QUOTE: Originally posted by MP173 Also, does anyone have a factor which when the gtm/m is divided by yields an approximate number of trains/day? My guess is about 1.5. ed
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal 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?
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Chad, The questions that pop to mind RE single track CTC vs DT ABS: 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. 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? Just some dumb questions for an intriguing topic.
QUOTE: Originally posted by beaulieu QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal Chad, The questions that pop to mind RE single track CTC vs DT ABS: 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. 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? Just some dumb questions for an intriguing topic. 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. 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.
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton The assesment of the value of property in Wisconsin has two elements-land and improvements.
QUOTE: Originally posted by zardoz Now THIS is an example of a good thread: lots of intelligent questions, intelligent answers, and no shouting. THIS is the kind of stuff I visit the forums for. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quoted from futuremodal: 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? fm: Would not the triple-track line through Nebraska meet your criteria?
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton So the CP did just what had been blocked by the MILW VP finance. What was the difference?
QUOTE: Originally posted by MichaelSol Here's a hypothetical conversation regarding a proposal to single track a double track mainline. I am going to pretend for a moment that I am Vice President, Finance, Milwaukee Road, and a masochist, but ... I am being redundant. It's 1968, and Greg McGinn, Vice President, Operations, walks in the door. He has decided that Milwaukee Road's high capacity mainline, 135 MGT, between Chicago and St. Paul, ought to be single-tracked. "We can save a lot of money." "A lot, huh?" I reply. Greg has never particularly liked me. I'm not Irish and I'm not Catholic and so how I got to an executive level at Milwaukee Road is a complete mystery to Greg, and he doesn't like mysteries. We go into the figures. It costs about $12,000 per mile for Milwaukee to maintain a Class IV track, and probably about $20,000 per mile for that double track mainline. Overall, we spend about $8-$10 million on that line annually, mostly for maintenance, probably a couple of million of it in ties and rail and other "capitalized" expenses. "Well," I ask, "what do you think it'll cost?" He answers: "We estimate that for $200 million, we can rebuild the whole line, single track, CTC, take out some curves, improve some grades, continuous welded rail. A first class line." "What will that do to our schedules?" I ask. "Well, the "Roaring 90's" intermodal trains will be slowed by about 45 minutes, but we'll be able to save about $3 to $4 million per year in maintenance and capital expenditures." I remark, "so, we spend a boatload of money and lose our advantage over our competitors. Our schedules slow down, and we pay good money for that achievement." Greg responds, "no we are saving money by doing this." "OK," I say, "let's look at this. Right now, our capital expenditures are just about equal to our depreciation expense, and we raise that capital out of operating cash flow. We can keep that up just about forever. This $200 million bothers me." Greg wonders why this is. I'm the VP of Finance, isn't that my job? To go finance things that he wants to do? This is where I start. "We are paying property taxes based on cost of acquisition or construction that, in some cases, goes back over a century. With depreciation, our book value is only about $700 million. Our replacement cost is about $7 billion. "If we borrow that $200 million, that will show as increased capitalization entirely. Our property tax average, system wide, is about 2%. Our existing double track is just about depreciated out, we don't pay much tax on that line. If we single track it, that will add significantly to our overall taxable book value, especially in Wisconsin where we pay an ad valorem tax. The taxes we pay will increase by about $4 million per year. Further, at 6%, our interest charges on the loan will be $12 million per year over the next 15 years. That's $16 million off of our revenues in direct deductions. Further, the average depreciation of 50 years on the new track structure will add a $4 million operating expense/deduction each year over the next 50 years. "What you're saying, Greg, is that your department can save up to $4 million per year, but it will cost us $16 million in increased costs paid annually out of cash flow, and $20 million in overall increased expenses including depreciation. In addition, we will have to take a write-off of the remaining undepreciated value of the double track mainline, which will hurt our profit and loss statement even further." Greg gets up and leaves. He is shaking his head. It's obvious the finance guys just don't understand operations. He can cut $4 million a year out of his budget, and no one will let him. Now, this is a hypothetical, based on numbers the best I can recollect on the spur of the moment without going and looking them up. It's the analytical process that I am attempting to walk through, and why single-tracking a double track mainline can, without great care in the process, increase taxes and overall operating costs, rather than decrease them. Best regards, Michael Sol
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.