Big mistake on Jim Thorpe’s part, if you ask me.
https://www.readingeagle.com/money/article/jim-thorpe-scenic-railroad-to-shut-down
https://www.readingeagle.com/money/article/jim-thorpe-scenic-railroad-to-shut-down
There you go, lit it up for you.
I just read the story. Obviously the mayor of Jim Thorpe never heard the story about not killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, or it he did he never got the message.
There are good bits of wisdom in those old fairy tales, but you have to pay attention.
Something as yet unclear to me is why Jim Thorpe, or some local agency, isn’t actively supporting the cost of the operation in some way. Surely the arguments used to justify all sorts of little levies for sports stadiums and the like, which show up in hidden charges even on local phone service, rental cars, and lodging could be applied here. Let alone the strictly local as well as ‘area’ revenues from tourism, or even ‘employment in the area’, associated with the operation.
I guess without the taxes on the Lehigh Gorge, Jim Throrpe will return to Mauch Chunk.
We happened to be there yesterday morning, and a reporter was doing a TV report about the situation. It’s a good, fair report, IMO.
By chance she asked me for a comment. I said sure. I’m the old bearded buzzard with a southern accent who appears very briefly near the end.
Jim Thorpe is a fabulous town. Thanks again to the gentleman who suggested visiting there. I hope the railroad is bluffing, and that a solution can be worked out. It will be a real shame if the train really ends.
Reading between the lines, the town is expecting to use the tax revenue for "improvements’ unassociated with the railroad’s operations, or actually to enhance competing ‘tourist’ attractions. Without needing to allocate a nickel of actual tax revenue from ‘voting’ taxpayers to accomplish this.
It is possible Andy is doing the same sort of thing the Pikes Peak people seem to have done (and it’s really no different except for scale from the scams sports-team owners use to ‘venue-shop’ to extort the best deal for them): here, state what the railroad will not do if it is expected to pay amusement tax; and in negotiations raise the issue of town support, perhaps as a minimum to establish effective ‘sterilization’ of any expense for amusement tax ‘out of the local authority’s other hand’)
Likelihood that something this significant will be abolished forever? I think little. But expect to see a game of ‘chicken’ brinksmanship played fairly close to, and perhaps even a bit past, the stated deadline…
Now, if I were Andy, I’d have set up an arms-length separate entity (in part to shield liability) and leased the equipment and trackage rights to it; a lesser man than Andy would just roll this and let the town sue the receiver. Then establish a new plan, specifically answering the amusement and other tax situation as well as demanding additional concessions for the ‘benefits’ the train service brings, set up a new operating entity (or bid for one) and lease the equipment to them in turn…
We were only in Jim Thorpe briefly, and most of that was at lunch in a pub. I did not see the train go or come.
I’m curious. Does the train go one direction in a push move? Or does the engine run around the train? I assume there is no wye.
Here in Strasburg the train departs with the loco pulling, but tender first. At the junction (with NS), the engine runs around the train, and pulls it back to Strasburg facing “correctly.”
A few days ago we rode the Stourbrige Line. Going was pull mode, by a Pennsy-painted F7. (The BL-2 was ailing.) Returning was all push mode, with a brakeman riding the now-leading caboose with a radio.
It seems a lot of scenic towns have grown tired of tourist rail operations, and want something else. There are 3 such cases in neighboring state New York. Even in Durango, many locals are suing the D&S for million$ for forest fire damage they blame on their steam engines.
Now how many people got that? (And looking it up now doesn’t count.)
That said, as per the linked PBS news piece it’s inferred the railroad hasn’t paid the tribute in 10 years. Did they ever? Perhaps a wrong conclusion on their part.
This iteration of the train has been running since 2005 but the borough seeks duty for only the last ten years and that’s only after an “audit” from this year. Did they audit the railroad’s books? Highly unlikely. Did an audit of their own books reveal they were asleep for a decade? This doesn’t smell right.
The Gorge train they switch the locomotive somewhere in the middle of the ride to save fuel. Never took the Gorge ride, thats just what I am told.
The Budd rail car from Reading into Jim Thorpe can be driven from both ends.
As far as the diesel locomotive or the steamer, I’m not really sure. A coworker was there over the weekend, so I can find out.
Sounds to me like a question of definition - the municipality has an “amusement tax.” Is a tourist operation within a commercial rail operation an “amusement?” I think I read that the RR doesn’t see it that way. Apparently the municipality does. One might wonder if the types of “amusements” are defined in the enabling law, or if it’s subject to interpretation, which can change over time. Previous administrations may have agreed with the RR’s interpretation, thus didn’t pursue the issue.
As for communities tiring of tourist rail operations - I was at breakfast Saturday morning, before our “layover” train was going to bring almost 500 people into a very tourist-oriented community of about 750 souls. When I told them of the passenger count (they know I volunteer with the RR), there was a certain amount of “groan.” The businesses know that they will see a lot of customers, but they also know they will be very busy for several hours. Kind of a mixed blessing.
There are folks who are “tired” of the railroad, but their agenda has nothing to do with the railroad and the accompanying passengers and everything to do with simply getting the tracks out of the woods. The same ilk also fights, tooth and nail, to prevent any kind of development in the forest.
