Shenanigans.

Outside observers tend to think railway management was (is?) far more devious than it really was.
The accounts were what they were....that was part of the regulated process. The Form A costing process was also dictated by the ICC. Most of the work was done by clerks as part of a very bureaucratic process. In my time as a cost analyst and manager, the only real "shenanigans" I saw was the "inflation" of maintenance expenditures in preparation for abandonment, much as JAC described. This was probably SOP on most railroads. But at least the money was actually spent. The fact is the ng. did loose money, passenger trains did loose money, etc. So you didn't really need any shenanigans to show what management wanted to show.
The big issues were the "what ifs". How much new revenue would be generated if you'd only double track and CTC that old branch and provide better service. Or those passenger trains couldn't carry all the business if you just put out a few ads, etc. And of course the answers to those questions are only opinions, and they often depend on whose money you're spending.
Railroad management just wasn't as smart as those brilliant folks at Enron and Worldcom.
JBW (retired bad guy)