When I heard about this, I was thinking that this demand from Jim Thorpe may be the opening gambit on the part of the town to negotiate some form of payment. This doesn't have to be the final demand, or outcome.

I remember the EnterTrainment debacle of about 30 years ago. I believe the operators argued that the local jurisdiction could not tax their train rides because they were operating in "Interstate Commerce" (the ride turned back to Union Bridge just across the state line in Pennsylvania). That argument didn't wash because you couldn't buy a ticket to just the end of the line.

The Chesapeake and Allegheny Live Steamers in Leakin Park in Baltimore fought off the amusement bureaucrats for years with the assistance of then-Baltimore Mayor and later Governor William Donald Shaffer, who told them to back off. When he finally left office, the amusement people got their way and imposed amusement rules on our monthly public rides. It didn't stop them. I don't remember the changes required, but they weren't fatal to the operation. The larger issue before that was the passing of a code for miniature boilers (one of the few states that has them). The CALS were smart, and got a seat at the table in writing the rules, so we could live with them.

I also remember some dispute that Jerry Jacobson had with Sugarcreek, OH about the Ohio Central's daily excursion rides from Sugarcreek to Baltic about 20-25 years ago. I believe it had something to do with the amount of parking spaces passengers were taking up, and the town wanted the OC to pay some fee over it. If I recall rightly, Jerry quit running the trips for a season and the town realized that losing nearly 100,000 passengers/year wasn't worth the parking issue, so they relented and the excursions resumed. The regular excursions ended sometime after 2001 because his liability insurance skyrocketed suddenly.

As I understand Andy's memo, the RDC trips to Jim Thorpe from Reading's Outer Station will continue with Jim Thorpe as the end point. Just the subsidiary Lehigh Gorge Scenic trips are being ended that both originated and ended in Jim Thorpe.

Ah, ok. So he is ending the passenger-only Lehigh Gorge service but continuing on with the regular mixed passenger/freight operations of the R&N. Smart.

I heard rumors (aren't those a dime-a-dozen around here) that a certain railroad known for running steam trains with wood ex B&M coatches in the state of Pennsylvania sold one way tickets to get around this problem.

I disagree with the whole tax. Let me explain. You are bringing people to an area that would otherwise be looked over by the general public. Most people in modern times would not even think about going to a place like Jim Thorpe because unfortunately Jim Thorpe is only really known for having a famous athlete buried there from a totally different time in history. Someone mentioned Jerry Joe Jacobson. Let’s analyze that. Jerry proved his point that the town could not thrive without him by just simply pulling out. The town, otherwise just a blink and you miss it type small town, lost a lot of business because of that train going away. The train was the key to the success of a lot that went on in that town. The only thing that is keeping that town alive at this moment is the local brick industry and the Amish community. But if you ask a lot of locals, they will tell you that train was a shot in the arm. I think you will see the same thing happen in Jim Thorpe. You have to remember that when the train brings people to your town that otherwise would not see the other local businesses, you are kind of biting off the hand that feeds you. There’s a lot of restaurants and gift shops that may suffer because of the town’s actions. How many people get off the train and go eat at a local restaurant before they go home? Or even visit a local shop because it is something they don’t have in their neck of the woods? My question is why would you tax something that is bringing in a lot of revenue that otherwise would not be there? It will be interesting to see how this plays out.

Does the amount of this proposed tax really make the railroad operation financially unfeasible? Or is the issue just a matter of standing on principle?

I don't want to take this down an off-topic rabbit hole, but living in Northeast Ohio, I have to say that Sugarcreek was very much a tourist town before the Ohio Central excursions, and is still very much a tourist town since they ended. Ohio Amish country is larger than Pennsylvania Dutch Amish country, by a good bit in-fact. The stats would probably show that a total of around 100,000 passengers/year for the Sugarcreek excursions did not go away completely when they weren't operating. Perhaps 25% of the total (maybe not even) didn't come to Sugarcreek, but most still did. After all, the train ride only took an hour, which Jerry very much knew was the optimal length for a tourist train ride. They just didn't stay as long or spend as much money as they otherwise would have. No doubt losing the excursions hurt, but it wasn't anywhere near a knockout blow to the local economy. I would imagine if you were to drop-in there on a sunny Fall Saturday like this one, you would find the stores and restaurants hopping. It wasn't like a city that had one major employer or industry who left or went out of business - like steel in Youngstown - and left a hollowed out shell in their wake.

Going back to that RR in PA with ex-B&M wood coaches, remember their first coach was ex-Reading Company. They were a regulated (ICC and PA PUC) common carrier and I don't think anybody thought an amusement tax was applicable. I know RDG didn't add an amusement tax when they sold an off-peak round trip ticket to Philadelphia.

One thing wonders me, though. That same steam road with ex-P&R wood cars included $2.00 bills in the change in its early days (remember when things were all-ca$h). Was it just to make them memorable to the visitors or did they have a political problem and all those deuces turning up around the County showed their value to the economy.

Phil Mulligan

Every governmental agency in PA likes to tax everything they can. A quick check shows the Amusement Tax in Jim Thorpe is 5%. Borough code is here if you're interested: https://ecode360.com/14892991

this railroad is also a common carrier so if the steam railroad guys don't have to pay neather should they. It is interstate commerse so it is not like the town can put regulations on them.

I can understand the objecting to the tax or even legally fighting it. But why would anybody close their business rather than pay the tax unless the tax were so excessive that it made the business unprofitable?

Its simple - Andy Muller can afford to stick it to the man, and move his operation. Freight is the bread and butter, not excursions.

I can't claim to know what goes on in the mind of Andy Muller, but I think it is a matter of principle with him. In the LGSR release it stated that freight is where they make their money. He is a railfan and early on ran passenger trains as a labor of love. If they do make money hauling people, I doubt if it is that much compared to freight. He spent a LOT of money building a fancy station complex at Reading's Outer Station, upgraded RDCs for excursion service (with new windows that can be opened), maintains one steam engine and is in the process of rebuilding another one, etc. If you read their press release (link below), you will notice that the mayor and borough council have been badmouthing both railroads and Andy personally--not the smartest thing to do if you are trying to strike some sort of bargain. It's Andy's football and he can take it home with him if he wants.

https://www.rbmnrr.com/happenings/2019/ ... er-25-2019

And that same railroad had a certain run in with a certain township that wanted to charge an amusement tax. That railroad fought the township and prevailed.

On a separate note, whatever was charged for roadway worker protection during highway construction has nothing to do with the tax. This happens all of the time whenever municipalities, utilities or even another railroad encroaches on railroad right of way or adjacent track. It is a cost of construction and has nothing to do with an imagined quid pro quo with respect to the municipality.

There's another operation that was beginning operating discussions over an existing common-carrier shortline that ran smack into this issue of a locally city-imposed amusement tax, and it ended up torpedoing the entire deal before it ever started.

But in this case, it was made clear from the start that the tax would be imposed. What is really so disconcerting about this one (RBMN) is that it's being applied retroactively. Similar permit/taxation issues are what drove the railbike operation out of Saranac Lake, NY.

Within PA it's an optional, city/Borough imposed additional fee so it's not across the board by any means, and can be as high as 10%.

And if you've ever had reason to take on RBMN on a legal issue, you're going to have a fight on your hands and essentially unlimited resources. President has a long history of experience and an earned reputation behind it.

What's tricky about this one is that the company is NOT an amusement, it's a common-carrier in the transportation business - not an excursion or museum or a third-party organization on top of a common-carrier. And they are big enough to move around on their system and 'take their toys and go home' if they want to. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see this go to court to decide the issue.