Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
General Discussion
»
Traffic density
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by beaulieu</i> <br /><br />[quote]QUOTE: <i>Originally posted by futuremodal</i> <br /><br />Chad, <br /> <br />The questions that pop to mind RE single track CTC vs DT ABS: <br /> <br />1. Why go to the bother of ripping out a second parallel line, e.g. why not CTC the double track with crossovers? Keep this hypothetical in that we are assuming no such thing as "over capacity" of past decades, rather that traffic will gravitate toward available capacity. <br /> <br />2. Following up on the idea of CTC DT, instead of using the parallel line as the siding (and temporarily blocking the opposing traffic), do/did/will any railroad that you know of use a short section of 3rd middle track as a "siding" for both tracks? I mean, how likely is it for a a typical corridor that hosts 100+ trains per day that such a middle "siding" would need to be used by both an eastbound and a westbound drag freight at the same time? <br /> <br />Just some dumb questions for an intriguing topic. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Dave, how does the property tax work in Washington state? Here in Wisconsin, the railroad would be taxed on the appraised value of the property , which would likely be higher with two tracks, bridges etc. being larger would also raise valuation. Then there is the Personal Property tax which dispite its name mainly affects businesses. The extra signalling equipment for the two tracks plus the extra switches, extra rail would all lead to higher costs for both the Real Property tax and the PP tax. Before it was abandoned the Soo Line Danbury Sub. <br />running through Burnett Co. where I live made the Soo Line RR. ( and later the WCL) the largest taxpayer in the county. And this was a Dark secondary mainline turned branchline with only a single siding in the county. <br />[/quote] <br /> <br />Aren't property taxes based on both physical assets and revenue potential? Otherwise, a vacant plot in downtown Milwaukee would be assessed at the same value as an equally sized empty plot in rural Mukwonago. <br /> <br />If CTC single track has 90% of the capacity of ABS DT, wouldn't the local assessor have justification to tax the single track at 90% of the double track, adjusted for the physical assets? <br /> <br />I don't think property tax valuations play that big a role in how railroads decide to increase capacity, since valuations are going to be based on that earnings potential anyway. The more trains you run, the more the property is worth, ergo the assessments should reflect that worth. Double tracking isn't by itself going to result in a doubling of the property tax unless it also results in a doubling of capacity. But then again, I'm not sure assessors actually evaluate railroad property that way, even though they do so for normal real property.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy