QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton The assesment of the value of property in Wisconsin has two elements-land and improvements.
"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 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.
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 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 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
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.