tomikawaTT wrote: One thing not yet mentioned - real estate taxes.Removing an underused second track on a double-track main would translate directly into a reduction in valuation for tax purposes. Since railroads were frequently taxed at 'special' rates higher than anyone else's, this could result in a considerable reduction in an unavoidable annual (quarterly?) expense.Just the saving in real estate taxes during the years when the second track was not present would have been a potent argument for removal in an era of declining need and escalating costs.Chuck
One thing not yet mentioned - real estate taxes.
Removing an underused second track on a double-track main would translate directly into a reduction in valuation for tax purposes. Since railroads were frequently taxed at 'special' rates higher than anyone else's, this could result in a considerable reduction in an unavoidable annual (quarterly?) expense.
Just the saving in real estate taxes during the years when the second track was not present would have been a potent argument for removal in an era of declining need and escalating costs.
Chuck
You'd have to look at each state's tax law. Some states taxed by assessment of value of property, some by counting the track and the property, and some by a fixed piece of the system revenue. Most states today tax on the basis of revenue and do not bother to try to measure the track or the land of the railroad company.
RWM
mobilman44 wrote: Hi!As a little background, I'm a newly retired business analyst and lifelong train nut. When I was a kid in the '50s, I spent vacations in Anna Illinois (50 miles north of Cairo) at my Grandmom's house located right next to the IC "racetrack". At that time, there were two mains, one passing siding, and one freight siding - giving me 4 tracks to watch for trains. Life was good!Today, only a single main line track remains, and this trend has been duplicated all over the country justified by cost, CTC, etc. As someone who looked at the profitability (or not) of many kinds of business operations over the years, I have tried to determine the justification for this. Obviously, fewer track miles equals less maintenance and a lower headcount. But on the other hand, trains are significantly restricted in their movements (time is money!), and those fancy signals are expensive and need higher priced help to work with them. Dual trackage allows work gangs to maintain long stretches of track without dealing with traffic (trains are rerouted to the other line). And lastly, it has to be difficult highballing a freight or Amtrack on trackage where other trains are headed in the opposite direction! Of course, there are areas (ATSF main - Chicago to Los Angeles) where multiple trackage is being put back in place, obviously for the very heavy traffic - but why did they get rid of it in the first place? OK, I'm not a railroad analyst - and I suspect there really is justification for single trackage to win out over multiple trackage, but I just can't figure it out. What am I missing????
Hi!
As a little background, I'm a newly retired business analyst and lifelong train nut. When I was a kid in the '50s, I spent vacations in Anna Illinois (50 miles north of Cairo) at my Grandmom's house located right next to the IC "racetrack". At that time, there were two mains, one passing siding, and one freight siding - giving me 4 tracks to watch for trains. Life was good!
Today, only a single main line track remains, and this trend has been duplicated all over the country justified by cost, CTC, etc.
As someone who looked at the profitability (or not) of many kinds of business operations over the years, I have tried to determine the justification for this.
Obviously, fewer track miles equals less maintenance and a lower headcount. But on the other hand, trains are significantly restricted in their movements (time is money!), and those fancy signals are expensive and need higher priced help to work with them. Dual trackage allows work gangs to maintain long stretches of track without dealing with traffic (trains are rerouted to the other line). And lastly, it has to be difficult highballing a freight or Amtrack on trackage where other trains are headed in the opposite direction!
Of course, there are areas (ATSF main - Chicago to Los Angeles) where multiple trackage is being put back in place, obviously for the very heavy traffic - but why did they get rid of it in the first place?
OK, I'm not a railroad analyst - and I suspect there really is justification for single trackage to win out over multiple trackage, but I just can't figure it out. What am I missing????
First, I think I will speak to the premise that there was a vast decline in physical plant. There was much less second, third, or fourth main track pulled out than I think you realize. The Santa Fe, which you mention, lost no double track on its principal Chicago-Los Angeles freight route; what has been installed during the last decade never existed. The overwhelming preponderance of the multiple main track removed existed to support intercity passenger trains, or localized concentrations of intensive industrial switching and delivery of carload business, such as in places like the Mahoning Valley, Pittsburgh, and New England. The intercity passenger traffic has dwindled to less than 1/100th of what was formerly operated, and the carload-intensive industry spread along main tracks has reformed itself into intermodal- and truck-served business revolving around intermodal terminals. The most noted reduction of trackage occurred in the Official Territory, where four-track mains were built to enable through passenger to occur without interference from drag freight and local switching. With the disappearance of the passenger and local -- and the installation of CTC to replace towers and current-of-traffic signaling -- two of those mains became useless.
The second premise is that the signaling is expensive and requires expensive maintenance. True, signaling has a high first-cost of installation, but maintenance requirements are very low. The components do not wear like track. In relative terms, the cost per mile on a two-track CTC main line with moderate to heavy traffic, to maintain the CTC is about 1/100th the cost of maintaining the track.
The third premise is that there was a choice -- that railroads had the option to hold onto the unneeded physical plant. Yes, they could have left it in place, but what were they to do with it? Take it out of service? Wood ties deteriorate all on their own regardless of traffic over them. Assuming that the ties were on average halfway through their 35-year lifetime, after just 10 years the track would have had so many defective ties it would have been essentially unusable. Signaling systems do not like being deactivated; they turn into junk within a few months all on their own.