The issue that isn’t being discussed here is all the other residents in the area, who don’t benefit financially from the tourism but certainly have to deal with the crossing flaggings, parking issues, and other issues without, in all probability, deriving any continuing joy from watching the operation. They are the ones whose votes matter in local elections, and it wouldn’t be surprising to see them vote to have those costs redressed by a direct tax on the ‘cause’ rather than a forced levy on them.
It’s common-carrier transportation if people ride it to get to a destination. It’s amusement when pitched as a scenic ride that returns to its point of origin. You may recall that the clever ‘interstate transport’ thing foundered on the fact that you couldn’t get off the train, let alone buy a ticket to, the “interstate” point reached.
I got the impression from RyPN that no one is proposing “amusement tax” for the RDC service to the Philadelphia area that RBMN runs. That is much more a legitimate transportation service than the Lehigh Gorge operation.
I still can’t get over the inescapable feeling that this is associated with all the dollars paid to RBMN for flagging services earlier.
On the other hand; the local businesses such as shops and restaurants that do benefit from the tourists who arrive by train presumably are paying local business and property taxes. These taxes WOULD help support the services enjoyed by the residents of Jim Thorpe such as police, fire and street maintenance.
Andy Mueller might to well to request a meeting with the Mayor and give him this message:
"I’m a visitor to your town. I wish to see Lehigh George. I hire a regular taxi takes me there and waits while I take photos, and then brings me back to Jim Thorp. Are you going to have that taxi driver pay an amusement tax?
How does that taxi-driver’s service to me differ from what the railroad does?
Not only that, but the taxi driver asks me what music I like. When I say Jazz, he says, ‘Fine, I’ve got a Count Bassi CD,’ and I enjoy the music as well as the scenery and trip.
If you don’t charge the taxi driver with an amusement tax and charge the railroad, isn’t that rank discrimination against the railroad industry?"
’
From what I read, the mayor has been requesting to meet with the railroad.
Taxis are regulated under the PUC, and have a different host of regualtions to abide by that the railraod doesn’t. If we are going to regard the railroad as transportation, then there’s a host of issues that will open up.
You’re equating two different things here. It doesn’t make sense. RBMN may even have had an easier case if they were flying under the RBMN banner, but when they are operating the Lehigh Gorge SCENIC railway, then yeah, it sounds more of an amusement than transportation.
You want to argue whether amusement taxes should be a thing, then yeah, I’m all up for a debate on that. But there seems to be a play of personalities up in Mauch Chunk.
Combined messages below.
Again, the railroad provides transportation to and from a scenic location, so just as other railroads put a city in their name, this railroad’s passenger operation puts its destination, scenery, in its name. That does not imply in anyway that it is an amusement. You are defining amusesment to suit the Mayor’s needs, and in doing so you are working agains the interests of the railroad industry in general, expcially all short-line railroads that run excursion trains. All/
And just because one form of transportation is regulated by one government agency and another one by another agency has absolutely zero to do with the simiple fact that taxing one system of transportation with a specific tax and not taxing another is discrimination. Are you in love with the mayor? I happen to be in love with trains.
Yeah, we’re getting married next month. Coming to the reception?
I think you’re looking at this with a 1960’s nostalgic view of and excursion railroad, not a current day scenic, and yes, entertainment operation. People are not riding this from A->B. They are riding for the sake of riding. Like a roller coaster.
And knowing you meant well, I’ll excuse you for your remarks of my interest in the railroad industry this time.
OK everyone, simmer down a bit. There’s got to be a middle ground.
Let’s look at it this way, what expenses are incurred by the town when the train shows up? Is there overtime required for a police presence to handle the crowds? Are there EMT personnel standing by just in case someone on the train has a medical issue? Is extra trash pick-up required? Or anything else?
If not, then the town is benefiting from all those tourist dollars the train brings in at no cost to themselves. A God-send for a town in the boonies that few people would have any reason to visit to begin with. (Does anyone really care that the great Jim Thorpe is buried there?) If so, then I’d say it’s reasonable for the town to ask for a little help from the railroad in covering the above expenses.
Again, middle ground. Still, as I see it the town benefits a lot more from the railroad going there than the railroad does by going there.
Let me give an example from personal experience. When Norfolk-Southern was running their steam program back in the 90’s the train from Richmond made a three-hour stop in Appomattox. (The train proceeded to Danville where it was turned, and then returned.) Appomattox had a “Rail Fair” on train days and local merchants made quite a bit of money from the several hundred people the train brought in. The town knew a good thing when they saw it and never hit up NS for money, not to anyone’s knowledge anyway. As a matter of fact they were devastated (Figuratively, not literally) when the steam program ended in 1994. All that revenue, gone.
How do you know the purpose of the riders? Have you ridden the train and talked to them? If the train were hauled by steam, I could agree. But in general, are railfan trips to be characterized as amusement? Do you want to have all railfan trips everywhere have the additional burden of an amusement tax?
Or are you part of the trend in some political circles to expand the role of government in general? (I am not commenting on the other circles that wish to dminish its role, regardless of what the needs met by particular roles are.)
To me amusement taxes may be appropriate in specific situations for movie houses, theatres, pool rooms, horse-race and car-racing venues with betting, amusement parks and trains in parks that just go round-and-round in a small cirscle, sort of a train version of a merrygoround, etc. I would question such a tax on athletic facilities of all types. But I do not believe they should apply on transportation facilities, regardless of the motives of individual riders. If it goes from one place to another, even if it brings you back, it’s transportation, not amusement.
I see this as an opening to a process of destruction of much of what railfans enjoy.