the LD system's ridership at that point. I would also point out that these weren't the "small" trains we see today...the Meteor and the Champion, IIRC, both ran in the 12-14 car range as demand dictated (and when combined, you got a massive 26/28 car train in '79).

The other thing weighing in favor of SCL's passenger profitability is that IIRC, they were still building stations and whatnot into the late, late 60s. While I can accept an argument that they might have been "spending money not to lose money", I'm hard-pressed to see any of the RRs putting in new stations of their own volition later than the early 60s if they didn't have at least some profitable operations.

*I think this wore different names in different years.

Moving on, IIRC Santa Fe tried to get permission to discontinue all of the trains that Amtrak didn't want (such as the ex-Grand Canyon) and simply continue to operate the remainder themselves.

George:

You are absolutely right that jacking up coach fares would lose lots of business. What I offered was strictly a mathematical if-then statement, nothing more, and certainly nothing on the viability of doing so. If you could do X, then Y would result does not imply that X could be done. Sorry if it came across as though I was George Warrington there.

As to the division of the cost point, that is true. However, a counter does appear insofar as Tri-Rail "should" eat part of facilities maintenance in South FL, as should Sunrail in Central FL, the NERs in VA, and a whole host of commuter lines north of Fredericksburg. I would also point out that as far as the tracks go, that would also divide with the freight trains...and the cookie jar accounting could be "done up" to put most of that on freight cars easily enough...and that Amtrak gets a substantial benefit of its own on this front as well.

 

[Mackensen]

-The Vacationer/Florida Special*

...

*I think this wore different names in different years.

Yes. It was the Florida Special for the winter of 71-72, the Vacationer for the 72-73 and 73-74 seasons, then briefly Miamian for the 75 season. Amtrak canceled it in January because of equipment shortages.

Besides the railroads already mentioned, I think both the Reading and the Chicago South Shore & South Bend were eligible and stayed out, probably because of the limited scale of their operations (I'm just guessing, I have no idea why).

 

[cirdan]

Besides the railroads already mentioned, I think both the Reading and the Chicago South Shore & South Bend were eligible and stayed out, probably because of the limited scale of their operations (I'm just guessing, I have no idea why).

Both were (the latter still is) a commuter railroad and as such weren't really part of the Amtrak package. There are other commuter lines that survived without ever having been part of Amtrak proper. Caltrain comes to mind.

 

[MikefromCrete]

There were a few interesting footnotes in the history of rail passenger service at Amtrak's creation. In addition to that related above, the Southern, while holding out, let one of its subsidiaries, the Central of Georgia join Amtrak, to rid itself of its portion of the City of Miami.

Another holdout was the Georgia Railroad, which went on to operated a few mixed passenger/freight trains for a few more years, mostly from inconvenient freight yards, on unreliable schedules that appealed only to railfans of that era.

Another tidbit was what were the four original common stock holders of Amtrak at startup? (I believe the US DOT was the sole 'preferred stockholder').

IIRC, they were the PC, BN, MILW, and GTW.

Central of Georgia also wanted to get rid of the Nancy Hanks II. Georgia continued to operate its mixed trains because it got a big tax break from the state if it continued to offer passenger service. The tax break ended when everything was merged into CSX, so the mixed trains went away.

At the start of Amtrak, Southern also ran a Washington-Lynchburg train and a train to Ashville, both of which were discontinued before Southern joined Amtrak.

 

[railiner]

Good points. Beside the Lynch burg and Ashe ville trains, SR also had a secondary train all the way to Atlanta for a while...

 

[jphjaxfl]

An older acquaintance of mine who was in upper management of a railroad that operated much better than average passenger trains told me in 1970 that management was happy if any passenger train had an above the rails profit of 2%. This included revenue from passengers, mail and express. The RPO cars provided the best mail revenue with bulk mail and express following. When the Post Office discontinued RPOs in masse in the mid 1960s the train offs were announced weekly. For example, the only train on the L&N that didn't carry mail was the every other day South Wind. The Pan Americans RPO lasted until 1968 and it continued to carry bulk mail until 1971, but it was combined with the Southwind between Louisville and Montgomery to save on expenses. The loss of mail revenue made even a 2% profit almost impossible except fort on heavily traveled routes like New York to Florida.

 

[The Davy Crockett]

Besides the railroads already mentioned, I think both the Reading and the Chicago South Shore & South Bend were eligible and stayed out, probably because of the limited scale of their operations (I'm just guessing, I have no idea why).

I took a ride on the Reading in 1975 (or was it 1976?) from Pottsville, PA to PHL. The train was either a single, or maybe two, Budd RDCs. I don't know the story of pax rail on the Reading, but Pottsville to PHL would be an awfully long commute, so the limited scale of their operations might be the reason they stayed out...