The fourth premise is that the multiple main track of old offered greater capacity than what remained -- two main tracks became one with sidings; three became two; four became two. Actually, the old double, triple, and quadruple track was all current-of-traffic and configured for passenger service. It had very little flexibility either for run-a-day operations or especially for maintenance. Maintenance at that time was localized, unmechanized, and extraordinarily labor-intensive; rather than taking tracks out of service for a mechanized tie, rail, or surfacing gang to do work, maintenance got its track time by walking onto the track right after a train departed, and walking off the track just before the next train arrived. The flexibility that was ostensibly available for operations was in fact almost zero because the tracks were not signaled for reverse movement. Trains were restricted in length and tonnage, and motive power was intensively maintained at great cost because road failures were highly disruptive to traffic.
While opinions vary, there is not even a small faction within the railroad industry who believes the decision to remove this track was incorrect. The cost of buying new rail instead of repurposing the second-hand rail from pulled-up track would have put the bankrupt carriers deeper into bankruptcy, and much sooner. The traffic patterns had fundamentally changed. And most important, it would be colossally foolish from a financial perspective. The cost of installing a mile of new additional main track, where an old main track has been pulled up, is equivalent to about 15 years of maintenance on a main track.
The number, configuration, and Method of Operation of main lines cannot be isolated from every other aspect of the railroad, such as traffic demands and costs, labor costs and availability, motive power, train blocking and scheduling, and finance. Everything is entangled and interdependent. To hold onto the track that was removed would have required changing everything about the railroad, and the ramifications of that are enormous. The cost of labor -- an independent variable over which railroads had no control -- would have forced the issue all by itself even if nothing else had changed.
Mobileman 44,
Just to set the record straight the Santa Fe never enjoyed a double track mainline across their entire route. They are putting it in place as I write. I believe the last segment to be double tracked is going to be Abo Canyon in New Mexico. The railroad since becoming part of the BNSF system now finds it necessary to triple track Cajon Pass that has become more and more of a bottleneck for freight. On one of the other threads KP has been keeping us informed on the progress of this huge undertaking with almost weekly photos.
The Union Pacific has installed triple track in parts of Nebraska to increase train numbers and are double tracking the Sunsest route between Los Angeles and El Paso. The old SP route through Tucumcari is being upgraded as fast as the UP can do it as well with longer sidings and more of them. This is the former joint Rock Island / Southern Pacific route between LA and Chicago.
The BNSF is installing longer sidings and more of them on the former GN transcontinental route always a single track main before. They are reopening Stampede Pass and installing again longer sidings and CTC to speed trains to Pasco. I would imagine they are still kicking themselves for donating the former SP&S route between Pasco and Spokane to the State of Washington becoming a hiking trail. I haven't heard yet but the old NP main between Pasco and Spokane will certainly require longer and more frequent sidings for this line. I understand there is very little possibility of adding additional sidings along the former SP&S route along the North Bank of the Columbia River between Pasco and Vancouver.
Al - in - Stockton
A lot of trackage was removed up through the 70's. Traffic was down,and it was justified. Track maintenace is labor expensive(most of it was jointed rail too). Those 'fancy' signals are a lot cheaper that open train order offices and train order operators 24x7.
In the late 80's, traffic improved and some railroads have added trackage. In the case of the ex-AT&SF transcon line - They have be adding track to single track areas that never have had multiple tracks.
In the case of the IC mainline you mentioned, when double track is removed, are there still enough controlled sidings to keep the traffic flowing?
Two Main Tracks(as opposed to Double Track) with cross-overs can provide flexible operation in maintenace windows, but most of the time the track crews will need to 'unmount' from their equipment while a passing tran moves by them at restricted speed. UP & BNSF have bee using 20+ foot track centers so that work crews can work while a train passes. There is enough traffic in the PRB so that they are building 2 complete 2 main track lines side by side in areas to allow maintenace and operational flexibility.
Jim
Modeling BNSF and Milwaukee Road in SW Wisconsin
At the time most of this this happened (60's - 70's), rail business was in decline: trucks were taking a lot of the freight traffic and airlines were doing the same to the passenger traffic. Railroads consolidated and shed what at the time was excess capacity (in the form of trackage) to reduce costs. For a while their strategy seemed to be sound, although as of late more and more railroads are now bringing back this lost capacity, although at a much slower pace than it was removed.
In more recent times, some of the abandonments were considered questionable with regards to long-term strategy, although it provided an immediate boost to the bottom line. Now the railroads are probably regretting many of these moves as their business has increased and capacity is strained. As fuel costs continue to rise, one can only imagine that some of these abandonend lines may once again be broght back to life.
EDIT: I did not really answer your question.... From my armchair position, it seems to me that in the long run, the cost savings over the years have surely justified the one time hits of removing / adding the trackage as needed. I am sure others on here can provide an industry perspective into this issue.
Jamie
CLICK HERE FOR THE CSX DIXIE LINE BLOG
Thanks!
Mobilman44
ENJOY !
Living in southeast Texas, formerly modeling the "postwar" Santa Fe and Illinois Central
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.